this morning. he would have let the entire travel ban go into place. that what he's thinking on the subject. >> thank you for what has been a rock and roll show, 60 minutes of breaking news. i'm going to turn it over for more breaking news, ali velshi in new york. >> i always appreciate you got us off to a running start on this story. i've been listening attentively so i can ask smart questions of my own. good morning, everyone. well to velshi and ruel. stephanie is off. let's get started. >> the plan we put in place would not allow individuals to fall in the cracks, not have individuals lose coverage. >> not cuts to medicaid, slows the rate for the future and allows governors more flexibility with medicaid dollars because they are closest to the people in need. >> if you are able-bodied and you would like to go and find employment and have employer sponsored benefits, then you should be able to do that. >> there's no way we should be

voting on this next week. >> you have very serious concerns about the bill. >> right now i'm undecided. >> i'm not voting for something that looks just like obamacare and still doesn't fix the fundamental flaw of obamacare. >> what do you say -- >> mean, that was my term. i want to see -- i want to see, and i speak from the heart, that's what i want to see, i want to see a bill with heart. >> i give him my open and candid feedback. sometimes we agree. sometimes we disagree. >> what do you advise him in regards to his tweeting? >> i try to stay out of politics. >> try to stay out of politics. breaking news this hour from the supreme court. the justices have agreed it review the legality of president trump's controversial travel ban from six predominantly muslim countries. meanwhile they are allowing part of the ban to take effect. nbc correspondent pete williams joins us live from the supreme court. msnbc chief legal correspondent

ari melber with me in studio. he's been pouring over it. pete, let's start with you. what does this mean? >> what it means is it's a big legal victory for the trump administration because they got most of what they wanted. they wanted the supreme court to take up the appeal of the lower courts and reverse them. they said they would her them in october. one thing we should note. there doesn't seem to be any particular rush to hear the case. indeed, they didn't ask for it to be heard over the summer, which sometimes happens. it will be heard first week in october, most likely, or first or s.e.c. week in october. the second part is the trump administration says, please, while this case is on appeal, let us force this 90 day restriction on issuing visas on people who want to come to the u.s. from six muslim countries. the u.s. said you can enforce most of it. here is what you can't do. if someone in those countries has a close family relationship

to the united states, or if they are coming to enroll in a class, or coming for a job, something direct and specific like that, some connection to a person or entity in the united states, then you can't enforce the restriction against them, and you have to continue issuing visas in those cases. and the supreme court said basically there's a fit here. people who are in those countries and don't know anyone in the united states, don't have a close family relationship, then in that case the travel ban should be enforced for a legal reason, which is that the constitutional rights are not the people in those countries wanting to come to the u.s. the constitution doesn't apply to them. the constitutional rights are the people in the u.s. who say they want to get their relatives here but can't. that's the challengers who went to court, and that's the ones the supreme court said can still get their relatives in. the travel ban cannot apply to

them. it's mostly a victory of the trump administration. they got most of what they wanted, ari. >> thank you. you've been pouring over this ruling, what do you make of it? >> we're guided by the words. these words have the rule of law and they are doing to affect hundreds of thousands of people's lives. let's put up on the screen key language from the language from the supreme court. partially good news for the trump administration. do we have it? i was told we don't have it. i will read it to you. the supreme court says the travel ban can be enforced against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the u.s. at all. as pete was explaining, that means if you're in one of these countries, right, and you don't have a credible claim, meaning you have some evidence or argument you have a link to the u.s., a family member, a school, a job, then you are out of luck. you are now banned from entering this country. that is what donald trump has said as president is so important as a national security

concern. the other point that i would raise here, we sometimes get clues. we are always careful to say. lawyers know this and folks who follow the court, that a procedural ruling like this doesn't tell you the outcome. there it is. sco scotus says travel ban to be enforced against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the united states at all. if you take anything, take that. some clues here. while donald trump has not been the ideal client for lawyers in this case, has said and tweeted things the judges have held against him, if he listens to his lawyers he'll seize on the page in this ruling that reinforced an argument he made which says interest of national security is urgent objective of the highest order. the court in explaining why it's giving more power back to the white house while it's on appeal, they are going to hear in october, that is to prevent the government, trump

administration, from pursuing that objective against foreign nationals unconnected to the u.s. would aappreciably injury its interest, the national security. we have to wait to see what his reaction is. lawyers and solicitor general will welcome that language. it doesn't tell you how they will rule but does tell you the court sees it as a national security issue as the white house has asserted. >> two issues having to do with gay marriage. one is the famous wedding cake case and the other one is about gay parents of children being able to put both of their names on a birth certificate. >> the birth certificate one is easy. this was a smackdown. this was not a lot of words. this was the court saying back to some of these states that have found various ways to quibble with that ruling, this is the law of the land -- excuse me. this is the law of the land. marriage equality in that famous case. have you to put both names on

the birth certificate, done. you ask about supreme court case, they delayed deciding whether to hear it over ten times. today the last day of the term, they can't procrastinate anymore, they are human beings like anyone else, it went against a business owner who said i don't want to make a cake because i disagree with marriage equality on religious grounds. it was appealed and he lost. supreme court hear the case. may have echos of hobby lobby and obamacare. do corporations have souls, assert rights in contravention of other people's rights. does a business's right to refuse service trump an individual's right to get service. you think of class, gender. we've had rulings from the court that say, no, you can't just say you can't let people in the restaurant.

now we're going to see it on the cake issue. >> i want to ask you about justice anthony kennedy. not news we heard this morning but things talking about for the last several days about a pending retirement for him. what do we know about this? >> nothing. he said nothing about it. so we can't tell you anything more than that. couple of things i would note about what happened at the supreme court, ali. on the travel ban, the court was unanimous they should take the case, hear the appeal. 6-3 on issuing the stay because three of the justices, the three more conservative ones, thomas, alito and gorsuch said they would stay. three more decisions from the supreme court is the case lowering the wall of separation between church and state. the court ruled states cannot refuse to give taxpayer money to churches. it was a case from missouri, a lutheran church that wanted to participate in a state program that gave grants to nonprofits to resurface their gravel

playgrounds with rubber from recycled tires. trinity lutheran church in columbia, missouri, had a preschool it wanted to resurface and the state said no, i'm sorry. there's a provision in our constitution that says no taxpayer money can go directly to churches. today the supreme court said laws like that violate religious freedom. those religious entities should be able to participate in those programs just like anyone else, so this decision could doom laws similar to missouri's and 38 other states. that's a very big decision. >> i only know about that one because you have brought that up as an important topic on shows in the past. thanks for bringing that to our attention as well. pete williams in front of the supreme court where it is and continues to be a very busy morning. now to intense pressure growing in washington to pass trump care as lawmakers await the magic number that could come at any time now. that is the price tag. congressional budget office due to release cost estimates for the senate bill as early as

today. meantime majority leader mitch mcconnell has a huge task ahead of him getting his members in line. he wants a vote by the end of the week before the senate goes on recess for july 4th. at least five republicans, the ones on your screen right now say they are going to vote no. mcconnell can't afford to lose more than two republicans or the bill is going to die. president trump's strategy today is to turn the attention to democrats. he tweeted earlier, on a bit of a tweet storm this morning, tweeted early, republican senators are working very hard to get there with no help from the democrats. not easy. perhaps just let obama crash and burn. joining me now is nbc's kasie hunt with the latest developments on the hill and drew ruben, vice president for clinical affairs nyu medical center. start with you, kasie, we learned senate republicans will release a revised version of their health care bill. what's that about? >> ali, i think you can expect news like this over the course of the next couple of days.

remember, this was, they called it a discussion draft they put out last week. essentially a starting point, a way to get the ball rolling on getting those cost estimates from cbo. there have been some questions about essentially if you are somebody who doesn't have insurance under this new plan and you get sick and you want to sign up for insurance, can you just do that, or do you have to wait for a certain period of time or be charged more money for that insurance because you weren't participating in it when maybe you should have been. so there's been some concern from the insurance industry about what this would cost them. so they are making some tweaks behind the scenes. this doesn't represent at this point a major change that would say make a material difference for those senators that you just showed earlier. we're still in a little bit of a holding pattern waiting for this price tag to come out before we can move forward or before senators can really start to make major decisions that might shift the landscape a little bit. remember in the broad picture

here, there's hardly anybody that's out there in public praising this health care bill. it is very difficult to find senators willing to go out and praise it. that's pretty remarkable for a major piece of legislation like this that represents a major campaign promise from the republican party. what's a watch in the next 24, 48 hours, look for that score. if it comes in showing they are saving more money than they expect. that might give them more leeway, moderate republicans, hey, we can give you more billions of dollars to help opioids. that might help on that front. of course if they get coverage numbers back better than the house bill, for example, 23 million people over 10 years estimated to lose insurance according to cbo under the house plan, leaders here in the senate are hoping that it will be a little bit better than that, that might good enough them positive headlines and try to wrangle members on the fence. dean heller is the one exception

to that slate you showed. it showed four conservatives, one more moderate. heller under a lot of pressure in nevada. i think it would be difficult to get him on board. if they can get the others, cruz, paul, and lee they could be making progress. that's not out of the realm of possibility. >> cruz, paul, and lee, another five senators that have not committed to this thing. some on the conservative side like pat toomey, susan collins, lisa murkowski not happy with some of the more conservative elements of this bill. is there any way in your mind the math gets done. >> think about it if you're mitch mcconnell and you have this conservative group in the senate, they really want to have a public role in this karks out after the release, gave a public statement, doing interviews and saying we want to play a role. if they make a show of doing that, giving them concessions, that, potentially, in the longer

term makes this path easier. freedom caucus. mark meadows said, look, if ted cruz can get what he wants out of the senate, this is something i potentially won't have a problem with. the moderates are trickier for a couple of reasons. first of all obviously from a policy perspective, if they do make changes to conservatives, a that makes the ground more difficult. however, they are still people who i would argue are more from the governing wing of the party. they don't want to be seen as kind of obstructing the way things work. there are people who tend to be more interested in working with leaders and less interested in kind of being out front, being seen as people who oppose things. their political precious are more, hey, i want to be more bipartisan, i want to show i'm working with democrats than i want to show i'm absolutely sticking to these conservative principles. it's a different calculation. if you're a senator from maine and ohio than if you are ted cruz. to a certain extent it may be easier for mcconnell to get them on board and that pushes the

dynamic in favor of cruz and paul. >> that is a very sophisticated understanding of things. it's a little more sophisticated that he can afford to lose a couple votes. kasie, thank you for that. we need that sophisticated slz sis. as soon as the cbo score comes in we're all over it. host of health care connect on sirius satellite, can i get that ride? good to see you, andrew. you and i have been talking about this for years. i want to talk about two basic things in health care. to some extent that's what senators are grappling w for most americans they want greater outcomes for less money or at least at a manageable amount of money. our outcomes in the united states compared to other nations, longevity, life expectancy, we're not as good as the average of all developed countries, canada has 80.7,

2017, we're at 78.8. there are reasons other than health care why americans aren't there. look at the next screen, cost per person. this is costs that go into health care per person. developed countries average per person is $3,814. in america $9,451. i fully understand there are some illnesses where if i get sick and get coverage i'm going to walk in and get the best. for three times as much americans say what are we getting for this? >> it really boils down to something so simple, in my mind, anyway. we're getting access. in these other countries, you may not have a longer, better longevity numbers, but when somebody wants to come get an mri or their doctor tells them they need an mri or latest drug treatment they don't want to wait six months or three months. they want to go to the facility they want to go to, see the

doctor they want to see when they want to see them and they don't want to wait. in other countries you don't have that. does that translate to better outcomes in health care? probably not. but certainly translates to americans being a consumer society and wanting what we want when we want it. >> well insured american, if you work for nbc comcast like i do, we have the best health care in the world. you probably do. a lot of americans have virtually nothing. >> i would have agreed with that statement a few years ago when we first started talking about this. this bill that's being talked about with 23 million people losing their health insurance and many, many people being in medicaid program, medicaid has revamped how health care is delivered in this country. >> 70 million people covered. >> absolutely. we are measured on our ability to provide access and immediate care to those medicaid beneficiaries the same way united health care, aetna, blue cross and blue shield measures

us. so the landscape has changed, completely changed. >> that's why when looking at this bill and looking at the cbo score, we have to look at the effect on medicaid as much as we have to look at the effect on people in the individual markets who have a policy on the exchanges. medicaid is 70 million people, the exchanges are 10 or 11 million people. >> exactly. what people tell me time and time again, i'm sure you heard it from your friends who buy insurance on the exchanges, state exchanges or healthcare.gov. if they can find a plan on the exchange, it's very expensive. high deductibles, many don't get subsidies. >> fair to say didn't turn out the way obama and -- >> i would argue a disaster but fixable. one more thing about the exchange, not just the cost. you may get a plan, subsidies, then you find out you can't go to the doctor you've seen 20 years or the hospital because they haven't signed up with that insurance exchange product.

there are solutions. republicans could sit down at the table and work these out with democrats. >> actuarial solutions. >> not political. shouldn't be political. but that's not obviously what happened. >> the medicate expansion is really a very big story you rightly point out many americans missed over the last several years. >> to me the biggest story. 23 million people losing health insurance, whichever bucket they fall into. >> andrew, thank you for pointing that out. i appreciate you being part of this conversation with us. we just received word from the white house about the breaking news from the supreme court, the other story we're following. plus congressman steve russell joins me from capitol hill with his reaction. two-year anniversary of marriage equality becoming law of the land in 2015. u.s. supreme court ruled all states are required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

(baby crying) ♪ fly ♪ me to the moon (elegant music) ♪ and let me play (bell rings) looking for a hotel that fits... ...your budget? tripadvisor now searches over 200 sites to find you the hotel you want at the lowest price. grazie, gino! find a price that fits. tripadvisor.

(vfirst ingredient?g food's corn? wheat? in new purina one true instinct grain free with beef, real beef is number one. no corn, wheat or soy. support your dog's whole body health with purina one.

okay. we're back to "velshi & ruhle," first reaction to white house supreme court allowing most of president trump's ban on travel to six -- from six mostly muslim countries to take affect, this is from lower courts that blocked it. from an unanimous vote on the supreme court to say 4th circuit got it wrong, 9th circuit got it wrong and district court got it

wrong is an event i'm not sure that's exactly what the supreme court said but that's what the white house response to it is. i'm joined by steve russell from oklahoma, house oversight and government reform committee and armed services committee. congressman, good to see you. >> good to be on. >> two issues to talk about. we want to talk about the travel ban. first of all, you had been one of those people argued for exceptions. some exceptions aren't being granted by the supreme court. but you know, refugees don't typically have a connection to the united states. how do you feel about where this ruling is now? >> i think the fact it was nine members of the supreme court is telling. sadly, these lower court rulings in throwing up hurdles and

obfiscation. >> supreme court doesn't seem to offer what we would offer refugees. not even close to what canada is doing. you do argue refugees ought to be able to come to the united states. >> i think we should have a good policy toward refugees as we've had for centuries in our country. we have to have statue of liberty type compassion for those fleeing war and tyranny. as a warrior all my life i've seen that firsthand. that's how i come to my views. that said, the president in his second iteration of the travel restrictions he did listen to us in a bipartisan fashion. seth and i chair bipartisan group and we asked for two specific exceptions, those that worked with special operations

forces and those working with our military. the second category was burned and maimed children that our children's hospital could provide lifesaving care. to the president's credit he did write those in as exceptions which were noted by the supreme court. >> we'll see where that goes. thank you for your views on refugees. i hope you're able to share them with more people. let's talk about the health care bill waiting for that cbo score today. andrew reuben and i were just talking about this a few minutes ago. one of the issues more than it was when obamacare came in is medicaid. oklahoma is not a medicaid expansion case but you're a u.s. representative. what's your sense of the 23 people people who may end up, or some of whom may end up losing coverage because of the transfer of authority over medicaid to the states. >> i think the first thing we have to examine is 23 million figure. it is not a hard figure. in fact, it's probably only roughly a third of that that's actually enrolled. the numbers and projections are those who might enroll at

current rates at some time in the future. so it's disingenuous for us to make such projections. the fact is we have a population of about 9 million, give or take. and we also see in the house version of the bill that we passed where we were able to provide, taper off a 2% increase each year. actually we see medicaid funding fking over the next several years. at some point that will cap. so we have to go back and examine it. i agree with your earlier commentator that we need to set aside partisanship and try to get to something the american people need. but we are great people, innovation always comes when our backs are against the wall. i'm not sure government is the best way to deal with this issue, let's give it to the american people to figure out. >> i wish i had an example anywhere in the world where a fully private insurance system worked for health care. it's one of those reverse

incentive, doesn't want to in sure people that cost the money. you voted for house bill obviously but you went back and faced constituents that weren't happy about that afterwards. >> i think the majority of constituents were happy about it. they saw if you live in a state like iowa, wisconsin, or other states, they will have no health insurance option. oklahoma only down to one insurance option. how do you know it's the best when you're comparing a sample of one. we look at one-third counties in the united states. the entire country will have no health insurance options. with regard to skyrocketing cost, whether it's republican or democrat, we have to act. the government's plan that was formulated in previous administration has failed. we have to act. so i hope the senate will get us something we can take to conference and hash out for the american people. they are expecting us to act, tired of partisanship and partisan rhetoric.

what we do know increasing cost of health care or lack of care completely. >> congressman, good to talk to you. thanks for being with us. representative steve russell of oklahoma as member of oversight government reform committees and house armed services committee. coming up next, sent packing. reports of russia's ambassador to the united states being recalled over his involvement in russia's interference in the 2016 election. of course not before a going away party blocks away from the white house next month. plus president trump has broken yet another tradition by not hosting a dinner at the white house. they have invited leaders to host a dinner ramadan. he and first lady just acknowledged the holiday. there's nothing more important to me than my vacation.

so when i need to book a hotel room, i want someone that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it, with great summer deals up to 40% off. visit booking.com. booking.yeah!

"how to win at business." step one: point decisively with the arm of your glasses. abracadabra. the stage is yours. step two: choose la quinta. the only hotel where you can redeem loyalty points for a free night-instantly and win at business. [ intense music playing ] ] it's here, but it's going by fast. the opportunity of the year is back: the mercedes-benz summer event. get to your dealer today for incredible once-a-season offers, and start firing up those grilles. lease the gle350 for $579 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing.

welcome back to "velshi & ruhle," stephanie is off. confirmed sergey kislyak going

back. he's been at the center of controversy over meetings he had with former security adviser mike flynn. jared kushner, senior adviser and son-in-law, meetings did not disclose on security clearance forms. there are other meetings as well. with me peter ernest, spent more than 35 years at cia, over 0 in the agency's spy service. he's now executive director of international spy museum in washington, d.c. peter, good to have you here. thank you for being with us. >> good to be with you. >> i want to play a little sound from an interview chuck todd did. let's listen together and we'll talk on the other side. >> sure. >> does the intelligence community believe he's basically an agent of the k dpchlt b, the old kgb? >> given the fact he oversees an aggressive operation in this country, they have more than any other nation as representative of this country.

still even after we got rid of 35 of them. so to suggest he is somehow separate or oblivious to that is a bit much. >> so this is james clapper, who is saying two things, biggest spy operation in the united states, probably find that easy to believe and sergey kislyak said on top of that organization. people in washington seem to think that's the case, sergey kislyak was a spy master. >> well, i certainly think when you call him a spy master in his role as ambassador, this is a very detail oriented man. he's going to be briefed on what is going on in his embassy. that includes intelligence work as well as regular work of the embassy. so he doesn't have to be a spy master in the strict sense, that is a member of the intelligence service, but he certainly has to be knowledgeable of what is going on. this is a man with a highly successful tenure in the united states, ten years now. >> ambassadors and diplomatic

appointees, whether or not they are directly part of a clandestine or intelligence gathering service or not do play a role recruiting performance all the way up to spies really. sergey kislyak, i think what americans are trying to figure out now, was he as his job of ambassador meeting lots of people because that's what ambassadors do or might he have been recruiting people for russian intelligence services benefit? how do you make that distinction? >> well, i think first of all, there's no indication he himself is a member of the intelligence service. but the work of the intelligence service and the diplomats in a russian embassy is much more seamless than it might be in an american embassy. in an american embassy, it very much depends on the personality of the ambassador what he or she is inclined to do. russian embassy when a president is former member of the intelligence service, they will have a very close relationship with the embassy leadership.

there is a word that is sometimes used, co-optee. oftentimes soviet intelligence service would co-opt members of the diplomatic corps to sort of be trusted assets as it were. to say the ambassador was such a thing may be stretching it. i've got to believe a man as dynamic as he was and as detail oriented as he was certainly both knew what was going on and to the extent he could helped out. >> so i think these distinctions are important. i appreciate you making them. it's one thing to call somebody a spy. it's another one to understand what else they may have been doing. we don't know. we don't know for sure with sergey kislyak. i'll show you a political headline that says sergey kislyak is washington's most dangerous diplomat. the reason that article states that, it's a "newsweek" headline, is that so many people

who have met with sergey kislyak have been found out to met with him because kislyak was under u.s. government scrutiny. i guess should one always assume when talking to a diplomat from another company they may be under scrutiny by the u.s. government and that you're talking to them may suddenly become incidental collection of information? >> no, i don't think you should make that assumption. in this case we're talking about russian ambassador and what russiaes up to in this country. as you know under the obama administration they were aware of the activities of the russian government in hacking into our elections and our electoral process. so certainly that would have made them subject of u.s. intelligence. whether fbi or nsa or whatever. their activities brought them under scrutiny. again, this is the russian embassy we're talking about. historically the russians have been up to things in our country

and the present time is no exception. >> peter, good to talk to you. thanks for being with us and clearing things up. >> okay. >> 36 year veteran of the cia. coming up, the deal braer, could the cbo report be the deciding factor in obamacare replacement? we'll see. ♪ ♪ (vo) you can pass down a subaru forester. (dad) she's all yours. (vo) but you get to keep the memories. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i looked at my options. then i got a medicare supplement insurance plan.

[ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, it helps pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. to me, relationships matter. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. call now and request this free decision guide to help you better understand medicare... and which aarp medicare supplement plan might be best for you. there's a wide range to choose from.

we love to travel - and there's so much more to see. so we found a plan that can travel with us. anywhere in the country. [ male announcer ] join the millions of people who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp, an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations. remember, all medicare supplement insurance plans help cover what medicare doesn't pay. and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. and learn more about the kinds of plans that will be here for you now - and down the road. i have a lifetime of experience. so i know how important that is. ♪ if you have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis,... isn't it time to let the real you shine through? maybe it's time for otezla (apremilast). otezla is not an injection or a cream.

it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, 75% clearer skin is achievable after just 4 months,... with reduced redness,... thickness, and scaliness of plaques. and the otezla prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you're allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts... or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight... and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea,... nausea, upper respiratory tract infection... and headache. tell your doctor about all the medicines you take and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you. we're back with a look at the headlines we're tracking for you. make or break week for

republicans on health care. mitch mcconnell wants a vote on the sthat by the end of the week but five republicans are no do and nine others are undecided. the supreme court says it will take up president trump's travel ban and will reinstate much of the ban until it hears arguments in the fall the ban will go into effect from travelers from six muslim majority nations except for people with close ties to the united states. family, a job, education here in the united states. former arizona sheriff joy arpaio goes on trial in federal court today accused of ignoring the judge's order in 2011 to stop traffic controls targeting immigran immigrants. the sheriff's office was accused of detaining people suspected of being in the country illegally. for 18 months after the judge issued the order, arpaio said it wasn't intendingal. several were hacked with pro isis messaging, in maryland, new

york, the group claiming responsibility also claimed responsibility for similar hacks in the past in wisconsin and scotland and sweden. i want to get back to what could be the deciding factor for republicans in the senate health care bill, the cbo score. joining me, a professor and chair of the department of health policy and management at columbia, and a health care reporter from reuters. thank you both for being here. i want to talk to you about something i was talking to andrew reuben about. a pairson of total health care cost, amount spent on every american in the united states compared onother oecd countries. we're looking at 3,814 developed countries versus nine and a half thousands in the united states. he made the point we have access, always a test available. in developed countries most people have their health care paid for in some other fashion.

in america we have people who can't afford the fact there's an mri available. >> there's no question we spend more on health care than anywhere else. the reason we spend more on health care is the price of health care is much higher than anywhere else in the world. other countries regulate the price of pharmaceuticals, hospital care, et cetera. we here in the united states regulate price of public insurance such as medicaid and medicare but more free market in the private sector and the price is extraordinarily high. one thing the affordable care act did not do particularly well is get a handle on costs. >> hardly touched. >> good job on access. it did a good job on access but not cost. >> let's talk about cbo score we're expecting at some point today. is that going to make any difference to the discussion that's doing on right now? we saw the first cbo score for the first house bill that never went to a vote. we saw the second cbo score for the house bill that did pass the house. they all say similar things,

that lots of people who would otherwise have been covered under current law are not going to be covered if a new bill comes in. >> i think it's hard to tell. it's just dependent how badly senators who said they can't support the bill or unsure want to get to yes. the fact of the matter is if it's a big number similar to the house bill, 15 or 20 or 22 million people, that's likely to spook a lot of senators, some of whom are coming under pressure from their own republican kbm s governors. if there's a big coverage loss found in the cbo score you might see more people moving away from the bill or start making bigger demands than they initially would have to get them to yes or support the bill. >> this the problem. there are at least five conservative senators voting for the bill, not conservative enough. nine others, some conservative, some moderates not voting for the bill for the same reason. i don't understand how the math gets anybody to a place where mitch mcconnell doesn't lose

more than a few votes. >> yeah. that's the biggest challenge with this bill. mitch mcconnell has a very fine line to walk. he needs to acquiesce to some moderate senators who say they are worried about the rug being pulled out from under some people. if you move in that direction you risk alienating conservatives who could get to yes with one or two concessions. it's hard to see right now how he'll be able to meet the demands of both those parties without losing people, amendment added to win one or the other over. >> michael, i want to play you the piece of an interview that kellyanne conway had on abc about medicaid coverage. let's just play that. >> these are not cuts to medicaid, george, it slows the rate for the future and allows governors more flexibility with medicaid dollars because they are closest to the people in need. >> these are not cuts to medicaid and it affords governors more flexibility. tell me what you think about that? >> the first point these are not

cuts to medicaid are simply wrong. as cbo said there will be millions cut from the program and won't be spending on those people and that's where the savings come, the $800 billion in savings. those are real cuts and matter in real life. in terms of giving states more flexibility it is true, converting and capping federal expenditures is tied with that rhetoric around giving states and governors more flexibility. the problem is the states and governors are going to have more flexibility with a lot less federal money. so they are going to in theory do more with less. >> and they can't run deficits. michael always a great discussion, yasmine, thank you for joining us. a health care reporter for thomson reuters. coming up, president trump is letting loose on twitter. this morning's target president obama for russia's interference in the 2016 election.

we'll have that after the break. thanks for the ride around norfolk! and i just wanted to say, geico is proud to have served the military for over 75 years! roger that. captain's waiting to give you a tour of the wisconsin now. could've parked a little bit closer... it's gonna be dark by the time i get there. geico®. proudly serving the military for over 75 years. welcome to holiday inn! ♪ ♪ whether for big meetings or little getaways, there are always smiles ahead at holiday inn. (b♪by crying) minutes old. ♪ a baby's skin is never more delicate. ♪ what do hospitals use to wash and protect it?

♪ johnson's® the number 1 choices in hospitals.

your body was made for better things than rheumatoid arthritis. before you and your rheumatologist move to another treatment, ask if xeljanz is right for you. xeljanz is a small pill for adults with moderate to severe ra for whom methotrexate did not work well. xeljanz can reduce joint pain and swelling in as little as two weeks, and help stop further joint damage. xeljanz can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections, lymphoma and other

cancers have happened. don't start xeljanz if you have an infection. tears in the stomach or intestines, low blood cell counts and higher liver tests and cholesterol levels have happened. your doctor should perform blood tests before you start and while taking xeljanz, and monitor certain liver tests. tell your doctor if you were in a region where fungal infections are common and if you have had tb, hepatitis b or c, or are prone to infections. xeljanz can reduce the symptoms of ra, even without methotrexate, and is also available in a once-daily pill. ask about xeljanz xr. welcome back to velshi and ruhle.

trump has been on a twitter tirade today. he wrote that the president that president obama did nothing after being notified of russian meddling. a few minutes later, the real story is that president obama did nothing after being informed in august after russian meddling, with four months looking at russia under a magnifying glass,s there no evidence of t-people, meaning trump people, being guilty of obstruction. i don't know what to say about that, i'm still processing it. >> i think we can describe this as a counter suit here, the counter puncher, president obama is now redirecting his attacks

towards president obama. sean spicer, his press secretary, all along he said that it was probably russia that was involved here, but remember, he repeatedly referred to russia as fake news and a dem hoax. and the president now sort of acknowledgings that russia did meddle in the 2016 election, is the limited role, the limited action of his administration, james comey, testifying about donald trump's limited interest in russia's interference during 2016. then jeff sessions, the attorney general was asked during his testimony about this topic and said that he was not a part of any classified briefings on the issues as well. and msnbc has spoken to state officials and they say they received very little direction from this administration on how they can better safeguard

themselves from future russian meddling down the line. . >> we'll stay alert for the tweets. and for the cbo score which we may talk about later on. we have been talking about the cbo score, there's a lot of criticings of the cbo score. i thought i would look at the history of the cbo. concreted the congressional budget office in 197 this to scrutinize all legislation, they scrutinize any -- the cbo is highly respected for it's neutral, nonpartisan analysis, but on obamacare, it turns out that some of the cbo's estimates were off. and that's why some republicans are quick to discount the cbo score about the new health care

legislation working its way through congress now. the office needs to make assumptions, not just about the political in question, but also about growth, inflation, and economic trends, about obamac e obamacare, cbo predicted that by 2016, there would be 20 million americans getting health insurance through the exchanges, the actual number was about 10 million. the cbo predicted that by 2016, 10 million would be added to expanded medicaid roles, the actual number was 14 million. and sometimes the cbo is just right. the cbo also predicted that the crop in uninsured a health care

research group found that obama's projections were closer to realized experience than were those of many other prominent forecasters. going back a little bit farther, in 2009, the cbo estimated that obama's recovery act would cost 1$106 billion, the actual price? $108 billion. and the cbo projected that the increase in deficit would be $4.7 billion, the actual deficit, $5 billion. more often than not the cbo's estimates are better than anybody else out there. keep that in mind today, that cbo score is going to come out later today, some we'll will tell you that it's always wrong.

you know that it's not. we begin the final week of the first half of the year. right now let's take a look at what the dow is doing, it's magically up 46 points, so, you know, 22 basis points, the nasdaq and the s&p 500 are substantially higher. takata's -- liabilities of 10 billion to $50 billion as it faced lites and the cost of replacing at least 100 millionaire bag s bags -- life

drug from $13.50. shkreli's trial is expected to last up to six weeks. president trump is going to host the indian prime minister to the white house as soon as today. the congressional budget office could release the score on the senate health care bill. later this week the senate could vote on the bill before the july 4th recess. and the korean president is going to meet with president trump for the first time this week. thanks for watching velshi and ruhle. right now it's time for andr"an mitchell reports". >> partial trump travel ban

victory, president trump gets his travel ban from six largely muslim countries for 90 days and the supreme court will hear the entire case in the fall. if you have a relative that wants to come to the u.s. or you have a job, or you're here to study at a university, if you're in one of those groups, you will not be able to get a visa for the next 90 days. some key republicans are pumping the brakes. >> it's hard for me to see the bill passing this week. but that's up to the majority leader. >> i would like to delay the thing, there's no way we should be voting on this thing next week, let's not rush this process. >> it and red tide, donald trump with another tweet storm today on russia, saying the real story is that president obama