that will change the cbo -- again, as i said before, the cbo only gives you what you put in.s how it works. at the end of the day they're going to work off the information, the nblz you give it. >> why, why, why, beth were women cut out of this? why did the republicans do this behind closed doors with 13 men? we are 50% of the population. we are aam fektd by health care. we produce the babies that are men's' babies as well? why are we left out? >> this has been a huge thing i've been thinking about. because many, many, many health providers and others who look at this industry tell you that women make 80% of health care decisions in this country. themselves their kids their parents once their republican parents become elderly. exactly. most men do not interact with the healthcare system they're well into middle age. women do very early on as young patients and then as parents. this is remarkable that a group of men, many of whom i guarantee in that senate have not seen a doctor in a long, long time have devised a plan that is completely unworkable because in part because they

cbo. you see opposition, you attacked the credibility. like lisa said, they are going to need the cbo at some point. we need to see congress be more prudent in some ways, then the white house. to me, that seems like a new trend. guest: it is interesting, right? there is always that tension, even with the party in power. democrats always had concerns with president obama. there was always some friction there. the white house did put out some information last week from, i think, the council of economic advisers on the health care bill. office,s, tom price's will be putting out information on health care. so i think they are trying to muddy the water here. i do think it is a slippery slope for them. cbo has a history of trying to this sort ofr, nonpartisan voice, of where things will go. there will always be shortcomings, and there are assumptions made in the underlying modeling. there are things like the ted cruz amendment. this would be a very new idea, and some ways, in some ways not, but

in fact, larry, cbo says we use different forecasts reflecting differences in projections. >> yeah. look, actually, well, what she just reported is actually easier on the white house than i feared i got to go through the details and take a look at it. i just want to draw everybody's attention, especially my pal jarrod bernstein to the op-ed piece in the journal what they're saying is it's not revenue neutral you should worry about, it's deficit neutral. what i do mean by that okay in the early years, the lower tax rates on business might lose you some money i believe you'll get it back in four or five years however, they're lowering spending as elan reported. they're also taking a look at asset sales, okay, and other measures, private-public partnerships, energy lease that's would have good feedback on royalty so the federal government and the states. in other words, look at the whole picture. it's not just revenues it's all things. and this is something that steve moore and i and newt gingrich is working on this and others we need deficit reduction. you're not going to get revenue

cbo is a nonpartisan organization the head of cbo is appointed by the republican leaders of the house and senate. to discredit cbo simply because you don't like the answer they give, not the american way. the american way is to debate the facts, not deny them or call them fake because you don't like him.sn unfortunately, our president has made his presidency is the, hallmark of his presence. anything he doesn't like his fake, even though it is real, the fund gets an e-mail to get statement and he says that his fake, what was said was fake. let's not spread to the body. cbo is a respected organization, as i said, with leaders appointed by republicans, not by us. let's hear what they have to say and let's take it seriously. on. even if we don't agree with the outcome of where their fax lead. mr. president, i'd like to make additional points on one of the more controversial parts of the republican from kerrville. the cruise amendment. the cruise amendment by allowing insurers to sell junk insurance would increase out-of-pocket costs on an average american. premiums might come down for so

host: he is talking about cbo analysis. guest: the number of folks who talk about them and he realize have never actually read them is one of my greatest frustrations. host: congressman, we have to leave the conversation there. guest: enjoyed this. thank you. host: coming up, npr justice correspondent carrie johnson joins us to take a look at christopher wray's nomination to become fbi director. flatlyn, president putin denies interfering with the u.s. presidential election. we will ask congressman meeks what he thinks. we will be right back. ♪ >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "lectures in history," appellation state university professor discusses george mcclellan's failed attempts to take the confederate capital enrichment. >> they have not done an awful lot of research about what this peninsula looks like and what marching along this peninsula would be like, but he is so dead set on making sure that he does not concede anything to lincoln that he basically puts his army o

listen to what nonpartisan cbo, cbo appointed the head of cbo appointed by the republican leader of the senate and the republican leader of the house, here's what cbo said. it would cause 32 million -- is the cbo said about repeal. it would cause 32 million americans to lose their insurance. premiums would double whilenc cutting taxes for households with incomes over $1 million by over $50,000 a year. it would in medicaid expansion with no grace period or option for states who like their medicaid expansion and want to keep it. in many ways it's just as cruel if not more cruel to medicaid as the trumpcare bill in a different way. so i would expect that same senators who are concerned about what will be equally concerned about what repeal and dollywood due to medicaid, many of my republican friends rejected roundly the idea of repeal and delay several months ago with the beginning ot the year when president trump first proposed it. it seemed like that was what republicans would do. here are just some of the names back in his head repeal and then replace, later, doesn't work. you're th

now, additionally, let's look at the cbo score that was mentioned in the opening remarks. so the congressional budget office doesn't is made some small costs associated with the complete elimination of funding planned parenthood. the budget committee contest the score that put out because it's based on cbo's faulty assumption reducing planned parenthood funding would result in more pregnancies from a lack of access to contraceptives. as i've already talked about there are 20 million women that are taken care of in the community health centers, only 3 million, less than three going in planned parenthood. this is unreasonable and to talk about being against women. this is a sexist assumption women's ability to seek a convince upon having a planned parenthood facility across the street. as with providing additional funding for community health centers is partof our markup it's unreasonable for cbo to assume that women are incapable of finding another provider. women are smarter than this. they are able to find other providers. planned parenthood is not, if it is an option to

is the work easier for the cbo?> the work is easier for some of the things, like adding money for helping folks suffering from opioid problems, but you know, there's also this thing, the cruz amendment that would basically create stripped-down insurance plans, and that we have not seen a score from cbo on an rumor has it that would take some time, because it would be a fun mental change of what insurance markets look like, and it takes longer to -- >> the better care reconciliation act, and also the ill, what weeal b know about the effects of that on the marketplace, on americans that were to be passed? >> if you go to the bill that is called the repeal bill, it is not literally repeal every last bit of the aca, but repeals most of the prominent features, cbo had a score on that yesterday. it would reduce insurance coverage in 2026 by 32 million, so 10 million more than the senate bill being considered, and also would significantly reduce the deficit. when the aca was initially enacted, coverage expansions were paid

overall and you're probably fully with cbo scores, cbo says that the bill would reduce a loss of $772 billion over ten years for the medicaid program and, of course, very importantly, by 2026 cbo projects that 15 million people covered by medicaid would lose that coverage, would no longer have that coverage. if you go to the next slide, i want to talk a little bit about how the cap works. i'm not going to spend a lot of time explaining this. it's a wonderful diagram and hopefully it will teach you but we can have time during q&a. but the bottom line is that they per-capita cap, meaning the amount of dollars each state gets is based on their historic spending, and then that a stroe spin is trended forward by a trained rate. in both of those factors are really critical in terms of understanding the impact to state medicaid program. what was that spending in the early years? estate is locked into that spending overtime in perpetuity, except for the adjustment. what you see in this diagram is that there's different trend rates that the bill pics medical cpi and medical cpi plus one to bri

meaning the cbo. were off.d mean the estimate the cbo made not the actual number insured because the cbo doesn't make up that number. again, if we add in all the corrections here, there was another error. the estimate for exchange and enrollment was 55% off, not more than 100% as the white house and critics has been claiming. yes, that's still a big gap, r5u%, but just for one part of obamacare, the exchanges. as mentioned, the overall estimate which includes exchanges and other times, that was only off by 6%. this for the largest industry in america. health care. joining me now, derek kilmer of washington state. thanks for being with us. >> you bet. great to be with you. >> so, you've been doing something interesting. talking with folks across the aisle and doing a podcast. how is that going and what have you learned lately? what's the tone on the ground for bipartisanship? >> well, you know, there are some areas where i think democrats and republicans could make some progress. infrastructure is one of those a

the cbo said it. >> no, the cbo said they would lose insurance.aid very specifically they would lose insurance. >> they said a few million would voluntarily leave -- >> lose their insurance. and the only people who would voluntarily dis-enroll and the only people who actually again get lower premiums are people who don't want to pay the penalty under obamacare and therefore disenroll because they didn't want to buy insurance. that's a tiny fraction of the american people. of that 10 million you're talking about maybe a couple of million people. and then it also says at the same time that when you take away the subsidies from people low-income seniors would be hurt the most. sfwlt subsidies under the senate bill -- >> hold on. the biggest spikes in uninsurance, and i'm just saying what the cbo said, the biggest spikes in uninsurance come from older low-income customers who would also have the hardest time finding affordable insurance. what do you think? >> look, if we're talking about the cbo, let's just think about how they did predicting -- >> no

cbo scoring?nonpartisan congressional budget office expected to release numbers on the health care proposal. we look at how many americans are going to lose health insurance as a result of this. it miscalculated the obamacare numbers. that said, they also speak to the budget scoring. i caught up with ultraconservative member house member and take a listen to what he said. >> the cbo yesterday, $720 billion deficit. that is a bottleneck. you have the border adjustable peace within the tax plan that is probably dead. that's another $1 trillion. we have several trillion dollar problems. the major concern is that the tax piece is the holy grail. that is not acceptable. grail.the holy get their health care before they get onto that holy grail. david: a republicans believing the cbo at this point are not? president trump says it will not be $720 billion, it will be a balanced budget. the tweetdepends on of the day, the time of the day, and the issue. it is hopeful that they will be able to muster the vo

the cbo report. >> it is important to remember that cbo did the same job in 2015 when senate voted toable care act. numbers are similar. in 10 years by 2026, cbo and joint committee estimate that additional 32 million people would be uninsured in 2026. compared to people who have insurance right now, roughly that 32 million in 10 years, they have insurance now. but if we repeal without replace, would not have. just next year, cbo said, i am reading this number of people uh-u uninsured would increase by 17 million in 2018. and then, that number would increase 27 million in 2020. this is going to be a tough sell for republicans without replace, you heard president trump said, he wants repeal and replace. liz: moments ago senator alexander said, i don't think there are 40 votes to repeal obama carry without a replacement plan. >> next up, rosie o'donnell's game. but first gaming stocks doing well today. electronic art in the green. get back to this controversial video game, detecting the killing of president trump. rosie o'donnell looks like you know in there too. this is a game that sho

that is certainly part of it.g e cbo is the story issue they are coming to her to pieces. one is how much it is going to cost and the other is how arere people when it covered or not get covered. they are taking issue with the coverage because it's one of the most problematic pieces of it and they point to the fact when the cbo scored obamacare, they said 20 million folks are going to be covered over the course of five or seven years and in fact, less than 10 million word. .. or getting coverage or not getting coverage. those are the two elements. the cbo score gets played in the press and the republicans have been battling that and we will see what the new score is. the other issue that the caller raised was about the cost of a.ing business, regulations in regulations in america not something that -- growth solves a lot of problems, economic growth, and solves problems with regard to the healthcare system but we have not seen growth over time it's been 2% and there's a story on "the new york times" today saying that that's about a where we're going to be -- we'll have emp

overall -- and you are probably familiar with the cbo scores -- the cbo says it would produce a loss of $772 billion over 10 years for the medicaid program and of course very importantly, by 2026 cbo projects that 15 million people covered by medicaid would lose their coverage, would no longer have that coverage. if you go to the next slide, i want to talk a little bit about how the cap works. i am not going to spend a lot of time explaining this. it is a wonderful diagram and hopefully it will teach you, but we can have some time during q and a. spending isc trended forward by a trend rate and both of those factors are critical in terms of understanding the impact to a state's medicaid program. what was that spending in the early years, if the state is locked into that spending over time in perpetuity except for the adjustment. what you see in this diagram is there is different trend rates the. plus one toand cpi bring the caps forward year-by-year until the year 2025. 2025, all the groups go down to the cpi which is a much lower trend rate. that builds up to an aggregate cap. you h

that is a cut of more than $220 billion from cbo's baseline. an increase of more than $50 billion is a far cry from the parity and visioned by the budget control act. my memo would call on congress -- my amendment would call on congress. with that, i yield as much time as she consumes from my remaining time. >> thank you. i rise in strong support of this amendment. we have to understand national security is intricately linked with economic security and that is what we're talking about will we talk about increasing and having parity between discretionary spending and defense spending. we cannot increase defense spending at the expense of our nondiscretionary because for everybody might be listening out there, what we're talking about likescension of programs education, infrastructure, job screening, state department investment, research. one example, we're cutting 19% of the state department budget in this proposed engine resolution. this is something that for military commanders, our generals, over 110 generals have been a letter and said, plea

cbo debunks that pic cbo says the believe the affordable care act in place over the course of the next ten years, two or 3 million people will lose health care insurance.ca if you pass the republican health care bill, that's what the death spiral occurs.s. 23 million people lose insurance if you pass, the republican insura two to 3 million people lose insurance if you don't pass it., again, president trump saying health care plan is on its way. we will have much lower premiums and deductibles. here he is making a commitment on deductibles. once again the congressional budget office is premiums up and deductibles, especially for individuals or older or with a pre-existing condition go up. at the same time taking care pre-existing conditions.io this bill does not take care of people with pre-existing conditions. why? because it allows for any state to allow insurance companies to get out from the minimum benefits requirement. so if you have cancer, technically the senate republican bill says you can't be charged more, but you may not be able to find a plan that c covers cancer treatments

the cbo forecasted deductibles hitting $13,000 for an individual by 2026. an amount it says is so high that obamacare actually outlawed it. the president also promised to p protect people with pre-existing conditions but the senate legislation offered a back door for states to waive coverage for all conditions, something the cbo predicted many states would actually do. the president claimed that trumpcare would stabilize collapsing health insurance markets. yes, insurers have certainly pulled out of the federal exchanges in some states, leaving some people in the lurch, but the cbo and others have said that markets are stabilizing under obamacare and the cbo says trumpcare would not solve that issue. it would in fact have made more markets unstable. president trump has not been alone in his false claims. health and human services secretary tom price said that trumpcare would cover more individuals than are currently covered. but the cbo said millions more americans would be without insurance under trumpcare. president trump loves to bring up president obama

that's what the cbo is scoring. he localsy said it would have a devastating impact on americans and it would all be to give a bigger tax break to americans. peter, do you agree? >> no, i don't. certainly there would be a problem if we just repealed. but if we do something. think about the consequences in the economy of obamacare disassembling. premiums skyrocketing out of sight. young people leaving the exchanges completely, choosing not to buy health insurance. no one is saying what would happen if this thing was left to lieto -- left to ride out. it would be much worse for their constituents if obamacare were left to plain fail. gerri: it's not part of the calculation. listen, panel, great job. thanks for your heart and soul in this tonight. really appreciate it. and the supreme court hands the trump administration a split decision on the travel ban. we'll have the details coming up. so we need tablets installed... with the menu app ready to roll. in 12 weeks. yeah. ♪ ♪ the world of fast food is being changed by f

>> the cbo, as you all know, uses a static and that is something that the cbo has done for years. we also recognize that the cbo scores on the cart wall. there will be a difference in what we assume in our budget because we assume economic growth through things like regulatory reform and tax reform, giving power back to states. it's not that we're in conflict with one another. we have different assumptions. as the vice chairman said, the economic growth of 2.6% is really -- or maybe it was jason lewis that said that. it was under what has been the historical average over the last 50 years. so our assumptions of the 2.6 are really not out of line with historical averages. yes? >> given the difficulties that have been attendant to health care reform this year, we have an october 6th date for reconciliation legislation to come back to your committee. how optimistic given what's happened between health care and the fact that september is going to be a busy month that that october 6th deadline will be met? >> we're going to be eternally optimistic that the senate is going to get their

according to the cbo estimates. given the promises that were made by many of my colleagues and by the president himself i yes, i have a pretty simple question for you. do you think that the purpose or the outcome of healthcare reform should be to ensure more or less americans? >> senator, healthcare reform, and has a look at this healthcare bill, we are asking how can we go forward as a nation with the bill that respects individual choice. ultimately, senator murray raised a question about health as well, and as we look at the workplace what issue that certainly i think we need to consider is what does this do in terms of jobs, and does the multiplicity of expenses that are put on employers create a disincentive to higher? and so certainly to respect individual choice and we also need to consider whether were going to be creating jobs by impact reducing the costs of many of these programs that do place burdens on the economy as a whole. >> let me restate the question. insurance is really important to people. they pr

now, additionally, let's look at the cbo score that was mentioning in the opening remarks. the congressional budget office does anticipate some small costs associated with the complete elimination of funding planned parenthood. the budget committee contests the score that they have put out because it's based on cbo's faulty assumption that reducing planned parenthood funding would result in more pregnancies. as i have already talked about, there are 20 million women that are taken care of in the community health centers. only 3 million -- less than 3 million in planned parenthood. but this is unreasonable and you talk about being against women. this is a sexist assumption that women's ability to seek out care depends on having a planned parenthood facility across the street. as we are providing additional funding for community health centers as part of our budget, it is unreasonable for cbo to assume women are incapable of finding another provider. women are smarter than this. they are able to find other providers. planned parenthood, if it is their option, they are smart e

listen to what nonpartisan cbo, cbo, d head of cbo assigned by the head of the republican house and senate. here is what cbo said about repeal. it would cause 32 million americans to lose their insurance, premiums would double while cutting taxes for households with incomes over $1 million by over $50,000 a year. it would end medicaid expansion with no grace period or option for states who like their medicaid expansion and want to keep it. in many ways, it's just as cruel, if not crueller to medicaid as the trumpcare bill in a different way. so, i would expect the same senators who were concerned about trumpcare bills, medicaid cuts will be equally concerned about what repeal and delay would do to medicaid. many of my republican friends rejected the idea of repeal and delay several months ago at the beginning of the year when president trump first proposed it. it seemed like that was what the republicans would do. here are just some of the names back then who said repeal, then replace. later doesn't work. cassidy, alexander, collins, corker, hatch, moran, mccain, murkowski, paul. i will te

score before a vote, just to confirm. >> well, there will be a cbo score, yeah.fore the vote, correct? >> on the overall bill, yes. >> with the cruz amendment? >> well, i think the cruz amendment will be examined in the context of how it impacts other features in the bill. >> i'm so sorry. i feel like i'm not understanding or getting a clear yes or no answer. will the cruz amendment be scored before there is a vote to proceed? >> the cruz amendment will be scored. >> before the vote? >> well, it's going to be scored -- it will be scored before the vote and whether the -- again, the question of whether or not the cbo has an opportunity to evaluate all the impacts of the cruz amendment before the vote, that may be a different question. but i can tell you, the cruz amendment will be scored. there are going to be a lot of folks looking at this and the overall bill will be scored by the cbo before we vote, yes. >> okay. let's move on. talking about senators graham and cassidy, their plan to keep obamacare taxes, give money to the states to control that come from those

and it was more or less seen as preemtive strike against cbo saying they already -- they miss -- i'm going to use george w. bush term miss underestimated the number of people that may be uninsured along the way. is that seen as just the preemtive strike if comes out and is higher than expected. >> the white house made a couple of preemtive strikes against cbo score they put out over the weekend a pressure release that ended with cbo score nothing but fake news. and. >> by the way, can we get past -- i know -- i recognize that is narrative rights now and i recognize there's a general anger against the media. let's put it -- just because they may disagree with something out there, it ain't fake news. fake news is what we saw blanketed online. fake news are email forwards from aunt anduncle. this is not fake news. >> it's important to remember that the cbo is filled with expert economists and health policy analysts and people this their field and while any cbo score involves a number after assumptions and they can't perfectly predict how a bill will react or piece of legislation will af

cbo says rates will go up immediately by 20% on almost everybody. after that, if you are young and healthy rates will probably go down but for everybody else, the amount of money you have to pay in premiums, copays, deductibles go up. nothing about cost, nothing that address the issues with the american health care system that procedure by procedure costs twice as much as other countries and nothing about quality. not a single provision encour e encouraging higher quality. as we get ready for the republican repeal bill, 3.0 or 4.0 that will be released secretly to republicans tomorrow i think it is worth reminding everybody what republicans said would happen. so, i will just use the words of our president. and i would agree not all agree with the president but he is the leading of the republican party, all my colleagues stood with him and stood with him when they passed the republicans house repeal bill. president trump said i was the first and only gop candidate to state there will be no cuts to social security, medicare and medicaid. so, no cuts t

we're also waiting on the cbo to today. new score the latest scoring on the drop bill.lthcare the cbo scored repeal only proposal. confused at to what's going on in washington. let's bring in steven dennis who is on hill. isn't at all excused. exactly is mitch mcconnell to vote on?enate >> it's still unclear exactly what bill they're going to try across the finish line next week. do is reviveing to the bill they've been working on to repeal and replace the law. negotiations, discussions amongst themselves moreg goa to get more and people on board. it looks very unlikely they will get there. especially with john mccain's presence completely uncertain with the brain cancer diagnosis. one of the things they trying to appeal to medicaid expansion state senators who have been holding out on this bill. about half dozen of them. findg, hey, maybe we can another 100 or $200 billion out. this cbo score comes we can plow into providing insurance for these female who now on medicaid expansion. provide them private insurance subsidies.

>> this cbo as you know uses a static and that is something the cbo has done for years. we also recognize the cbo scores on the wall. so there will be a difference in what we assume in our budget because we assume economic growth for things like regulatory of farm and tax reform in getting power back to the states. so it is not that we are in conflict with one another. we have different assumptions and as the chairman, vice chairman said, the economic growth, the 2.6% or maybe it was jason lewis who said it was under the historical average over the last 50 years. our assumption of the 2.6 are really not out of line with historical averages. >> given the difficulties of health care reform, we had reconciliation in the committee. how optimistic given what has happened between health care comment at october 6th deadline. >> we are going to be internally optimistic that the senate is going to get their work done. i know they are taking action today in the health care bill. we can do our work and our conference, in our body in the house and we will anticipate the senate will

bill to the cbo to score.tle bit less than the moderates do as their proposal, one might not meet the reconciliation bill, and two, would likely return with a worse score than the original one. >> garrett, i want to get your final take on this. we've been talking about the new proposal just to repeal and not necessarily to replace, which means there'd be a major gap in coverage and how long would it actually take to replace. what's the viability? what's the likelihood that could happen? a lot of people up in arms over this. >> there are some real practical just sort of basic political logistical problems. might sound good on paper. the main problems are this congress has a packed legislative agenda for the rest of the year. they need to get through tax reform, they need to lift the debt ceiling, deal with a budget, there's a lot of things on their plate already and having to pass two controversial bills instead of just one is more difficult. the house has passed a combined repeal and replace. the speaker doesn

. >> a lot of republicans were on the fence before today say they're waiting for a cbo score.connell needs 450 out of 57 senators toll pass this bill. ♪ everybody two seconds! ♪ "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. ♪ your bbut as you get older,ing. it naturally begins to change, causing a lack of sharpness, or even trouble with recall. thankfully, the breakthrough in prevagen helps your brain and actually improves memory. the secret is an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember. >>>. >>> lindsey and i have talked about this and bill too, i mean, what we're waiting for is for mitch mcconnell to decide to let this be a bipartisan, rational process that's transparent so everybody in america knows what t

you know what the cbo said. what a disaster that would be. up to 32 million people, an all-time high, would lose their insurance. but, we are not taking that route. we're taking the route that we want to work with you and improve the aca. i just want to mention two things that i think are very important in that respect and would eliminate a big part of the uncertainty that exists right now with the insurance market. first, with regard to the cost sharing reduction payments, the president announced yesterday he's going to pay it for another month. thank you, mr. president. but, that's ridiculous, right? i mean, the uncertainty in the insurance market going from month to month, like paying month to month rent rather than having a lease for a year or more is ridiculous. so, the most important thing i think right now to eliminate this uncertainty in the insurance market is to guarantee that those cost-sharing payments, which affects seven million people, are paid consistently and on time long term. and, just as an example, in my state -- i mentio

now the cbo has scored the repeal and replace bill, that g.o.p.s are filled to move forward just this past monday and they were trying to revive and their late-night meeting last night and now, the cbo says with this revised g.o.p. health care bill, it would increase the number of uninsured people by 22,002,026, so that same 10-year differential between now and then, but 10 million fewer i'm not sure how they come up with the difference in the numbers. beyond repeal, it makes 10 million more people -- is that the point, or is there something deeper in the numbers? what do you think? >> judge andrew: i wish supply and demand of the free market which was the way insurance was run until 1965 until medicare and medicaid, but we don't have that anymore. with the federal government micromanaging everything. >> dagen: correct me if i'm wrong, this is the second senate bill. this is the same number, the 22 million as the original g.o.p. senate bill. in the tweaks that they were making to it last week, there is no change -- and there's no change in the num

so cbo scoring is notoriously bad. i'm sure it's not accurate here, but if you want to look at that 22 million figure, they said was the figure they were coming up with. they said 15 million people would be uninsured because the penalty was removed and they would choose not to have insurance if there wasn't a penalty, so that is a big number and answers the question that you were asked earlier. i did check on the last scoring of the house bill, i think 3 million people that currently have medicaid at no cost would choose not to have medicaid if you eliminate the penalty for not having insurance, so that's the cbo view of that future and not necessarily the one that would turn out to be accurate. on h2b issues you pointed out the committee gave quite a bit of flexibility and encouragement to deal with that as we have for some time whatever you and general kelly would like to talk about in terms of how we get a long-term solution instead of a short term i think is a perfectly fine idea, but not for this year. this is goi

that's the reality of the so-called cbo cuts in medicaid.n the bcra that was only the lions share of the so-called cuts. another category of so-called cuts to medicaid in the cbo analysis of the bcra is theirs assumptions about expansion. they decide that under current law if nothing else happens a s whole lot of state will choose they to become medicaid expansion states.e they haven't made that choice ship. they can't point to which once. it's a political decision in the first states. they don't know who's going to be leading. they have no idea about how that would happen but yet they predict that states that are chosen thus are not to be medicaid expansion states would adopt the expansion under current law. but if we passed the law that's, that was proposed earlier, though states will not make that decision and furthermore some states that have expanded will resend the decision to expand. e any honest person including the folks at the cbo have to acknowledge this is entirely speculative. it's entirely speculative. they can't name a single

if that cbo score doesn't come in, well, all bets are off. liz, back to you. >> am i mistaken, did we not hear rand paul say during the same interview he believes there are at least four senators, forgive me, i thought i had heard there are four senators who don't like this? >> i know a great many senators like it but they're not going out publicly saying where they stand on it. so far the only ones willing to publicly say there are, for lack of a better term no, you have got susan collins and you hurt others where they stand just allowing debate on this. liz: at least there seems to be a tiny ray of light here on movement regarding this, thank you very much, adam. we need to go to paris right now. have they sat down yet? no, not yet. they're standing there waiting, camera people as i say, where president animal -- president and melania trump, breaking baguettes. >> i got it. liz: that is clever. first family of france will join trump and hosting them. president trump visiting as bastille day or independence day guest, as guest of emannuel ma

the cbo in general has a difficult time predicting when human behavior will be. that's the belief. you have people who decide i don't need this, i'll be fine, i'm healthy. young people especially. these are people that the obama administration went after. they wanted people in their 20s to be forced to join health plans because by and large, many are saying no need, i'll be fine. >> jon: my senior producer is telling me the cbo did score the bill, ab, and 16 million people would be uninsured if it were to pass this skinny repeal. that doesn't seem to sit well. when senators read these headlines that say x number millions of people would no longer be insured, they seem to run a little scared. >> the cbo scores always scare a few extra votes when they come out. they also said premiums would rise by 20%. as of last night, they were ignoring with the cbo assessment was because they thought this was just going to be a shallow bill that will send over. now the concern is, what if the house just passes it and it was the final product and they voted for it? if it's not just a vehicle to go

neil: democrats complain about the cbo, republicans complain about the cbo.ut -- >> but they do use ecstatic analysis. neil: you always blame the rest. >> i agree. but if you talk about supply-siders -- if you talk to art laugher or steve moore or neil cavuto, they would tell you that cbo doesn't believe -- they believe in static analysis. they believe that there's a supply -- they don't believe much in a supply side. neil: hard for dynamically account for it. that is a problem; right? that it tends, doug, to be very hard to quantify the boom you get from tax cuts; right? have you mastered it by now? >> look, predicting the future's not hard. being right is very hard. so i have zero complaints with people they've been wrong on occasions. certainly my own record there, they're a mistake. i do think it's fair to point out that cbo tries to operate on the quote consensus of the research literature. art law enforcement officer is not a consensus guy. he has a strong point of view and one end of the spectrum. i happen to think art's a great guy and don't disagree

so the cost of this concept according to cbo are $20.7 billion over ten years. do you agree? >> that's a great question. >> you're nodding your head for the record. >> it's not a question of whether the budget committee agrees or disagrees. we have been working with tni for a number of -- actually several years on this. we have -- the scoring of that -- the scoring that is related to cbo's determination that it is a new mandatory spending will occur, we are -- see the budget committee has been involved in making a reduction in the discretionary caps in the future to do the shift from governmental to -- from governmental to -- >> well, what -- >> cbo is continuing the governmental. omb -- i don't want to speak for omb -- >> the question is not about omb. but under this document in cbo they said they're extrapolating faa costs of running atc over a ten year period. [ please stand by ] >> the reason is because of this concept called a reserve fund. >> thaerjt. reserve funds are included for budget enforcement capabilities or provisions and for things that are yet to be determine

about the cob score -- cbo score.ator toomey say well we never ever thought that president trump would be a president trump. and that may be very true. but i voted more than 50 times to repeal obama care. but do you think we actually brought up that bill to vote on it once donald trump was the president? no they didn't bring up that bill because that was just pretend back then. they never did bring up that bill. >> we asked him why has it taken so long? i think that's the frustration with a lot of the american people. if the republicans have been promising this for seven years and they had that long to at least behind the scenes to be working on something, something to replace obama care with, why don't we have a conclusion? >> why not pass the house bill to his point? it's been out there. he said we voted on it 50 times we were doing like it was monopoly, it wasn't for real because we were playing around with it because we knew obama wouldn't sign it in the law. here's us repealing obama care. we've gone through the

if you look at the cbo report from 10 days ago, we are in real trouble. the numbers are genuinely very ugly. we are borrowing $2 billion per day. if we are here for an hour, that is $83 million per hour. it only gets dramatically worse. medicare part a is gone and less than seven years. if you are 50 years old, when you get ready to retire, social security trust fund is gone. single moste important elements going on in this federal government. host: how would your proposal tackle entitlement reform? guest: it doesn't. that has to be done at a much grander scale. this proposal is just debt management. into bethose moving baby boomers. -- average baby boomer more boomer will take out $330,000. you start to understand how much trouble medicare is in. how do you actually say, in the end of this decade, we will be over $30 trillion in publicly held debt? we will be over 91% of debt to gdp. this is nine years from now. this is all coming very quickly. i struggled and i wish i had a way or wonderful graphic. the debt crisis is quite possible. we are going to req

phil mattingly, i want to go to you first to talk about this cbo score. we have this new updated number that is quite significant because we talked about the repeal and replace bill and the price tag there. this is for just the repeal bill. >> yeah, and it's a little bit head spinning to know actually where we are in the debate process, which iteration of these various bills that are actually being considered by senate republicans, but this is the crux of the plan that senator mcconnell announced he's going to pursue. this would be, according to his statement, the first amendment up. the cbo has a score on that and why they turned it around so quickly is this is essentially a very similar version to the 2015 bill that the senate also voted on and the numbers are devastating, there's no question about it, because it's repeal only. it would save $473 billion over the course of 10 years, but in terms of coverage, by 2026, 32 million fewer than under current law would have no coverage. and the bigger issues would probably be premiums because republicans have

cbo's projecting 1.9% real gdp growth and our budget assuming 2.6% of real gdp. that generates $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. >> okay. let me just -- i appreciate that. so in the last 17 years, the american economy has grown on average each year about 2%. you're projecting over the next ten years that you're going to improve that economic performance by 0.6% each year. how do you do that? >> oh, i'll let my chief economist andy -- dr. morton answer that question. it is dr. morton. >> it it is. yes, sir. so this as rick mentioned at the outset, this is a -- >> is your microphone on, mr. morton? >> yes, it is. >> if you'll move it a little closer. >> as rick mentioned this budget -- the committee is -- of this year, it is taking the approach of a post policy budget. >> well, what does that mean? >> well, what we mean by that, this budget assumes a series of what we believe are and expect to be pro growth reforms and that includes the house passed version of the -- the house passed american health care act. welfare reform. comprehensive tax reform.

bush donald marn former acting director of the cbo. good morning, gentlemen. good to see you both. >> good morning. >> larry -- >> how are you doing >> i'm doing great. >> some pointed out that $200 billion over ten years is not that far a ride the how messy do you think this is going to be? >> oh, legislation is always messy. the point i would make is if the more conservative members don't like it and the left doesn't like it, you probably got it about right. >> donald, how about you >> you know, if you look at the budgets, it pencils in more than $6 trillion of spending reductions over the next ten years. but then they only ask this year's congress to come up with $200 billion of them and so i think you get the sense that the spending reductions they have in mind are, you know, aspirationally way outside what is possible. >> larry -- >> some of those are mandatory >> yeah. sorry, go ahead. >> i was going to say, hairy, when it comes to sort of the next phase beyond let's say getting to a budget here and what might get done on the tax front, you know, a lot o

julia: the bill the cbo analyzed did include an extra $17 billion for the cruz amendment. itn though it included that, did not have the amendment within the analysis it did. i am confused that they did not look at it themselves. if they do want to vote in some way, as the senate majority leader has talked about next week, how do they go about this? where else can they assess this? i have heard the department of health and human services analysis is out there. can they use that? kevin: the administration has the analysis hhs went out of how the cruz amendment would work. cbo said it will take a few more weeks for them to figure this one out, so they could use this. it is sort of at the discretion of the senate budget chairman as to how they do that, but that would really violate all kinds of congressional tradition and would really obviously anger the democrats. it also might not satisfy republicans. the cbo, at one point or another, will come out with something, and it is almost certainly going to contradict this hhs analysis, probably very dramatically, because some of th

cbo debunked that as well. if you leave the affordable care act in place over the course of the next 10 years, two or 3 million people will lose health care insurance. if you pass the republican health care bill, that is where the death spiral occurs. 23 million people lose insurance if you pass the republican bill. 23 million people lose insurance if you don't pass it. is again, president trump sameay health care plan will have muchr more -- lower premiums on deductibles. once again, the congressional budget office has premiums go up and deductibles if individuals of the preexisting condition go well. at the same time, taking care of preexisting conditions. this does not take care of people with three existing conditions because it allows for any state to allow insurance be companies to get out from the minimum benefits requirement. so if you have cancer, technically the senate republican bill says you can'tor be charged more, but you may not be able to find a plan that covers cancer treatments. so, that's not

ahead of this bill's defeat, the cbo score, which you brought up, they released its figures, the cbo, on just how many people would have been impacted had it passed. the cbo estimated that 16 million people, molly, would have lost their health insurance by 2026, which would have been lower than some of the other legislation. in addition to that, premiums would have risen 20% each year over the next decade. pretty astounding stuff. the bill would have also lowered the deficit by more than $135 billion over the next ten years, which is quite a cut there. at 12:15 this morning, democratic senator mark warner tweeted "we just now got the cbo score and final text of the gop health care repeal bill. we're supposed to vote on it in just a few minutes. molly, this along with the fractures that have been exposed during the health care debate in the house, what does it really say about the gop's ability here to govern? >> well, it says you need to go through regular order. >> yeah. >> and this is something that happened over on the house side as well because that cbo score belies the reality. i