this is something that came in with the aca. it had been in place at the state level and made it a federal pay several making. the only concern most people have about that is, how do you classify a medical cost? if we get a new piece of software that we can get you to a lower cost dr., is that a medical cost that we should count toward that or is that overhead? there are tough judgment calls but the basic idea is exactly that. sayinghe new york times that the trump administration says it would be willing to continue to pay subsidies to insurance companies under the affordable care act even though house republicans say it is vastly illegal. guest: these are subsidies that cover the out-of-pocket cost and sharing reductions. they are an integral part of the aca. if you want to keep the operating. they are not vibrant by any means and they are melting down in some places. if you want to keep them functional, you'll have to keep the money in, one way or the other. it is the house republicans believe that they do not have the authorit

i don't think we want to stop the aca. i thought it was the first and what was a series of reform to our health care sector, which was needed. i was wrong about the politics that became deeply partisan and ground to a halt for a very long time. it was undesirable from a policy perspective. we are beginning against it when we get to the end of whatever legislation passes this year, i hope we will have an improved health care sector. host: we hear claims from the president himself about the current system collapsing. we see insurance companies moving out of certain markets. you think a collapse is going to happen? guest: i think it is a fair concern. there are five whole states where there is only one insurer. at, we will go back to medical loss ratios and some of those counties and they are over 100%. they are paying out more in claims that they are taking premiums. they are not going to stay. i think it's a fair concern. host: let's go to our democrats line in blackwood, new jersey. kevin, go ahead. caller: i see both sides

that is one big reason to point to that the aca is not exploding. this big nonpartisan entity is saying that it is not. host: if you want to follow along the story is at npr.org. the author is with us for the next 40 minutes this morning on the "washington journal." questions or comments, you can join in. host: what else is working with the affordable care act? guest: people are shielded from those premium hikes. i believe it was political fact that found that roughly 2/3 of people who when they went and shocked for insurance the last time around were able to find insurance that wasn't going to bump up their premiums. this is on the exchanges again. if you shop for it and you are getting subsidies, you aren't feeling those premium hikes. we heard donald trump talk about those a lot. those big hikes we heard about in arizona of more than 100%, a lot of people just don't feel that. there's a difference between what is going on in the market itself and what the person on the ground is actually feeling. host: most people aren't, but some people are perha

what happens if the aca collapses? do those guys pay on the profit they made? do they have to pay taxes on that? they put it away tax-free to join the aca and now if it collapses you need to pay back all of that tax money you got to keep for free. plus the profits you made. they got to set aside that money. i don't know if you can answer that question. there is still that big question hanging out there. sure.tly, i'm not i haven't looked into that at all. that is something i will have to look at. nobody has asked me that. curtis is a republican in connecticut. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to change gears of little bit. i haven't heard a lot of speaking about this. this goes to the difference between democrats and republicans in general. you hear about the rights of people to health care. what about the responsibility of people to take care of their own health and make sure they are healthy? i know numerous people who have eaten themselves into obesity and then they go on disability. it's ridiculous.

i was making these points before the aca. there were issues in the individual market that needed to be addressed. my criticism is that what they did instead of using a scalpel, they used a sledgehammer and the process made things worse. if you go back to hippa and the port ability rules, they were good and have worked for group to group portability. they were not so good for group to individual portability. at least there was something there. that needed to be improved. then, where they were lacking was the lack of what was what we called individual to individual portability. that's where i started working on this in d.c. whether the g.w. health plan went away. people that were self-employed and bought that, were being treated as if they had just come in off the street and had no prior quoncoverage and they wer older and sicker. you are not putting the right incentives there if somebody who has done the right thing can now be created as if they had never had insurance. you had a template, hippa with some tweaks. you could have

if you continue with the aca, you go to $950 billion. if you don't look at that, if you look at it from purely a republican view, you'd say this thing's too big, it's out of control. most of the northern states had already done the expansions, the 31 states will roughly stay where they are. where is it unfair? the 19 southern states, largely southern and western, who didn't take medicaid expansion. that's really what the republicans are saying, enough's enough, we're going to make the states pay some of their match after 20 to. we're going -- 2020, we're going to freeze it in place. even doing that, spending goes from $600 billion a year on medicaid to $750 billion a year. the them, it's largely a fiscal issue and how big and how fast and how much. you're basically freezing it where it is, and some of the northern states you're telling some of the governors, you know what? we're going to garage aally scale you -- gradually scale you back. if you look at the bill, republicans were irritated -- a lot of people in this room, i think -- in th

from a republican point of view, i think they look at the aca as just too big, and they wouldn't have done it that large. and if you'd asked them in 2010, i would have been comfortable with doing 50% or 60% of it. just on the medicaid side, the money and the real issues are in medicaid expansion. i was at omb in 1989, we had 20 million people in the program that $50 billion a year. before the aca, before it passed, we had 55 million people in the medicaid program in 2010, and i think it cost about $400 billion a year. today we've got 77 million people in the medicaid program, and it's about $600 billion a year, ok? so what's the real difference in the next 10 years, if you look at what the ryan bill does, you'd have 75 million people in medicaid in 10 years, so you basically freeze it in place. you'll lose a few million people from the phasing out, you're assuming the governors will drop some people, but the growth goes to $750 billion in the next 10 years. and the republicans' attitude is this thing's grown too fast, we're going to freeze it in place. if you continue with the aca, yo

they, they ran for seven years on a program of repealing the aca. and now they've won the house and the senate and the white house, and they're trying to work out whether they can do that. the problem is that the republicans in the house, it's not monolithic. they are about 240 different voices who have all their own ideas. and some of them want to simply repeal the aca and not replace it with anything at all. there are some who want to repeal the aca and replace it with something, maybe not quite as all-encompassing. and therefore a little less expensive. and there, there are others with all sorts of different views. but the point is, they can't agree with each other on what to do. and so where it stands right now, they couldn't even bring up a bill. now i want to tell you. my brother member of congress here in the lehigh valley, charlie dent, made it clear that he wasn't for that bill they cobbled together. and i think he's, he's kind of in the same neighborhood as me on that, that he wants to see something that works. obviously, there are a lot of

if you continue with the aca you go from 600 billion to 950 billion. we go from 77 million to 97 million people. those are just the scores. i would say this thing is too big, it's out of control, let's freeze it where it is. most the northern states have already done the expansion. where's the inequity in that, many of the southern states didn't take medicaid expansions. those governors seem to be okay with that. that's really what they're saying. enough is enough, were not doing anymore and we will make the states pay some of their match after 2020, we will basically not do more expansion and freezer in place. even doing that spending goes from 600 billion a year to 750. it's largely a fiscal issue and how big and how fast and how much. you're not really cutting medicaid. you're basically freezing it where it is and some of the northern states you're saying we have 95% matches. we will gradually scalia back to your match rate. basically to me, the republicans are irritated, and a lot of people in this room, in the republican bill you had a permanent ta

they ran for seven years on a program of appealing the aca. -- repealing the aca. now they have won the house and senate and the white house. they are trying to work out whether they can do that. the problem is it is not monolithic. there are about to 40 different -- 240 different voices that have their own ideas. some of them want to simply some of them want to simply repeal the aca and not replace it with anything at all. there are some who want to repeal the aca and replace it with something. maybe not quite as all-encompassing. therefore, a little less expensive. there are others with all sorts of different views. the point is, they cannot agree with each other on what to do. where it stands right now, they could not even bring up a bill. i want to tell you. my brother member of congress made a clear he was not for the bill they cobbled together, and i think he is kind of in the same neighborhood as me. he wants to see something that works. obviously, there are a lot of problems with the aca. it is too expensive on some groups. it has deductibles that are too h

obviously, there are a lot of problems with the aca. it has deductibles that are too high on some of the groups. it is too expensive on some groups. it involves some taxes that disparately impact some groups and some industries. i am particularly not happy with a couple of items on that. i won't go into all of them, but the cadillac tax is one of them. the tax on medical devices, i am not sure it is fair and it actually hurts some of the manufacturers right here in the lehigh valley. so i have said i would be willing to look at that. but the question is, how can we support affordable health care for all? and i think the answer is -- and i forgot who said it, but we have moved the needle on this discussion. it used to be no way, no how. now it is, let's make it work. my hope, i really do hope this, is that members of congress from both sides of the aisle will come together. people like charlie dent and me, and work out something to work out the kinks of the aca and make it work for everybody. and i think the thing that is driving that, th

what the aca did, where we are with medicaid. what's under discussion and we're going to talk about the considerations and possible implications moving forward. so we are lucky to have with us today three exceptional panelists, you'll notice there is one empty seat and that belongs to trish riley. unfortunately because of the crazy weather we had d.c. trisha's not going to be able to get into town. so she will not be with us. fear not, our three other panelists here watch what's happening in the states very closely and will be able to give us a full picture of what's happening. so first to my left, we have diane roland, executive vice president of the kaiser family foundation. diane was also the inaugural chair of mac pac which advised congress on medicaid policy. to her left is josh archambault. he spent time here in d.c. with the heritage foundation. he's up in massachusetts where he also worked for former governor mitt romney. and at the end of the panel, we have judith solomon, judy is vice president for health policy at the c

the aca has been instrumental in addressing the opioid crisis. inexcusably, trumpcare would exacerbate the crisis. thanks to the aca 1.6 million people with substance abuse disorders can receive the treatment they need. trumpcare eventually ends medicaid expansion in 2020. bo,ording to the c trumpcare cuts medicaid over the next 10 years, which severely undermines our efforts to fight the opioid crisis. these will russian care for millions of americans, including substance abuse treatment. essentialreveals health benefits for medicaid expansion enrollees at the end of 2016. offer no longer have to prescription drugs to americans that rely on such care. repealing the essential benefits remove would approximately $5.5 billion annually for the treatment of low income people with mental and substance abuse disorders. the repeal would take care from those seeking services, and we cannot eliminate this care and what is often a life and death situation. tompcare threatens access lifesaving treatment for one million people with lifesaving disorders. i wo

they came back down when the aca was passed. and at the same time, you have one in three medicare advantage subscribers on private plans. it worked. it worked well. when republicans were in charge previously, they were willing to try it. we saw the numbers work. why not now? >> jon: we'll see what they come up with. again, we don't have the new legislation yet. isaac, kristen, thank you both. >> thank you. >> jenna: suspected chemical weapons attack killing dozens in northern syria including children. activist groups are pointing the finger to russia or syria. government leaders from across the world are reacting. plus, one man's arrest sparking debate. can local law enforcement hold people after their criminal cases are concluded based on federal immigration requests? that question argued in one of the state's highest courts today. we'll explain where and why it matters next. ♪ ♪ ♪ wanna get away? now you can with southwest fares as low as 59 dollars one-way. yes to low fares with nothing to hide. that's transfarency. aleve with

and what's not the fault of the aca. we have to move to a better system. >> i think he is at play right. i think it's changing the conversation. we tend to focus on the crisis of the day and short-term savings and what we are really talking about is changing the system so we are talking about long-term savings and also improvements in the quality of care that's delivered. some of the changes that we are talking about now may not result in a lot of savings that may improve the quality of care and improve life. >> i want to leave a few minutes here to offer questions from the audience. raise your hand if you want to get in on the conversation. there's one up here. >> on the policy director of the d.c. primary care association and one of the issues for us is looking at how to utilize the health care system on addressing social determinants when we are in this environment of scarcity of resources for fundamental health care and knowing that we really need to be looking at these social issues that are impacting health. i haven

and there are a number of issues that sort of they like within the aca, but they don't like when we talkut obamacare. >> it was fascinating about the evolution of popularity for this thing that was once so popular. but, sam, you talked about the base, and certainly the democrats are upset. we are seeing increasingly a segment of the republican population that voted for donald trump becoming upset by what they view as flip-flopping. >> right. [ chuckles ] >> and they certainly peg a lot of that blame on republicans like pat meehan, who we saw. >> well, pat meehan is not in trouble. pat meehan will win overwhelmingly. he controls his district. there's nobody out there. the democrats have nobody to run against him. two, the mistake was they had seven and a half years to have this ready. if you, at the other side -- this was like the tea party the last time around, brian -- and get the ball rolling that way, republicans were cowering. and then this internal struggle right now, which i think the freedom caucus is winning, not the moderates, of whatever comes out of this. that's the struggle t

what happened with, that was created by the aca, and just where are we? what is our starting point? ell, we've spent much of the last few years talking about medicaid in a very narrow way. we've been talking primarily because of the affordable care act about medicaid's role as an expansion program to cover additional adults who are very low income but who didn't previously qualify for the program. and i think to remind you, that goes back really to the history of medicaid, enacted in 1965 as the program that was intended to provide coverage at that time to the welfare population, since expanded tremendously. but in that era, the aged, blind and disabled, children and adults with dependent children. initially, just single adults with feint children. and as we've -- with dependent children. and as we've seen over time, we've expanded the role of medicaid to be role of insurer for many children, help with long-term services and supports for the elderly and disabled as well as children with special health needs. but states were unable to obtain the federal matching funds if they wanted t

krishnamoorthi: i think that the current system, the aca has problems and we have to work in a bipartisan way to fix them. but the ahca, the president and gop plan i think fell far short, leaving 24 million people without health insurance, raising premiums for seniors and the most recent iteration ahca 2.0 is worse. it allows insurance companies, in states that allow it, to charge whatever they want based on preexisting conditions and exempts members of congress. i think that is wrong. i am on obamacare. this is something we have to fix in a bipartisan way. rep. banks: i supported the ahca from the beginning because it moved forward a true solution to solving the healthcare crisis in this country that was brought about by the aca. i give the president credit for his leadership and bringing all factions, all sides within the republican party together. we are on the brink of passing the american health care act in the house and sending it to the senate, that is what leadership looks like. soledad: final question for you, how do you feel about our place on the world stage if you will under p

host: you are talking about the aca requirement. that is not one of the regulations that were rolled back here. talk a little bit about the possibility in these last days. some health care relations might be targeted. guest: sure. thanks, bill. there are a handful of health regulations that were finalized at the very end of the obama administration which could potentially be in the mix there. they are less specific to things like what you're talking about with the irs that is part of the aca or acha. there are things like work or health and safety protections. there are a couple of things that have been rolled back the deal with safe workplaces and disclosure of safe workplace information. there's not really anything directly connected with medicare, medicaid, or our health system, the way those bigger changes would be. host: gerald is calling from wyoming. caller: yeah, i'm calling in, i will keep it short. i'm 85 years old and a retired schoolteacher. i just wanted to thank the young lady for being a part and very articulate member

pudualandate in the aca, a requirement that all americans buy health penalties, and say policies are reduced the number of americans without health insurance to less than that's down from more than 17% in 2013. the aca failed to control hea insurance prices on the exchanges went up an average of govnment provides are extremely expensive. this week, republicans say the fighto over yet. >> obamacare is doing too much damage to families.so, we're go right. >> jonathan bush is the ceo of oubased service that provides recordkeeping and medical billing for 88ee you. thanks for being here beck of right now.onathan, the plac is t >> obviously, in general, if you're in shsiks from the politl are always a direction, evead shocks. so, anything t our work is good little more competitive andfolk- you bad there's a lot price can do. there's a lot we can do, as work. e> by price, you mean in the regulations? >> tsnten of the wer in new competition at the low lots of t like tur would rather not have it t their salary as they want. lthobama distribution infrastructure to give the s fines if they didn'

as remarks came during briefing with other house addressing the aca, the upcoming government funding deadline, and the white house response to north korea. this is 35 minutes.

in the aca. one of the things that we're hearing that might be altered in a dramatic way, with this new bill, patients with preexisting conditions, states being able to opt out of providing care to folks who have preexisting conditions. if that's not part of the final bill will you still support it? >> let me address you what you said. there are -- there is an amendment being sent around, of course, that was an agreement with our sort of moderate side of the republican party and the ride side as well too. it says there will be a federal standard for essential health benefits and preexisting conditions. it's not that states can opt out. they have to come and ask for a waiver. >> right. >> and have to be able to make their case. that's something that's traditional. that's happened for years throughout, you know, the states where governors and states would come and ask for waivers for certain things. so i think it politically would be difficult to do that. that being said there is a federal standard

jarrett: children, i met mothers before the aca was passed to was worrying -- or worrying about whether they could afford to get their children the treatment or women who worried about preventative care without a co-pay. we always put ourselves last and now there's no excuse, you can get that annual checkup without worrying about lifetime or annual caps. there's a lot of the aca that didn't get the attention that i thought it observed, and if you say repeal it, i say to you, why? the question you pose, what do we do to improve it? the exchange is healthier. part of what would have helped is if the republicans have helped us to younger to -- market to younger people. on the board know, you want a reasonably healthy pool, it makes the numbers work. young people think that they will live forever and it's hard to get them to buy insurance. the marketing is better at getting a better mix in the pool but it helps. perhaps we should have had more of a subsidy to help the insurance companies until the pool was healthy enough that they were pulling out of some of the markets. we did see the insu

if you have options on the achange, let that person buy non-aca compliant plan. and you can. they are available in the state, but then not fine them, penalize them. we have people buying stuff, then buying the other plans because they can afford it. the problem is not just people inaccessibility. people can get access. it is the affordability of it. that is true for many veterans. kellie: i wanted to drill down on the discussion of trump's budget request which you brought up in a previous question. a 6% increase, we are waiting for more information later in may on the larger budget rollout. but you have previously said you don't know if it is necessarily meaning more funds given the year of increases. it might just be a matter of how the money is spent. in light of those comments can , you talk about the proposed increase to the v.a. and what you think of it? phil roe: i can. obviously resources are needed. it is how you use those resources. let me just run through. i have not been here that long. i have been here since 2009, so eight years. when i came here v.a. was , spendin

the second -- and this is something not actually related to the aca other than in a very peripheral way. the medicaid current match structure really makes very little sense for anything other than to start a program. what you have with the aca expansion is the highest match rate covering the higher income of the poor-low income population. it started, as you all know, as 100%. it's in the process of walking itself down to the 90%. even so, that is way beyond the matching rate that exists for the base medicaid population, which as you know, is between 50 and 73%. it not only doesn't make sense to have different match race, but this seems to have it backwards. you would think the federal government ought to pay a larger share for the poorest of the poor and that for those that are near the cutoff in terms of medicaid expansion. we understand why that happened to try to lure as many states in as possible. but once we are on any kind of stable footing, that needs to be resolved. we need to find a match rate probably somewhere between the base match rate and the new match rate and have it ap

. >> if i could go to the cost-sharing reduction, the aca payments to insurers, how long would democrats like to see those payments appropriated in the president has indicated he might withhold paying them on the administration side? is that something you would like to see permanent, or are you just talking about this full-year 2017? >> i would like to see the reauthorization permanent, but realistically that is not doable. certainly we want to make sure there is no disruption in the individual insurance market based on a potentially adverse appeal in the court system, where that case now rests, or some other move on the part of the administration. we want to make sure we have it for the rest of the fiscal year, and then we can negotiate past that. there's a new discussion today from tom macarthur that looks like republicans are trying to revise their talks on that bill. do you see anything that you could support, and do you think republicans have any shot at getting this across the finish line? >> the answered your first question is i find it hard to believe they could pose anything tha

the first is that it is important to acknowledge that medicaid has been the aca's clear success story, and i don't think we can ignore what we have been able to see. the medicaid expansion actually accounts for the majority of newly insured. it has been able to do this without experiencing the kind of churn we have seen in the exchanges. but on the somewhat negative side, the spending is running much higher on a per-person level than was predicted. the second year, as expected, tends to be lower per capita spending than the first year somebody is on. even so, it is way above what the expectations were, so that's one observation point. the second -- and this is something that is not actually related to the aca, other than in a very peripheral way -- the medicaid current match structure really makes very little sense for anything other than to start a program. what you have with the aca expansion is the highest match rate covering the higher income of the poor low-income population. it started, as you all know, at 100%. it's in the process of walking itself down to 90%. even so, that is

the aca. so many different names. one of my favorite things, i could run the numbers, but one of my favorite things about this is that we are all having a conversation about health care in this country. this, we were having there may have been a few people that were health care reform activists. many families, many people were suffering with how to figure out their bills, how to get insurance -- all of these different things. at least now, in this country, because we have this large discussion, we can say that we have a problem. we do not all get the same care. and when we do, it is not always the right care. and we should be able to do better. let us take that as the opening for what we can do for the future. there are a couple of things i am excited about. the first part is getting to the discussion of this. i will not talk that much longer. there are many things going on in the country that actually can help us start to think about what we want for the future so that when someone says -- well, what is your idea of h

on anything like the aca. but now it is, let's make it work. >> the competitive enterprise institute, on science and public policy. scientific research should be separated from government. the new would not find climate s being an orthodoxy enforcing political movement. but rather, the quest for knowledge. >> treasury secretary steve mnuchin. >> the objectives are simplified personal taxes, create middle income tax cuts. and, make our business texas competitive. >> former ambassador to afghanistan ran crocker. >> we have to work with the afghans to stabilize the situation against a telegram onslaught. then move ahead with a political process that will have to include pakistan. >> attorney general jeff sessions on trans-national crime organizations. >> if you are a gang member, we will find you. we will devastate your networks, we will starve your revenue sources, to your ranks, and sieze your profits. we will not concede a single block or streetcorner. >> c-span programs are available at c-span.org, on our home

what impacts and what impact the failed attempt to repeal the aca will have. with that i like to bring up pauline chawla, good afternoon pauline from the department of public health. >> good afternoon supervisors. thank you for having me. arlene joplin for the department of public health. i have just a brief overview for you on what is occurred since i was last here just about two weeks ago related to the affordable care act. so primarily what i want to say is that the affordable care act remains in place. there have been no changes.. i think the most significant development took place the day after i was here last week, last month. on march 24, the majority leaders in the house of representatives canceled a key vote on the affordable care act on american healthcare act, that is, and this is really a win for the 133,000 san franciscans who've been benefited from the aca sponsored health insurance. when i was here last i talked about the american healthcare act which would repeal and replace the affordable care act. as i described to you previously, the american

the aca mandate only applies to the employer of the female employees, the employer was hobby lobby but even though the mandate didn't even apply family that owned the company judge gorsuch said they should be able to challenge the aca anyway. i practiced law for a long time, there is a complete situation, separation between individuals and a company. you can run a business and not incorporate it and there is no separation but as soon as you incorporate it you get all kinds of protection, especially protect your own personal assets from liability for corporate action. the green family had done that the judge gorsuch said even though you voluntarily separating yourself from the company and even though the mandate doesn't apply to you, you should be able to file a lawsuit to challenge the mandate. i found that to be highly highly unusual. a great stretch. i asked about it when we talked and he did not give me a satisfactory answer. here is the thing about the hobby lobby case. it was the way judge gorsuch described what the case was about. the majority opinion in the 10th circuit and the

states have different issues with accessibility or lack of competition, no matter where you are, the aca has problems, but the problem mix is different. for us we have to come to a solution how our hard working population that buy their over coverage how we will get them that coverage. maria: right, you have to come up with a solution at same time coming up with ideas not alienating 50 members from your party. do you think you will be able to do that within the next two weeks. >> yeah, i actually do. i believe we did a good thing with representative palmer, myself, last week, where we added the risk sharing, that has -- we've seen first report on that that appears to have strong what we call premium efficiency, one end of the scale it is almost a third reduction. we're not talking employer-base or medicare, we're doing some talking about medicare, but not medicaid. but all other -- it is that individual purchasing market that is falling apart, we think we've done some things to lower the premiums. maria: terrific, let me ask you about tax reform, president trump say he will announce a ma

. >> the accomplishment there is that the aca still stands. >> the failure of repeal and replace has a negative impact on tax reform and the gorsuch nomination and the way it was done has a negative effect on the prospect for tax reform. on the aca repeal, i think the president, the inability of congressional republicans to coalesce around things, the president's inability to force them to coalesce around things lessened his sway. it empowers and influences republicans to push for their things. the baseline changes in revenue changes on the ability to get some of the tax reform done through saving money in repeal and replace has a practical real-world effect. i think the affect of the gorsuch nomination and the limits of nuclear option, i think that senators on both sides regrets. it's raises the tension level and raises -- lowers in significant ways the willingness which was very low of democrats to find any areas of compromise with their republican colleagues. congress will get done what it must get done. it will continue to fund the government. it will raise the debt ceiling. it w

i think there are ways which the aca could have been improved. it covers wanted at a sensible conversation on the merits, they could come up with solutions. i did not think the plan that was proposed by the republicans that would have dumped 24 million people over 10 years off of the insurance plans was a good solution. but there certainly could be ones that would work. >> thank you. this is from tom mcelroy. tom, where are you? valerie: all the way in the back. that's good. t-rex he wants to know all of the work that your team to to structure a smooth transition, it appears that the current administration has ignored that or chose not to act. how do you really feel? valerie: thanks, tom. our job was to do the very best job we could preparing as many transitions -- both documents and in person meetings as possible, so that they had the benefit of what we learned over a years. then it is up to them to choose how to go forward. elections matter. they have consequences. i can't tell you that we accepted everything president bush's team told us. we di

even attached to repealing the key provisions in the aca. i don't think this debate has fully played out. on its own, sure. when attached to the budget? not simple. >> david sanger, let's talk about it internationally. a pivot on nafta. a big meeting at the white house about north korea. >> two pivots on nafta. we were told by the white house staff yesterday the president was getting ready to pull out of nafta. seemed strange. then he gets on the telephone and tux both his mexican and canadian counterparts. i'm not getting out of nafta. i want to renegotiate provisions of it. we think the initial announcement was meant for leverage. it was classic trump. they gathered all 100 senators in the meeting at the white house in a room that is not usually secure. they tried to secure it for this for a briefing on north korea that several senators called me afterwards and said i learned less from this than i read in the new york times and in the washington post. >> did he mention "new day?" >> they just didn't get that far. what was that all about? th