care. what they care about is that we are addressing the crisis in the most aggressive and effective manner possible. we will have to leave it there. thanks. the house health care bill does face an uncertain future in the senate. republicans can afford to lose only two votes, there is a gap between what hard liners want, and what the rest will accept. joining us on meet the press, start with something that secretary price said. he will improve medicaid by cutting, at least in the first version of this bill. we don t have a score from the congressional budget office, how much would be cut from this bill. $880 billion, making it better? the president doesn t propose something he likes like the military, will be made cutting almost a trillion from the military. he wants to spend more. we were on the path to spend
to be cut in the first version of this bill and there s no cbo score because they rushed it through before getting the accounting from the nonpartisan congressional budget office, but the first version had $880 billion cut from medicaid. that goes right against the president s promise not to cut medicaid. no, what it does is say there s a better way to do things. imagine a system, if you will, where if you have insurance through your employer, but you fall on tough times and you fall into the medicaid market, that that transition is seamless. imagine if you go the other way, from medicaid to employer sponsored insurance, that that transition is seamless. imagine you go from medicaid to the exchange market that that transition is seamless. right now there are huge holes in the things. we don t want to pull out the rug from anybody. but you found with all due respect, you found $880 billion. isn t this another way to come up with close to a trillion
reporter: one of the big concerns as medicaid cuts. $880 billion worth of cuts over the next ten years. that has been a big concern. the issue is the lower income americans, many stand to lose their insurance that they got under obamacare when medicare was expanded in certain states. the health secretary tom price says that s not true, these americans will have choices to choose from through the state double the side what s best. take a listen. we believe strongly that the medicaid population will be cared for in a better way under our program because it will be more responsive to them. right now you have washington d.c. dictating to the states and patients exactly what must occ
republicans did to them on health care. do you detect such a plan? you know, i thought when nancy pelosi said this will be tattooed on your forehead and you will glow in the dark, i think that gave you an indicator because one of the things you can t do in american politics easily is take away a benefit from a whole lot of people. and for all of this talk of fiddling with the individual insurance market, this bill whacks $880 billion out of medicare. it takes another $300 billion out of subsidies to pay for tax cuts. there will be a lot of americans, many of them donald trump supporters, in states like west virginia, kentucky, louisiana, arkansas, who would really, really be hurt by this republican bill. and i think democrats have said and should keep saying if you want to fix the problems with obamacare, even barack obama says he wants to fix the problems with obamacare, let s
this bill are two fundamental transfers of kind of resources. on the one hand you have a big tax cut by repealing the obamacare surcharges on the top earners offset by an enormous reduction in medicaid spending that would be $880 billion over the decade. 14 million fewer people will be on medicaid and i think that will be the crux of the issue in the senate because there have been a number of republican states that have expanded medicaid and it has reached precisely what has become the core of the new republican coalition. the other change, the other shift in the bill is an enormous shift of costs from towards sick people away from healthy people. there s no question that the changes in insurance that the republicans are proposing would in many cases reduce costs for younger healthier people at the price of making insurance much more expensive if available at all for older and sicker people with greater health needs. and in essence taking us back almost entirely to a