announce his decision about the iran nuclear deal. we begin in open phones. let us know your thoughts on any of the public policy issues. (202)ican call-in at 784-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independence (202) 748-8002. you can also catch us on social media. good right a morning to you. our lead story this morning involves puerto rico, the iran nuclear deal, and headline. we have front-page stories. on the iran nuclear deal, president trump will announce his policy toward a iran. p.m.t is happening at 1245 the president is acted to address the value voters summit. 10:30s happening around a.m. the president is acted to have his address. the big news out of the lighthouse was the health care front and politico broke the story. the posted the story about subsidies any plan changes. is going to cut off subsidy payments in his most aggressive move yet to undermine the health care law or it -- law. $7 subsidies are worth billion this year. they are paid out in monthly installments. they may stop immediately. that is some of the reporting from the politico story. phone lines are open in the first hour. publicans are (202) 784-8001. democrats are (202) 748-8000. and dependent voters are (202) 748-8002. the president is already up and tweeting, talking about the order will care act. plenty of democrats with lots to say about presidents action, in putting a senator from hawaii. he tweeted out. then there is bob casey of pennsylvania. that is just some of the reaction this morning. we are talking about all of the major stories out of washington. the lines are your. mike is on the line for democrats or it. caller: i just want to ask those people in kentucky and places of aca,nature that have the how do they feel about what their president has done for them? host: how do you feel? caller: it's going to be terrible. have twounate not to deal with that. i can imagine a single parent with kids who need that care and don't know which way to turn. it's not going to be good and. host: where do you get through -- insurance? caller: through my employer. host: charlie, go ahead. isler: the health care issue an important issue. i don't think some people have mentioned this will take years for changes to be made. i would like to question one states saidited there with drawing from unesco. that might be because of their antivirus against israel. there is a lot of money going to israel. is hidden money that goes to military use. it is beyond belief. there is nott represent all the believes of the israeli citizens. does it make a difference to you that the united states has withheld funds? important ofis an information. the fact they are using no differently than people who were goodsting and overturned going to israel, it seems that israel has too much influence lobby inic biggest united states is a pack. the state department is talking about departing. we want to hear your thoughts. we have lots of talk about. ben is in state college, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. just a shame that the two parties can't work together. we saw a couple of weeks ago when they tried to work together. we saw how that worked out. nobody liked it. i got the feeling maybe they were trying to alienate him from the base. if they do something with health care, i benefit from obamacare. i am a college student. there are things in obamacare that are beneficial. if they could reach across the aisle, that would be the ultimate solution. host: that is not the only change they are looking to make in the affordable care act. that came after the president announced a new executive order the white house on the other changes he is looking to make. this is the president explain it. >> we aim to allow more small as this is to form associations to buy health insurance. this would open up additional options for employers to purchase the health plans their workers want. i am also directing the secretary to expand these associations and these health care plans a ross state lines. remain -- create lowerition and change prices for millions of americans. insurance companies will be fighting to get every single person signed up here in you will be negotiating. such low prices for such great care. it should have been done a long time ago it. host: that was president trump at the white house yesterday. if you want to watch that ceremony, you can go to our website www.c-span.org. 30th anniversary of the c-span video library. it happened yesterday or 30 years ago, you can check out we are talking more about health care. by a going to be joined health care reporter. we will talk about the negative order and the health care subsidies. the around for that. in the meantime, the phones are yours in we want to hear your thoughts. let's go to robert in oklahoma. caller: i don't think it's unusual. doesn't turn in his income tax, he talks about locker room stuff. he doesn't show his business is. we should treat him like what he -- is president trump's businesses are in the washington post. these orking about teams of played in trump properties. teams lose an affinity for trump hotels. majorall all of the four leagues. are winding out if we are staying at trump owned hotels, if that has changed in recent years. teams havethat 17 stayed at trump properties in recent years. 16 of them are no longer customers. all 123ched out to teams. 106 responded. no one would confirm. susan is in arizona. go ahead and. caller: good morning. speech.the they were talking about medicare. , he worked at a company for 17 years. we have one insurance and we can take anything we wanted. we never had problems. then i got hurt at my work. i am disabled now. he lost his job. he had to take this insurance. paid $1000 a month. .e has to pay the for myary, i had to pay prescriptions. take three dollars to get my shots. dr., that's $30. to see another doctor to help me with my. host: you think president trump can ask this? are you confident that republicans can fix the cost problem's? caller: he is out there talking to different people. if the democrats and republicans would work together, fix it. drop myng to have to cable bill. use $130. i still haven't paid for my medicine. i am on medicaid. i got thrown from my forklift. soon you need help? our for a had to sell one. it has been so hard on us. i am not going to see everything on tv or read. turnare getting ready to the cable law. host: james is in north carolina. go ahead. i want to say good morning. heart to call in and republicans went out and voted for donald trump. precisely whatg they voted for. he is going to turn our lives upside down. the ownerslayers, if make them stand for the national leadersthose black should walk off the field. let's see if the nfl can survive without the black players. no one is going to pay to see 22 white guys play foot all. they have more power than they think and they should utilize that power. boycott seven universities and see if they can make it that way as well. host: we are going to be talking more about speech issues. we will be joined by floyd abrams. he is a noted constitutional attorney. stick around for that. the president's tweets yesterday on puerto rico with the subject of a lot of discussion. this is a reminder of what those tweets said. this was the president yesterday morning. there was a lot of that clash on capitol hill when it comes to the president we did this is nancy closely. morningresident we this , it's hard rating. lacking knowledge. it's lacks knowledge about the role of fema in times of natural disasters. the responsibility as the government is to the people of our country. the people of the virgin islands rico are american citizens. they fight in our wars. we are all americans and we owe them what they need. it's about what they need. this is only part of it. let me thank you for that question. we're talking about emergency relief. there is going to have to be recovery and that's another budget. host: that was nancy pelosi yesterday. john kelly was asked about this at the white house press briefing. first responders. when you go somewhere as a first responder, you are trying very hard to work yourself out of a job. there will be a time in which we hope the u.s. military and fema can withdraw. the government and the people of order rico are recovering sufficiently. i just don't the phone with the governor of puerto rico. president deals with them periodically. we saw him when we were down there last week. our country will stand with those american citizens until the job is done. the tweet about fema and dod is exactly accurate. we are not going to be there forever. transition too the rebuilding process. host: we will be showing more of that press briefing and the unusual appearance by the chief of staff taking a lot of questions yesterday. host: "in our first segment. this.e all of go ahead. caller: thank you. what i want to bring the point to is president trump. he is the white privilege president. psychology on people. i want to see his transcript and his birth certificate. get to the united states? what is her background? trump.alk about are you interested in the tax returns? caller: these people have got to go. why did they keep the government open? comp would have nothing. the republicans have to get together. it was stupid. they should not be doing any of the stuff they are doing. black people are the base of the democratic party. nancy pelosi chuck schumer are going to do anything donald trump wants and he still not going to sign daca. he is a buffoon. host: michael is in illinois. i am on the phone here. , she acteder right like the lien of government. at least the president is trying to do something. there are some counties you can't get insurance. some people don't make enough money. i am a middle-class person. i am also on disability. i pay $323. at least i have insurance. some people can't even afford insurance. they are going to get stuck with this major bill. believe people are talking about this. if they should be happy that we are going to do something different. one other story we are keeping track of a midst many stories today is the elect oral future of susan collins in maine. electoral future of susan collins. and theoised to up governor's race. us on theepherd joins phone. he is on his way to an event. she is expected to announce her planet. at this point, explain where we are western mark. not let much slip. either run for governor in 2018, the primary is june. she could stay in her senate seat. in 2020.rned out that would be the end of her worth term. and the racelly up if she gets in. the governor's race is happening because the governor is term limited out. explain the state of the race right now. guest: it's unsettled. she has voted twice against republican proposals to repeal act. herdable care standing in the party may not he is high as in the past. in the past, she would've had a earshot to run governor area the there are two state legislators in the race. i think the republicans smell blood in the water. i think she would be hard to beat in the primary. see hers do not want to in november next year. key no votes was a in the repeal and replace effort of the affordable care act. what does republican leadership want? would they want to see her go western mark -- go? guest: i think they would like to keep the seat. in a statewide election, anybody can get elected. we have an independent senator who caucuses with democrats. we have senator collins. the governor is very conservative. republicans, i think it would like to see her stay. host: how much movement are you seeing in maine? who are the names should know about? guest: i don't think that's set up yet. a lot of people are jumping in, similar to our senator when he decided to retire in 2012. there was a huge group of people who jumped in. that scared some people away. they are not really plotting a return. it's too early to say. host: how long do we have to wait until we find out? guest: she is on stage at a chamber commerce breakfast scheduled at 8:00. there is media availability. i'm not sure whether she is going to announce on the stage or afterward. it's not much longer. we will let our viewers know at 10:00 today. phones here onen washington journal. today, we want to hear what on your line. go ahead. i would like to have a shout out to the mayor. i used to play guitars with him. wake up. when they passed the gun laws, the crime rate doubled. it's ridiculous. me and said --ls why don't the police want to know the truth? $30,000 a year up to 60,000 year to keep them in prison. what is better for our people? host: that is a caller in indiana on the issue of gun laws in this country and what is and is not happening on capitol hill. the editorial board of the new york times takes up this issue under the headline the gun carnage as time goes by. they write the law's biggest shooter was one of the hard-core arsenal owners and he stockpiled -- las vegas shooter was one of the hard-core arsenal owners. the government should be asking how he was able to do this and how it could have been preventing. in the nation's continuing sorrow, it's clear little can be expected of the president and congressional leaders as time go by and the next mass shooting grows near. on the line for independents, go ahead. caller: i'm really not even independent, i am a nonvoter -- host: you are a what voter? caller: the last time i voted was for jimmy carter and that really got to me, the way we were embarrassed. it was terrible. can i ask what it would take for you to vote again? .aller: i don't know it so difficult, i can't tell who is telling the truth. can i say what i am going to say? host: go for it. upler: the california fires there in california. the epa and california regulatory people made sure they would not burn down these trees even though they were suggested to do this and now we have these massive, massive fires and 31 people are killed. that's really heartbreaking. i don't know why they didn't have a controlled burn. number two, this has to do with the nfl. dissent and i won the lottery in 1970 and got to go to vietnam and defend my country so when i see this nfl thing and i go to my local market and see some of these people seeing these nfl shirts, i get very hurt. even though i didn't want to go, i served my country and i don't like to see people taking knees. i just want to let people know stick up for this country and i want california to know you have reasons we have these fires. we could've prevented that and 31 people i think died because our governor and our people -- our state representatives have not done their job correctly. got your point on the issue of fire control forest service. we will talk about that as an entire segment on monday's program devoted to that -- to that topic. virginia, --d richmond, virginia, line for republicans. go ahead. caller: with regards to the president and his executive economici can see the principles on which he is working here and i think they will work, but i am concerned about whether or not the things -- thechanged permissions that were granted to the insurance companies here were things that were forbidden by the affordable care act. if that is the case, then the president is doing the same thing that obama did, which is changing the law by executive order. i would appreciate if we could get a little information about whether these things he changed by executive order are things that are outside the president's purview with records -- regards to the affordable care act. host: mike, appreciate the question, i will ask caitlin owens about it joining us in our 9:00 hour. i do appreciate it, thanks for that question. the president tweeting again this morning about the health care law saying obamacare is a broken mess, piece by piece we will begin the process of giving america the great health care that it deserves. we will keep track of the president's tweets this morning and see what else he has to say about it. ryan is on the line for democrats in illinois, go ahead. caller: good morning, john. thank you for c-span. host: go ahead. caller: all these people are talking about the nfl players kneeling for the national anthem. i want to know where that outrage is for president trump when yesterday or the day before he was on sean hannity on a national guard airbase in pennsylvania and while he was doing the interview, retreat started going off -- colors. at the end of the day if you are on a military base in the military, you are required to stand and salute toward the direction of the flag. where is the outrage for the disrespect of the flag and the troops when it goes off and you can see trump doesn't even know what it is? he asks sean hannity what it is and assumes they are playing it for him or he makes a joke they are playing it for hannity's rating. i think that is disgusting. as a veteran, i think that is a much bigger disrespect than any player silently kneeling. i think people should wake up and see that's all just a smokescreen for racism and it has nothing to do with the troops and disrespecting the flag or anything like that. host: that story you are talking about is getting attention from the washington examiner today. here is the headline, trump sits the flagong lowering amid nfl anthem controversy. they also have the link to the video of that happening. caller: i would like to address .y comments to trump supporters over the course of the morning maybe some of them could give me some answers. i know they really want to , but otherald presidents and congresses have tried to address problems. they were trying to address things. -- aboutys he wants to everything. for example, the health care thing. i want to ask them why would you take a wrecking ball to things you don't like? to problems you don't have answers to? i haven't heard any answers out tohim about how he is going fix it through to the health care thing, i'm going to give you health care -- what exactly is he going to do? , he hashave seen so far yet to detail any kind of plan what theng to say future would be. i just want to ask them -- i have my own belief of why he does these things and i will not i don't wantcause to get sidetracked and not understand, but i would like for them to give me answers. host: we've got your question, carl. on the issue of health care, a few tweets on this topic. jan says where is the republican outrage about trump's executive orders like when obama issued them? lyndon says if you are angry about the aca you should be angry with the republicans and soon they will give you worthless health care. robert says aren't republicans going to speak out about having the rug pulled from under them? the subsidies story breaking late last night a couple hours after the president's executive order on health care. we will be talking about both of those in the 9:00 segment. it's open phones right now. any of the many stories right now, the phones are open for you to talk about them. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 frank is in fort lauderdale, florida. a republican. good morning. .aller: good morning, everybody i would like to mention about the russian interference in last .ear's election the democratic national committee claimed the russians hacked their server, yet, they to checkallow the fbi it out, to check their server and it can be determined who hacked, but they refused to allow the fbi to see their server. a lot of people think the reason they are doing that is to -- he isrom the expected -- suspected of giving a lot of information to wikileaks. that is the strangest murder case i have ever heard of. host: why are you focused on that conspiracy theory? why is that something that continues to garner your focus? caller: i think that is a grave injustice. it seems like the politicians have contacted d.c. government, d.c. police to close down this investigation. people like debbie wasserman schultz whose brother works for the u.s. attorney. one report says he contacted the d.c. government -- host: we've got your concern. of that story has been debunked a couple times at this point. on the issue of russian ,nterference in the election the senior legal fellow at the heritage foundation and a member of the president's advisory commission on election integrity is in today's usa today with his column about the ongoing investigation and the issue he takes up is the claim that a russian company bought $100,000 in internet pop-up ads. he writes in the column that about halfrump spent as much on his presidential campaign as hillary clinton, who raised almost $600 million despite her negative ads. we are supposed to believe $100,000 on ads somehow brainwashed americans into voting a particular way. what the conveyors of this theory do not want to admit is that president trump's victory and those of other republicans align with the political trends during the obama presidency. a guest on this program and you can read his column today in usa today. richard, laurel, maryland, line for republicans. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. u.s.since i have become a put my handad to across my chest, stand up for the national anthem, and took the oath to be a loyal citizen of the united states. protestee that you can against the flag of the united istes, that kind of counterproductive. the other issue is the issue of the republican party. i think there is no republican party. i have been a conservative and a republican all my life here in the u.s., but it is so that there is no unity in the republican party. even if donald trump has some positive aspects he wants to like the affordable care act, changes in the affordable care act, or even in the tax , the republican party themselves -- look at the democrats. they are solid. the senate is solidly together, for better or for worse. there is no -- for the republican soul. going forward i don't know if i will vote republican because i am very upset there is no republican party. thank you for taking my call. host: richard, stick around, you may want to hear from the --nder and editor at large joining us in our 8:00 hour. he will talk about the future of the republican party in that segment. henry from tennessee, independent. go ahead. caller: all i have to say on the health care situation is i go back to the birther days. president trump is so jealous of president obama. 50 executive orders. in -- and take wrong put it in the place of right and make it work. that's exactly what he is doing. iran deal, this man is looking for war somewhere. before his term is up, i guarantee you, he will start a war. i have seen a lot of presidents, but this president -- i have got -- iy, it's kind of like know we've got flood, tornado, fire -- it's just so much going on in this country that i didn't see five or six years ago. that man came in and turns this country upside down. i don't think there's a person living here that doesn't say that. it is pitiful. i've got good insurance, so it's not bothering me. humana for ah better part of 10 years so i am excited by it. the people that are not going to have insurance are the ones that are going to be hurting, especially down here through tennessee, mississippi. in kentucky -- they were getting a check, but 700 dollars, $800 a month. it was that republican lady that was talking. they won't get that now. that's all i have to say. host: on the iran nuclear deal, the president set to announce his administration's policy toward iran happening today at the white house. a live coverage begins on c-span at 12:45 although plenty of reporting already about what the president is expected to do. here's the new york times headline. president trump will not certify the iran nuclear deal, but it will also -- he will also not unravel it. d.c., lineashington, for democrats. , steve.thanks i think one of the problems really driving all of our political controversies and problems is overpopulation. a serious is underlying problem we are ignoring. we are now at 7 billion people. i think this is what is driving the migration of poor people. we are now at 7 billion people. -- host: is there a more immediate concern from this past week with all the news going on that is on your mind besides overpopulation? ourer: i think all of immigration problems, which we are fighting about this week, it all comes down to overpopulation because that is why people are on the move. host: what is the answer, jim? caller: the answer is every country -- we have to have border and every country has to have effective border controls. that's why we have to have borders. as long as countries become overpopulation relief valves, people will move into those countries. is ir: all i have to say am for the medical insurance. i'm on my way to my doctors appointment and i have four years -- 28 million people without medical insurance. i am a cancer survivor. know don from about medical insurance, he says it is faster. my son is 25 years old. if it wasn't for president obama, he would not have insurance right now. he is not a student. surgery and iter cost me $18,000 to pay for that and what happened after that? -- on my dining room table, every single insurance was denying me for pre-existing condition. job where i was unhappy just for medical insurance and i am a cancer survivor. he has no clue and the people who are against the affordable care act have no idea what everyone is talking about. god bless president obama. if it wasn't for him i probably wouldn't be talking to you right now. i know there are things that need to be fixed, but he has no clue what he is talking about. host: maria on the cost of health insurance, the congressional budget office obviously has looked into these issues several times this year with the various plans that have been put forth. when it comes to ending the subsidies under the affordable care act, sam stein notes that for one of the congressional budget office reports ending subsidies increases premiums by 2020. 2018 and by 25% by we will certainly hear more in the coming days about the expected impact of the president's move -- confirmed by the white house they will be ending those subsidies. we will talk about them in the last segment of "washington journal" today. caller: good morning. my comment is about debbie wasserman schultz and i don't understand the democrats. well, i do, they have an agenda to stop president trump and in return -- democrats think we are so stupid as an american people washink the tarmac meeting by accident. operation fast and furious. the list goes on and on under this last administration. that was the most corrupt administration this country has ever had and i think it is high time republicans pull together as a party and said we have had enough. we are ready to fight back. host: how should they do that, john? caller: to begin with, let's kick out all the congressman and senators that are opposing president trump. marka veteran, ok question i fought for this country and i will tell you what, these people that protests the flag -- how many of them have ever served in the military? they have no right to protest it. if they don't like it, let them go play football in another country and see how they like that. host: you say the president is not being well served by members of congress or that we should kick them out. do you think the president is being well served by his staff and those he is surrounding himself in the white house and in his cabinet? caller: he has an excellent staff and cabinet upgrade its the republicans in control of the senate -- it seems like at every turn they are determined to make a split in the party and it's high time we united, pulled together and said we are one country -- that is what this country is. when you fight for this country you don't lead black or white, you bleed red. if these people don't understand that, they need to pack her bags and go to another country. host: john in georgia. the president's chief of staff john kelly made an unexpected appearance at the podium at the white house press briefing yesterday and he addressed his job status inside the white house and reports that perhaps that job may not be safe. here is what he had to say. [video clip] kelly: i would offer to you although i read it all the time pretty consistently, i am not quitting today. i don't believe and i talked to the president, i don't think i am being fired today. thisnot so frustrated in job that i am thinking of leaving. job i ever hardest had. in my view, this is the most important job i have ever had. it is not the best job i ever had. the best job i ever had is when i was in -- and enlisted marine sergeant infantryman. that was the best job i ever had. change, i am not quitting, i am not getting fired, and i don't think i will fire anyone tomorrow. host: that was chief of staff john kelly yesterday. more to talk about that wide-ranging press briefing. 8:00 open phones until this morning. any public policy issue you want to talk about, especially the big stories today, the iran nuclear deal and the president's about puerto rico, and health care news on multiple fronts. roger in virginia on the one for democrats, go ahead. caller: good morning, america. i have two or three things i would like to say. your last caller who talked receiver -- that was the bush administration policy carried over by the obamas. i forget what it was called under the bush administration about the guns going south. host: talking about the fast and furious investigation? caller: yes. it was called wide receiver under george bush. host: what else is on your mind, roger? caller: donald trump -- what did he do when he was sent to the white house? he took the russians with him. t nobody in this world that can make me believe russians didn't tap into the voting machines. the voting machines are being destroyed. we cannot look at them or investigate them or nothing. -- that as so sorry all -- that is all i have seen day after day for years and now we can't get anybody in the trump administration to answer questions about the russian deal. they stole the supreme court justice seat by refusing to let obama nominate anyone and now they stole the presidency. we cannot trust republicans no more. i have been turned away further -- from the voting machines because of an id. my father was a veteran. he died shortly after he came home. i was two years old. i grew up without a father. i started work at the age of 15 and i have paid taxes all my life and now i am disabled. i went tors ago church and my pastor gets on tv complaining about people on food stamps. i am a disabled coal miner. laws change the black long -- black lung laws to where you can receive payment for your black lung. mine is not thick enough to receive compensation, these republicans who control this country don't care about people like me. honest just the god's truth. jersey on from new the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. i want to cut to a couple points. the first is about trump and the republicans. i am very happy trump's president because the mask has been ripped off about what the modern republican party stands for. it stands for blatant racism, ignorance, and a couple other society ills. with reference to the kneeling in the nfl, no one is asking -- nobody wants to ask the question why they are kneeling. they are kneeling because of police brutality and i have had debates with people online and i direct them to one particular site and the answer is the same, they don't like what they see. "no donut? it is filled with articles about rape and murder that don't get reported to the site. intercept isby the another site that shows the body count the people being killed by law enforcement in america. i am not anti-police, but i want accountability with the cops. that is what i think everyone in the united states is asking for. the question is if we will become a pro police state doause you see the cops these things and republicans feel like they are there to control people. they always talk about chicago or they always go to poor black areas. there are a lot of areas in the united states not experiencing high crime that are black and white, and they do not talk about that because they want to angle it a specific way. you say you have debates online with people all the time about this. do you find those worth it? do you change minds when you have debates online? caller: no. here is the thing, when i show them the websites they get very angry. i have been told i am a justnist and i say i am showing you the truth and they don't like it. there's a certain class of americans who know there is something wrong and they don't like the fact it is being shown to them and that's the part i find disturbing. if a person is a criminal, punish them to the full extent of the law. i am 100% for that. if you find cops are shooting people in the back or every time they go into an area and find racism and other issues they say it is the doj's fault for pointing this out, then we have a serious problem. --: the president tweeting again a few moments ago. anna, philadelphia, pennsylvania on the line for independent, go ahead. caller: i have three points. shock that they put the former president in charge of hurricane funds. moneyent clinton took the -- the second thing is the first gentleman on today talked about israel, that is the for bid and. we don't know how much money or arms we give them and we are not supposed to be that closely allied with anybody. the third thing, if you can have somebody on to explain the federal reserve's and the other banks in europe are privately owned and all under the influence. about get it in the open, thank you. host: -- in conway, missouri, republican. go ahead. caller: thank you very much for c-span. i would like to introduce something called a splitter. it's a psychological term and russia did interfere with the election and they split this country -- they help split this country. until we recognize that russia has entered into our campaign, we are not going to get anything straightened out here, but they sure hit the softest spot. we are a free country and we've got every -- people from all over the world. russia just has russianrussia je and we are an easy target. it is called splitter. desmond, fort wayne, indiana. odd that think it is there is never any specifics talked about on the republican side when it comes to what is wrong with the aca, we keep hearing that it is broken, it is bankrupt, there is never any substance to what they are saying is wrong with it. i've been working full time since 1999 and my insurance premiums have gone up every ,ingle year until this year i've insurance through my wife's employer and they voted in the teamsters and they cut the premium in half. i thought that was amazing. that is the first time since we've been married our premiums have ever gone down. maybe that is part of the answer. maybe if folks started getting solidarity perhaps they could negotiate more on some of this employer-provided health care. host: what you think about the future of unions in this country? thought it was dismal for a long time, and i live in northern indiana which is very red. it was a shock. it made national news that they got the union in their and it gives me some hope. desmond in indiana, our last caller on the first segment of the washington journal. up next real will have a discussion on the first amendment and the president's recent comments in the press, will be joined by floyd abrams. later william kristol will join us to talk about the president's relationship with the republican party. ♪ this weekend on book tv, live coverage of the 2017 southern festival of books in nashville starting saturday at 11:00 with "ali: a life" and talk radio show host eric erickson. then on sunday, our live coverage continues at 1:00 with best-selling author and her book untold story of the american women codebreakers of world war ii. "the firebrand and the first and creative writing professor, author of the people are going to rise like the waters upon your sure -- a story of american rage. watch our live coverage at the 2017 southern festival of books in nashville. everything was devastating for him at the end. he was isolated and alone. , william night on q&a talman and his biography on gorbachev. peoplerusted the soviet to follow him where they had never gone before, that is to democratize their country in a few short years. he trusted them to follow him as he moved the country toward market economy. he trusted them to follow him and trust him as he made peace in the cold war against the ancient enemy, the united states. he trusted them too much. >> sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. "> "washington journal continues. viewers know floyd abrams for his work in constitutional law. aboutof discussion freedom of speech and freedom of the press recently from nfl protests to the president's criticism of what he calls fake news. are we a country still trying to figure out what freedom of speech is? guest: the argument never seems to end. now with this administration. for example, the president's statement just last week that nbc ought to lose its television license because it has broadcast material of which he disapproved . it is the latest example of the first amendment being threatened . tryinga of the president to inflict capital punishment on the network is unthinkable. it is also illegal. the fcc does not regulate network and there are a lot of legal protections that would keep this from happening, not just the first amendment. it is a disturbing example of the willingness of the president to go very far down the line in advocating activity by the government which on its face would violate the first amendment. host: you mentioned the president's tweets and comments targeting nbc news. here's is a tweet from just this morning. are fake news, the president wrote this morning at around 7:10. the public is just beginning to figure it out. what do you think of the term fake news? guest: what the president means by fake news is news he does not like. news that disturbs him or angers him. it is not fake news to tell the truth. onis not fake news to report what people in positions of authority say are happening. inaccurateources are , sometimes journalists are inaccurate. the underlying theory of the first amendment is that it is not for presidents to decide what the news is. that is for an independent press and an independent public to pass judgment on. have does the president the freedom of speech to call out what he thinks is bias in the news? guest: the certainly does. he has first amendment rights. he is the leader of the country, he should be speaking out when he thinks things are wrong or things ought to be done to fix things he thinks are wrong. at the same time, it should not be too much to ask that he respect the first amendment rights of others. that he accept the proposition that he is a valid topic for criticism, even if he happens to think the criticism is not fair. the firste core of amendment. it is an amendment designed to andre that the government the highest person or people in the government are not the ones to decide what is said and what is not said. host: you talk about license renewal, can you talk about the historic use of threats to license renewal? broadcasters are licensed by the government. the idea is more people want to broadcast then there is room for them on the spectrum, so the government has to play the role of deciding who gets a license. that is less important these days because of the importance of cable. cable is not regulated. broadcasters have needed licenses and the question has always been if they need a license, what role does the government play, what role can the government play in deciding if they are any good at being broadcasters? where we have come through the there is somey level of corruption or misconduct or the like which could result in a license being lifted by the fcc. exception, thehe norm is broadcasters, particularly when they are reporting about news, particularly when they are dealing with public matters such as the conflict of the president, are absolutely free as journalists on "the new york times" or "the washington post" or the wall street journal. if it were any other way we would imperil freedom of speech in america. host: what you think the future is on this freedom of speech issue in light of what we have seen from president trump? are you concerned about it? i am not concerned that nbc's license or other broadcasters license are going to be lifted. i do not think that is going to happen. i don't think anything is going to happen in the fcc. we do have a history. the nixon administration tried very hard to kill some of the pressed -- some of the press reporting because they made threats, sometimes privately and publicly of antitrust action. people talked to people in the network and made threats to them. one never knows what the bottom line is after that happens. in that time, it was real and it was dangerous and it should not have happened. i do not believe that anything is going to happen in this area, whatever know what and -- any administration might do if it is frustrated enough, angry enough, and the like. that is particularly so with this president who seems to take so personally any criticism of him and his administration. host: floyd abrams, constitutional attorney, author of the book "the soul of the first amendment." we'll take your calls in your questions. ,epublicans, (202) 748-8001 andcrats, (202) 748-8000 independents (202) 748-8002. i think the first amendment is important. it defends the rights of the people's free speech, not just the press. these people that are kneeling during the national anthem, they are not protesting the anthem or are protesting the violence going on in america against a certain group of people. that is the point. because it makes people uncomfortable to talk about that, that even more needs to be the point. --avoid the point host: go ahead. listener isnk the quite right. let me say a legal thing first. the first amendment applies only to the government. the first amendment is a limitation on the government, on the president, on the congress. is a first amendment spirit which we take account of and which matters a lot. when football players want to they areant to kneel, in the tradition of people recognizing first amendment rights. if the government tried to stop them, it would violate the constitution. it does not do that when an but itries to stop them, gets close in this sense, and just the sense you are raising. they are exercising a right to protest. they are engaging in speech and it is the sort of speech, even though it is not words, it is the sort of expression which is at the core of first amendment protections. host: if a player is fired for kneeling, what they have a first amendment case against the owner of the nfl for firing them? , because the first amendment applies only to the government. one can make an argument that if the government pressures and owner to do the firing, that could possibly violate the first amendment. speaking generally, if an owner fires -- if any employer fires an employee for what the employee says, that does not violate the first amendment. it sometimes violates state law, it may violate union contracts or employer/employee relationships, but the bill of focuseds deliberately on protection against the government. , in thisot provide case, what that means is it is -- it makes it all the more important for people to exercise their first amendment rights to speak out and have their say. host: nevada, line for republicans. go ahead. mr. abrams, i have a comment and a question. you said the fcc does not have the right to regulate what is on tv. i know 30 or 40 years ago they had more power to do that. i would like to ask your question -- do you know how many andle on cnn and msnbc other networks have journalism degrees? not very many. these people are pundits. they spout out anything they want, they do not have a journalism degree, a do not study journalism. it is a joke. you are talking about the constitution. why don't people look at who is spouting out this garbage that is on tv. they do not have the credentials, they are pundits. they do not know what they are talking about. people like you and other people want to defend these people and they are idiots. host: do you think all journalists should be licensed by the government? caller: they don't have to be licensed through the government that they should have a journalism degree and know what they are talking about and know the talking points they are talking about instead of being pundits that want to put out whatever the american public at the time feels like is best for them, especially on the left side, they want to push their agenda and make everything it is all wrong, and they do not even know what they're talking about. toot: i think you think well of journalism schools. not a lot of our best journalists, including people whose work he would admire went to journalism school. people, are very top and not just pundits, not just people mouthing off have become journalists after going to college. in earlier times, without going to college. i agree with you, they should be judged by what they do. they should be judged by their abilities, they should be judged by the quality of their work. i do not have the same view that you do about the nature of that quality. you are a lot more down on them that i am. that is what the first amendment is about. we can disagree on that. wantnk you ought not to all or most journalists to have gone to journalism school. , iis a useful place to go think studying english, studying history, studying culture, study the arts, all the things people can get on their own or through college or through graduate bestl are the single backgrounds to have to go to journalism. host: rene is in texas, independent. good morning. with regards to the hollywood efforts to attain assets across the south. to move doctors and lawyers away , and --il rights host: what is the question? caller: what you know about la jolla? my answer is it is a question but it is not one i can answer. i have no idea. thank you c-span. i would suggest that christmas is coming up, perhaps we could have susan swaim back on thursday. abrams, my point is arts we seeing an infiltration of corporations and to the presidency of the united states. i use barack obama for a quintessential example. his first signing statement as president was to negate the .tanding lawsuit against at&t had pointed-span out that we were being spied upon by the telecom industry illegally. as a constitutional law scholar, for president obama to have come into office and then grant of forgiveness or to wipe away the wasess of the lawsuit, that basically a takeover by the corporations to protect the corporations from complicity and what we have now are witnessing where the presidency is no longer for the electorate, but is tailored to the corporation. host: i will let you jump in. familiarm not closely with the decision-making process in the white house under president obama about this case. the obama administration was the subject of a good deal of press for a the good deal of its activities in terms of leak investigations and the like. i am unaware that the administration acted in response to pressure from at&t or other corporations and dropping ongoing litigations or investigations. host: keith in massachusetts, line for republicans. caller: thank you c-span. i'm not worried about the constitutionality of any of this. anywhere youlace can go to without having to listen to politics every day. for people to spend this much money to listen to football or have a relaxing day, to get the hell away from politics. i think this is terrible. i do not care about football anymore. once aaron hernandez sues for i think itnjuries -- is a shame you cannot even go to a dam game and enjoy yourself. we have politics there, too. host: another place where this free speech discussion has bubbled up is on campus free speech debates, certainly an issue we have seen on college campuses. i wonder your thoughts on that topic and less more you want to add on the nfl? guest: let me talk about the campus first. i think that is a big problem and i think it is a serious problem in terms of an too manyness of students and the administrations of too many colleges and cutting back who can speak. those days are over or it the problems now is too many students trying to shout down speakers, when speakers are disinvited, people invited to go and appear. sometimes those speakers are theageous and sometimes speaker say things which are wounding to some students. answer, i'mendment not speaking as a lawyer, but the first amendment philosophical answer and the answer isdment core it is better to have more speech than less and better to have more people have a chance to hear and think about and pass judgment on and reject the views and answer the views of people who say the things that are indeed, not just offputting but outrageous. happening not to be and is happening too often is the stifling of speech on the grounds that it will hurt people's feelings. we have to be stronger than that internally, and stronger than that in terms of protecting the rights of the other students who may want to hear that person speak, however disturbing the message may be. events happense on college campuses and they require a lot of security to maintain order, to make sure there is no clash between the two sides, who should pay for that security? should it be the state and local law enforcement, should it be the colleges, should be the speaker themselves? guest: let me be clear. for the most part, the speaker is not the one who has the right to appear. the university can decide for itself who appears subject to this proposition. if yesterday groups that make invitations, particularly state universities cannot make a decision about who comes and who does not, based on politics or social views. of paying forrden are ony on the speaker the proponents who invite the speaker is only going to result in less speech and only going to agenda ofa one-sided who can common speak on campus. oughtot think the speaker to pay and i think if a university has a open-door policy about who comes and speaks, as i think it should, , and i should undertake understand it is painfully financial and otherwise, it should take what other steps are necessary to provide security, most of which ought to be the police or outside entities. the other thing universities have to be prepared to do is to punish students who miss behave or act in a way that prevents their fellow students from hearing, listening, being there, eating safe -- being safe at a speech by someone whose views may be unattractive or awful. paul in indianapolis, indiana, line for independence. abrams, i was wondering if reporters do not have to go to journalism school, shouldn't they go somewhere where they learn the rules of evidence? i was a cpa for many years and if i used the evidence they presented to come up with a story about the secretary of state calling the president a moron and i had come to that would not only have lost my license, i probably would've been fired. they do not know how to use evidence. i understand that in the united states as opposed to the u.k., the newspapers are held to a much lower standard when it comes to libel that an individual would be. you have to improve intent of great malice if the newspaper present something that is false. i would like to note that is true, because i know in the u.k. it is much easier to sue a newspaper for libel or slander. guest: absolutely right. in the u.k. it is much easier to sue for libel. we afford much greater protections. 1941 in a u.s. supreme court case in which the question was put a judge put a journalist in jail for saying really bad things about the judge, in that case the u.s. split off from english law and said it almost so many words that nothing was clearer when the first amendment was adopted then that people in the u.s. should have more rights , more protection, of freedom of thegion, of freedom of press, than was ever the case in the united kingdom. the on the ground reality is you are actually right that there is more protection here for speech. a journalist would go to jail today in england for reporting on a trial and mentioning the prior criminal record of someone in the case, until it is admitted in court. that is withinay the power and authority of a journalist to make that decision as to what is newsworthy. if they have information that is newsworthy, the court system has theake steps to assure juror does not read and is not affected by what the public at large may see. point, we not only have more in the way of free speech rights here, and i want to make clear in response to an earlier question, not just freedom of the press but free-speech rights for all of us here than anywhere in the world. there are lots of cases in democratic countries -- canada, a very free country, which reflect much less of a willingness to provide robust free speech, free press protections of the sort that we have. we stand alone. one could say for better or worse, and one could say, as a few listeners have suggested, that there is bad journalism that comes out, and we do protect more journalism, good or bad, than any place else in the world. the waywe deal with it, we think about it, the way the first amendment has been read to view it is that it is better for the public to have more speech and more freedom, even if there , thatsks, and there are speech and that freedom can result in errors being made or, occasionally, things that turn out not to be so. john kelly yesterday at the white house press briefing talked about the relationship between president trump and the press. here's what he had to say. one of his frustrations is you, all of you. not all of you but many of you. guy, but when i read in the morning, i watch tv in the morning, it is astounding to me how much is misreported. i will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are operating ,ff of context, leaks, whatever but i would offer to you the advice -- maybe develop better sources. some person that works way down inside an office -- just develop some better sources. host: floyd abrams, what did you think about those comments? the press would be delighted to have general kelly as a source. people gather news as best they can from people who hopefully are knowledgeable about what goes on. certainly, the press deserves criticism when it publishes material that is not true. time, what happens in the white house is so , it bears so directly on our lives and on world peace and on our economy, on our children and the like that we want an aggressive and intrusive press to do their best all the time to search out the truth of what is happening. i am not in a position to argue with general kelly about how often journalists make mistakes. i would say they would be less likely to make mistakes if there was more openness, not by leaks, but more openness by this and other administrations about what is really going on. host: time for just a couple more calls with floyd abrams. of thek is the soul first amendment. kevin is in california, line for republicans. caller: good morning. the american people trust the news to provide us with information and a higher information age that is going on in the world. i feel it is the duty of the there are few major channels that spread the news to millions of people -- it is the duty of the journalists to provide us with not only information but the true information. the president protects all the constitutional rights of american. be able to make up hocus-pocus about the president of the united states, accused him of treason and not have anything to back it up. you're on the air on public news where people trust you and value tor word, it is your duty inform the united states, you make up things you cannot back up. i spend a good part of my career representing journalists. you can say i am biased or knowledgeable or maybe both. in my experience, and to my neverdge, it is almost that journalists make up or fabricate confidential sources. it is not a reality. when the president says, for example, that they do, that the sources are not real, he is denying reality. that does not mean the sources in the sense the sources know the full picture. one of the most important jobs of journalists is to try to work their way through the tangle of toormation that they get come out with as close to ultimate truth as is possible. part of what i think you find offensive is not so much the newsgathering or the reportage, nature ofinions, the the criticism or some of the criticisms of the president to talk about collusion. that is being looked into. there is an outside entity looking into whether there was collusion. worths a topic well discussing, not just by mr. mueller, but by all of us based on the information we have and the information we can get. , do not accept the proposition i'm not saying that is what you are saying, that i do not accept the proposition that collusion ought to be off-limits. there were certain meetings which we know occurred. tookow that the president a more pro-russian attitude than any candidate for president since henry wallace in 1948. there are a lot of things that make it worth looking into. that is what mr. mueller and his team is doing. it is important, while that goes on, to try to report. you have to be fair. if you think they're not being fair in their reportage, that is something people can disagree about. what i'm saying is it is a topic that is so important that it is worth continuing focus on, not just by the mueller investigation, but by all of us as citizens, watching and listening and trying to make our own judgments, however tentative, raised on what we can learn. abrams, author of the book "the soul of the first amendment." joined bye will be bill kristol of the weekly standard and talk about the future of the republican party during later, we will turn to health care and talk about yesterday's executive order and the news last night on health care subsidies out of the white house. we'll joined by caitlin owens. we will be right back. ♪ is a radio station in the nation's capital that covers 6 million people, this is a very heavy automobile commute city and it will just extend our brand and give people who are involved in the process a chance to listen to it. that is how it happened, it is that simple. >> c-span radio app in 20 years of public affairs programming. listen to the washington journal live every morning beginning at 7:00 eastern. day'secaps of the political events on washington today at 5:00 p.m. c-span radio is available in washington on 90.1 fm, on our website, c-span.org, or by downloading the free c-span radio app. c-span radio app 20 years, where you hear history unfold daily. sunday night on afterwords, a historian on the life and political career of newt gingrich. he is interviewed by former virginia congressman tom davis. >> this is an era before cable television, this is before cnn, before msnbc, little pockets of cable here and there but it was mostly reruns of i love lucy. there is no talk radio to speak of. c-span. big media and ofrealizes the potency giving special orders every afternoon, giving a five minute speech because it is being carried over cable into a hundred thousand homes around the country. used to rip him about saynd newt gingrich would would you give a speech to 100,000 people? that is what you're doing with c-span every afternoon. he quickly becomes a political leader and is getting 700 letters a week from people around the country to this backbench, a junior member from georgia who is a member of a -- a memberty green of a minority party. >> watch afterwords on c-span two's book tv. "washington journal" continues. host: bill kristol is back on our desk. news comes out of maine that senator susan collins has announced her plan for 2018, the headline from politico saying she declined to run for maine governor, the decision preserves her role as a key moderate in the senate. is that good for the republican party? because she is most likely to win the seat and another republican would have a tough time. it is good if you care about a republican majority in the senate. one reason i think she is staying as she talked about the need for bipartisanship is she may think that you get to a narrowly divided senate, which is possible, someone like her, especially if she can band together with lisa murkowski and john mccain and a few others, maybe a couple democrats, could become a key swing caucus in the senate. we could see something we have not seen in a long time, which notot a lot of -- which is a reliable majority party shoving things through but a body where there are senators in the middle who can go either way but are almost saying we are going to try to stick to whether -- stick together and be an independent caucus. concerned are you about a republican majority in the senate and the house? which one should they be more concerned about? guest: they should be more concerned about the house. there are eight republican , there are and 2018 not many republican seats to lose. arizona and nevada looks tough, some others look tough. alabama -- there's a controversial republican nominee and one republicans would have a tough time supporting. i probably would not vote for him in alabama. i do not live in alabama so that is not my problem. you could lose some seeds that look like safe seats and there are these primaries. one of the big stories over the is theuple of months fact that there's a civil war and the republican party. steve bannon is recruiting .andidates it is trump supporters against established republicans. republicans sit around worrying about it and announcing it, but if you are steve bannon and you want to change the republican party, why shouldn't you take on the republicans you think are the problem? if your steve bannon, you do not care whether the republicans control the senate. what he would say is what good that controlling the senate tdo? does donald trump even care that much whether republicans control the senate? he may decide he could do just as well with the democratic congress. i think there is a good chance republicans could lose the house, there's a decent chance republicans could lose the senate. iq jamal could happen the next year. -- a huge amount could happen in the next year. when a party has the presidency in control of congress, they tend to lose seats. the republican civil war through 2018 adds a new unpredictable element to our politics. we have never seen one where the president is on one side and the senate majority leader is on the other. they occasionally squabble in the past, but the party that controls the presidency and congress having a civil war with sides, aures on both lot of energy on the insurgent side, i'm not sure how much energy there is on the establishment side. it is going to be an interesting year. host: the headline of bill kristol's most recent piece, "a republican crackup?" where does this and -- where does this end? guest: i don't know. puts all election kinds of question marks beside the republican party. he was not really a republican and wins the primaries. , bobld party loyalties dole paid his dues, he deserves the nomination, that is out the window. a trump equivalent on the left may be more attractive than your hard-working democratic senator or governor. host: do you still consider yourself a republican? guest: yes. i worked for republican until 2016.ons i'm open-minded about the future. i do not know where the sixblican party ends up months from now, let alone years from now. i'm not a trump republican. i do not want trump to be the nominee in 2020. if he is, i've no problem saying that is not a party i can work in. i do not think trump's vision for the country is a good one. i also do not think he should be president. if he wins the nomination wants, the election wants, you can say that is a one off and the party can come back to being a reasonable party. i he wins more than once -- auld of just said, i'm not trump republican but i'm a republican. it is getting harder to say that because the republican party has gone along with trump so much in congress and outside of congress, too. they have accommodated trump. do not have a fundamental enough objection to trump for my tastes. host: is that changing and are the right people standing up and saying something if they do disagree with the president? guest: you can say there is some evidence for that. someone like bob corker who bears some responsibility for legitimizing trump. he is more established that i am. tooaid people like you are upset about trump, we can work with him. i think now bob corker is rethinking that judgment. if you're an elected official, it is different. you have to vote on a million things, i would vote for most of the trump nominees. i respect and like a lot of them. i do not begrudge senators and governors for having a different criteria than someone like me who is a private citizen. i do not know what you thought when he attacks bob corker, a respected republican senator, and the senators make clear they do not like that, but then two days later i see other senior senators intimidated by trump. train, iard the trump want to work with president trump. grown men who've been elected a few times and feel they have to be of seek we us to donald trump is offputting. host: when bob corker said most people inside the republican caucus feel like he does, you believe him? guest: yes, but feeling some way does not do much good in politics. if you feel one way and keep going along, going along, what good is that? i would like to see more principled expression of criticism, not just i wish you would not tweet as much, but an actual statement that it is not he is just tweeting too much, he is excitable. he has a fundamental vision of american politics that is not friendly to the basic institutions of liberal norms of, the basic liberal democracy, of constitutionalism, and people need to call him on that when he says something like what he said , otherwise you erode them. i look at the defenders of trump , they're like the frog in the boiling water, they defend one thing and the supporters do not leave him, and they defend the next thing, and suddenly of conservatives who would not have dreamed it was appropriate for the president of the united states to threaten news organizations with removing their licenses because he does not like what they are publishing, they would've gone nuts. if obama had done it -- to be fair, i think they would've gone nuts if george w. bush did it. if trump says it, they do not want to talk about it. not talking about it is a kind of going along. host: bill kristol is with us for the next half hour. , (202)ines, republicans 748-8001 democrats, (202) independents, (202) 748-8002. caller: i've a question and then i have a comment. we are talking about the media being liberal and biased from those emails we saw from hillary , it showed they were in contact with the media quite often. my question is, when i voted for president trump, he ran on three things that i really liked and i think a lot of the american people liked. first of all, it was repeal and replace obamacare, that did not happen, then he ran on a comprehensive tax policy which would lower the corporate income tax rate but maybe help bring back some companies to america and build a border wall. this daca think right now and say let all the dreamers stay, with no walt what are you going to do five years from now when they comment -- when they come in? is that a valid point? guest: yes, but i was not a trump supporter. i respect you for taking those views seriously and holding president trump accountable. i think most trump supporters are willing more than you are to rationalize those departures from his promises. he is not showing any great urgency about the border wall, he may legalize the dreamers, maybe he is not primarily responsible for the failure of obama care repeal and replace, but he did not go around the country explaining why it would be better for people. it is an interesting question whether trump supporters will hold trump accountable for failures or whether they will blame the republicans in congress. trump's support has drifted but if you told me that the president of united states, the economy is good, stock market is up 20% or something, no obvious foreign policy fiascoes, what would his approval rating be, i would say a lot higher than 40%. some people. he is not in great shape, but he is hanging in there he is held onto about 85% to 95% of his support. a lot of his supporters are blaming the republicans in congress, the republican congress is in bad shape, whether trump's supporters hold -- whether they just like the fact that he is fighting the nfl with the media or saying what they think great it is an interesting question whether you can do that for four years. his support is cultural-based, sticking it to the establishment based. i assumed you can do that for a campaign, you can do that on and .ff on issues that is what demagogues do very well. can you do it for four years as president of the united states? i don't know. at hishowing more skill version of being presidential than i would've expected. north carolina, line for democrats, go ahead. caller: good morning and thank you. democrat, i voted for our current president. i would like to know if you think it would be a reasonable salary tof the senators and congressmen would be held if they are not doing their duty? host: how do you define do their duty? meet together, make decisions and do the right thing for all of the people in america, not just their singular idea. guest: i think senators and congressmen should do that, they --bably are too partisan partisanship is always part of washington, loyalty to parties thegotten out of control -- republicans voted for the obamacare repeal and replace, democrats like obamacare, and the swing republicans were not convinced by the merits of the argument of the repeal bill. it is hard to define how they are doing their job -- they are accountable to the voters. they do not get paid that well. a lot of them take pay cuts to come here. it is not nice being a senator or congressman it i think that is probably not the right way to hold them to account. -- on the insurgent side of a lot of fights. the establishment has done a great job for the last years in some ways. i was very happy when marco rubio showed up in 2010. he stuck to a valiant these people on the merits. are they write about the issues, to they have good character, are they just showing new blood for the sake of new blood? the susan collins thing is interesting. i think that might be the moment where the combination of the overheated rhetoric and the hyper partisanship may have hit a peak. no trend goes on forever. if susan collins gets reelected and she says i am going to sit down with lisa murkowski and chris coons of delaware and three or four others and we are going to coordinate and try to advance bipartisan legislation, deal of the opioid epidemic, deal with job retraining, obvious issues that are not that partisan. it would be an interesting thing. i think they would have a lot of public support. host: isn't there always a primary down the road for those folks? guest: that is what they have to stand up to. susan collins will been reelected. lisa murkowski was reelected fairly recently. at some point they have to say i'm going to take a primary challenge great -- take a primary challenge. the steve bannon announcement that he is going to challenge every republican senator except ted cruz. if you are senator from nebraska , you say i'm going to get a challenge anyway. the counter argument is you're more likely to beat back that challenge if you say i have stuck with president trump down the road, maybe he will even support me. strange and alabama and that did not do them much good. it might be that these people might find courage like bob corker. , there is no them point criticizing trump. i can do that, i'm a commentator. they should also look for legislative areas where they can make a difference. there are think the party spiteful with a lot of creativity and efforts spiteful creativity and efforts from the back benches and committee chairmen. maybe that will change. host: a lot of calls for you. roger, west haven, connecticut, line for independents, go ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. mr. kristol, i'm curious about you saying that you're a republican but you actually don't support the republican president. sounds to me like you're a republican in name only, as well as using inflammatory terms like there's a civil war involved in there. can you explain that a little bit more. guest: i think it's used pretty commonly. i'm not advocating any violence. and i would hope to be understood that way. if i were i would certainly repudiate that. i'll say civil strife. all the metaphors. going on in the going on in the republican party. that's just a fact. i didn't invent that. we're having primaries. that's something that's happening, going to happen over the next years as an analyst in american politics. not every republican will support every republican president all the time or every democrat shouldn't support every democratic president all the time. one of my favorite democrats broke with the democratic party to support president bush. ran as an ried and independent. he was an admirable senator. i don't feel compelled to support the president of my party. no matter what he says or does. host: who can form an independent party right now? who could be the leader? guest: huge question. if you look at the polls people are less partisan than they once were. less happy than the two parties. a lot of parties will show the third of the country democrats. 32%. republicans. 30% maybe independent. independent number is getting high. that doesn't mean they'll vote for an independent candidate. some would really prefer republicans or democrats. still i would say you look at that, other things going on, you do wonder whether if donald trump -- if donald trump is renominated by the republicans, which is more likely than not, i guess. if elizabeth warren is the democratic nominee in 2020, which is possible, isn't there awfully big room, awfully big space in between those two? couldn't some kind of centrist candidate who has -- who is more moderate on a lot of issues but wants to change things. i think one of the attacks on trump with all the talk of change they don't actually seem that much in change. warren believes every liberal program is invented. trump isn't changing that much. if you had to write the democratic ticket. military man, business leader, republican, democrat. you can do mark cuban and retired general. businessman and military guy. just many ways you can imagine this. might have to step forward and do t i went through this in 2016. i tried to recruit people to run. it's hard to be an independent candidate against the two parties. what i learned then, whatever it's worth, it's not quite as hard as people thifment the ballot access isn't impossible. you have some money behind you you can get on the ballot. in this day and age with social media, c-span, you can get known pretty fast. especially if you have a little bit of providence already. don't go run for president wouldn't be hard, but if you are a four star general, wealthy business, retired or current governor or senator, you could rise quickly. could you win? odds would be against you. i got to think in this mood, environment, promising real change not just trump's tweets and elizabeth warren's business is more. doubling down on every liberal program. i think an independent candidacy could happen in 2020. could win. are the odds for it? no. if you asked me five years ago is this going to happen in our lifetime, i would have said no. probably not. what are the odds? oneuld have said one in 20, in fifth. now it's more like one in three, four, one in fifth. now it's more like one in three, four, five. i think it is possible -- that's republican it the cracker. one reason. you could republican cracker. one reason. you could have a crackup of the two party system, two-party monopoly, duopoly we have had for so long. host: las vegas, line for democrats, good morning. guest: good morning. i think it's weird to say that the image of america on the ourd stage has been hurt by current president. as the millennial and so on who does a lot with the internet, working, i.t. person, i see a lot of comments from people in other countries. how do you suggest with this president or maybe in 2020 that we can fix our image and maybe regain some of the trust that may have been hurt with angela merkel and all of the other world leaders? guest: not a millennial. you may have noticed that. i'm not an i.t. person, either. i agree. you don't have to be either of those to think that trump has done some damage to america's standing in the world. i think president obama in different ways, incidentally, by announcing the red line and not enforcing it, withdrawing from to believe ming not in a very assertive presence in the world did to believe in a very assertive presence in the world did damage to confidence in america, too. i found that as i traveled around in asia and europe, they liked obama in the way they don't like trump. they were also worried about america during obama. how can it be fixed? a new president in 2020. a president who believes and understands and believes in the importance of american leadership, america's key to the liberal world order. you don't threaten our allies with trade wars every few weeks. veer back and forth between the ind of america first isolationism. it's-t seems inconsistent. you can't have -- you want to be tough, that's great. you have to be willing to be active diplomatically to stay in places when you have intervened and so forth. you can't throw your weight around and leave. that destroys the world order without putting anything in its place. it destoice the current situation without putting anything in its place. -- it destroys the current situation without putting anything in its place. i'm pleased jim kelly and mcmaster is there. i don't like it -- america first foreign policy. it was irresponsible in 1940 and irresponsible today. what can we do while trum is president? there are senators and congressmen can play a role, governors, civil society. people need to go around the world and tell their counterparts we're not going away. trump won the election, fine. that's what happens in a democracy sometimes, americas are not -- americans do not think it is a good idea for america to withdraw from its role as the centerpiece of this world order. i think americans do understand that. if they don't, if we do leave, then we're dealing with a different situation. i think it's important how other americans conduct themselves in the era of trump. and minimizes the damage trump can do. host: sports creek, michigan, line for republicans, go ahead. caller: just like to make a comment it's unbelievable that we had three hours of trump bashing. i just don't understand how this you can't you can't tell if yo watching cnn or msnbc. thank you. guest: i think that one's directed at you. host: we had an hour of open phones this morning. we talked about first amendments. we're talking about bill kristol's "weekly standard" article on the future of the republican party. we'll talk about health care next this morning. guest: i think republicans like me have often complained about the media, media bias. trump supporters are sensitive on the issue. and trump whips it up with the tweets. he has plenty of opportunities to make his case. i don't think trump is lacking in the ability to make his oval ts from twitter to office speeches. like the speech later today on iran. trump isn't lacking in supporters in the media whether fox news, cable television, or many wb adio or on sites and many wb sites and throughout the internet. i'm not that sympathetic to the notion that trump and trump supporters have a real tough time getting americans to understand their point of view. host: republicans, mike in texas, go ahead caller: good morning. i want to give your previous caller kudos. he got it right. i won't take any more time than he took. i used to call you guys, mr. kristol, rhinos. today i call you dinos. you are dinosaurs. you never get t you can't get t you won't get it. ood for you. i'd love to see trump re-elected. have a good day. guest: i'm happy to go down losing. rather than try to say how do i get it? i have always hated the phrase do you get it? it's a liberal femmist phrase originally which was used to malign, abuse people who allegedly weren't sensitive enough on various left wing -- not the right wing. this happened a lot in the era of trump. he picked up left wing terminology, left wing attacks. they don't make any argument. they don't say the world would be better off if we didn't have free trade. if we weren't showing leadership. the world would be better off if we kicked out all the immigrants. that will help our economy or society. people are unhappy. they have anxieties. that's fine. a lot of them are legitimate. but it would be very, very sad if america conservatism picks up every foolish and sort of -- i would same democrat gogic trope of the left that the whole get it thing is avoid making an argument. it's you're out of it. you're from the past. you know what? a lot of people in the past had good arguments. a lot of good things were accomplished in the past. if being from the past means you think ronald reagan was right and franklin roosevelt was right about a lot of things, and fighting for liberal democracy is right, that's fine. happy to be from the past. host: a minute ago you mentioned john kelly. he came off that white house press briefing yesterday, the president's chief of staff. here's what he had to say about his role in the trump white house. >> i read in the paper, you-all know, you write it, that i was -- i have been a failure at controlling the president. or failure at controlling his tweeting and all that. again, i was not sent in, i was not brought to this job to control anything but the flow of information to our president so that he can make the best decisions. i have found that mr. trump from the day i met him does not -- he's a decisive guy. very thoughtful man, i should say. he takes information in from every avenue he can receive it. i restrict no one from going in to see him. hen we go in to see him now, rather than onceys and twosies we go in and help him collectively understand what rather than he needs to understand to make these tightal decisions. again i was not sent in to -- or brought in to control him. you should not measure my effectiveness as a chief of staff by what you think i should be doing, but simply the fact is i can guarantee to you that he is now presented with options, well thought out options. those options are discussed in detail with his team. then he comes up with the right decision. host: bill kristol, what do you make of his description of his role? guest: i'm a huge fan of john kelly and the country is well rved by his being chief of staff. i think he's telling people that i can't control everything. i am trying to help him, the president, make better decisions. that's ultimately what any staffer can do. but there is a kind of attempt there, i'd say very implicitly, to make clear the limits of what he can accomplish. therefore i staff. i think he's hope john kelly stays for three years. i would feel much better about him being there. host: that would be unprecedented among chief of staff. guest: stay through the whole first term, but it's unusual. i instructed his deputy chief of staff, just nominated yesterday by president trump to be homeland security secretary, that's a great honor to have that job. she worked there as a staffer. it's wonderful for her. i think she'll be good at the job. i have heard good things about her. she was really kelly's deputy and is his deputy. really his right hand woman you would say. i think it's unusual white house chief of staff been there three, four months to let his deputy go when she's so crucial to helping him unless he's not going to be there. i haven't been to the white house. if you are going to be there two or three years you don't want to your key players early. maybe a couple years later, you can be a cabinet secretary and take t i do wonder how long john kelly will be your key players early. there. couple years host: time for a couple questions. claremont, california. tony, line for democrats. go ahead. caller: thank you. bill kristol, i wanted to ask you, i see trump as sort of the reaction to the obama presidency. i see him as someone who is trying to basically destroy the. host: time everything that obama did. do you see the next candidate, whether it's republican or democrat, being able to bring us back together and piece the country back together? piece the e.p.a. back together? put the institutions, the foreign policy of getting along with other countries, do you see them being able to kind of bring ? ck the united states guest: i think so. any republican would have wanted to undo or reverse a fair a what president obama d a lot of what he? did in the first years was only democratic votes. mostly democratic votes and executive orders later. the democrats supported. republicans don't agree with that and they were going to reverse t just as obama reversed various bush policies. there's more partisanship than there used to be. that's different from damaging our institutions. i think that's really what you are getting . to one big story the first nine months of the trump presidency is the strength of the institution. we're not a third world country. no offense to third world countries watching. one bad president, i think he's one president, irresponsible can't destroy the institutions one irresponsible can't destroy the institutions of the country. he can't take over power. he can't make the military hop to it when he asks them to do something they shouldn't do. courts are independent. congress is another branch of government. federalism, civil society, the media, institutions, universities, churches. you think about america there is a robust set of institutions, the l and informal, that president has limited power, which is good. i hope liberals are reminded by the experience of trump why we don't have too powerfulal federal government. liberals love it when president obama is in there and he's doing this and that and changing this. you don't really want a president to be able to snap his fingers and tell private entities what to do whether it's nbc news or nfl or intimidate the cords or even have an automatic rubber stamp in his party in congress. maybe people have a little more appreciation for the case of separated powers, federalism, state, private sector. host: bill kristol, "weekly standard," his latest piece, the republican crackup, is in the october 16 edition. thanks for your time. next on the "washington journal," we'll talk about health care. yesterday's executive order. the president's actions coming subsidies. we'll talk about them all with caitlin owens of axios. we'll be right back. >> this weekend, on american history tv on c-span3, saturday, at 6:00 p.m. eastern on the civil war. kelly, author of "for their own cause" on southern morale after black troops were assigned to guard confederate prisoners. >> one would -- one might assume that's why they chose these black troops because in the mid 19th century most people did believe black men were not talented enough to fight, that they weren't brave enough. >> at 8:00 on lectures and history, middle tennessee state university professor on native americans and trade in 19th century california. >> the indian men are cowboys and they are dressed. really nicely. that shows you the value that missionaries placed on the work that these cowboys did. that they were allowed first of all to ride horse, which was generally forbidden to indians. and secondly to dress pretty nice. >> sunday at 7:00 p.m. on oral histories, we continue our series on photo journalists with david valdez, former director of the white house photo office under president george h.w. bush. >> if i say something about his hair and i take this photo and his hair looks nice, no one will ever believe that this wasn't set up. so i just took the photo and wound up running two full pages in life magazine, then over the next 20 years or so, it was in the classic moments of "life" and in 2011 it was selected in the issue one of the best photos in "life" magazine for the past 75 years. >> american history tv. all weekend, every weekend. only on c-span3. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite rovider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: axios health care reporter, caitlin owens, joins us now, a day after president trump signed a new health care executive order. and after the president decided, or the white house confirmed last night, that they'll be ending those health care subsidies. let's start on the subsidies and and how hat they are this is going to impact the affordable care act. guest: the same and how this is going to impact the affordable care act. subsidies have been hearing about for months now, since trump took office. the subsidies, they help cover things like co-payments, deductibles, out-of-pocket costs for low-income people. the funny thing here with the subsidies, insurers have to give them to enrollees who are below a certain income level. the problem is that republicans had a lawsuit saying congress didn't authorize the payments to be made to insurers. so the question has been is the administration, start with the obama administration, is the administration making these payments illegally since congress never passed a law saying, ok, these can be paid. so then when trump came into office, it was republican versus republican, so trump -- the court case has continued to be delayed. it seems that yesterday trump timely made the decision he's going to stop paying these. which means that low-income people that are entitlemented to these payments, they'll still but e cautionary relief, are not going to get the money. what happens then is it's reflected in premiums. host: democrats say this is going to collapse the marketplaces set up under the affordable care act, explain the concern here. how many people does this impact? how much money was being given out in these subsidies? guest: i think it was estimated somewhere between $12 billion-ish, a year. could be off are not going to g the money. what happens then is it's reflected in of dollars. this feakts everybody on the individual market. as i said if insurers there. it's billions aren't getting these subdies, the lack of money will be reflected in premiums. premiums rise for everybody. but the problem is here, too, insurers, they have already been required to file their rates for 2018 for next year. and the issue is some insurers some assumed they wouldn't get it and some did. can insurers pull out? what's going to happen? host: the headline from axios this morning, trump takes a sledgehammer to affordable care act. caitlin owens is health care reporter with axios. we talked about the subsidies. what was in this executive order that the president signed yesterday just a few hours before the stories came out about the subsidies? guest: this is different. plans to offerng best comprehensive insurance to be offered either in the small business markets or on exchanges. there are two different pieces to it that were important. one is the association health plan piece, which is the idea is it allows small businesses to do the same thing, or even self-employed to be in together and effectively act as a large employer. so with that that means they can go on the large group market. they are not subject to the same rules t could take healthy people out of the small group market, which could raise premiums on the small group market. the second part of that executive order was also allowing short-term insurance plans to be sold. right now they are only allowed for three months. this is for people in between jobs. just for whatever reason don't have health care for a couple months. the administration wants regulations that goes to about a year. those are really bare-bones. the ink about 26-year-old 26-year-old and you don't need a comprehensive plan and also healthy, you'll probably go into the plan that's cheap for you. that also runs the risk of this exodus of the young healthy people from the individual market, which then would raise premiums. host: the president yesterday at that signing ceremony for that executive order said this should have it, if you are a been done why wasn't it done very early on in the trump presidency? why wait until now? guest: i think a lot of it was republicans were throwing these ideas around as part of repeal and replace. those efforts died. and for now at least. i think there was a lot of pressure on the president to act unilaterally here. host: we're talking with caitlin owens, axios health care reporters. taking your questions and comments for about the next half-hour this morning on the "washington journal." do you want to call in. epublicans 202-748-8001. independents 202-748-8002. very busy past 24 hours on the health care beat. we'll try to continue to walkthrough all of it as we get your questions. starting with bill in johnstown, pennsylvania. inddents. how you doing down there. question is this, i use the a.c.a. it's very good. -- is want to know is how you this subsidy going to be gone? gone, then to be my insurance will be probably unaffordable. i just want to know some details and specifics. are they available yet? is this going to affect 2018? this is putting stress on eople. host: thanks for the host: thanks for the call. caitlin owens on the timing on this. guest: i think that you raise a really good question. the caller does about subsidies. i think something to know here there are premium subdies in the a.c.a. oes directly to your premiums. your income qualifies you. up to a certain -- it's proportional to how much you make up to a certain percentage of the poverty line. then there's the cost sharing subsidies which is what we're talking about. the cost sharing subsidies is what the administration will stop paying. subsidies, those keep being paid. that's what's interesting. premiums are increased without the cost -- because of the cost sharing subsidies with those ending. but for people who still receive the premium subdies, a percentage subsidies, those premium thatid. of their those cover, that's not going to change. what really happens here is people who receive the subsidies, they might see premit those cover, some increase what they are paying. but it's really people who don't receive subdies that will take the real brunt of these prume um -- premium increases. which means the government is paying more which is the interesting thing here. host: what are the estimates here in here -- estimates here n terms of the impact on premium prices and how much more the government might end up paying on that end? guest: a couple billion. it's not chief. as far as the -- cheap. as far as the price tag to the government. with the marketplaces, with premiums, insurers file for a spect marketplace. just depends on your plan. as i said for 2018, immediately some insurers are higher. some didn't plan on that. they are going to have to keep pricing. host: can they go back and change the pricing on their plans at this point? guest: no. 2018 rates are final. unless there is some administration action that reopens it. i don't know. i don't know how that would work. these are final. too, insurers didn't price right, correctly according to this, can they still pull out? are people going to have insurance options? host: leo here in washington, d.c., line for republicans. go ahead. caller: my question is congress did too, not authorize the cost sharing payments to the insurance companies, how was the previous administration legally able to give the insurance companies that money? guest: that's a great question. what happened was this is getting into a lot of washington speak. ese payments are going to be made to consumers. there is an authorization, which is like the legal -- there is an authorization, which is like the legal -- this is going to a and there is an appropriation. this is getting into a lot of details. basically there was an argument. the obama administration said yes. these payments were appropriate. they can be made. and then the republican house said no. they weren't. they can't be made. as this case was pending and the payments kept going. ast year decided, they sided with house republicans saying these are unconstitutional. while the case was appealed. things were delayed. there was nothing stopping the payments for the time being. but then what happens, essentially trump said he's going to stop fighting the case. host: could congress step in and override what the president did? guest: absolutely. democrats -- democrats have been doing -- it's a tricky issue. when obama administration was president they said these payments were legal. there is no need for an appropriation. there is an effort in the senate in the health committee right now to make these payments to appropriating them. the question is, a, do republicans have this appetite -- rop up the law while also, what are democrats willing to bring to the table to strike a deal. host: taking your calls this morning with caitlin owens of axios. keith in reed city, michigan. line for democrats. go ahead. caller: yes. the previous question just runs right into what i was going to ask, too. the constitutionality of the president writing executive rder over monetary issues. congress is supposed to control the pursestrings. president toow the appropriate or unappropriate moneys towards anything, why bother having a congress? the only thing left would be declaring war and we haven't done that since december 8 of 1941. i'm just pretty much reiterating what the last person called why even bother having a congress. host: greg is in princeton, new jersey, line for democrats. go ahead. caller: yeah. would just like my republican [inaudible] host: you are going in and out. put you on hold while we go and talk to norman in tennessee. see if we can get back to you. line for independents, go ahead. caller: hello. am i on? host: yes, sir. caller: i just want to know how much we would save as an individual and as a country if we want to the canadian health care system? host: any estimates on that? guest: i don't know exact estimates. it's tricky. there is a lot of ways to do single payer, which is what we're skirting around here. there are so many different ways to do t it's hard to put a price tag on it until you flesh out the policies. if we want to move to single payer, are we doing medicare for all? medicaid for all? individual contracts with the government. how much will we charge for different services? how will we tag on it until you pay for it? will taxes be raised? on who? these are questions as democrats keep talking about single payer, like countries like canada and europe, these are questions that are going to have to be answered at some point. host: democrats certainly talking about it more and more since the failure to repeal and replace the affordable care act. what do you think would happen -- what happened yesterday in terms of the subsidies, executive order, what does that do to the single payer debate? guest: i would assume it puts it on hold for a while. it's hard for democrats to keep talking about single payer when the trump administration has effectively just blown a hole through obamacare. i don't know how democrats make the argument that we're going to keep going for three years of this i.n.s. stability. talk about single payer the whole time. at least until the next presidential election. that would be the first chance there was even a glimmer of hope of single payer passing. i think we'll have to talk more about these marketplaces for now. host: how enthusiastic are those democrats at the front of the single payer push, how enthusiastic are they going to be to fight this subsidies battle, to fight any battle to push back against the executive order yesterday? guest: i think they'll be really involved. again the a.c.a., the democrats passed it. they really believe in the principle of making sure people have affordable health care coverage. this idea of universal coverage, or access. i don't think that they want this program to have a hole in it. host: we talked about the cost increase involved with ending the cost sharing subsidies what that's going to do to premiums and how much it could impact federal spending. one estimate from the congressional budget office, sam-s stein of msnbc, put this out this morning on twitter switecrithing a c.b.o. report from ending the subsidies increases the premiums by 20% in 2018. 25% by 2020. the deficit goes up $6 billion by 2018. $21 billion by 2020. your thoughts on those numbers and c.b.o.'s role going forward in this debate? guest: i think those numbers are accurate. because when you think about it, as we keep talking about, premiums will have to go up for insurers to make up the losses from the subsidies. so when premiums go up, premium subsidies that the government has to pay out goes up. the money that they pay out for subdies end up being made more than what they paid for the cost sharing. i think it's going to be interesting. republicans have made this argument in favor of subdies eng made more than appropriating the payment. this is a fiscally conservative thing to do. but they want something in return for that. i think we'll have to wait and see whether the pressure to just pay the subsidies outweighs this desire to extract something from democrats. host: richard in missouri. line for democrats. go ahead. caller: i just wonder, this deal the president made, how many people is that going to kill? that guy shot all them people in vegas only killed 50. how many will this kill? it's another step closer to single payer as far as i'm concerned. we got a moron up there. host: why do you think it's a step closer to single payer, richard? caller: you start cutting more people off, more voters will vote for single payer. they want insurance, health. we want health care. that's what we want. this insurance business is just a big con-s game anyhow. i'll get off the air, thank you. host: any of those arguments being echoed by the single payer supporters here on capitol hill? guest: yeah. you see the argument for single payers. that private insurance isn't working. i think that that's what you're going to see a lot of democrats saying. we tried this. and people still don't have coverage. it's still unaffordable. we have to move on to something else. host: frank in ohio, line for republicans. go ahead. caller: yes. one of the things that hasn't been mentioned is the savings if we were in implement some sort of tort reform. i'm assuming most doctors pay for medical malpractice insurance. let's estimate there's somewhere around a million. and the average premium is somewhere around $50,000 a year. that's $50 billion of potential savings. some states have capped the payout for malpractice. isn't that ng why not on the docket for savings which could more than offset the cost of this recent signature law by the president? guest: i think it's an interesting conversation to have about the cost of health care and isn't that not on the docket for savings which could more than offset th. washington has been talking for a decade about insurance. and who pays for t how to make it affordable. i think that at some point we're going to have to start talking, washington will have to start talking how to bring the costs of health care down instead of how to shift it from one nsurance payer to another. that's part that's part of tort reform. it's part of that conversation. also how do you price medicine, ervices, how do you price -- host: that signing ceremony yesterday president trump called on congress to finish repeal and replace. at this point are republicans any closer to agreement on what a repeal and replace bill that will actually make it through the house and senate, what that looks like? guest: no. i think there was a lot of talk about cassidy-graham, the thing about that, a lot didn't know what was in it or how it would work because it was so fast. there wasn't time to deeply analyze what a bill that size was going to do. host: you remind our viewers the big picture parts of graham-cassidy. guest: what it did it took all the money that went to premium subsidies and individual markets in the affordable care act and medicaid expansion, and just took that money, reduced it a little bit, and redistributed it among states. the thing was, it completely changed how that money goes from the federal government to states. if you are on medicaid expansion state, which were blue states, you end up losing a lot of money. if you were a red state that didn't expand medicaid, a lot of states in the south, you got a lot of money from it. host: what were the lessons there for republicans after the failure of graham-cassidy? guest: i think that they still have the same vote problem, right? where it's maybe four members who will say no on principle. susan collins announced this morning she's going to stay there. that vote will stay. lisa murkowski is still swing vote. john mccain. and rand paul doesn't like the idea of the federal government paying for health care. you still have the same problem to solve. host: rand paul, you mentioned him, why he was at that signing ceremony yesterday. what role he had in this executive order. guest: association health plans forever. this is something he wanted all along. he's been telling reporters for a while he's talking to the president about it. the president wants to do an executive order. i think he was pretty instrumental in getting this done. host: as we show you some of the video from that signing ceremony yesterday, there is the vice president talking to rand paul standing directly behind him there. if you missed that signing ceremony you can watch it on our website at c-span.org. wade in south carolina, line for independents, go ahead. caller: i'm kind of wondering, a federal judge found this law of subsidies illegal and unconstitutional. why can't we just follow the law and do what's got to be done? guest: yes. there are two options here. either stop paying them, as we discussed the consequences of that are higher premiums. or congress can pass a law saying it's legal for these to be paid. there's kind of two options here. i'm not sure what's going to happen. host: explain the politics for republicans, what pressure will they be under to ensure these premiums get paid. why would they want to vote for something like that? guest: with these subdiss not paid, it will cause a lot of disruption in the individual market. people are going to get hurt. more insurers will pull out. there is a lot that can happen pretty quickly and definitely in the future. so i think, a, it's a question of do we want to take action to prevent that no matter the political costs? b, there is this political calculation who gets blamed for that. republicans are hoping they can still say this is democrats' law and obama's law, it's their fault. but polling shows people say republicans are in charge now and they need to deal with t it's a pretty -- the calculation isn't easy. host: one of those members of congress that was tweeting last night in the wake of this decision after the news came out that the president would be ending these subsidies that we have been talking about, brian from hawaii. he tweeted last night after this sabotage, republicans own the price of health care totally. if they want to lower costs, legislative fix is ready to vote. see his tweet there. that debate on who owns this. right now. what is he referring to when he says the legislative fix is ready for a vote? guest: i think there is a lot of bills floating around. m assuming -- that must be a democratic bill. the bipartisan negotiation that we hit on in the health committee, that's not finalized. those are still being negotiated among patty murray and lamar alexander. i don't think it's ready to go but they are well under way. hoint health committee, health, education, labor, pensions committee can you talk about that process and what you have been able to learn about that process. you say it's not ready to go. what do we know what's on the table? host: it is repeal and replace failed, alexander, the chairman, the republican said he wanted to hold hearings about how to stabilize the individual market. he was having really tight, hard line. he's a republican. he has been talking about repeal and replace. now he's talking about short-term stabilization. the things they were talking about was basic. paying these subsidies and also suffering more flexibility and how they design their insurance plans and regulations. there are a few other things that came up at the hearings, but it sounded like the goal was to make this individually pretty tailored to the individual market. host: just about 10 or 15 minutes left in today's "washington journal." taking your questions on health care with caitlin owens of axios. a reminder that president trump is expected to speak in about 45 minutes at the value rotor summit in washington, d.c. expected to speak about 10:30. we're showing the value voters summit on c-span2. t started about an hour ago. several other folks expected to speak today as well, including moore, the candidate for senate in alexander. steve can lease expected to be there as well. that under way. watch it on c-span2. president trump expecting to announce his administration's policy towards iran today. 12:45. we'll bring it to you live here on c-span. also on c-span.org. of course you can listen to it on the c-span radio app. back to your calls for caitlin owens. diana in magyolea, ohio. republican, go ahead. caller: yes. my question is how will this affect someone retired on medicaid? guest: the executive order and subsidies, they don't impact medicaid or medicare at this point. it's just the individual market, only people in the individual market that receive these subsidies. executive as the order that impacts both the small group market, small employers, small businesses and individual market. medicare, executive order that impacts medicaid, no right now. host: jim in new jersey line for democrats. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i just want to pass on a little story for people to consider. i have somebody close to me that c.e.o. of a drug company. he was telling us a story about how three clients and he's going to take them to lunch and will be back in time for dinner. they flew out to san francisco from new jersey. they had their lunch and came back. they had these shareholders that they have to satisfy. my point is this. in the e only country world that has a system like ours that makes money on people being sick. why not have medicare for all? runs at 2%. we don't have to be paying all these shareholders. we don't have to pay for lunch dates across-country. i just don't see -- i don't understand why people have to have insurance companies involved. that's my point. host: ask you before you go, would you prefer to keep the affordable care act in place as it is right now? do you think that democrats should work to fight the changes that the trump administration announced yesterday? or do you think they should stop that effort and move completely towards the single payer effort? caller: well, at this point right now i think the single payer is the most commonsense thing to do. just doesn't make any sense to be paying all these people shareholders. say the affordable care act makes it a little easier for people to pay, then i guess we're stuck with it. basically i just don't think that there's any reason why people should have to pay insurance companies. we should just pay through our taxes and let medicare do it at 2%. there's no way in the world that an insurance company can pay that. and besides, the thing is, how much money the insurance company pays out to -- for claims and how much money do they pay in lawyers to fight those claims. host: got your point. caitlin owens, do you want to pick up on that? guest: the thing about single payer right now there is not the votes in congress. there's certainly not a president that would sign a single payer into law as far as we know. but this argument, this debate is not going away. we'll be hearing about single payer. the pros, cons of it for a long time. for sure, closer to 2020. host: as we said, it seems like the repeal and replace effort not going away, either. yesterday at the white house chief of staff john kelly said that he expects to take another shot at a repeal effort early next year. can you talk through the timing of that and sort of the response from the hill on whether that's something that can fit into a very packed agenda for republicans on capitol hill right now? guest: i think it's something to understand we're seeing republicans can't let this go. it might not be good for them politically, but their base wants it. their voters want it. they campaigned on it for several years. a bunch of different election cycles. they cannot let this go. the problem is they don't want to muddy the waters for tax reform. this executive order and the subsidy might do just that. we don't know yet. so basically they can unlock three different budget process this is congress. only 50 votes, on party line. we already dealt once with health care. now they want to do it again with tax reform. that's where we're. host: those that's the 2018 budget resolution. guest: so the budget is still on.g worked ideally, for republicans, they'll be passed sometime soon. and then they can do the 2019 one next year. so that's kind of the chatter is they want to use that 2019 budget resolution to unlock the reconciliation process again, which only lasts -- only requires them to have republica. ideally, for republicans, they'll be votes. they can try to do health care again. the thing about that is, in february, january, february, march, whenever it is, the composition of congress will be the same. i don't know what it is that would make that effort any different from this round. host: congress would be that much closer to an election day. guest: right. this is real unpopular. i don't know how many republicans want to take a vote that close to november. and then go campaign on it. host: time for a few more calls. taking your questions about health care, about the changes we saw announced yesterday and the stories we saw about the white house announcing ending subsidies, those subsidies for less wealthy people. talking with caitlin owens of axios. phone numbers again 202-748-8001. emocrats, 202-74le 8-8000. ndependents, 202-748-8002. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. the question i have -- one comment first is it's important to distinguish wean tween the two kinds of subsidies. the subsidies for low income people on their premiums. from letely different what the president changed. he changed the subsidies to the insurance companies. d that is -- it has an indirect effect of raising all he premiums. it doesn't affect immediately the subsidies to low-income people whatsoever. my question, though, was about effect in the he signing on the use of the h.r.a. a number of years in my company before a number of year very practical use of h.r.a. for our employees. having a very high deductible, catastrophic care type of verage that it actually cost considerably less to actually pay by the company for the cost of the health care of the employees than it did to pay the remium for high coverage plan. can you describe if the effect of the signing on the use of the h.r.a.? host: thanks for that. thanks for helping us be precise in what we're talking about here. guest: he knows his stuff. eah. yes, he's completely right. the subsidies for premiums onts individual market are separate from the cost sharing subsidies yes, he's completely subsidies. premium are not. subsidies to insurers which are passed along to consumers are. there is a trend we're seeing that goes under the radar because of the individual market. host: explain what an h.r.a. is. guest: an account you can get money in it. u can use it to pay for your health care, health care, deductibles, co-pays, whatever it is. it's not your premium, it's your health care spending cash. we're seeing a trend, health care cost, met cal costs are going up. we're seeing employers pass those costs along to consumers. yes, they are asking to pay less in premium by offering to plans that -- by deciding to offer plans that have higher deductibles and more cost sharing. consumers use the deductibles in cost sharing. if they have this health care spending cash on hand they can use that for deductibles. big fan of this idea. they say it encourages more responsible spending. because someone really thinks twice about whether not being that extra service. whether it's -- an x-ray or blood test or whatever it is. b they say that's the way to bring that cost down. host: desoto, texas, anna son our line for democrats. go ahead. caller: yes. want to thank you younger guys who do this show every day. i think you do an excellent job. one, want to canadian, you are going to pay higher taxes, but you get good coverage and you can have coverage here. want to thank you younger guys who do this show every day. i think you do an excellent job. one, my daughter lived in canada for seven years. her and her husband. and for those people who want number three, our senior citizens, i have taken on, i'm 69 years old. i work a part-time job because high option ve insurance. and we do, we have great insurance, plus medicare, but for the poor people, it's going -- might not hit you this year, but it's going to hit you next year. call your senators and congressmen. senator rand paul, his dad is in the insurance industry now. have a great weekend. thank you so much. host: thanks for the call. caitlin owens. what do you want to pick up on? guest: i think there was a lot there. she's talked about low-income people. and i think it's important to remember that these cost sharing subsidies are paid to people 250% below the poverty line. they are designed to help people for their health insurance. again premium subdies are 400% and below. then there are a lot of people above that limit who are going to take on the brunt of everything being done. that's the middle class wage. it's important to remember that that group is really going to feel the full brunt of these premium increase that is could . me or two more calls. jim, midland, texas, line for independents. caller: i just think we ought to go to a single payer system. i think the only reason we don't do that is because of all the money in politics. think all the lobbyists that used to be politicians are going up there with big bags of money and keeping everything going the way it is. i agree with previous callers there is no need for insurance companies. if it was a single payer system, they could get cost controls in place. thanks. host: another caller in favor of the single payer system. how much do you think that is going to be a focus of a democratic presidential primary coming up? almost think it's certain to be. we have 17 democratic senators sign on almost every name in the senate is a 2020 hopeful. even if we get a more moderate field of democrats in there as well, it's going to come up. there are people who really believe that single payer is where we should be headed. host: ed in glendale, arizona. line for democrats. good morning. caller: hi. i had occasion to speak with some attorneys used to have that came over from europe. was working on european products, did service work. i questioned them. we would have breaks. i would question them about this health care system. and how the single payer over there. and they take like 40% of their income goes for -- everybody's in it. that's the thing. it isn't that you opt out or anything. when you are born, it's cradle to the grave. they are very happy with it. they wouldn't want to change out of that. that's with personal conversation was them. you don't have this argument every four years when you get new administration, every eight years, that you are going to change it and we don't want this and we don't want that. they live with it. they seem to enjoy t they don't have the pressures that we have here. they seem to have a better standard of living. that's my comment. host: thanks for the comment. did you want to pick up on that? guest: two things. first of all i think here. they seem to have a better standard of living. it's important to remember about sin if we, the country does that, whether it's 2020 or beyond, it's going to cause a lot of change. that's a major change to the way things are structured today. second of all, i think the caller has pointed out that, yes, we're in the position now where health care changes with the administration. it changes based on who is going to sign the law. that's unsustainable. the when we were talking industry, especial privately run industry, it can't take that amount of people every four to eight years. that is the hope, if there is a bipartisan solution, that was what john mccain was saying. we can't keep doing this. we can't keep changing things every time the administration changes. if we come up with something together, we're both going to be invested in making sure it works. you might think the caller does strike a good point. it's too big to keep changing. low pressure last call, ron, florida, line for republicans. o ahead. caller: i just wanted to say what i'm not in favor of single favor, mainly because caller: i just australia as that. australia, i have a friend of mine living down there, went there for the insurance, and a can of coke was like $5 for one can of coke. they may have all the insurance, but they have all the costs to go with it. the other thing i see is when you have states like oregon that just implemented mandatory coverage of abortions for everybody at every income level, they don't have to pay for it, but the insurance companies do, it just seems wrong that the whole thing -- i'm on medicare and i haven't used my medicare for 15 years. i got hacked and somebody else was using it. it took me three weeks to get that corrected. i'm just not a big fan of government running health care. i have blue cross blue shield right now that i use. the insurance company seems to do a damn good job. i got a bill for $1,600 and i nly had to pay $363 on it. i just think the whole thing basically is a mess. but nobody seems to want to do anything about it. the other thing is, once you get into your federal programs, like medicare, i have been paying a premium each year, each month, actually, it's mandatory. i pay it. i can't get out of it. i probably paid them $11,000 . er the last 10 years or more host: can i jump in. we're running out of time. i want to ask you, would you be more confident in your state running that health care system than are you in the federal government? do you think the state of florida would do a better job? caller: yeah. i really don't have a problem with the state running it. the idea of state control. it's a lot easier for me to go grab a state senator and shake him by the bones than what i have to do to get my medicare problem straightened out by going by the medicare association. that whole issue was a pain. hi a friend mine, another 75-year-old guy, this is when i was living in oregon. host: we have to let you go. caitlin owens, the last 30 seconds before we end our program. guest: i think as we keep talking about single payer going forward, i think it is something he raised. it's not free. single payer costs money. a tax increase. the question is, who is going to pay it. host: caitlin owens is with axios, ackos.com. health care reporter there. you can follow her on twitter at kate lin owens, thanks for your time. that's going to do it for our program today on the "washington journal." we'll be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. 4:00 a.m. pacific. we now take you to capitol hill where energy and commerce. democratic ranking member frank pallone of new jersey. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

Related Keywords

Australia , Alabama , United States , Nevada , United Kingdom , Delaware , California , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Russia , Connecticut , Arizona , Reed City , Michigan , South Carolina , Massachusetts , Whitehouse Well , Claremont , New York , Georgia , North Carolina , Missouri , Texas , Iran , Washington , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Kentucky , Cuba , Florida , Vietnam , Republic Of , Illinois , Indiana , Virginia , Togo , West Haven , Canada , Oregon , State College , Mississippi , Puerto Rico , Jersey , Fort Lauderdale , Oklahoma , Maine , Fort Wayne , Thailand , Tennessee , New Jersey , Nebraska , Israel , Maryland , Ohio , Hawaii , Americans , Canadian , Russian , Sayam , Israeli , Russians , American , Cuban , Jim Kelly , Elizabeth Warren , Ronald Reagan , George Bush , Patty Murray , William Kristol , Lin Owens , Nancy Pelosi Chuck Schumer , Sam Stein , Sean Hannity , Steve Bannon , Newt Gingrich , John Kelly , John Mccain , Susan Collins , Bob Corker , Bob Casey , Floyd Abrams , Tom Davis , Susan Swaim , Jimmy Carter , Caitlin Owens , Barack Obama , Sadif America , George W Bush , Las Vegas , Henry Wallace , Aaron Hernandez , Alexander Steve , Lisa Murkowski , Hillary Clinton , Franklin Roosevelt ,