tv Washington Journal David Mc Intosh Discusses Conservative Opposition to GOP... CSPAN March 12, 2017 5:09pm-5:51pm EDT
congressional plans for wall street, the banking sector, and consumers, as well as other issues. "newsmers" tay at six eastern c-spa nowa conversaon wit former.s. represeative david mcintoshf indna fr "shgt jrn" is 4mite ing he asngn rm cgrsm a t esenoflufo gwt odorng thksorei wh u es gd rng. ho: t binitth ennd qstn. ato u in othepl depcelafoth afrdlearac es tt'be t qstn ofhe wk r u wehi ts rsn a fetot ary ce, congutfheou - ilo pebaca. , vebi stis i
eas l tt iple. anwee ryonrnha ifhepa tt rsn eyl ilo he pouny trelyut io ple ee mkehethar th wlow t ct r thavagamic. ho: te tou rctn to sak rn dhitoay la wk authath puicgea abo d y ee tapn w. >>hapele a tki ouhe's l o usatnndonsiut the on cseate ou anev angemrss coilti h cta lits sohe a fks w wld lo tseusutnhibi l tseth ias oncoertiro i sangouadetr t shpicrs atlis 'rno gngo ur i wdo tt wldt leo sshibi. itoue listedn e na. t lt ine nto isrenturbity t acal g l me.
irelys coerti abt e ir pngppac eth blsre gngo pa osi orenciaon whh ithhoee' a mariodweanasha goo e sat mh t cveatns ar autovg isth en othsa tckrod e meimtoet tse in de. ho: hwadictefri cb rroh. gut:es hwa d t sak h ner seedn e sat si deta wree sn mae ok aho renciaonul or the. ha tketoom auorieont d eyay e rlmearn c coenth b t sak ybth ve esenpee cama t disn. ts ce, tnkt n ea aumt tsaf u coetacssta les inrae pmis llo wnth'r ssizi emmso t ferolrs wi gdo a wl. geudt paotti, d eror wldctllbe
leourveecciatn le ho:ete t ureaio aeainth wtaed abtn e rsou ste nn t fme eto wenrdvero psint trp. ve rso wbacas althguane timse usngos o ver ht ums seandanpor ba tth docts ur rctn. es ihit bl han' lkeatllev tireans i' g fe s tng th iou cnginto fuilthroseth esenp den e mpgnra. h aergo mti wh m, bth w. e usanthpeerer yi is ts llnd thg se anherede aista teo,e' sll netiinth. soe gehito kp e omeshahead weluprtim wt goiltoas anth hcaulll tt anamics lle tt f. thr sunc pmis ll
goow sthowi iurce emmso wn gut:nes tt mpitn acsstain. otr itoeme t gutis tt amarpu iurce iusieth ys ty n' tlefi eireumorroct t wh arinsee thgrt alo iea mee dehiwe w t olcoeral y s aut cansanitflwhee n st f t t pic yone f yr mi. at aownd amaroreah sunc mo tse rtrtis d yollee t pmiso do. ophoav pexti ndio wl ve bte chcef ttgovag ho: llhee arte cora? est pes wchay eyo. ifouicupenoran' rsn ha y. cae e e at wl leo eahe pls whe ty n aet guaned cere er ho: b h dyo catth
ceiv a l orici wh e foab ce tutnef thfuamta iuewaou ha thaeah sunc sooue tsi erncooasouprar rehyci. hainnte tref t aaxregatn weris g tt inrae? eshenctiilbe ifouo t hpil u' n gngo crg hure o tusdsf doar th's a sfienncti r steoe twa tbu sunc buwhshld seby o une yi a iurce at 6ye-o rir rs i gti? eyon nd e me odt. eyeeon tt a castph ce iurce pocy sothghahesheif th'rin aarccenan fi tmsvein hpil. g reisse pelen d feeeth odtshe ty' srtg toavhire t eyon nd athe th'r i riren soomodrereanno gog hehiredon' edo ve aho bchf
cora fretaca. thcuenbaca vsi ysvebo hbu t me biclyerxpsi odt. dhadon'aksee. ifouetheartpceak ref is me op wl beap. mo erydyilbe ae g i anthe o c'tilha a rostafyet st me ns sed y i th hsef prentis. yokn hel hepo aut t hltca w stdainenck t'at. umaeauaer rht he i lisllisulng t ktuy' omare chge daonthd othste edai anas yr veorasai ov a or ai is suaiblanedaihe ktuy teani t baruhiste. fos,hiju c't ntue aniroseout w't [alae]
sieheayhaenck enusdhe tmp adniraonas wke t keroes thhoe reed s ll o nd a ipaedit unims pptrotw coitesn e ngssne ofhi cgrsmutie si o a cgrsm i jt nto an y fou ro spo teplnd reacbaca. stvi psintik nc oiednamouprt unimseplin ppt. no doctsuprthi gh n. ats intoapn wh th pcefeglaon wh iyo rctn? es wgr wh soa colely anwh wmewi h a esentrp,e ide nto aeo ppt u 10 igeinhido. t y rllha treal . d e vsi tt thhoe paedraly dsn. lveheaxncas i
act av txpsi micd iple. it flso ea cpeti tnsanart. d eas l os relaon i pce no t psintndheic pridt ve pn rhe relaon tdoho tou crarpre dring thr negatns bu tre sllllhe reiren ferexnse anth oy c bemed bytate thalabt ste tee anthpeeron tt. buth ruis0 te anasouoiedut decrs a n wki wh reblanonhi pa othcotrnter i attaso ail tt mo a rubca aeeo cae ne temrac coeaesreoi t hp th g ts roh. eyantouprtnd ott amar puics nto s wve real i soy pgniss ithit coins eayt n, i wi lelno me tou thhoe cae thk tre ar eugcoerti
puics oavsa w n'vo f ts. d erar tea. mae eyl aryo reen pma. the m a wenn e coertiidarer inpl iivua. thk eye ino y, unss y me me siifanhain, c't beor ts ll w bor teepl depcef amarut th i't i ift t roh t us tn y'vruin obmsveinheene llhe ty n lyos the ves anat ts in'vhed colatsf teer ur deteth d'tik i d reoroucoertis o id ian ve rhi irectthapot th'l srtveanwre thrwnil th h o autwoea agin 25 atheidet thug wh lutnef e puic sats ti f it anth m b t bt ac rhetota. stouonrsiowi dad insh araatof lend enehiladeee frhenirsy cca
lascol sntwoer i e usofepseates reesti iia. i rubcaanhi weitisluforoh.g. gemo iorti. nen e puicin frinnni. odorng ll: odorng m stonri,heke lkg ouedai atboedar wh iitoio tmy meca a m s cuty es vy odueio ve iorntueio i neauryotht don'donyinhawi fe mice sia seri. itr e puicsn e hoe a satno pnt trp nto tt. inacrede tmpas reeirad sosio omheamig wreot gog c mice,e' t intoutocl cuty ho: iss twt fm vier
gut:reat question, steve. the real answer there back to those regulations. they required everybody to join, which should have created a bigger pool, and the the theory was that will lower costs because more people are involved in the insurance pool. but then they turned around and said but you can only offer very expensionive versions of your health care premium. one of the big drivers is the preexisting conditions problem. and that's basically -- says that if you're sick you can still go get insurance. part of the problem there is it's cheaper for somebody who is young to pay the fee that they have to pay and skip out on the insurance industry. then if they become sick, go sign up for insurance and their health care is taken care of. that type of regulation where you require coverage of preexisting conditions but you don't effectively require people to get insurance doesn't
work. i've heard of other solutions that make a lot more sense, where they say you can take advantage of the lower cost insurance, but if you wait to sign up until you're sick then you're going to have to pay like a 30% premium. sort of as a penalty, for waiting. i think if they set up the structure that way, people will learn, we've got to get insurance now, in case we have a catastrophic accident or cancer or something terrible. host: our guest was the executive director of president bush's council on competitiveness. barny joining us from florida. good morning. caller: host: we'll move on to kathy from michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. your statement skipped out on the insurance industry i find very, very frightening.
i've been working in health care on and off the last 27 years, i currently do. you have no idea, it's quite plain, along with mr. ryan and a lot of people, what really goes on in hospitals. you have no idea. can i ask you this. what was your premium when you were in the house of representatives? do you still have coverage through your tenure working for the government? and if you do, what's the cost of it? and when you were in the house -- i don't know if you have children. but if you do, were your children covered under that? host: we'll get a response. thank you. guest: from 1995 to 2001. to be honest with you, i do not remember what our premiums were. the government plan then required us to pay 20% but they
were very good plans. part of the reason they were good and inexpensive plans was they created this pool that insurance companies would compete for to sign up government employees. and i think one of the points was wanting to make was average citizens don't have the benefit of that same government approach to health care that benefited me. to answer the rest of your question, today i'm part of our group coverage as the club for brotesdz, and i believe it's a very good plan for the employees because the group pays for 100% of the premiums. i believe it's about 15-16,000 for family of four. i've got two kids on it. so it's an expensive policy. it's continued to go up every year as the club bought insurance under the obamacare. we've had to make changes and have a higher deductible, which
is unfortunate. but that was the only way we can continue to afford to pay 100% of the premiums. ost: michael has this tweet. guest: very good question. those are those reconciliation rules that speaker ryan was talking about. in order to get to 50 votes and not have a filibuster, you have to first pass a budget and the said then in this case rewrite medicaid and other entitlements and tax provisions and you can only spend so much money. that instruction now will go to the finance committee and to the health committee there. they have to write a bill under those overarching rules. if they don't, then somebody can make a point of order. this gets complicated. but basically you're back to 60 votes with the point of order.
so the committees will work very hard because they know they don't have any support from the democrats to write a bill that fills those rules. one of the main rules that has been in place for probably 40 years now is called the byrd rule. it's actually written into the budget act where it says in order to get -- take advantage of this 50 rule procedure limiting debate, it only can be for provisions that have an impact on the budget. so if your purpose for this is purely to write new policy, say pass a new law that anything but didn't have to do with the federal budget, maybe it's a new criminal proceeding, maybe it's a new health care program that doesn't have to do with spending, those aren't allowed because then everybody would use this bill to get around the 60 rule debate rule. so that's the struggle. some of the things are harder
to do under that. some of them, like the one i mentioned having the insurance industry compete across state lines i think you can very much argue it has an impact on the federal budget. other people are saying, no, we don't think it does. we think it's more like a law that just passes a regulation. host: this really gets into the weeds. but when it goes through that reconciliation process and they review senator byrd and the rule they call it the byrd bath. guest: exactly because it strips away some of the provisions. now, in the house of representatives they don't have that same rule. so speaker ryan's bill could do 100% of these things. and then they could negotiate with the senate. host: but let me ask you about senator cruzes comments this past week. his belief is if your friend the vice president mike pence is the presiding officer, he can interpret the rules and of course he is going to have an interest in making sure this thing passes the senate. could that happen?
guest: what senator cruz is referring to is how do you enforce the byrd rule? the way that happens in the senate, the speaker of the senate, the -- the president of the senate, in this case vice president pence or some senator if he is not there, he makes the ruling. the parliamentarian actually has no role written into the law. he's like a staffer who is advising the vice president what to do. but then the vice president can choose. this one survives the byrd rule and we're going to keep the 50 vote debate rule. when that happens, if the members disagree -- the democrats say we don't agree with that, we think you've got it wrong -- they can object to the ruling of the chair. but the consideration of h.j. res. 57, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 united states code and so forth. the presiding officer: question is on the motion. even very likely that that ruling n will be sustained.
so if they decide -- and it's -- vice president pence works with mitch mcconnell in making those rulings because mitch runs the day-to-day senate. but if they decided we think this fits under the byrd rule, they will under the process be able to have that sustained. host: sounds like must-see tv. of course c-span 2 will have live coverage if it makes the it to the senate, c-span covering the house. thank you for waiting. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. i agree with your guest, david. i believe that you have to get rid of the tax increase. you have to open up competition. and i think that paul ryan i believe that representative ryan, he is running scared and two steps to play ahead. he should just worry about getting the best bill for the
american people. the republicans have a great window of opportunity to get this right. then they need to get this done. d trying to hold off a filibuster about something that what might or might not happen, i don't think representative ryan should be worried about that. he should be making sure that the american people get the best product possible because if they mess this up, then it's going to really just open up the doors for the democrats and say i told you so. i told you so. and then move on with their continued i guess demonization of the republicans. so i would suggest that representative ryan work with this guest of yours, take the good ideas and move forward for the -- for the american people and do what's best. host: thank you for the call. let me take ken's comment but also to respond to this tweet.
guest: so let me step back and say i do think this is an historic time. republicans have promised now for four elections they would repeal obamacare. and because paul ryan is stepping back, he's taking a bill from the insurance industry, he's saying i'm constrained by the senate rules, they're failing to really repeal obamacare. and i think the political consequences of that will be very unfavorable for republicans. but the consequences for the american people is their insurance premiums will not go down under this bill. they will continue to be high and start going up again in a year or so. so it will be a failure in trying to actually accomplish the goal of repealing obamacare and lowering the insurance premiums. in terms of coverage, under their provisions of the bill because of the refundable tax
credit and the fact that they've kept the preexisting conditions rule, no one will lose their coverage. i mean, that's my prediction. but reading it right now i think everybody will continue to get coverage. the problem is it will continue to be very expensive and unaffordable insurance. host: let's go to elizabeth. pennsylvania independent line. , good morning. caller: good morning. i have one question and one comment. the comment is people keep saying that young people don't get insurance. i know a lot of young people and they are very into preventative care because they don't want to get old and be very sick. so they do want insurance. when they are looking for jobs one of the things that they're looking for is what is the insurance coverage. so i wish people would stop pretending that young people aren't aware of the need for having health insurance. whether they can afford it or not is a totally different story. but my question. someone asked you a question,
didn't answer, so i called in to repeat the question. i was a fiscal director when the aca came out and i was the one who was responsible for telling the employees that they weren't going to get a raise this year because the insurance premiums went up again. for years they were going up at double digits. that's before the aca. every year they went up double digits and the coverage went down. when you talk about competition, without it was we had to go out and find out which company could give us a lower premium. but along with those lower premiums came lower coverage. host: we'll get a response. elizabeth, thank you. guest: first, i think you've stated it correctly. when people say young people don't want to get insurance, what they really mean is they can't afford it. my niece was just telling me she's going to skip out buying insurance because all of the options are incredibly expensive for her. they're over $1,000 a month. and she doesn't make enough money to be able to pay for that. so she makes the choice not to
get insurance not because she wants to. she would like to be insured. she knows the importance of it. one of her siblings has had a lot of health care issues. she knows what it costs but she just simply can't afford it. and so thank you for correcting that because it's an important difference in the way we think about the what young people are doing. to your second point, again, a valid point. competition didn't exist before obamacare and so there were huge increases then. and it didn't increase -- obamacare did nothing to create competition. in fact, what it did was subsidize the insurance industries both directly and indirectly through the medicaid program. but didn't require them to compete. so the premiums kept going up but then they started making profits because they could get all of this very subsidized payments for managing the medicaid program. so the insurance industry loved it because it was better than
before, they got subsidies. but people weren't better off because there was no competition. so your point is really valid. the problem of high insurance costs has been there before obamacare. obamacare didn't solve it and it's continuing to get worse. now the republicans, if the we fail to see a bill come out of the house that really deals with that, they'll leave that problem in place and two years from now you and i will be complaining that once again our insurance premiums are going up. that's one of the reasons i'm objecting very strongly to this bill. host: ken is agreeing with us. he sent us this tweet. the american health care act in its current form is a mess. guest: that's a great way to describe it. but it can be fixed if they actually keep their promises. if they repeal the obamacare taxes, if they change medicaid so that the states can actually do different incentives and
different approaches. in indiana, governor pence before he was vice president set up a new program that would allow health savings accounts for some medicaid recipients. he negotiated with the obama administration. they gave him he said about 40% of what he wanted but he took that and started to reform the programs. governor scott has told me he thinks he can get more coverage at lower cost for people in florida out of medicaid if they'll simply block grant the program. again, not in the house bill. the regulations will survive, the failure to create competition across state lines will survive. there's this new program the refundable tax credit that really looks like a welfare program put into the tax code. republicans don't like that because they see once again another program where you can see a lot of fraud, people signing up for getting money. they've structured it in a way where the money is isn't
advanceable so you get it ahead. you get it ahead of when you pay your taxes. all of it is a mess. you simply went back to the 2015 version of repealing obamacare and then built free market structures to replace it. they would have been a lot better off. host: this cover story of cq weekly. trump care and the heartland big promises may become a bitter pill. the essence of this story is the very people who supported donald trump will get hurt the most if the affordable care act is repealed and replaced. will they? guest: not if it's replaced with a good bill. it is replaced with one of forces competition and cuts the taxes, you'll see a lot better coverage for health care and you'll see a lot of economic growth, frankly, because those tax cuts will go into place. but that's not what the house is doing. host: what would you say to the critics who say that's exactly what's going to happen? guest: i would say it depends on what the bill looks like.
under the current bill, because they don't have the competition yes insurance premiums will go up and it will be harder for people to figure out how to pay for their health care. if you had a real replace bill much like senator paul's version, then all of those voters in the midwest who switch from democrat to republican or independent to republican to vote for donald trump, they would see their health premiums go down. they would be better off. and they would see their kids have a chance to have affordable health care. host: patricia. martha's vineyard, massachusetts. democrats line with david mcintosh. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm calling to suggest a creative compromise. i'm an ultimate single payer voter but i would like -- when mr. mcintosh was talking about the different age cohorts and what their health care needs are, it gave me the idea of calling that "cohort care." ok? so instead of having one giant
pool in which it's the traditional model of insurance, what if where the well-paid to carry the burden for the sick. what if we created three different cohort insurance pools? this makes tremendous sense to me because i'm 69. i'm in a generation that had one reality of health care and scientific research and all that. my children who are in their 30's, my grandchildren who are 7 and 5 -- i mean, their health care lives are going to be -- they're completely different than mine, obviously. so what if we created cohort care and we created different pools for these different cohorts? and then in addition to that we make a compromise now by lowering the medicare eligibility age to 60 or 55 or whatever makes sense for that. host: let me -- thank you very
much. great job multitasking. answering the phone, texting and listening to the callers. thank you for the call we will get a response. guest: i think one of your callers may have been trying to get around your system and call me. patricia what you're describing , is exactly what would happen if we repealed those regulations that required sort of one size fits all. and you're right. "cohort care," i like that a lot better. it sounds actually because it tells you where you're headed better than private competition even. i'm a big private competition fan so for me that sounds great. i think you put your finger on something. let's explain why we want competition. so you can have that cohort care where they can write different types of insurance premiums for different cohorts, different age groups, different backgrounds. you charge people more for some of their living styles if the they smoke they would pay more if they don't smoke they would
, pay less. that's what the insurance industry is really good at and once you get that freedom to do that people can pay basically the fair price for the type of insurance they need to be put into their cohort. host: jenny is next, republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. next month i'll be 55. i remember back in the early 1980's when i was working do you know what my health insurance cost? it was $9 every two weeks. $18. that's all it was. i don't know why they can't go back and see what happened there. then the late 80's, early 90's, when the clintons took in the health insurance -- i'm not blaming it on them. the health insurance went bad. then he appointed hillary to try to fix it and then it was just a big mess. also, they need to get those drug commercials off tv. it costs way too much money and
it soars the cost of insurance and everything else. that's all i have to say. guest: it's interesting you mentioned the drug commercials. i was talking to a businessman several years ago who was paying the higher premiums for his employees and he said the exact same thing. he said those commercials, they end up jacking up the cost of health insurance because drugs are promoted that maybe do not need to be taken. host: based on that, bernie sanders -- who i know you probably don't agree with on much -- said he wants those taken off the air. he also wants to see drugs from canada. guest: interestingly, bernie is one of these politicians who really is committed to these ideals. you're right, a lot of times we disagree. but there are times when he's true to his ideals and we're
true to ours and we meet. there was one last year where he was the only democrat who agreed with our issues getting rid of the ex-im bank because it helped large corporations rather than small businesses or people. but let me get to your question. on the import from canada, the -- one of the things that's happening there is the drug companies are benefited from no competition because f.d.a. doesn't approve new drugs that are similar if the they think that one on the markets already existing. the problem with that is if you had two on the market, they would compete with each other and drive down the prices. canada says, well, because of that monopoly approach we're going to force you to pay lower or charge lower amounts for your drugs. so they have price controls. so if we imported it from canada we would get the benefit of , canadian price controls. the reason we don't like that is once you put those price controls into place, the markets
totally out of the picture and you get the wrong incentives for the drug companies to develop the new drugs because they can't recover all of their costs. so the problem bernie is going after of monopoly pricing for drugs is a big problem. the solution of bringing it in from canada looks good but in the long run would prevent us from getting the new innovations in the next ten years that we've had in the last ten. host: from maine, scott is next. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. in reference just now to what he was saying about lower drugs, a lot of the drugs that they're promoting or have promoted are -- they come out of state-funded colleges. researchers in colleges and stuff. somehow, they turn those over to the drug companies who put patents on them and stuff. but they start out a lot of them in state colleges. host: are you familiar with
that? guest: yes, i am. and the profits from those drugs -- the drug companies do funnel some of the funding back to those state colleges. so they get a return on their investment for the research that's there. you see it even more in the private marketplace, particularly for biotech companies where investors will take a gamble that this biotech product will make it all the way through the system. if it does, then the payoff is huge. so you get investors who will -- they may make investment in ten biotech companies knowing that only two of them will actually ever have a drug that the drug companies then buy and market and they get a share of the revenue. so the system right now, because it's so expensive, means that you've got to have these kind of very high risk adventures in -- risky ventures in order to
get a new drug braut to market. if they changed it so you could prove they were safe and once you showed that they worked and you were effective, you didn't block them from the marketplace simply because there was already a drug there. that would open it up and we would get lower prices. but i think you are also kind of implying we're paying for the research because of the state sponsors universities. that's a mixed bag because if we didn't let them make those deals with the drug companies, then they wouldn't really have an incentive to do the research in areas that make a difference. so i'm ok with them, the state universities making some money off the research even with the taxpayers subsidy. host: we have time for one more call. betty in georgia on the republican nine with david mcintosh. good morning. caller: good morning. i'd like to commend you for your nonconfrontational manner. i really appreciate that.
also, i would like to tell you to be leery of speaker ryan. i think he is just waiting for a backlash of people turning against mr. trump if something goes wrong. i think he's just waiting to step up to the plate and kind of take over. guest: very interesting point, because he didn't really support him during the campaign and then came around in the end when it looked like the president was going to win. i think in the end the american people are pretty savvy and one of the things that they'll see is it's speaker ryan who is driving the train on this bill that doesn't really fulfill the promises of repealing obamacare.
and perhaps you're right that he is waiting for president trump to stumble and then wants to step up to the plate. but i've seen a lot of politicians who plan that way and then give away their principles. people like governor kasich who was a real conservative when he was the budget chair but became a moderate, more liberal governor in ohio, took on obamacare, expanded the medicaid, and then people in the primaries said, wait a second. you're not the guy that we want because you didn't keep your promises to be conservative. so you're right, we're going to the be wary of him. part of what the club for growth does is we watch every vote that goes on, everything that speaker ryan does and then we publish it in our vote tabulation in our website. so voters can know were they really as conservative as they say we were? and i've been around here in this town almost 40 years. i know that there are politicians on both sides will say whatever they need to get
elected. our job is to hold their feet to the fire so they're honest with people back home and deliver when they're here. host: let me conclude with this question. a picture of you in the oval office meeting with president trump. is he a fiscal conservative? guest: i think what president trump is is a practical leader more than an ideological conservative. but he ran as a conservative and what i'm really sure of now is he very much wants to keep his conservative promises. so i'm actually counting on him to step in and negotiate a better bill because he wants to the keep his promises on repealing obamacare. therefore steve, i would predict , the first couple of years we will see pretty conservative leadership. but after that i think at his core president trump is more a pragmatist and will see which way he goes at that point. from the club for growth perspective, we want him to keep pushing for the free market and grow the economy agenda.
and i've told him at the oval office, we'll support you every time we do that. host: is mike pence your friend a pragmatist or a conservative? guest: mike is more a philosophical conservative at his core. he approaches issues a little differently and says what is the right way to do this with the limited government and the constitution? he is also a social conservative. so protecting moral values. and then a free market economic conservative. so he approaches it from those philosophical approaches and then -- but he's teamed up with trump so he is saying, ok, how do we practically advance the ball in a conservative way? host: david mcintosh, the former member of the house of representatives and president of the club for growth. clubforgrowth.org. thank you for being with us. guest: my pleasure. >> washington journal live every day with news and policy issues
that impact you. monday morning, former acting administrator of the centers for medicare and medicaid services discusses congressional republican efforts to repeal the affordable care act and propose changes to medicare and medicaid. then gave intensity president grace marie turner talks about the gop plan to replace the health care law. in washington examiner senior writer jamie mcintyre will discuss the terminal high altitude area defense missile system and its ability to keep warheads from striking the u.s. the system was recently sent to south korea in light of north korean missile launches. watch c-span's washington journal live at 7 a.m. eastern monday morning. join the discussion. congressman al lawson is serving his first term in congress representing the fifth congressional district. in an interview with c-span he talks about his life and