Congress. And theres very relief on either one. The umpire of sorts for legislation here in washington published its updated analysis of the House Health Care bill that republicans passed earlier this month. According to their estimates, 23 million would lose coverage over a span of ten years. Thats not much different from prior estimates. It was about 24 million in the previous bill. This would cut the deficit by 119 billion. That means the house does not have to revote on this legislation due to reconciliation rules, by the way, and the cbo says some folks with preexisting conditions in many states could find themselves priced out of market. The Rapid Response from the rnc blasted the cbos credibility on health care. They slammed the agency way off with its obamacare predictions, trying to say, hey, dont take their numbers to the bank. Hours before the cbo score became public, mix mcconnell had a strikingly dour assessment. He said i dont know how we get to 50 at the moment but thats the goal. Thats basically the law if youre going to do anything. He doesnt play games. If he doesnt know how hell Pass Health Care in the senate, its because he doesnt know how hell Pass Health Care in the senate. He is not about raising or lowering the expectation bar. Theyre not in a good place right now. It comes as health care anxieties are dominating. From the big skies of montana which hold as special election tomorrow to the suburbs of atlanta which hold as special election next month. He says hes thankful for the new health care bill. The one that eliminates protections for preexisting conditions. We know he didnt pay his own taxes. Yet he wants to raise our taxes for a government takeover of health care. As a doctor and a Breast Cancer survivor myself, what karen handel did is unforgivable. Im fighting cancer. When i see ads like that, they make me sick. I just had flashbacks to 201014, 2010, 1994. You get the points. Were going on dive into the russia investigation a little later but we begin with that breaking news on the Congressional Budget Office scoring the House Health Care bill. Joining me now, someone i like to talk to for all things budget and understanding the wonkiness of washington. Help us speak budgetese from this. We know the basics here. The previous score was 23 million. The deficit number, essentially went up, or down, however you mean. It will be higher. Right. Higher. So this mcarthur amendment on the essential Health Benefits got the republicans a million more people covered. They went from 24 million to 23 million uncovered, for a price of 31 billion. Probably not okay. Am i reading this correctly . You are. But it is not just that the coverage would be, fewer people would be covered. Is that some of the coverage would be less valuable. So it is not a complete apples to apples time they know. 31 billion less and others would have Coverage Even though they would pay more. Republicans would say the premium numbers will go down. Thats true. But they say if you have a preexisting conditions, you are likely to get priced out of market. Agency someone who is a cancer survivor, there concerns me greatly. And it should concern everybody. Almost everybody has a preexisting condition in one way or another. If you were born, you were born with a preexisting condition. Like everybody. At some point a scientist can claim anything is a preexisting condition via genes. And it is not just a question of lying around doing nothing and eating fried foods. My dad gave me, i inherited his gen genes. Lets keep in mind the senate has said theyre not taking up the house bill. I think this will be difficult for republicans to explain. I think theyre extremely grateful that they dont have to take another vote. Explain why they would revote. I apologize the viewers who say were speaking too. To washington. Were saying cbo, scoring. These are not the way merges speak with their checkbooks. What would have come back from a cbo that would have said revote . In simple terms, the house and senate are considering health care under special prools would prevent a filibuster from being used. So you need fewer votes, you only need 51 votes in the senate. 50 if mike pence is willing to vote for something. The bill that passed the house didnt qualify under those rules. They were waiting for cbo to say its okay. So now the ball is truly in the republicans court. And they were probably helping. The Senate Republicans were probably helping. Theres been a theres a reason why health care went first as far as congress is kerneled. They wanted to get, they wanted to do tax reform tunneled 2018 budget. The deficit over ten years, they wanted more than that to apply to tax reform. What does this mean for tax reform . The simple answer is this. Ive been tell clients, there doesnt make it any easier. Tairp becomes more expensive and more difficult to find savings they need. Unless they decide the hell with the deficit. Well blow it up. Well spike it. We dont to have pay for things. They started with an agreement. It will be revenue neutral. Here they dont have that agreement. They were hoping this would make their lives easier. When cbo scores the budget eventually and weve already seen the skirmishes, and already theres a back and forth on the assumptions on Economic Growth, their assumption on 3 growth, did they use good math or funny math . Funny math is probably giving at this time benefit of the doubt. The Budget Reserve with wall street says 3 growth is extremely unlikely. Tharl estimating less than 2 growth. So where mulvany, where the white house came up with 3 growth. It looks like wishful thinking. Lets say someone is watching, what is the most neutral Economic Growth assessment you can find . Where are the most reliable indicators for projections . The Congressional Budget Office has done a pretty good job projecting the economy. Remember anything ten years from now is pure speculation by anybody. But cbo has done a pretty good job. Remember, its only purpose this life is to get the numbers right. The Federal Reserve and the budget office, you start to regress toward the means here. I would take it almost any day of the week no matter Whose Administration it is. Were looking at Economic Growth between lower than three but above two. It is not clear it is above two. Keep in mind, nick mull eventy, if we dont balance the budget, we have a large, large deficit. Is there a realistic budget that could happen from anybody if you dont touch health care . It seemed that they were claiming a balanced budget and not touching social security. They were hoping for rapid growth. It is like during Reagan Administration efrgs projecting rosy scenarios. The man who helps me try to figure out how to i guess, interim rhett budget speak. And i recommend everybody be sure to find you. At the budget guy. Follow this guy on twitter. It will make you smarter. And speaking of rosy scenarios, mark sanford, a member of the House Budget Committee and he inspired me on that last question. Let me start with what you heard from the Congressional Budget Office on health care. The remarked up bill by cbo says, for 31 billion more, you covered 1 million more people. The uncovered estimate went from 24 million to 23 million but the deficit savings went down 31 billion. Satisfactory to you . Well, that isnt what ive heard. I havent had time. What little i know of, taking vote on the floor and walking off, one of the other things that was done was it says it will lower premiums. Giving states flexibility with regard to different imagine dates would in fact lower premiums and i think thats important to both sides of the equation. We can protect people with preexisting conditions. But you have the issue, how do you help beam a small business, that have seen it escalate. Let me read from the report. They address this issue. Although premiums would decline on average, in states that chose to narrow the scope of their essential Health Benefits, some people enrolled in nongroup insurance. The special pool would experience substantial increase in what they would spend on health care. People living in states modifying the essential benefits no longer included what experience substantial increases in out of pocket expense on health care. This goes to the argument in this country, is this, should government be a part of this or not . But how do you explain that constituent saying, hey, ill lowering your premiums but it will cost you more to get snark. Thats the tension. Thats the tugofwar that has been taking place in this entire debate and it has been enjoined. It means now this bill will make its way from house the senate. It will come back to the house and they will vote for or against it. But i think there is a bigger question of allowing states flexibility in what they may or may not do, means the debate will be replicating yet again at the state level and states can decide whether or not they want to afford folks those choices or not. Many will say no, we wont give them a chance at a higher people are yourself. Are you comfortable with that, that your preexisting condition depends on, it is geographically based . Maybe you get pretty good protection, pretty decent options in state x but state y is going to put you in a risk pool and because maybe because of your job, youre stuck in state y. You would like to move but you wont get it. Should that be the way we run our Health Care System many. Well, thats the notion of federalism which i happen to believe in. I believe in a quilt work of different approaches. The federal government should decide all. That we ought to have different decisions made by different states and we have a competition in different ideas. I would say it is important to look at health care, the palmer amendment added 15 million, the base, 115 billion, all of which were designed to protect people. I think while insurance premiums would go up, the high risk bills are there to protect the premium ts. So i think the debate has a long way to go. You were pretty critical of your former South Carolina colleague nick mulvany that they put out in the budget that claimed the budget in three years. You heard stan colander at the tail end there, his explanation of it. How unrealistic do you think this number is . Completely unrealistic. I didnt exactly hear what he told to say. I thought he was boohooing the idea that we could get to 3 and if so, i completely concur. What you cant do is pick rosy assumptions to make the numrs fit when in fact they dont. Fundamental will if you look at this budget, thats what it does. Which is a real disservice to everyone of us. Republicans and democrats, we may have different priorities but at least lets talk about real numbers and then have the food fight as to what the real numbers might be. If you base the assumptions on numbers that arent real, we end up with a baked up debate that isnt real and doesnt serve anybody. Let me ask you, youre a deficit hawk and you want lower taxes. If you thought a tax cut would explode the deficit, what is that line for you . I dont know. Ill look at it. There is a line. There is a curve, a point at which you begin to get to diminishing returns. And we have a government that has to be fed. I want it as small as possible, as streamlined as possible, but once it is there, you cant say well get our kids or our grand kids to pay for it. A deficit is deferred tax. If we stack them up, we say well get somebody else to pay the zpax i dont think thats fair based on our Founding Fathers promised us life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and thats awfully tough. Does it have to be deficit neutral . I would say, you cant come up with a budget, options always a pleasure, sir. Thanks for rushing to the camera. I appreciate it. All right. We are joined by republican senator james langford. A little quick change of topics. I know we were going to talk about more international stuff and the russia investigation. The cbo score, what youve seen, 23 Million People would be left without insurance over a tenyear period. The debt reduction, a little over a billion. Ill going through it like everybody else, trying to read it in between meetings. The number of people that wouldnt get coverage doesnt bother me as much. Only in that it is a guess from cbo. They base their guess on if people arent mandated to buy coverage, they wont buy coverage. I dont agree with that premise. I think if you get the prices down, most people want coverage. There are policies they cant buy now and options that arent there. I think there are options that they cant have. We do look close at the spending numbers. Those are the bigger issues for us. I was going to ask you, this deficit number is 119 billion. I think there was a time when many of your colleagues thought, if did you a repeal and replace of health care, that you would get a deficit reduction number closer to 500 billion that would give you more wiggle room on tax reform. Is this a disappointing number to you . Im still going to go through that. Theres quite a bit that has to be done as youve seen from the report itself. He the premiums will go up the first two years. Were still lucas the national to see what brings the cost down. In many states, the costs would drop pretty dramatically so well figure out if we can do it. This is another look by cbo. And then well have actuaries that will step in. This is part of the journey. You do it, you have it scored, you do it, you have it scored and you go on. Cbo says yeah, but. You and the but on premiums going down, if you are in a state that cuts back on essential Health Benefits, then your out of pocket costs go up and if you have a preexisting condition, your premiums my skyrocket even if youre in a risk pool. What is your philosophy on how to deal with that issue . I would say thats a big part of our conversation in the senate, trying to take care of those folks with preexisting conditions. We dont want to do. That cbo is guessing on their premiums would skyrocket because there is no model given from the house proposal. So as they try to guess through the process, theyll try to do it. We will resolve that for people with preexisting conditions. As we walk through this, we have 9 Million People that are currently, by the end of the year, there are 9 Million People on these individual flarkts the obamacare, what are exchanges, in my state it is a monopoly, the 9 Million People, 6. 5 million paying the fee. That literally dont have insurance are paying the extra tax but they dont have health care. They Want Health Care but they cant afford it. So youre dealing with that reali reality. We have to change that for both. For folks who Want Health Care but cant get it because it is energy. Finally quickly on tax reform. It is a similar question you asked mark sanford. Are you comfortable with the deficit going up for a higher tax cut . I have to see the way they score. You track these models all the time. I have to say the way it is scored. If it is dynamic. It is realistic or not . If it is a realistic model to work with, tax activity. Theres the movement of money in the country that is very important and the amount of money that they can keep. I appreciate you working with us on this breaking news. Thanks for having me on. Im now going to move. The Senate Democrats are choosing to respond. The president should read this report cover to cover. Throw their bill in the trash can and begin working with america, with democrats on, a real plan to lower costs for the american people. Theres a lot to unpack. First, costs. Cbo report makes clear, your premiums are heading up for the next several years if the trump care passes. 5 first following year. Republicans are crowing about premiums going down. You get almost no coverage. Cheaper insurance wont help anyone if it doesnt cover you when youre ill. If youre an older american, trump care will force to you pinch your mennies to report it at all. Seniors could see their premiums can go up as much as 800 under this bill. Preexisting conditions. The cbo reports states a direct quote. This is from tom price selected. People who are less healthy would be unable to purchase at premiums comparable under current law if they could purchase it at all. So the socalled fix which some moderates bought into doesnt make preexisting conditions any easier or any better. Think about that for a minute. Under trump care, if you have a preexisting condition condition, your insurance costs could go up so high you cant afford it at all. The score keepers have spoken loudly and clearly. Trump care mea higher costs and less care for the american people. For the good of the country, republicans in the senate should reject this path and work with democrats to fix our Health Care System instead of pulling the plug on it. Thank you. Ive had to say this far too often youve just heard there from the Senate Minority leader. They want to brand this trump care. Sounds familiar. Michael steele is an had msnbc analyst and former rnc chair. Health care is back and back and back. What did we learn today . Well, i think what were learning today as we just saw what the democrats there on the senate floor, as well as even the republican senator langford, the debate in the senate will have its own set of criteria. It will get its own cbo score. The challenge sitting there right now, the acha, is getting defined as one where people will pay more for preexisting conditions. Older people will pay more. And those ads are going on right now and the ads that you showed and the individual districts. But theyre going on in pro democratic groups, running lots and lots of these ads to ban the bill in general. This will be bad for republicans as it goes through its legislative purgatory. That doesnt mean just because you have a new bill, it is getting defined right now. The challenge is how do