>> WAR CRIMES OR THE FOG OF WAR-- KILLING SURVIVORS IN A SECOND STRIKE IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA.

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.

CAN THE PRESIDENT FIRE ANYONE, FOR ANYTHING?

AND STILL CONTROVERSIAL AFTER ALL THESE YEARS-CONGRESS AGAIN ARGUING ABOUT OBAMACARE.

STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS AND A SPECIAL OPS COMMANDER HAVE BRIEFED CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS ABOUT THAT "SECOND-TAP" STRIKE ON AN ALLEGED DRUG-RUNNING BOAT.

THE ATTACK KILLED TWO SURVIVORS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE CALLED THE STRIKE THE FOG OF WAR.

THERE'S QUESTION OF WHETHER A WAR CRIME WAS COMMITTED, BUT ALSO A LARGER ISSUE-ARE ANY OF THESE ATTACKS LEGAL?

>> I THINK THAT IS THE BIGGER ISSUE HERE.

I'M GLAD THAT IS FINALLY GETTING ATTENTION, CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.

BUT IN SOME WAYS THE DISCUSSION IS NARROW ABOUT WHO KNEW WHAT, WHEN, WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED IN THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT AND LIKE YOU SAID, I THINK THE BIGGER ISSUE HERE REALLY IS WHETHER ANY OF THIS IS LEGAL.

IT MAKES YOU QUESTION WHO ARE WE AT WAR WITH.

ARE WE AT WAR?

THAT HANGS OVER THE WHOLE THING AND THERE IS AN 83 DEATHS.

SO IF WE CONSIDER-- IF WE DON'T ACCEPT TRUMP'S ARGUMENT THAT WE ARE AT WAR WITH SOME DRUG SMUGGLERS THAN WE HAVE COMMITTED MURDER 83 TIMES, NOT JUST 2.

>> SO WHAT ABOUT ACTUAL ATTACK, THE SECOND ATTACK.

THAT HAS BEEN GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION.

>> I THINK WHERE WE ARE GOING TO END UP ON THAT, IS THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE ENOUGH AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHAT THE VIDEO SHOWS AND AROUND, YOU KNOW, THE SORT OF AUTHORITY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ACTED, INCLUDING ADMIRAL BRADLEY, BASED ON THE RATIONALE -- BASED ON THE SORT OF RATIONALE THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS PROVIDED TO HIM.

SO THERE IS ENOUGH, YOU KNOW-- AGAIN, I THINK BOTTOM LINE, MOSTLY AMBIGUOUS.

I AGREE WITH YOU, REGARDING THE RATIONALE AROUND THE WHOLE THING.

AND THAT'S HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE.

BUT I DON'T THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE CLEAR-- THE KIND OF EVIDENCE IT WOULD TAKE-- I MEAN HISTORICALLY, THE UNITED STATES DOESN'T GO AFTER EVEN, YOU KNOW, COMBAT SOLDIERS OR EVEN ALL THE WAY UP FOR WHAT IS, IN ANY WAY, CAN BE ARGUED TO BE A MISTAKE.

SO EVEN IF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OR BRADLEY WAS WRONG, AT WORST IN TERMS OF HISTORICAL PRECEDENT... >> I THINK WHAT IS GOING TO MATTER IS WHETHER THEY MAKE THE FULL TAPE AVAILABLE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE.

FROM THE REPORTS I READ THIS MORNING, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE FIRST ATTACK, THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE CLINGING TO A CAPSIZED BOAT, NOT DOING ANYTHING AND THEN SECONDS LATER, THEY'RE GONE.

OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE HAD MANY OF THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE SEEN IT COME OUT AND SAY NOTHING IS WRONG AT ALL.

A NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS CLEARLY SAYING THIS IS REALLY A PROBLEM THAT WE NEED TO LOOK INTO.

I THINK WHAT IT IS GOING TO COME DOWN TO IS THE REPUBLICANS WE HAVE NOT HEARD OF WHO SEE THIS AND SECOND WHETHER OR NOT THIS BECOMES PUBLIC.

>> THE STORY HAS CHANGED OVER TIME FROM BOTH-- >> THE WHITE HOUSE HAS CHANGED THEIR STORY A NUMBER OF TIMES.

>> ALTHOUGH INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THERE SEEMS TO BE NO DOUBT NOW THAT THE WASHINGTON POST REPORTING ABOUT HEGSETH'S KILL EVERYONE'S ORDER IS NOT ACCURATE.

>> BRADLEY HAS SAID THERE WAS NO SUCH ORDER.

>> AND NONE OF THE DEMOCRATS WHO CAME OUT YESTERDAY HAVE DISPUTED THAT OR CALLED THAT INTO QUESTION.

>> THIS IS A FOG OF WAR THAT IS SHROUDED WITH A CYCLONE OF INCOMPETENCY, IF YOU WILL.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE EVIDENCE IS VERY CLEAR; THAT, YOU KNOW, OR THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR, THE WAR CRIMES ACT IS A FEDERAL LAW AND IT IS A CRIME TO COMMIT BREACHES TO THE GENEVA VENGES, ONE OF THEM BEING KILLING UNARMED PEOPLE.

HAVING SAID THAT, OBAMA PERFECTED THIS PARTICULAR APPROACH, RIGHT?

I ASK MY VIEWERS TO GO TO AIR WARS AND TO FIND OUT.

THEY COLLECT PUBLIC EVIDENCE DATA OF DOUBLE TAPS AND OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN DOING THAT TIME AND TIME AGAIN INCLUDING IN ONE CASE IN 2012 IN ZOE, GIVING AN INTERVIEW, AND THEY GO AND KILL THE MEDICS.

>> BUT IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION THERE WAS AN AUTHORIZATION TO USE MILITARY FORCE.

>> YOU CANNOT DO THAT.

>> THAT DOESN'T MEAN-- >> IT WAS AUTHORIZED MILITARY FORCE BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO WORK WITH THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND OBAMA WAS STRIKING PEOPLE.

I REMEMBER JOHN OLIVER EPISODE ON DRONES FROM A FEW YEARS BACK WHERE A GENERAL IS SAYING WE ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW WHO WE ARE KILLING.

LITERALLY SOMETHING THAT THEIR ADMINISTRATION SAID.

SO THERE THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.

AMERICANS TEND TO SUPPORT IT.

I MEAN THERE ARE SOME REPORTS COMING OUT THAT PUBLIC OPINION WISE SOME AMERICANS DON'T LIKE IT BUT ON THE WHOLE, WE FORGET ABOUT THIS.

AND YES, I WOULD SAY THIS IS WRONG BUT NOW SAYING THIS IS WRONG CAN GET ME HANGED, RIGHT?

BECAUSE IF THE PRESIDENT IS TELLING THE DEMOCRATS THAT SAYING THESE THINGS ARE LIABLE FOR EXECUTION, I HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHAT I SAY, BUT THIS IS WRONG.

>> I DON'T FIND THE WHAT ABOUT-ISMS VERY CONVINCING.

IF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DID THINGS THAT WERE SIMILAR, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO TASK, RIGHT?

IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SAY THAT OH THE DEMOCRATS DO IT, TOO.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT REPUBLICANS OFTEN COME BACK WITH NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT ACTUALLY DEMOCRATS WILL CRITICIZE OTHER DEMOCRATS, UNLIKE OFTEN THE REPUBLICANS WHO SEEM IMMUNE TO ANYTHING THAT TRUMP DOES AND FAILS TO CRITICIZE ALMOST EVERYTHING.

>> I DON'T SEE A LOT OF DEMOCRATS CRITICIZING OTHER DEMOCRATS.

>> I AGREE.

>> BUT THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT COMBATANTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM CARTELS AND A WAR FIELDS ARE DIFFERENT FROM COMMERCIAL SHIPPING LANES IN THE CARIBBEAN.

SO I AGREE, BUT THE PROBLEM HERE IS WITH SO MANY AREAS OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY THAT OVER TIME THERE HAS BEEN CREEP, AND THE REALITY IS WITH REGARD TO CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION, IT IS OBAMA'S D.O.J.

OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL'S RATIONALE THAT A SITUATION LIKE THIS, ALBEIT INVOLVING, YOU KNOW, ARGUABLY COMBATANTS DOESN'T REQUIRE CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION DOES NOT APPLY.

>> SECRETARY OF DEFENSE HEGSETH, I MEAN HE HAS PRETTY CLEAR DISDAIN FOR RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, ALL RIGHT?

HE LAS SAID IT IN HIS OWN BOOK.

I WONDER, IS THAT APPROACH-- AND WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER HERE, BUT SEEPING INTO THE MILITARY, WHAT IT DOES TO THE CULTURE OF THE SERVICE?

>> YEAH, I MEAN THAT IS DEFINITELY TOXIC FOR THE CULTURE OF THE SERVICE AND THERE ARE MANY GENERALS AND VERY CONSCIENTIOUS SOLDIERS WHO SEE THIS AND SAY THAT THIS IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG TO DO.

BUT WHAT I WANTED TO ADD IS THAT , TO LISA'S POINT, IT COMES BACK TO THE AUM.

AUMF SHOULD BE RESCINDED.

HE IS USING THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE NOW TO DESIGNATE THESE CARTEL READERS AS TERRORISTS.

>> NOT EVEN THE CARTEL LEADERS.

THESE ARE LOWER LEVEL GUYS IN A BOAT.

>> NOT EVERYBODY IN AFGHANISTAN WAS OSAMA BIN LADEN, RIGHT?

>> THE SUPREME COURT NEXT WEEK WILL HEAR ARGUMENTS IN TRUMP V SLAUGHTER.

THE CASE MAY REDEFINE PRESIDENTIAL POWER AND CONTROL OVER FEDERAL AGENCIES.

CONGRESS CREATED INDEPENDENT AGENCIES AND IN 1935, THE COURT LIMITED PRESIDENT'S ABILITY TO FIRE AGENCY COMMISSIONERS.

THAT DOESN'T SIT WELL WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP AND OTHER PROPONENTS OF THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE THEORY.

THE IDEA THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS COMPLETE CONTROL OVER THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

SO, LISA, DOES ARTICLE 2 MEAN THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN FIRE WHOEVER HE WANTS?

AND WHY SHOULDN'T THE AGENCY HEADS FOLLOW THE AGENDA, THE POLICIES OF A PRESIDENT?

>> IN SOME CASES THEY SHOULD.

IN SOME CASES THAT'S THE WAY THE SYSTEM WAS CREATED.

IT DEPENDS, IN OTHER WORDS ON THE TYPE OF AGENCY.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT CONGRESS DID.

CONGRESS CREATED EVERY AGENCY, GOING WAY BACK TO 1789, YOU KNOW, THE DEPARTMENT OF WAR AS WE NOW CALL IT.

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

AND THOSE AGENCIES DEFINITELY HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS TO FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT'S POLICIES, TO IMPLEMENT THE PRESIDENT'S POLICIES.

THERE ARE OTHER KINDS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES, THE FTC WHICH IS WHAT IS ISSUED IN CASE, THE FCC, THE SEC, THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BOARD, THESE MULTIMEMBER-- IT'S NOT ONE AGENCY HEAD.

IT'S A BODY OF PEOPLE, WHO ARE APPOINTED LIKE ALL AGENCY HEADS ARE BY THE PRESIDENT AND CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE.

BUT THE IDEA BEHIND THESE INDEPENDENT AGENCIES IS THAT THEY'RE IMMUNE TO POLITICAL PRESSURE.

THEY'RE APPOINTED AND CAN'T BE REMOVED CONGRESS SAYS, UNLESS THERE IS CAUSE.

AND THE PRESIDENT HAS FIRED ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE INDEPENDENT AGENCY CATEGORY, INCLUDING SLAUGHTER, WHOSE CASE COMES UP ON MONDAY.

AND DOESN'T EVEN BOTHER TO ARTICULATE A CAUSE AND HAS RELIED EXCLUSIVELY ON THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE.

>> THE SUPREME COURT SEEMS TO BE SUGGESTING THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE HIM A LOT OF POWER BUT THEY DID CARVE OUT ONE EXCEPTION SO FAR AND THAT IS LIST LISA COOK OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE.

MOST ECONOMISTS ARE WORRIED THAT IF THIS IS CARRIED TO ITS EXTREME AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH CAN CONTROL THE FEDERAL RESERVE, WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO TO MONETARY POLICY AND THE LIKE.

BUT THE SUPREME COURT SEEMS TO BE CARVING OUT THIS EXCEPTION.

MY QUESTION IS WHY THEM?

WHAT IS THE CRITERIA THAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE?

HOW ARE THEY GOING-- IF THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE A DISTINCTION, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO PUT THAT INTO WORDS SO THAT YOU CAN DETERMINE WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FTC AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND WHO CAN TRUMP FIRE AND WHO HE CAN'T.

>> WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS IF THE COURT DOES OVERTURN OR DOES ALLOW HIM TO FIRE.

>> THE IMPLICATIONS WILL BE PROFOUND BECAUSE IT COULD CAUSE MASSIVE POLITICAL INSTABILITY OR POLICY INSTABILITY BECAUSE THE NEXT PERSON WILL COME AND FIRE WHOEVER THEY WANT.

I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WHEN F.D.R.

GOT TANGLED UP WITH THE HUMPHREY EXECUTE STUFF, HE WAS ACTUALLY FOLLOWING THE MEYERS VERDICT WHICH ACTUALLY GAVE HIM THE RIGHT TO FIRE THE PERSON FROM HUMPHREY.

SO AS A RESULT, THE WHOLE IDEA WAS THAT THE COURT WAS SO AGAINST F.D.R.

THAT THEY CARVED OUT THIS KIND OF RULING SO THAT F.D.R.

COULD NOT DO THIS.

BUT OVER TIME, IT SEEMS THAT THE COURT IS MOVING TOWARDS THE IDEA THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT AGENCY BY AGENCY.

AND AS LONG AS WE CAN INTERPRET THAT THE AGENCY IS NOT DOING A QUASI LEGISLATIVE QUASI JUDICIAL POWER AND MORE DOING EXECUTIVE WORK, RIGHT, THEN WE CAN ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO FIRE.

SO CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, SHEILA LAW CASE WAS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT.

SO I DON'T THINK THE SUPREME COURT WILL COMPLETELY SLAUGHTER HUMPHREY, BUT THEY MIGHT-- TO MAKE A BAD PUN HERE.

BUT THEY MIGHT CARVE OUT A NEW KIND OF A RULE WHICH WILL PROTECT FEDERAL RESERVE AND OTHER AGENT.

>> IS HUMPHREY'S EXECUTOR, AS I LEARNED BECAUSE HUMPHREY DIED AND THERE WAS AN EXECUTIVE OF HIS ESTATE WHO SUED.

THEY WANTED TO GET HIS SALARY.

THAT WAS PRECEDENT FOR WHAT, 90 YEARS IT HAS BEEN PRECEDENT.

SO WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE IDEA OF, YOU KNOW, STARRY DESICES.

>> THE SUPREME COURT HAS LITERALLY OVERTURNED HUNDREDS, HAS BROKEN THAT RULE HUNDREDS OF TIMES AND THANK HEAVENS IT HAS IN MANY CASES.

THERE HAVE BEEN SOME HORRIFIC SUPREME COURT RULINGS OVER TIME THAT IT HAS LATER THEN OVERTURNED.

>> THAT'S THE QUESTION.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE IN STARRY DESIGHSES FOR ITS OWN SAKE.

>> BUT THEN HAVE YOU TO LOOK AT THE DIRECTION IN WHICH THEY'RE MOVING AROUND STARRY DEDESIZES, AND THE PATTERN IN THIS COURT AS ROUND CASES THAT LIMIT PRESIDENTIAL POWER.

SO THERE IS A PATTERN TO IT, SYSTEMATIC PATTERN THAT IS GIVING MORE AND MORE POWER TO THE PRESIDENTS AND THAT'S WHAT IS CONCERNING HERE, RIGHT?

MOST FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACIES HAVE INDEPENDENT AGENCIES THAT OVERSEE THESE KIND OF CRITICAL SECTORS LIKE THE MEDIA, LIKE ELECTIONS, LIKE THE ECONOMY, RIGHT?

>> THEY HAVE EXPER CEASE IN THOSE AREAS.

>> THAT'S THE WHOLE IDEA.

>> EXPERTISE IN THOSE AREAS AND YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SUBJECT TO THE WHIMS OF THE PRESIDENT.

FEEL LIKE YOUR DECISIONS, WHILE YOU ARE ON THOSE BOARDS, HAVE TO PLEASE ONE PERSON, THE PRESIDENT.

IF THE ECONOMY IS DOING POORLY, YOU KNOW, THERE IS PRESSURE THEN TO LOWER INTEREST RATES EVEN THOUGH THAT'S NOT SOUND ECONOMIC POLICY.

AND SO I THINK THERE IS GOOD SUBSTANTIVE REASONS TO KEEP THESE PARTICULAR AGENCIES SEPARATE AND SOME INDEPENDENT AND THEY'RE NOT COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT.

HE GETS TO PUT THE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD.

IT'S JUST THAT HE CAN'T WILLIE NILLY REMOVE THEM.

>> THIS IS WHERE JOHN ROBERTS SAID IN THE SELA CASE.

PERHAPS FTC POSSESSED BROADER RULE MAKING ENFORCEMENT AND POWERS THAN THE HUMPHREY COURT APPRECIATED BUT PERHAPS NOT.

THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE.

I THINK THE SUPREME COURT MIGHT ACTUALLY FAVOR TRUMP IN THIS CASE.

>> NOW IT'S ALMOST 2026 AND WE ARE STILL ARGUING ABOUT OBAMACARE.

THE SENATE WILL VOTE NEXT WEEK ON A YET TO BE DETERMINED HEALTHCARE PROPOSAL FROM DEMOCRATS, PART OF THE DEAL TO REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT.

REPUBLICANS ARE DIVIDED ON WHAT TYPE OF PLAN TO PUT FORWARD THEMSELVES.

SOME MEMBERS OF BOTH PARTIES WANT TO EXTEND THE ENHANCED COVID-ERA SUBSIDIES TO PAY FOR OBAMACARE PREMIUMS.

IF A PROGRAM NEEDS EXTRA SUBSIDIES TO WORK, IS IT REALLY SUSTAINABLE?

HAS THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT FAILED?

>> NO, A.C.A.

HAS SUCCEEDED.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE NOW THAT DIDN'T HAVE IT, WE CUT THE NUMBER OF UNINSURED IN HALF.

THAT WOULD BE EVEN LOWER IF PART OF THE ORIGINAL A.C.A.

WHICH REQUIRED EVERYONE TO CARRY HEALTH INSURANCE, IF THAT HAD NOT BEEN STRUCK DOWN.

SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE A.C.A.

IS PERFECT?

NO, NOT AT ALL.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS WITH HEALTHCARE COSTS.

REALLY MOST OF THEM ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE A.C.A.

AND WOULD EXIST ANYWAY AND NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

BUT THE REPUBLICANS HAVE HAD 15 YEARS TO COME UP WITH A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE AND NOTHING HAS COME FORTH.

SO WITH THREE WEEKS LEFT BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR, TO ME, THE ONLY RESPONSIBLE THING IS TO EXTEND THE SUBSIDIES FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND THEN, AGAIN, ASK THEM IF THERE ARE CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE, IF THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE, PUT IT ON THE TABLE WITH ENOUGH TIME TO HAVE A DEBATE SO EVERYONE CAN LOOK AT THIS AND TRY TO ANALYZE IT.

PRETTY CLEAR.

>> SO THE IDEA BEHIND OBAMACARE OR THE A.C.A.

WAS TO BEND THE COST CURVE.

>> YES, AND THAT DID NOT HAPPEN AT ALL.

YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF GOOD THINGS, RIGHT?

MORE PEOPLE GOT INSURED, THAT'S FOR SURE.

PREEXISTING CONDITION, LIFETIME CAPS ON CARE, AND BEING ABLE TO STAY AT YOUR PARENTS INSURANCE.

THOSE WERE GOOD THINGS.

BUT IN THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN, WHAT HAPPENED IS ALL THESE PEOPLE WENT OUT AND BOUGHT THIS EXPENSIVE PLANS THAT'S THEY ACTUALLY COULD NOT AFFORD AND NOW WHEN THOSE SUBSIDIES ARE GETTING, YOU KNOW, GOING AWAY, WE ARE SEEING THIS MASSIVE-- I WAS LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS AND I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT, A FAMILY OF FOUR WOULD SEE $24,000 INCREASE IN THEIR PREMIUMS.

THAT'S MIND BOGGLING, RIGHT?

SO I THINK ONE DAY-- I DON'T KNOW WHICH DAY IT IS-- PERHAPS I WILL BE DEAD BY THEN.

BUT ONE DAY PERHAPS WE WOULD COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE SHOWN THAT A SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM WORKS, WE SHOULD GO FOR THAT IN SOME WAYS.

BUT AGAIN PEOPLE WOULD SAY SOCIALISM, THIS, THAT AND GETS ALL MIRED IN THE ARGUMENT.

>> THERE WAS THE PUBLIC OPTION WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN.

>> THIS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

WE CAN SAY IT'S GOOD, OF COURSE IT INSURED MORE PEOPLE BUT NOT SUSTAINABLE.

>> SARAH.

>> I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID.

THE COST ISSUE PREDATES OBAMACARE OBVIOUSLY AND THE PRIORITY OF OBAMACARE WAS TO COVER MORE PEOPLE, WHICH IT DID.

IT WAS TRYING TO DO A FEW THINGS TO BEND THE COST CURVE.

IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE REASONS THAT YOU SUGGESTED.

I MEAN THERE IS REALLY ENTRENCHED INTEREST GROUPS HERE THAT FIGHT AGAINST ALL OF THOSE THINGS BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF MONEY TO BE PAID IN HEALTHCARE, AS WE KNOW.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, TOO, THAT LIKE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID 15 TIMES DURING HIS FIRST TERM THAT HE HAD A PLAN AND HE WAS GOING TO RELEASE THE PLAN WITHIN TWO WEEKS.

HE SAID IT FIVE TIMES DURING THE 2020 CAMPAIGN.

HE SAID IN THE SEPTEMBER, HE HAD LIKE THE PLAN FOR A PLAN.

>> THE OUTLINES OF A PLAN.

>> SO, YOU KNOW, THE POINT IS THE REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT TO FIX THIS PROBLEM.

I THINK WE HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THEY DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT TO SUBSIDIZE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR AMERICANS.

AND THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

THEY DON'T HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO FIX IT BECAUSE THEY DON'T PHILOSOPHICALLY BELIEVE-- >> THEY HAVE SOME PROPOSALS THEY'RE PUTTING FORWARD.

>> RIGHT.

THE SORT OF MAIN PROPOSALS SO FAR, WHICH IS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE SORT OF LACK OF A MEANINGFUL CAP ON THE SUBSIDIES.

IT'S A ONE WAY RATCHET.

THEY JUST GO UP.

AND IN DOING SO, BECAUSE CONSUMERS DON'T FEEL THE PRICE PRESSURE, BECAUSE THEY GET INCREASING SUBSIDIES OR, THEN THAT ALLOWS THE SELLERS MORE ROOM TO RAISE PRICES.

SO OBAMACARE IS CONTRIBUTING TO AN INCREASE IN HEALTHCARE COSTS.

IT'S ONE FACTOR, THE SUBSIDIES ARE.

IT'S DISTORTING THE MARKET.

THE SUBSIDIES HAVE BECOME IN SOME CASES, SO GENEROUS, DEPENDING WHERE YOU LIVE, IT'S ACTUALLY LURING PEOPLE OFF OF EMPLOYER SPONSORED HEALTHCARE WHICH IS LEADING EMPLOYERS TO-- WHO FACE RISING COSTS AND DROP THEIR PLANS AND SO THE PUBLIC FUNDING IS STARTING TO DISPLACE THE PRIVATE FUNDING.

AND THAT'S NOT GOOD BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUSTAINABLE FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT.

>> IT'S NOT GOOD UNLESS YOU AGREE-- AND ANIRBAN-- OUR CURRENT SYSTEM TIED TO EMPLOYMENT, IS BROKE ERIN.

AND IT-- IS BROKEN.

IT CAUSES DISINCENTIVES FOR PEOPLE TO SWITCH JOBS.

WE NEED TO FIX THIS.

MY POINT, IS IT HAPPENING IN THREE WEEKS?

AND TO TALK ABOUT EVEN MINOR CHANGES WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ARE, ARE JUST GOING TO MAKE THINGS WORSE.

>> ONE POINT I REALLY WANT TO MAKE IS THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE EMPLOYER SPONSORED HEALTHCARE, MOST OF THEM ANYWAY, ARE RECEIVING GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIES BECAUSE WE CAN PAY OUR PREMIUMS IN A PRETAX BASIS SO-- BUT THERE IS A DISTORTION.

INCREASING DISTORTION OF THE SUBSIDIES THAT EMPLOYER SPONSORED PEOPLE GET.

THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE MOVING INTO OBAMACARE IS SIGNIFICANT.

>> BUT THE SUBSIDIES THAT WE GET THROUGH EMPLOYER ARE MORE INVISIBLE, RIGHT?

THOSE AREN'T REALLY CONTROVERSIAL WHEREAS THESE ARE MUCH MORE VISIBLE AND THEN GET ATTACKED FOR THAT REASON.

>> BEFORE WE GET TO A'S AND F'S, WE HAVE A PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT.

WHEN I BEGAN HOSTING IVORY TOWER, I HAD NO EXPECTATIONS FOR HOW LONG I WOULD BE ON THE SHOW.

I SIMPLY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING.

TURNS OUT IT'S ALSO BEEN FUN.

NOW, NINE YEARS LATER, I'VE DECIDED IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON.

MY LAST REGULAR PROGRAM WILL BE DECEMBER 19TH.

LONGTIME PANELIST NINA MOORE WILL TAKE OVER AS MODERATOR IN JANUARY.

SO NOW, LET'S GO TO THE AS AND FS AND LISA LET'S BEGIN WITH YOU AND YOUR F.

>> WE ARE GOING TO MISS YOU TREMENDOUSLY.

MY F GOES THIS WEEK TO SYRACUSE CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR ITS SNOW RESPONSE ON TUESDAY MORNING.

IT FELL WELL SHORT OF WHAT RESIDENTS SHOULD EXPECT.

WITH DAYS OF ADVANCED NOTICE FOR A MODERATE THREE TO FIVE INCH SNOWFALL, ROUTINE WEATHER FOR A CITY AVERAGING OVER 100 INCHES ANNUALLY.

MAIN ROADS LEADING TO DOWNTOWN AND HOSPITALS REMAIN TREACHEROUS WELL INTO TUESDAY MORNING.

SYRACUSE HAS BUILT ITS IDENTITY ON WINTER COMPETENCE AND WHEN THAT REPUTATION DOESN'T HOLD UP, IT ERODES PUBLIC TRUST.

>> I GUESS IT'S TIME FOR A NEW MAYOR.

ANIRBAN.

>> MY F GOES TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN TO EXCLUDE NURSING FROM PROFESSIONAL DEGREES AND LIMIT ACCESS TO STUDENT LOANS WHILE CHIROPRACTIC AND THEOLOGY IS COUNTED AS PROFESSIONAL DEGREES AND NURSING IS NOT.

THE AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION IS QUICKLY SOUNDING THE ALARM AS IT WILL LEAVE MANY GRADUATE NURSING STUDENTS WITH TREMENDOUS FINANCIAL BURDEN.

>> SARAH.

>> MY F GOES TO THE CONCEPT OF COLLECTIVE GUILT IN THE PRACTICE OF COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT.

TRUMP IS GUILTY OF BOTH THIS WEEK CRUDELY CONDEMNING ALL SO MALIS LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE A FEW OF THEM IN MINNESOTA WERE ACCUSED OF A FRAUD SCHEME.

AND FOLLOWING THE DEADLY ATTACK ON THE NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS LAST WEEK BY 29-YEAR-OLD AFGHAN MAN, HE IS PAUSING ALL IMMIGRATION APPLICATIONS FROM 19 COUNTRIES, INCLUDING AFGHANISTAN.

TRUMP'S BEHAVIOR IS DANGEROUS.

HE IS TARGETING ENTIRE GROUPS FOR THE BAD ACTIONS OF SOME INDIVIDUALS.

>> RICK.

>> MY F GOES TO LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY.

THIS FALL THEY FIRED BRIAN KELLY THEIR FOOTBALL COACH AND WILL PAY HIM $54 MILLION NOT TO COACH.

AND THEN THIS WEEK HE OFFERED THE OPEN COACHING POSITION TO LANE KIFFIN WHO IS STILL ACTIVELY COACHING OLE MISS AS THEY PREPARE FOR THE COLLEGE PLAYOFF.

OL' MISS IS NOT ALLOWING HIM TO CONTINUE COACHING THE TEAM WHICH IS GOING TO HURT THE STUDENT ATHLETES THERE.

LSU COULD NOT CARE LESS ABOUT HOW THEIR ACTIONS AFFECT THEIR ATHLETES BECAUSE IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY, BIG DONORS AND FOOTBALL GAMES WINNING AT ALL COST.

>> A GOES TO THE "NEW YORK TIMES" FOR 50 STATES 50 FIXES SERIES ONGOING PROJECT SHOWCASING AN ENVIRONMENTAL SUCCESS STORY FROM EACH STATE.

RATHER THAN DEFAULTING TO CLIMATE DOOM, THE SERIES HIGHLIGHTS TANGIBLE WORKING SOLUTIONS GIVING READERS BOTH HOPE AND ACTIONABLE MODELS TO FOLLOW.

>> ANIRBAN.

>> MY A TO THE OWNERS OF SAM PIZZA WHO STEPPED UP DURING THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN TO SERVE ABOUT 100 PIES AFTER THROWING IN DESSERT AND SODA AS WELL DURING THE 10 DAYS WHEN THE FAMILIES WERE ABRUPTLY LOSING GROCERY MONEY AND SNAP BENEFITS.

>> MY A TO THE ANNUAL COMMEMORATION OF WORLD AIDS DAY THIS WEEK THAT THE WHITE HOUSE DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN.

THE DAY SERVED AS AN IMPORTANT REMINDER THAT WE HAVE TO DO THE WORK OF PREVENTING NEW AIDS INFECTIONS AND PROVIDING SERVICES TO THOSE WITH IT AND A WAY TO HONOR THE ACTIVISTS IN THIS COUNTRY AND ELSEWHERE WHO FORCED GOVERNMENTS AND HEALTHCARE SYSTEM TO ADDRESS THIS DEADLY DISEASE WHEN THEY WERE LARGELY IGNORING IT.

>> RICK.

>> MY A GOES TO U.S.

POSTAL SERVICE FOR ISSUING A STAMP COMMEMORATING THE LIFE OF WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY, JR.

I REMEMBER AS A 16-YEAR-OLD WATCHING BUCKLEY ON FIRING LINE.

I ALMOST ALWAYS DISAGREED WITH HIS POSITION BUT I WAS MESMERIZED BY THE WAY HE WOULD CONSTRUCT ARGUMENTS, ASK PENETRATING QUESTIONS AND ANALYZE ISSUES.

I TRULY BELIEVE THERE IS A LINK BETWEEN FIRING LINE, MY DECISION TO BECOME AN ECONOMICS PROFESSOR AND ULTIMATELY WANTING TO BE A PANELIST ON "IVORY TOWER."

>> YOU ARE THE WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY-- YOU ARE NOT THE WILLIAM... I WANT TO PICK UP ON YOUR F TO LSU, LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND ALL OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL.

THERE ARE NEARLY $230 MILLION IN PAYOUTS TO FIRED COACHES.

A LOT OF THAT IS COMING FROM THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS TO DONORS AND THAT IS TAX DEDUCTIBLE.

>> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SENATORS WHO ARE LOOKING AT REMOVING THE TAX DUX FOR COLLEGE ATHLETE LET IX.

IT'S ABOUT TIME.

>> AS THEY SHOULD.

AND PICKING UP ON LISA'S F AND SNOW RESPONSE.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED A LOT ON THIS PROGRAM MAMDANI BECOMING THE NEW YORK CITY MAYOR AND ALL THE TALK OF HIS BEING DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, I THINK IT WILL COME DOWN DO SNOW REMOVAL.

>> AND GARBAGE REMOVAL.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VIEW THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN VIEW IT ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FOR ALL OF US AT IVORY TOWER, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ S