being here the last two days. >> my pleasure. >> that does it for us today. obviously a lot still to come today. "squawk on the street" comes on right now. what a morning of news it is set up to be today. live at the new york stock exchange. take a look at futures. markets having to digest four big stories, not just scotus today, the decision on health kashlgs, but the eu sim miummit beginning today, and speaking of europe, having difficulty climbing out of the red deal with conflicting headlines from "the journal." for a road map this morning starts at the supreme court. the ruling on the affordable health care act expected within the next two hours. odds of being struck down at

76%. we'll be tracking all the angles, from stock reaction to political impact. banks around the world under pressure. barclays is down in double digit calling for diamond to resign. mean tile reports here that jpmorgan's trading loss may total as much as $9 billion. >> it is official, news corp unanimously approved to split the company. rupert murdoch will be the ceo of the entertainment business. and could rimm tip off the hat of what it's planning to do after consulting with itself? investors will be listening to signs of a turn around plan all hobbit health care. the decision on the affordable care act. a little after 10:00 a.m. this morning. at issue was the bill's constitutionality and whether the government can regulate the commerce of health care. whatever the court decides it would likely have a long-term impact on all americans and the medical care. hard to put it into context, jim, because there are so many other big stories competing for

it today. >> look. this is one of those cases where every time we find ourselves in this soup with europe, typically in the banks, it becomes preemine preeminent. we were discussing barclays. jpmorgan, "new york times" saying $9 billion, "new york times" saying $5 billion. that "new york times" working with us. this deal is what this -- this decision is what is going to end up being the important story today ultimately because germany is going to be with us, europe is going to be with us for years. this is a decision that i think small businesspeople we have paychecks on this morning. not a lot of small business creation. this is a small business. 40-employee kind of decision. that's who is going to try to change the plans, i believe. if they decision comes down and says, listen, it's mandated. >> of course, you can get a lot of different combinations here. you can get them to strike down the initial mandate or leave the law intact. they could not be zef rabble, the two. and be overturned. all of those have implications

and it is still very possible, we should point out, that they won't. they take it and they don't -- >> yeah, they don't. >> how unusual. >> they let it go in its entirety. >> because of the five loopholes, four liberals and the swing guy. >> yeah. >> wow. >> by the way, the ball likely goes back into congress' court, right? the court can only judge on law that's been written. and if republicans are serious about getting this thing overturn overturned, if it survives the court it will turn back to repeal. the saga that's taken us through u lie and the health care summit and reconciliation will continue. will you call it the decision of the century? >> i can't call it the decision of the century. of this particular century, maybe. i was thinking about ferguson going down there. >> that was a pretty big one. >> huge breakout decision. >> yeah. >> i think that, no, because of what you said. because it's just going to go back to congress. a lot of these companies have already adjusted to it. i do think that it would affect

hiring plans in a country where hiring is -- >> hiring on both big and small companies. >> yes. >> and i think that there are very few people who want to come out and say, listen, we want to continue to be able to not give good health care to companies, to our employees. companies are not -- you're not going to get a ceo to come on our show and say i'm going to continue to not give good health care. >> plenty of companies don't give good health care coverage any longer. they've made it much more up to the individual. that has started to happen. there is at least the beginnings of a market rate environment where you take more control for your health care and, therefore, perhaps choose more wisely in terms of what you need and you don't need. part of that is, listen, we have had two employers in the last few years. ge and comcast start to pull away to a certain extent from what we're very, very strong benefits. >> do you have a private company? >> looking at me again, going where are you headed? >> no. >> what we need today health care. >> i would just like to stay

away by employees by discussing these. that's just me. >> whatever may come may come. >> some say, gym, if they reverse the mandate, right? if they strike down the mandate, keep the rest h is the worst case scenario because people won't have to sign up. the pool gets riskier premium strike. others say it would be a sign of less onerous regulation on business and the market would rally. if that does happen today, is that good or bad? >> look. if you own stock, the group that you have been looking to for leadership is the retail group in america. wavering in the last few days. we're two-thirds surface and retail based economy, if you were to make it so that retailers have to pay more for their health care, the stock goes down, lead the market down. >> any service oriented company out there, retailer, restaurants. >> restaurants are bad. >> the ceo andy, the parent of

carls and hardee's, et cetera, additional $18 million would certainly result in job losses. >> 18 million, that's all. i would think the price of gas loon falling would have more of an impact on retailers and positive way than this decision? >> i don't know. i think it mass more with to do with starting a business. do you want to start a business. >> or do you want to take it to more than 58 employers? >> i'm sorry, i'm going to say it. you will hate this. i'm debating going to the restaurant business. i'm debating going into the restaurant business. >> it's made for you. >> will you listen to me. i've always wanted a restaurant. >> you've always wanted another way to lose money. >> a place called home. >> mexico and then it's overrun by -- >> this is all about me having more karma, all right? >> a place to call home? mcdonald's off of route whatever. >> you watch too many episodes of "cheers." >> i think that's a great -- one

of my people i was involved with said don't forget that decision at 10:00, that is going to determine whether you should go forward. that's just great. that's what i need to do, a supreme court decision is determining whether jim's home cook grill ever happens. >> i was thinking cramer's. >> cramer's cocoon. >> it's spanish, cad the fat mermaid. >> margaritas? >> high end mess cow. >> i'm there. >> i know it's a little off the top. this is what's happening. i will say in neck people are saying want to see that decision before i start something. >> yeah. >> that's what i'm saying. meantime, let's talk big banks under pressure this morning thanks to cuts from two different firms. citi cutting estimates and price targets on bank of america, goldman, jpmorgan, morgan stanley, saying weak trading results. all the banks are down sharply in the premarket trade but you've got to start off with this libor investigation because ceo bob diamond his job may be

on the line. calling for his resignation. bcs in london trade is coming down. and other banks may be in the cross hairs in terms of investigation. rbc, citi, and ubs, all are trading lower at market. >> i thought this was too big to rig. this is one of those markets that i've always felt, you know, like super bowl betting, just a mention an honest market. >> sure. >> in this world, honest market. i thought that this was libor, melissa, you were mentioning how many people's lives, regular lives, depends on libor? >> just think about a mortgage. all mortgage rates are based on libor. think about when an arm resets. it resets a certain number of points above libor. >> it used to be your typical lbo plus libor plus 250 or something like that. >> isn't your mortgage set with libor? >> yes. three months, six months, there's different terms. but, yeah, it is. >> was my mortgage better

because of this? >> was it worse? did people lose their homes because they got foreclosed because it was too high? >> i don't know. we're talking basis points here. we're not talking percentages. >> i think it's -- >> even a basis point -- >> could mean a lot. >> for billions or trillions of dollars or borrowing. >> we talk a lot about raj and they have tapes of the collusion. i think they could have a field day with barclays. >> quite a loss. this story was out there yesterday. bart capitol hi khilton was on. it has expanded since then. >> and it's not the only bank story out there. citi taking estimates way down on the big guys. >> yeah. >> and then this story about jpmorgan's loss, jim. we just talked to andrew about the discrepancies between misreporting and "the times" reporting. >> i think andrew -- >> that's a story in and of itself. >> listen, if you read the end of that story they actually come to perhaps say that the smaller

number could be important. you wake up in the morning. you see -- i read brian solely on twitter. $9 billion loss, jpmorgan. that is all that sticks in your head. then you read the story and it's $9 billion in the headline. then a really respected quarter. >> the point that we don't know what it is yet. >> i would be very doubtful it would be $9 billion. at least in conversations that i've had with some executives and the like at jpmorgan. while they are not going to tell you at all what it is until we find out after the court earningses reports. just, again, just based on simple body language. i find it hard to imagine it would be that much. we should point out the story written by the "times" said rejethded losses could be $9 billion. eternal report in april that assuming losses could be 8 to 9. our own cape kelly reported last week that they closed out at least 70% of the decision. >> somebody's wrong, is what i'm

saying. you can't have all these story bs right. 70% closed out, looking for five. >> some people can argue it is going to be more than the two that we originally heard about. we have heard nothing more from the company since then. >> why is this news? why did they decide that this was -- i'm just -- i've worked everywhere, every single newspaper outlet. write this story which they know is contradictory to a story we broke says that it -- the two things aren't necessarily in contradiction. in april they may have generated an internal report that said it could have been $9 billion and then in june they've exited the position we don't know to a large extent, we don't know what the loss is. >> it's also been some discussion here on the floor that if you look at some of the cds repository data, there's no big sign of a massive exit happening. at least not lately. which, again, throws into question a lot of other reports. >> right. and then boaz weinstein on the

saga has closed out his end of it, according to some reports. we should also put in perspective, even if it was nine, which i can't imagine it will be, this is a company that is going to have lost $70 billion giving out mortgages over the last five years, lost $22 billion in its credit card portfolio over the last year, so that's $100 billion in losses from just doing the good old-fashioned stuff in banking and, by the way, still has plenty of capital to withstand those kinds of losses. >> i think that -- how about this? it comes on a real bad day. >> we can do news not all bad, news corp board officially approved a split of the company into two, separating out the entertainment business from publishing unit. rupert murdoch will be the chairman and ceo of the entertainment decision, publishing unit. shareholders will get one share of the new second company for each share of news corp they currently old. in murdoch's words, david, we

will wow the world as two. >> yes. of course, he did not answer -- i was listening "the call" before we went on air, specifically why now as opposed to three years ago when they began this process or five years ago. this has been an idea that's been out there for quite some time. he did say forcefully, and i've heard this from others as well, this has nothing to do with the hacking scandal, nothing to do with this, this is is purely two. by the way, already, seen a reflective 13% move up in the stock price over the last two days. it was done because they felt like it was the right thing to do. both company, particularly for the entertainment company. one interesting part of this i think that we didn't know specifically is that he will be entertainment component. chase kerry, one wonders would have thought given murdoch's attachment to naup newspapers that he would have taken a ceo job of the publishing company. no mention of whether james murdoch, his son, had been mentioned oftentimes as his heir

apparent. >> do you think that because this is all happened and was considered by many to have been unlike the company that other things are now in question, the dual class ownership that kind of thing? >> no. >> no. this is it? >> oh, yeah, they're going to keep control. no doubt about that. i can't imagine that rupert murdoch won't keep control until he takes his final breath. >> let's go back to hacking for a second. is it better for murdoch to be in the that? >> i don't know. the hacking will not -- >> >> do you think there was a reason why -- >> he's a newspaper guy. >> he's still chairman of the other company. it doesn't appear the liability. on day one, speculating that is possible some now howe. that does not appear to have played a role in this decision. which again, they began the process, and i've heard this from numerous people, three years ago. so before even the hacking charges surfaced. >> does chase carriages stick around as president of the company until murdoch decides to step aside?

>> i don't know. you know, i think kerry is pretty happy with what he's doing. he runs things to a certain extent day to day. he was certainly one of the key voices arguing for the split up so many say his voice is one that is heard prop nently by mr. mur going dock. and he will be coo of what is by far the larger of the two companies, with, of course, the cable networks, the film studio, and the television product, direct broadcast or satellite broadcast. so much there. >> the other job would be too small. >> the other company is going to be a very small company. the question is, can you actually stop the lack of -- stop the negative growth with the losses. they're not losing money. they're still generating cash flow but less and less. >> and this is all going to come up in your 12:00 interview. >> yes. we're going to sit down with rupert murdoch and talk about a number of these issues. >> don't forget to ask him about "taking two." it's a nightmare for the short sellers. >> she's been taken. >> yes.

>> i love that movie. >> can't wait for that. david with murdoch at 12:00 noon eastern. when we come back, main street, washington, all on edge waiting for the supreme court to rule on the affordable care act. there's a shot of the court live where apparently there are all sorts of protesters, belly dancers outside this morning. we'll see that video later on. one more look at futures. with all of that news we're looking at a potential downdraft, maybe triple digit.

here some of the other stories we are squawking about ahead of the opening bell. nasdaq will release detail of the full computation plan related to the troubled facebook ipo. nasdaq offered to cash and discount to trading fees. american airlines parent company will let pilots vote on b of a proposal avoiding a bankruptcy judge rule that could have imposed tougher terms on the pilots. airbus is planning to build the first u.s. plant in mobile, alabama. boeing's european rival would use the plant to assemble the a-320 jet. >> between the airbus plant going into alabama, google making the tablet in the u.s.,

with they're not saying where, there is an incremental step forward for u.s. competitiveness and jobs down the road. >> i think that's a point. contract manufacturer, they're talking about different -- mexico being a better place to build perhaps than china. the undercurrent of all these is i think that china is less competitive than it used to be. i do believe at a certain point there will be a revulsion by younger people to buy product that is from the continent. younger people, i think, they're the first to recognize you've got to buy sustainable companies. i think they don't like these stories that come out of china about the low wages. i really do. >> with all the lines at apple stores. >> are they i'll withing to pay $100 more for an ipad if that means better conditions? >> i'm saying this is an issue down the road. not yet. it's not an issue right now. people are perfectly happy.

but when i think about, make it in america and we pay people well and you should be proud of us, it's all part of a peace, i want to buy american and they treat people well. >> i buy it. >> it is cramer's mad dash ahead of the opening bell with the stock that is worthy of your attention. and the nation anticipating the supreme court ruling on president obama's health care reform law today could be decision day. and we will be all over it. let's look one more time at futures. it looks like a down day here at the open with the dow looking at news at 91 points. much more "squawk on the street" straight ahead.

♪

wow, what an opening bell we have on this thursday. a few minutes away. let's get cramer's mad dash. ahead of the market open, watching family dollar relatively disappointing quarter. >> dollar general and dollar tree have been stars of this retail rally along with walmart. this one is the chink in the armor, low end of the range. much lower seen more sales numbers. got to watch this because you can't have a pillar, the dollar stores be taken away at this fragile moment at the end of a quarter. >> you mentioned it's not dollar general. >> dollar general's really good. they had an analyst day the other day. dollar general just now moving into california. don't take your queue from family dollar but no one with will listen to that. >> you're watching hutchison and the disk drive news. >> hutchison technology, for those of you who follow the supply chain of disk drives, but

digital is always appearing as having selling at four and five times earnings. hutchison assembles for these disk drive companies and they're saying is that business is slow. also bad for dell and hewlett-packard is if there isn't enough out there bad for hewlett-packa hewlett-packard. watch out. chink on tech. >> finally, a lot of big stories today. some people may be wondering if there's a play in rimm short term ahead of the results tonight. >> we saw some notes who said the estimates are finally low enough to be beaten. "wall street journal" with a devastating story today about how research in motion really truly didn't know what's going on. when you rate this story you say disarray, disarray, disarray, i can't play it. the numbers are finally low. >> all right. look at those names and a lot more after the bell. the opening bell just minutes away. wall street raising for the supreme court ruling on health care reform expected a little more than half an hour. big thursday here shaping up on "squawk on the street."

♪

you're watching cnbc "squawk on the street" on this thursday morning live from the financial capital of the world. opening bell set to ring in a few moments. in the meantime, a lot of big stories. talked about family dollar, talked and rimm, a radio shack, officer leaving. >> the macro picture, we saw lower in wti and random. above yesterday. so with that term lower we move through the energy stocks under pressure once again and with a look at the financials, that adds up to a negative at least open for the day today. >> that had been a bright spot yesterday. a lot of people talking about natural gas breaking up. a note saying, listen, time for you, you reverse that move. that was one of the pillars yesterday, along with ag and housing. you don't want to remove the pill lars of bizarre housing.

strange 2008 stuff. >> not to mention europe is no better today, in fact, for -- here's the opening bell on this thursday. a look at the s&p 500. here are the big board, provider of specialty services for piping systems used in heavy systems. celebrating the ipo this morning. interestingly, for the week, guys, we're watching break even levels for a lot of these major indices which will be interesting because on monday we had such a bad day and it's rare that we recover for the week after a 1% down unone day. it will be the first dime in a few weeks, jim. >> mondays have become horrendous days because people recognize that nothing happened over the weekend in europe. david's absolutely right. monday is a function of the fact that there's this element of hope, constant hope. this will be the weekend. there was a story that came out about 8:24 today which said the

germans might be interested in euro bond. that thing was denied within nine seconds. no, we have no good news. don't worry. there's no good news coming out of germany. >> which is helpful to remember, at least, the next time we see that. her ke merkel has given any indication that she supports any of this in any way, namely, of course, joint and serve liability, euro bonds or anything remotely resembling those things. >> she did leave the door open. she said within her lifetime. >> good point. i'm glad you made that. a little bit of daylight there. >> people do argue, though, jim, that the market continues to front run her changing her mind. and the "times" yesterday, big piece on why they almost have to blink at some point. >> there's a lot talking should they leave, obviously the d mark would go through the roof.

>> do everybody a favor and pull out and not from the union or the monetary union. all of the 27 nations still be a trading block. yeah, have its own currency and do it slowly. it was an interesting piece. it's a barler game. >> it's not going to happen at all. a couple of weeks nobody one was worried about the weak collections and supposed to put to rest the notion that the euro was dead. now, the euro dead theory keeps coming up. continuing theme. which bank is in trouble. which country is in trouble. is the euro in trouble. xfc is the way i measure the euro. yesterday was a counter trend day. the market went up with all the negatives. the market gods said, hey, yesterday was really wrong, today is right. >> and then you have roubini and others calling for not just, you know, euro fiscal collapse, fiscal clips here, china hard landing, a road support for the euro, perfect storm as nouriel

said. >> the bridge was built like dr. dewey because he was concerned about whether there needs to be run egress for manhattan and the nuclear war. i didn't know whether he said did the tappan zee has to go? >> a motorcycle to get through the traffic? >> i have a little dingy to go up the hudson. i don't even need that. >> i'm r i was going to head to the cdc but the cdc can hold up. then i was going to go to ft. bragg. all reference to the walking dead, 3.0 a share. >> i want to talk about hpq, hpq is a new low in today's session. so it's extra -- a couple of new lows this week. so today is at 1920 which is the new low. >> after the last earnings, of course, in the 27,000 job cuts that were announced, the stock reacted positively, if we recall, there were more job cuts to come here. one would have to imagine. and again, just to say it over and over again, meg wittman will tell you the same thing. this is not something that's going to take place over a short

amount of time. it's going to be long. you have to be patient if you want to be. and you don't know the answer. >> the people, how patient could you be? was there any more patient than people in research and motion except for the people in dell? >> drawing an analogy because rimm and hp? >> positive nature of pay sense and maybe meditation in the morning before your stocks go up. >> you can lose your shirt being patient. >> this is nice calvin klein shirt. oh, calvin klein, not doing well today. no place to hide. >> do you think, jim, we talk about flash crash, facebook ipo crises of confidence -- >> libor. >> libor, falcone, peter madoff today, there's a trio of negative sentiments, market stories. yeah? >> these are why i have to go bye-b buy, buy, buy, on the two-year. the two-year treasury. although they -- rig the treasury? in the early '90s it rigged the

treasury market. i guess, david, it's kind of like what they talked about in if the "godfather." the godfather is right, one thing is certain in this world you can kill any market uks they can kill any market, these guys. that story is devastating. >> all the talk about the death of equity, all the talk about how they'll never come back may be helping us? >> i go with the contrary trade every night. >> i'm not saying this is going to take place in a day but maybe over time. how many years -- how many years has it been since -- what, 12 years in now, nothing doing for the s&p? >> i can't believe that there is any -- 20 plus years in for a bond market rally now? >> winners. >> it's got to change some day. >> we have winners for the quarter. winners -- the quarter is wrapping up. there's a lot of stocks in the dow that are up between 8 'and 12%. look at -- look, you're having lunch -- you're having a 12:00, will you stop it? >> what am i doing? >> sitting down with murdoch. he created $6 billion of value by just saying, hey, how about this? >> i'm going split? >> that's right.

>> he's not a libor. he's not falcone. he's new road. >> by the way, i mean, they've got businesses, particular to the entertainment business that's growing very fast. 14% on operating income. 14% compounded annual growth rate. that's not bad, is it? >> no, i think you get beaten down because you pick up the paper and it's like, libor. $9 billion loss. the stories -- you understand why went you mention the stock market when you go out to dinner, i like to go out to restaurants or you go to retail, i like to go to stores. people are like, that's that guy that talks about stocks. i'm like, he talks -- he's very took, like another area. i'm the stock guy. what's his name? remember when stocks were -- that's where we are. >> your time will come again. >> stick with it? >> absolutely. >> patience? >> patience. let's go out to mary thompson who is here on the floor for bob this morning. >> melissa, yesterday the

positive economic data fuelling a rally in the market. today a different story because we had weak data in europe. confidence numbers there disappointing. employment figures disappointment. await news from the eu summit a number of markets overseas are weaker. weakness spilling over into u.s. markets as well. the dow off 101 points right knew. the s&p sitting at near term support, about 1321 off ten points. the nasdaq is weaker in early trade down 30 points. bags are pacing, the decline today. couple of reasons for this. first ol of all we had citi and kbw cutting estimates of targets for the major u.s. banks in large part because of weak trading in the second quarter. fixed income trading, expected to be down 40%. 20% on the equity side. and investment banking piece down 15%. that's putting pressure on the u.s. banks. overseas we have five banks named in the expanding probe of libor manipulation, including citi and lords and barclays

yesterday paid over $400 million in order to settle some allegations in that probe. of course, given all the uncertainty as investors await news from the eu summit and the supreme court ruling later today, the risk on trade is off today so we are also seeing early weakness in some of the commodity stocks, minors, et cetera, they are a little bit weaker in today's session early on. of course, we want to just check on some of the health insurance to see how they're doing ahead of the expected 10:00 ruling on obama care. you can see they are mixed or actually those are the commodity stock, mixed. i want to note aol was spiking in the premarket on the news. buyback on 400 million on the shares of n. a dutch option. thank you. let's shift to bonds. take it away. >> thanks, jim. i have to tell you, we know we have the supremes today. we know we have a lot of issues in europe. and even though the florida isn't as busy as it used to be in the old days, there's a lot

going on. you can sense an anxiety. weather you're listening right now or reviewing, there's going to be potential volatility today. be warned. if we look at the 24-hour chart, we're down four or five base points. some another 162 yesterday. but the real interesting chart is when you open it up to june 1st. remember, june 1st was within historic day. in the treasure i are market, that's when you made all-time lows around 145. open that same parameter up for a boon you can see a completely different formation which begs in, we talked about this in terms of german rates being a little bit more buoyant to the upsi upside. a little steep on the right side. although on today in particular, they're down about five basis points. the euro going with those stories. okie poke i can with the germans. the germans are in, the germans are out. that's continuing to move the market. back to you, jim. check out the latest news in the energy and metals. going to brian shactman at the nymex. >> thank you. turn tail a little bit and crude spent a bulk of the morning

above $80 a barrel. back below that now. brent is weaker. more caution in europe, more caution in brent. want to talk about natural gas and to much butcher a college phrase, we have a paradigm shift. this from the eia's update. natural power generation amassed in april for the first time since 1973 and coal fire generation fell to a record low during the month. just an incredible thing to take away today. we have inventories in nat gas at 10:30 a.m. eastern time. 51 to 55 bcf, david, and all the metals are to the downside. euro weakness, factors this that. >> it is something to look at that natural gas. 280. we were not that far months away from $2 on that. talking about movements, why don't we talk take a look at news corp. shares up 13% in the last couple of days as we gave you a lot of details on an expected

announcement on thursday of a split period of time company. of course, we've got that announcement this morning. the board voting yes on it unanimously yesterday. the board of news corp and two separate board, unfor a publishing company that will incorporate all the newspaper title, couponing business, a number of their other digital efforts as well. and much larger entertainment company, led by the cable networks, film studio, and other parts of that. you can see right there, a great response in the market to a plan that had been under consideration they said on the conference call for three years. in fact, i had heard that as well from people close to the situation over the last couple of days. and this is something that had been considered far longer than even for three years. something embraced by many investors. as it actually happening, it was announced this morning it's going to take a year and on the conference call, rupert murdoch made that clear that it's going to take a year. he also said it's not a fate, i wouldn't read too much into that. he was talking about simply, a

lot of approvals to get, country approval, tax approvals, a lot of internal business to take care of. and so it's going to happen. but it's going to take quite a while to get there. and so we're looking at a year before this split is actually finalized. you can see there is a little bit of selling going on today and perhaps the most interesting part of this was that murdoch is going to be ceo of the entertainment company. chase kerry will be below him. and they haven't named a ceo for the publishing company. the company that may have as much of a million in earnings. what the earnings overall will be. probably not quite equal to what they paid for dow jones back a few years ago. >> $5 billion? >> yeah. >> $5 billion. another story i remember you breaking. >> yes, i did. >> that was a shocker. >> that's right. >> around 1050. >> i just remember it was on air. >> what? >> i was coming out of the twin reap, 60 bucks a share. by the bay, what would dow jones

be trading out were it a public company today? >> where is t"the new york tim " times"? >> it would be in the single digits which they've already taken $2.8 billion writedown on that. at the time of the dow jones deal they talked a lot of the sin northern between dow jones and the other properties, the idea of, of course, financial information being global, which we know it is, but being able to deliver on lots of different platforms, both in video and on the web -- through the web and a lot of ways one wonders what changed in terms of their thinking. >> there were some chatter that they might have taken fox and put it in publishing just to give it a little juice. didn't happen. >> no. they're keeping them completely separate. there is a thought that they will be able to pursue strategic acquisitions that this company. will have its own currency and you can do that because they were not going to be able to do anymore newspaper acquisitions at the overall company. >> amazing book publishing worth so little, too. >> yeah. >> they are. >> they are. coming up, how will the

supreme court rule on president obama's health reform law? we may get answers this morning. we'll a live report outside the high court.

♪ live shot of the supreme court. a few moments away from that decision expected shortly after 10:00 a.m. eastern time. talking about how some of the stocks are trading. who knows how good an indicator they in advance. >> probably not -- who know, yeah, who knows. but i did notice they are trading as groups within the health care subsectors. hospital stocks are largely higher. and insurance stocks are largely lower. lower by more than the rest of the market down by more than 1% for the lights of cigna, aetna, unh and what that might tell you is that the individual mandate will be upheld. in other words, hospital will get a higher amount of reimbu e

reimbursemen reimbursements. more regulation of how they set their prices for sick people, in charge of not being able to charge more. that's what it's telling us at least right now. who knows. >> unh very strong performer. could have gone the other way. the markets have been so wrong on big events. >> that's true. you don't know. >> i mean, the line, and the so-called line in sports is so much more rigorous that the lines. meanwhile, in washington, crowds on each side of the debate gathering outside the supreme court as nine justices are expected to issue the ruling today on the affordable health care act. joining us outside the court, hampton pearson who was watching this -- watching for a decision on monday as well. definitely getting today, hampton. good morning. >> that's the only certainty we have, carl, is we will, in fact, finally get a ruling from this supreme court on the constitutionality of the affo affordable care act, obama care to its proponents. hopefully within the next hour. keep in mind there's basically four key constitutional questions that the court has the

to answer. first, above all, is is it constitutional? if they rule the mandate is tok to be stricken, what happens to the rest of the law? can parts of it still be unheld or does the whole affordable care act have to go down? now, there's also as part of this a huge expansion of medicaid, health care for the poor, big part of the financial responsibility falling to the states, they are protesting that medicaid expansion. and finally, we have the whole question according to the side of is the tax law preventing basically the tax penalty, does that prevent the court from being evening on the affordable care act because, in fact, any taxes that are challenged can't be until they've actually been leveed and individuals pay them. that would push this whole thing off to 2014. the atmosphere, carl, here, is beczar. i've never seen the combination of both demonstrators and media around the court on a big decision day like this and in the category of you can't make

this up, we've even had belly dancers. the hip replacement lobby awaiting for the outcome of this decision. back to you. >> single payer supporter, belly dancer. you got that right, hampton. thanks. we'll be coming back to you later on. hampton pearson in washington. i was waiting for the video to roll but apparently it has been sent. >> too risque per happens? too much belly and not enough dancing? much more "squawk on the street" straight ahead. up next, why all eyes are on the supreme court and their health care decision. dr. cramer isn the waiting room. he's getting ready to dissect six docs in 60 seconds.

next hour. >> good morning. one story in town, clearly the judgment from the supreme court on health care. let's bear in mind certain combinations could throw this energy, 20% of the u.s. economy, into chaos. other stocks presumably on other judgments could be much more profitable, much less profitable. we have all the trades and, carl, presumably the video of

the belly dancers outside the supreme court which i'm certainly looking forward to. >> yes, along with one of the biggest decisions in the century. let's get to six in 60. six stocks in 60 seconds, give or take a view. crm. >> they've been under a lot of pressure. i would not use this as the fourth. >> oppenheimer saying good-bye. >> you've got to wait. these stocks are not working right now. >> weatherford, downgraded in berstein. >> i'm surprised this stock is up. >> morgan stanley cuts estimates of cliffs? >> continual chinese slowdown story. no bottom. >> energy transfer partners? big week for some ipos? >> i had kelsey warner on last week. he did say they do these deals all the time. this deal is priced higher. people very angry at him because they didn't think he needed the money. >> i got to tell you, the tech, wanting to buy tech is very tough here. still too early. >> and cree.

>> how many people try to crawl a bottom in cree and still have any credibility on the seller. >> for more on those stocks go to sots.cnbc.com. coming up tonight on "mad money"? >> i'm trying to figure out whether bed, bath, and beyond are broken stocks or broken companies. these have been a darling that has been crushed and, believe it or not, it's still in the balance. we're putting the show together, while i'm on this show, "mad money" and it's not yet clear to me. so tonight it will be. i got about six hours to get this right. >> we talked about trying to position for a weekend of uncertainty. >> yeah. >> and again, this u summit will bring more of that. do you have differently about this one than the ones in recent past if. >> i think these are all -- yes, this does feel more brink. this does feel more everything's on the line. but one thing we've learned about europe is everything is always on the line and always come up with something that makes it so we're back talking about it being on the line another day. that will the same theory.

>> all the discussions continues to center around euro bonds. not so much about an fdic tape insurance. >> no, that's wrong. that's what they should be focused on. the insurance in euro. so if you have money in a spanish bank you don't say i ought to pull it out because i'm going to wake up one day. well, you know, carl, the reason why everyone wants this euro bond is because they feel that germany is rich enough to really help. or else they're going to crunch the debts. i'm reading about the stockton bankruptcy. these are bonds. you're talking about crunching bonds, nothing bothers a bondholder more than waking up and realize, wait, it's a bond. this isn't stock. i never accepted this risk. that's what's really going on. >> see you tonight. >> thanks. >> big day ahead. "mad money." when we come back, the supreme court expected to issue its rulen on president obama's health care overhaul. if it happens, and we know it will, we'll be all over the decision. the market reaction to what's at steak for your portfolio. the political ramifications and a lot more.

how do you know which ones to follow? the equity summary score consolidates the ratings of up to 10 independent research providers into a single score that's weighted based on how accurate they've been in the past. i'm howard spielberg of fidelity investments. the equity summary score is one more innovative reason serious investors are choosing fidelity. get 200 free trades today and explore your next investing idea. diarrhea, gas or bloating? get ahead of it! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap a day helps defend against digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. hit me! [ female announcer ] live regular life. phillips'.

welcome back to "squawk on the street." let's get a road map for the

next hour, a big hour. it is 10:00 a.m. on the east coast. it's moment we've all been waiting for. we are on high alert as me countdown the minutes of the supreme court's decision on health care. >> all the latest moves amid the policymakers. medical device companies. plus, what is the ceo of an integrated health care network have to say? we'll talk about that when we sit down with ralph of caritas christyst health. and a talk with senator rand paul. a keep on all big pharma makers as the news breaks. >> the nation is awaiting the supreme court's decision, in the next 10 to 20 minutes on the fate ol health care in america. the supreme court will hand down this decision. the main question, guy, clearly, is the individual mandate, can you make americans buy health insurance. and reading through the notes here, let's hope if that is struck down that they also for the sake of the industry strike

down those more popular notions, such as no pre-existing conditions are able to be eliminated, some of those other conditions because the combination is vicious if they take down the individual mandate as the obama administration argued, and they don't take down the other provisions. because the health insurance industry will be in chaos, potentially, absolute chaos in this kind of -- >> they won't be able to charge more for people who are already sick and can't turn anybody away. deadly combination when it comes to the bottom lines -- strictly bottom line perspective, not morally believe in health care reform. there are real financial impacts here. and the use of a clause is interesting because can you actually mandate inactivity, not buying insurance, and can you penalize that as opposed to regulating an activity happening across state lines? >> article, i, section 8, clause 3 tepically seen as a grant of congressional authority. a restriction on state's ability

to regulate. we'll see if it happen in this case. one issue going into the next half hour, david, is going to be that it could be a very complex decision. and so the initial alerts, echo on this. could be misleading. it might be one thing when it is clear. >> not on uncommon occurrence. these are -- can be complicated opinions in opinions. in this case seems unlikely. it will be pretty straightforward. again, to the points melissa is making. if they strike down the original mandate or don't and say it's not receiseverable. we shall see and we'll work through it as quickly as we can. >> as "washington post" notes in the editorial today, les of legitimacy for people m. people on the supreme court itself, on whether it is judicial activism as of course obama originally suggested. if he does strike it down, they

have walk back from some of those comments. >> a lot of discussion this morning about to what degree the media will cover the political ramifications. five presidents have tried to institute nshlg health care. carter, clinton, johnson, nixon, all failed. we'll see what happens with this one. more so, how the coverage helps americans understand how it's going to affect their decisions, because it is going to affect all of us in some way or another. >> whether or not it is what we as individuals choose to buy or whether or not businesses are able to hire and at what cost they will have to hire because of new costs potentially incurred because of health care reform. a lot of implications here. >> as we await the decision and, again, we are on high alert over the next 1520 minutes, let's bring in howard dean, former governor of vermont, and nan hayworth is a congresswoman from new york. good to see both of you. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> governor, i'm wondering if you are prepared mentally for an overturn of the mandate? >> sure. i think it will be a good thing.

first of all, the idea that overturning the mandate is going to have any significant consequences on the insurance industry is not accurate at all. we've had guaranteed issue community rating for 20 years in vermont without a mandate. really has very little affect on the insurance market. i know economists say it does but this is one of those areas where economists models don't correlate with the human behavior. so i think the over turning of the mandate will actually be a have beenry for the republicans in this short term, a victory for obama in the long term because people won't have the thing they hate the most about the bill to kick around and have very little impact on the bill. secondly, the community rating and guaranteed issue in this bill is not the way it was characterized. in fact, there's a 300% rate ban that is you can charge three times as much under the bill as it exists today to an older person as you do to a younger person. so i think there's a lot of hype about this bill that it's just not so. really frankly much more about politics than it is about the

substance unless they overturn the whole bill. that's different matter. >> if on the one hand you require insurance to take on those who are already sick, those with pre-existing medical conditions, and that has to come in for 2414 and yet at the same time you don't demand that people own insurance. don't you leave the insurers in a situation where people will simply wait until they are sick in order to buy insurance and there's nothing those providers can do? >> that's the argument that they -- insurance companies in the academics make. as we say, we've had this system for 20 years in ver mop and it doesn't work that way. people don't wait until last minute until they can get insurance. people don't operate like that. they're worried about risk. the only age group that does operate like that are the under 30s. you've already taken care of half of them by this provision which the insurance companies say they're going to keep, which is allowing under 26 to stay on the policy. so it's a really much more minimal problem than the people in washington seem to think it

is. >> congresswoman, if, in fact, a mandate is overturned, how do republicans begin to position themselves to argue for a credible alternative? because we all know the status quo is no picnic either. >> well, that's absolutely true. and we have said all along that the goals of the 2010 law were great goals, the right goals for the american people, but at very bad law, very bad policy. it's harming job creation. it will cost the american people $2 trillion worth of bureaucracy that they simply don't need. it will actually decrease access to care and it takes half a trillion dollars of critical funding out of medicare. so we need to do things differently. we need to apply common sense. we need to go step by step. and what you're going to see is that we're going to be listening to the american people. as you know, survey after survey has shown that the american people know this is a bad law. great goal, bad law. we are with them in that.

we are going to listen to them and have a health care system that is patient centered, not government centered. >> is it enough if the mandate is overturned, i mean, so you won't have the unpopular mandate, you may still have the popular reforms. do republicans feel those reforms are still worth keeping or will they go to congress and try to repeal what's left over? >> well, the entire law has to be repealed and replaced. we do have to start fresh because there are so many provisions in that law that are harming job creation and that will harm access to care. there's a rack of new taxes that are going to imposed on the american people starting in january 2013. that's bad for our economy. that's bad for medical innovation,nd it's bad for savers because they're going to tax dividends. those have to go. we have to get that half a trillion dollars back into medicare. that has to be redone. everies aspect of this law has to be replaced.

and it can be in a common sense way. >> we are beginning to get some decisions. the first one, the court ruling that the first amendment does protect claiming false military service, not obviously the decision we're all eighting for. the president and vice president are waiting the decision themselves in the oval office. governor, at this late stage -- >> i'm sorry. i do have a wire here that says the u.s. supreme court says it upholds the health care mandate. reading directly from the reuters wire. ten minutes past 10:00. is that correct. the u.s. supreme court says it upholds the health care mandate. the individual mandate the right to demand -- >> reuters -- >> chief justice roberts says the mandate may be upheld as within congress' taxing power. >> we should note that the hospital stocks continue higher. the stocks moved in advance of this ruling. and they moved correctly. we showed note that hca, for instance, looks like it has

halted right now because of that. it is now up 10%, hrks ca. look at the hospital stocks as a sector and they are moving sharply higher and we are watching the insurance stocks move lower here. >> governor, i mean, the vice president on the day this was signed called it a big f'ing deal. did you expect this as all? >> if they approved the whole thing, no, i didn't expect it. i did expect expect them to throw out the mandate in is a big win for the business community. el tell you why. this is moderate. this is the romney plan. the truth is what they've done here is cement the future of the health care system in the private sector. we could have gone to something else, medicare for all, i would have preferred other things. but this bill, if it's upheld by the court, means that the future of the american health care system is in the private sector. i would say that was a win for the private sector. >> just want to break in here. four stocks, four hospital stocks are halted right now. hma, hca, community health, mthc

tenan tenants. >> this will be very good for insurance companies, too. >> the individual mandate survived attacks. >> yes. >> and a lot of people far more students of constitution allow than i are going through this decision right now. >> and we should point out the mandate no, question, was seen as most constitutionally suspect . the fact, governor, this has been upheld within congress' power would you expect the reforms to also be upheld? >> for them to attack medicaid or something like that, i would be very, very surprised by that. i agree that the mandate was the most questionably constitutional and if they upheld that i've got to agree -- >> here's another headline. supreme court finds fault with laws medicaid expansion. >> also this -- i'm richly reading from the wires. chief justice roberts says the mandate is not a valid exercise of congress' power under the commerce clause. >> clause, yes.

>> so that is contradictory to what we heard. >> reuters was wrong? >> no. it does appear that they are saying the mandate is constitutional. chief roberts -- chief justice roberts appeared to have joined on the left with the court on this decision. that at least is according to a number of supreme court followers that i'm following. that medicaid expansion, by the way, carl, that you mentioned, is the challenge to provision relating to medicaid by the 26 states that argues that congress expeeded constitutional authority. that's not a unimportant part of this challenge, as well. >> i would say it was the most important in terms of how many people are going to get health care coverage out of this. if they strike down the mandate, the medicaid approach, that actually ensures more people than anything else in the bill. that would be a terrible blow. >> but it's a violation of federalism. >> medicaid provision is limited but not invalidated. ian, got to bear with us because

was we pointed out, these are complicated decisions. >> does he read the judgment or is he also reading the disse dissenters as well? some are from those that dissented. that may be what is going on here. >> there's no question we are beginning to see truly conflicting headlines regarding the mandate. and then some of them are sourced to justice roberts. it's unclear whether that is just his opinion because justices do have the right to issue their own opinions as the decisions are read. we're getting a lot of different reports. this is going to be a very, very confusing morning. the latest from the, a p, we cited reuters earlier. ap, the supreme court upholds president obama's requirement. >> perhaps a question and maybe one of our two guest can shed light on this. perhaps the case is that it's being upheld as a tax, within the taxing power but not under the commerce clause. >> right. i think that's -- that is --

remember the day before they got to the argument for or against the mandate, per se, they had the entire argument about whether or not it represented a tax or a penalty because that had implications for whether the supreme court had rule. it turns out perhaps it sounds as though that seemingly technical detail because the basis for the foundation, for the decision. it's still -- it doesn't change the fact that this is a bad law that needs to be repealed and replaced. >> representative, i want to go straight to a constitutional lawyer fortunately we can draw on his expertise. a partner in mcdermott, will, and emory in washington, d.c. he has argued before the supreme court before. miller, it is great to have you on this morning. we do want to ask you what you make of these headlines. the individual mandate appears to be upheld within the taxing authority of congress, and not necessarily because of the commerce clause. can you sort of walk us through? >> sure. i haven't read the decision but

if that's the case this is something of a shocker. no one had expected that -- this was an alternative argument put forward by the government to sustain the mandate. the primary defense for the mandate was that it was an exercise of congress' power under the commerce clause. it appears, i haven't seen the opinion, but it appears that the court has ducked that issue and instead has relied upon the taxing power of congress. >> forgive me for interrupting. i want to go to hampton pearson who is actually at the court and has a much better understanding than us. >> carl. here's the 90-page ruling. in essence, the court has up held the individual mandate as a tax but not a penalty. i want to read you a couple of key sentences on that from the opinion itself. it was 5-4 with in essence chief justice roberts joining the court liberals. here's what they say about the individual mandate, while the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it needs not be read

to declare that failing to do so is nauunlawful. neither the act nor any law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance beyond requiring a payment to the irs. so it was upheld as a tax, not a penalty on the individual mandate and, again, deciphering the rest of it. we do know that the whole issue of whether or not the court could hear the case because of the tax act, that was a moot point. they rendered a decision. we're deciphering severability and medicaid. i'll get back to you with more. >> hampton, i know you've got to go through it again. we're hearing that more or less the entire aca has been upheld with the exception of that federal government pow twoer terminate state's medicaid funds. but again, i know you've got to go through it. is that the sense you get, particularly, mean, roberts being with the left of the court, we can't remember when that's occurred, in a 5-4 decision. >> that's what, again, as people pick apart how the votes went

and how they got to this point, you're right. that is a surprise. especially with justice kennedy being among the difficult scepters. conventional wisdom was if it was going to go one way. >> terry: other justice kennedy would be a swing to either affirm or take it down. >> fascinating. fascinating that chief justice roberts appeared to have saved it. >> the dissenters would be scalia, kennedy, thomas, and alito. so you had kennedy who you thought might be going -- >> severability. >> and roberts, as you said, joining the left. >> kennedy so often is the crucial vote in this court but not in this case. i would expect unexpected, perhaps, by many who follow the court more cloily than i do. >> that's why just read. >> and then there's there's, the showdown between the president and roberts this morning set up as a dual almost this morning. interesting to see roberts at least joining him on this

limited. >> severability in medicaid? >> we're hearing hampton, trying to talk to some people. >> i would like to hear everything that comes out of hampton's mouth. >> that is true. let's go back for conversation conversations fusional lawyer, miller baker. you have had a chance to reasto actual ruling. what do you make in terms of this being press sent setting? >> well, it's -- well, the interesting question is whether the court actually addressed the commerce clause issue. i suspect the court ducked it and decided that it couldn't have to address it by relying upon congress' tax authority. i find the decision surprising in that it relied upon, majority relied upon congress' taxing power because you have to remember that both congress and the president over and over and over again insisted that this wasn't a tax. and there's a case to be made for political accountability, in that if congress wants to invoke

this very broad power unthe the taxing clause under the constitution we have to acknowledge that it's doing so. that helps with political accountability. if you're going to invoke that power you have to justify it. i would -- i thought that was going to be very persuasive to a whmajority of the court. >> mr. baker. >> yes. >> tell me, how do we now explain away the speculation of how justice robtsz took the case in the first place on the basis he might have support for rejection although it was sound enough argument for that and then the way in which we all the oral arguments play out and quite negative responses to what was being said on the part of the white house? i mean, how do you now put that in context in hindsight that it's actual lly going through? >> it's very difficult to predict which way a case will -- how it will ultimately pan out, if you will, based upon the arguments. it's very speculative. i mine, arguments are tea

leaves. and it's hard to say it's -- i would not bet the mortgage on anything set in oral argument. arguments can be misleading. certainly the tenor of the argument was such that many people were led to believe that the mandate would probably be struck down. i was not quite -- i didn't go so far as it is. i thought it was a very close call that it could go either way, based upon the arguments. >> everybody pay close attention to the oral arguments. five hours. tons of questioning. bad reviews for the solicitor general, david, and one more lesson that trying to read the tea leaves is not always a good sign as to how the decision would come down. >> no. and many people have been trying to read tea leaves and noticed that ginsburg has been in good mood lately. >> the number of laughs. the number of minutes they spent talking. interestingly, stocks have not

budged a whole lot. more, we'll have the market reaction has been. bertha coombs is joining us as well. >> into the decision we had hospitals a little bit higher. the managed care insurers were a little lower. they have come off of the lows. right now we've got the health care providers index up nearly 4% led by the hospitals. with the mandate upheld, good news for the hospitals if people do have to buy insurance they're likely to have less exposure to bad debts. that's big problem for hospitals. a lot of analysts have looked at this as a possible real improvement for their balance sheets. then on the other side in terms of the insurers, if people do have to buy insurers for commercial insurers, this could be a positive in terms of people who are more well off, have to buy, subsidize, will have to go in there and buy policies. what we'll have to wait and see is how this sorts out in terms of the medicaid expansion. medicaid expansion could have wider implications and for the medicaid play irs, those are the

drag right now within the insurance area. if the federal government doesn't have the ability to force states to expand medicaid even as the federal government would really underwrite much of that that would certainly call into question some other expansive programs. one of the key ones that people are looking at in terms of the medicaid players is a so-called dual eligible program. there are substantial number of people who are eligible for both medvedenko care and medicaid and one of the big contracts coming out in these states would basically allow medicaid players to bid for these contracts, to try to bring down the cost, to manage their care, and not have the duplication that we see through the two programs. medicare, the program for folks who are older, of course, medicaid for people who are indigent or who are poor. trying to combine that kind of payer action to try to bring costs down is one of the things that is at the heart of this bill, depending on how they rule

on that medicaid expansion. that's going to have a big impact on medicaid players. >> on that question, bertha coombs, thank you. back to hampton pearson who has had a time to go through that decision a little bit more. >> joining me now as well to decipher this momentous opinion is carrie, she recently clerkd for justice clarence thomas. first of all, severability is not an issue is because the mandate has been upheld. but medicaid expansion, here's what the court had to say. what in essence are they telling us about the medicaid expansion? >> the problem with the medicaid expansion is it conditioned all medicaid funding for the states enacting these new expansions under the affordable care act, what the court's decision today says is you can condition the new funding in taking on the new part but you can't condition all the funding going back for all of medicaid. that would be coercive on that. >> let's go over those,

specifically what the court said in this ruling. >> right. they say nothing in our opinion precludes congress from offering funds under the affordable care act to expand the availability of health care and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions and their use. what congress is not free to do is to penalize states that choose not to participate in the new program by taking away their existing medicaid funding. >> so a bit of a win for the states here in terms of flexibility. >> exactly. they are no longer completely under the barrel of the gun if they decide not to do the expansion they still get to keep the medicaid funding they're doing so far. >> that's the ruling on medicaid. we know, of course, the mandate has been upheld as a tax, not a penalty. 5-4 with justice roberts. in essence, siding with the court liberals. back to you guys. we'll have more as we continue to work our way through the opinion. >> hampton, thanks. meantime, the reactions are beginning to trickle out on the web. nancy pelosi, for instance, tweeting it's a victory for the

american people. and we'll continue to talk about the we situation of the century, david. more like the surprise of the century. >> especially given roberts being on the side of what is typically called the liberal part of this court. of course, we all know very much divided court. so often we see 5-4 decisions, certainly on the important ones. on this medicaid expansion question, there is some language in the opinion from roberts, quote, nothing in our opinion precludes congress from offering funds to expand the availability of health care and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. what congress is not free to do is penalize states choosing not to participate by taking away their existing medicare funding. that appears to be part of the construction of this question about medicaid expansion. they didn't turn it over but they did say you can't penalize the states. this is a win no, doubt about it, of course, for the obama administration and the law has been largely upheld as is. >> and goldman put in this morning suggesting if this was to come through, then, in fact, the industry costs of the obama

care are probably factored into stocks at the moment. what the market may increasingly do is give credit to the stocks for the boost of $30 million. >> what industry specifically? >> they were talking in general across the health care. >> across health care. >> let's focus down on one part of that now. in particular, medical devices and bring in matthew dobbs, director of equity are search with citi group. good morning to you. thank you for joining us here. you put a notice out focusing on medical devices and the 2.3% tax which presumably now stands. in your sphere, scientific, so on, what do we now need to know about those stocks? >> the only thing that could have really taken the medical device tax out was a full repeal of the bill. so everyone talking about the individual mandate is the piece that's most likely to go. that would not have impacted it, so the odds are with this tax was going to stay unless the

entire bill was repealed. the estimates that the streets put out and i put out largely now will hold and kick in in january 1, 2013, and you're penalizing medical technology along the lines of cigarettes, liquor, and guns versus pacemakers. so that's been the issue with this tax. >> what do i buy and what do i sell now with the knowledge that i have? >> my large cap names, backer has the least exposure. they are going to see less of an impact from this tax. boston scientific because their profitability is lower. they have the highest hit in large cap medical technology. and the small cap companies have even a larger eps in back in 2013 because their profitability is lower and they have more u.s. sales. so you see a lot of the small cap med tech and called innovative companies are getting a hit on eps anywhere from 5% to 40% and one company i cover, for

example, is going to take a 15% eps hit. so it's well higher than the 4% to 5 hrs average for large cap. >> matthew, stay with us. let's bring in david, senior analyst with bmo capital markets to talk about the hospital stocks. dave, what do i buy, what do i sell in your sector? >> you know, what we have felt all along is that the case is just a stepping stone to more political risk. in other words, now the republicans are going to say, well, we have to fix it. the democrats are going to say, well, the court loved us. although it's kind of interesting because the republicans can now say this is tax and spend, right, because the mandate was a tax. but setting that aside, within the hospital universe, if the medicaid program, the medicaid expansion is the big kicker for the hospitals, and if the medicaid expansion holds up or the states can at least take the

free money until the free money runs out and then back out of the program, that is a positive thing for all the hospitals. our favorite name there is universal health. mostly that has to do with behaviora behavioral. and behavioral benefits more from medicaid expansion because there are more people in the working poor that have behavioral issues. so universal health is a good place for money. the insurers -- it's probably a mixed bag as it always has been. the expansion is good. the medicaid is good because the mandate's good because it brings more people into the pool. however, there still are some restrictions in the law that are tough so the insurers are probably same way they've always been. >> dave, when it comes to the hospital stocks, he'll me understand how this improves the profitability of the medicaid expansion is fully intact here. you know, i read an estimate that hospitals get only reimbursed for $7 out of every

$100 they spend on care. how will that move the needle? >> 7 is better than nothing. it's as simple as that. you know, i agree with you. it's not a great deal. but the concept is that right now you're getting nothing for these people. the sick people walk in and you get nothing. they're uninsured. they have nothing. they have medicaid, they have a little bit. so it's a little bit better. >> guys, we'll leave it there for a moment. matthew, thank you. let's bring in cnbc's john harwood to talk about the decision and politics behind it as well. job, good morning to you. >> good morning, carl. this is obviously a huge win for president obama and his team in terms of his legacy, his accomplishments in his first term. his aides have said consistently for the last couple of years that this law would be upheld, including a conversation i had with a senior official yesterday that all the predictions that the mandate were going to go down were wrong, it was likely to be upheld. on the other hand, politically, this may be a good result for

mitt romney. remember, we saw from our nbc/"wall street journal" poll this week, this law is at best a mixed bag for the administration. there is a plurality that thinks the law is a bad idea in this country and mitt romney who has been making the argument through republican primaries and now the general election, that he's going to get rid of obama care on day one. that has been a very effective argument with the base of the republican party. he can keep make that argument and the potential energy that the democrats would get from the law being struck down by a court dominated with a republican majority, that's not going to happen. >> john, how long until the first house vote trying to refer repeal this again? >> i think the republicans are going to go fairly quickly to try to at least express their desire to repeal this. i don't know if we're going to see a full repeal attempt by the house of representatives. they know that's not going to go anywhere or whether they're going to promise to do that once

mitt romney is elected if he's elected. but you know, there is no shot in this current congress that they can repeal the law or repeal any substantial part of it. that could change if mitt romney wins the presidency. as i said, politically this is the result that is probably the best for romney, substan at this timely this is exactly what president obama wanted and what democrats have been trying to accomplish for decade sglsz john, isn't there a danger that romney is drawn into laying out clear, fiscally conservative solutions to what is going on. for example, limiting fixing the amounts that actually go to recipients of medicaid and in so doing is drawn into a very unpopular situation within particular seniors? >> well, first of all, mitt romney's position is very complicated to begin with because the massachusetts law that he helped pass with the help of ted kennedy and democrats in the massachusetts legislature is a very close copy of what the president has done nationally. in fact, the president keeps making the point that romney that the massachusetts law was

inspiration for what obama care turned into. so that's not easy. but on the other hand, the american people very concerned about spending. we've seen that republicans have a significant advantage there. and so the issue that the supreme court did say would be unconstitutional. that is if the federal government were to withdraw medicaid fundsing from states that participate in the expansion, that plays to the most popular side of the argument that mitt romney is making is that this is mandating a lot of spending that the nation can't afford. that argument will resonate with republican conservatives and some independents and mitt romney will keep making. >> finally, john, this idea that congress can't make you do something but they can tax you if you don't do it. to what degree was that originally the focus behind the proposal. the reason why this should be law. >> well, that's certainly not what the president was trying to push and democrats were trying to push at the time. remember, the mandate was seen as a way to enact health care

reform without raising taxes in a direct way. and the president during the consideration of the law by congress. remember, an interview with george steph nap police, is this a tax? president obama said this is not a tax. and george tried to get him to draw a additidistinction, and h, no, that is not a tax. they will try to embrace that to what uphold their law. but that wasn't their original plan. this is an important moment. the idea that you have a 5-4 decision of this guy with roberts joining with the liberals of the court may diminish some of the sense in the country that the court is -- has become politicized in a way our electoral institutions and elected officials have become polarized. >> john, you started off at the tomorrow top saying this is a victory for the obama administration. widely considered so at the same time they are going to couple of recent polls indicating that a majori majority, clear majority of americans were in favor or all

or part of this affordable care act being overturned. could thisis actually backfire? >> as i said, mitt romney has some political opportunity here to keep pushing the argument that this law is a bad idea. will plurality support in the country. we saw that this week in our poll for the idea that this law is not a good thing. individual components of the law are quite popular, like letting people's children stay on their health insurance until they're 26 years old. the mandate is less popular although not all that well understood because it hasn't been applied yet. no, there is a clear divergence between the policy implications, the substantive benefit to the obama administration and the president's legacy and what the politics are. mitt romney may have lost the politic, he lost the substance. >> john harwood in washington. john, thanks so much. big surprise as the court has upheld the mandate and the health care act. as you said minutes before the decision, melissa, stocks called this one right. >> it is amazing to see that the

indicationses were in the stock market on this one. and it was so -- you know, the market, overall, saying it would be overturned. stocks told differently. and at the end of the day they ended up to be right. much more "squawk on the street," full coverage of the health care decision straight ahead.

we've got word the supreme court upheld the core of the affordable care act. it upheld the individual mandate under the taxing authority of congress as opposed to the commerce clause of the constitution. but it is at the end of the day upheld. we are seeing the reaction as you see in the stocks here with hospital stocks, the strongest gainers on this because they will presumably be reimbursed for a lot of their previous losses. >> and diversified is down. >> insurers trading lower. >> i think we're going to bring in the governor really quickly barry. governor dean, former governor of vermont, and barry knapp,

head of u.s. equity portfolio strategy joining us to talk about the market reactions. what was your view as to how the market would react and how you compare to what's actually happened? >> well, our view is that if the bill was upheld it would be a clear negative. it's pretty consistent with our overall broad view, which was we thought once we got into the second quarter and until the election was -- the result of the election was in much clearer focus that public policy uncertainty would be on the rise. and what it would do is dampen business confidence and we've seen evidence of that and weak capital spending, fairly weak labor investment even with this morning's numbers, right? but we thought that would weigh on investor sentiment. so this clearly plays into that theme. and, you know, it leaves a whole bunch of unanswered questions, can states opt out, for example, and, you know, just where are we

going with this entire plan and, you know, it's obviously very dependent upon the result of the election. so, yeah, i think it's a pretty clear negative. i thought the market was going downey way. this was just doing to be as opposed to something to stop the bleeding a little bit, this is going to be a pretty clear negative catalyst over the next month or two. >> barry, in terms of the negative catalyst, walk us through exactly why large companys will find that their costs are going to increase, that could result in headwinds to hiring. i mean, give us the exact reasoning. >> sure. i love history. and this one's pretty interesting because if you look at the peak in jobless claims over the last deep recession under ronald reagan and the peak under barack obama in 2009, they were virtually the identical level. over the last nine months it was identical as well. however, a gap opened up in spring of 2010 where the labor

markets stopped recovering right around the time that affordable health care was passed. you could see a plunge in the nfib small business survey, you've seen a steady uptrend in government requirements, regulation red tape, concerns about taxes, the combination of those two are twice the concern about weak demand from small businesses, so no surprise that the nfib participated in this lawsuit. and small business hiring definitely slowed, which is generally a key driver of the recovery in the labor market. so this whole plan really played a significant role in our view in impairing the recovery in the labor market and it continues to play a role in weak small business confidence and weak large business confidence to some extent. so we think this is at the core of all of that massive public policy uncertainty which according to the baker index anyway is at unprecedented levels and really is the reason

why capital spending is a percentage of profits, revenues, or relative to depreciation is at record lows. >> barry, this may be bad. in your view, for business and small business, but it isn't to say it creates more uncertainty. certainly it creates less uncertainty. we know those statutes are spending and political discussion of what might happen in november. have we had other decisions in the supreme court that were not unanimous across the board that allowed sertd parts to stand and others not to stand? that would have given us chaos. we are better surely now than in that situation. >> oh, i really struggle with that conclusion, simon. i think that the broad issue here is that, you know, we do have some potential long-run positives in this country. our energy competitive position. the fact that we've had 20 years of wage disinflation and are getting much more competitive relative to china. but when you throw big taxes, the burdens of, you know, offering health care on all of

these businesses and then, you know, as i talk to uncertainty, part of this is if mitt romney win, he may now have to expend political capital on this rather than doing comprehensive tax reform, cutting the corporate tax rate, cutting the individual tax rate, sorting all that out. the biggest issue as we all know for getting our debt under sustainable path is doing entitlement reform. if he has to utilize that political capital on this bill, then, which is obviously wildly unpopular, or wildly maybe an over statement but certainly unpopular based on the polling, then that could take away from sorting out the other key problems. so i think it clearly makes the policy issues the five or six things that need to get done in 2013, that much more difficult. >> barry, we're going do leave it there. thanks for your insights today. barry knapp of barclays. let's go back to half smpton pen

at the steps. >> in essence, the supreme court upholding the mandate because in the end they collectively decided it was a tax, not a penalty. remember, we started out on the opposite side of this with the states making the big argument it was a violation of the commerce clause. now, joining me carrie severino with key phrases from the opinion itself. how did they get there. >> they said as long as as the main goal of something is just a monetary thing, it's not -- it doesn't say elsewhere that civil penalties or anything like that, you can call it a tax. the dissent hour says we have never held, never, a penalty opposed was so trivial as tomorrow to be in effect a tax. i think that's going to be a lot of concern that a decision as well could open the door for very unlimited federal authority going forward. here we had them claiming all along it was a tax, it's not a tax. they go back and say it is a tax. they might do that with anything

and expand the authority of congress in that way. >> in essence you're saying this court where no other court has gone before in this tax versus penalty issues and commerce clause versus taxing power. >> yeah. it's been argued from the district court up no other court has said, this this was a tax. this is the first time for everything. >> a couple there key quotes from the opinion itself. justice robtsz with the whatter jo i the, quote, we do not consider whether the act and bodies sound policies. that judgment is entrusted to the nation's elected leaders. in this case we must again determine whether the constitution grants congress powers it now asserts but which many states and individuals believe do not possess. resolving this controversy requires us to examine both the limits of government power and our own limited role in policing those boundaries. amazing ruling here. still a shocker for a lot of folks here at the supreme court today. back to you. >> i just -- i can make one point? what we just heard there is they've gone out on a limb in order to argue it was a tax. it hadn't come from the courts

below. if it had gone the other way we would question whether it was a political decision. i wonder if the result we have is similarly a political decision in the way in which roberts have sided to reduce to controversy that would have come through the strikedown? >> i think to a large degree the thinking has been roberts is considering this case not just in the short-term political environment but for the long-term legacy of the court. >> and the legitimacy of the supreme court and whether he moved on that tax issue specifically for the long-term good of the court. >> hard to read his minds. clearly has confused a lot of people today, between kennedy and roberts, somebody called it opposite day on twitter, which you could argue from a judicial standpoint. it is. we do have a statement from the insurers. bertha? >> carl, yes, the americas health insurance plans, they represent insurers, karen saying that as the reform law is i were memented, health plans will continue to focus on promoting affordability and peace of mind for their beneficiariebeneficia.

the law expands coverage to millions of americans, a goal health plans have long supported but major provisions such as the premium tax will have the unintended consequences of raising cost. essentially, if the mandate is upheld the laws that help the mandate should be upheld. they were behind that. none the less, you can you bet that a lot of folks will still to try renoeg eight the deals when it comes to the excise taxes. not just the health irn surers. most likely also the medical device makers because they did not get as good a deal, if you will, in the lead-up to the health care law as some of the other groups negotiated. so even though the supreme court has spoken, this is by far not the end of the story, quite likely. >> thank you very much, bertha. still a lot of reaction coming through in the wake of that decision by the supreme court. the dow down 157. and big moves in health care.re. stay with us on cnbc. lt the fir,

welcome back. we're taking stock of the health care decision out of the supreme court. it happened a few moments ago. it's close to session lows.

dow is down 159. some stocks among the winners and others among the big losers. >> it's a the matter of who is going to get more money as a result of the decision. hospitals will get more money. they'll see more reimbursements and an induction of the previous losses they had seen. we're seeing that group trade higher. the insurers are trading lower as a group. there's more regulation on what they can and cannot do in terms of their premiums, who they have to take now and whether or not they can charge more. they can't. so they are trading lower as a group. but it is worth noting that the markets overall, session lows, take a look at the picture of the nasdaq, though. that is in the most dire shape in terms of the indices. it is down by 1.6% at this point. large cap tech getting obliterated. dow, cisco, google, all trading down by 1.5%. >> materials, financials, consumer discretion, we are also -- it's a clear risk.

we have the european summit. let's not forget that. >> totally got lost in the midst of all this domestic news. senator rand paul joins us from capitol hill to talk about this decision. senator, good morning to you. before we talk about the politics of it. walk me through the view of this internal argument in terms of the decision. this idea that the mandate, the cuts, the congressional authority on taxing is very clear as the justices have ruled. >> i think it's a pretty bone headed decision. i think we'll try to correct it in the election in november. the whole idea that the taxing authority appears to be unlimited, according to this core, i don't think it's the way it was intended. the congress -- the constitution gave congress the taxing authority, but it also gave us certain limits. article i, section 8 gives 19 powers to congress. i think the court has overstepped the constitution and

wrongly decided this. i think the american people are going to rise up and let the court know and let president obama know what we think of this in november. i think this is fighting words for us. i think you're going to see a great reaction from the tea party and conservative activists across the country. >> how personally disappointed are you in justice roberts? >> extremely disappointed. you know, we learn more about justices as we see how they vote on cases. i'm quite disappointed in it. george will said that obama care, the case against it, was the last exit ramp on the road to unlimited government. i truly believe that. the constitution is supposed to limit government. basically, this court has ruled that the taxing authority really is not limited by article i, section 8, which limits what we're supposed to be doing up here. i'm very disappointed in the ruling. we have a republic that has various forms to try to change policy, and one is through elections. one is through the court. and one's through who's up here. i think this is going to be -- you're going to see a ground

swell. you have been asking, is the tea party over? wait until you see the reaction from the tea party what they fully understand and hear all of this ruling. >> would you not give a nod to the democrats? you know, the dream of universal health care has been around for decades. they got it through both houses, and it's now gone through the supreme court. would you not give them at least a nod for the direction in which they have fought so hard and sacrificed so much political capital to ultimately get this decision? >> i think what worries me most is the unintended consequences of this. cbo has said 20 million people might lose their private insurance and be dumped into these government exchanges ultimately on to medicaid. mackenzie group said 50 million to 60 million people. what's the number one thing driving debts in states right now? the cost of medicaid. this does nothing to control the cost of medicaid. it's going to dump millions of new people on medicaid. it's going to be a disaster for the country, and i don't think

we can overstate the unintended consequences of what's going to happen when people who currently have private insurance get dumped onto medicaid. it's going to be a disaster for the country. but you're going to see an uprising. i predict that this will help decide the election in our favor because our people are aghast at this ruling, and they don't want to see obama care put into place. >> senator, if you will, walk us through and walk our viewers through the exact implications for the states out there that are already facing budget shortfalls in part because of their increased medicaid expenses. texas, for instance, has a $46 billion budget shortfall. the number of residents that qualify for medicaid doubled between 2000 and 2011. that's just one state in this country. >> obama care says that you can pay a $2,000 fine and dump your private -- your patients who have private insurance can be dumped into these exchanges. so right now it costs about on

average $12,000 to $13,000 for private insurance for your employees. what's going to stop people from paying $2,000 and dumping them on these exchanges. if you're a company that's struggling, where's the easiest and first place you can now save money? dump your privately insured employees onto the government insurance. it's going to overwhelm the government insurance, and like you say, medicaid is the biggest driving factor in state governments, budget insolvency. look at california and illinois. they can't pay their current medicaid bills. what are they going to do when medicaid doubles and triples under obama care? >> senator, we're going to hear from the president in a few hours. i think he's going to make an address in light of the ruling. widely speculated he'll say something like it's time to move on. we've heard that kind of line before after a decision like this, calling it probably the law of the land as seen by a key part of the government. what is the response to that?

>> i think the response is you will see the rallies grow. you'll see the resurgence of the tea party. obama care is a big issue for us. what you're going to see is something that i think will change the complexion of the election, and we're not done with this. by any means, we are not done fighting this. >> senator rand paul joining us from the hill. senator, thanks so much for your time. >> thank you. >> you know that old adage be careful of what you wish for. increasingly, you've got to wonder whether the obama administration is celebrating this outcome or wishing that perhaps it might have been different given the way americans feel about this overall. >> hang on a minute. hang on a minute. if you look at the surveys, actually, most americans support most of the proposals that were in obama care. the individual mandate, okay, there's an issue for most with the individual mandate. >> right. and it was upheld. >> indeed. as was the rest of the law. as was the rest of the law, which is majority supported by most -- >> so you're looking glass half full, and i'm looking glass half empty.

>> i think it's unfair to say that american was looking in total. there were elements that a lot of people supported. >> the question was were they willing to tolerate a very unpopular part of it which today was upheld? >> but republicans still have to come to the table and express what that solution is. that may not be popular either.

the u.s. supreme court has upheld the health care mandate. upheld as a power of congress to tax those who do not get insurance. justice roberts joins the left of the court. justice kennedy joins the dissenters. a big victory for the president as well, who gets to keep the law, his signature policy achievement. risks now being labeled as a tax and spender as taxes may become the focal point of the debate. we'll talk more about that in a minute. >> we want to bring if jim cramer, who joins us again on the phone. jim, this is not what was expected at least according to in trade. you had made a point this would largely be a negative for corporate america. >> look, there's no doubt about it that there are tons of

companies out there that have really made a lot of money by not providing the kind of health care the president wanted. i look at the vast panoply of stocks, and i think it's a big mistake to throw out the nhs of the world. they never thought the supreme court would strike it down. they kind of said, look, this is the lay of the land, and we're fine. if you wanted to buy something off of it, you wait until tomorrow, and you realize that wellpoint is not hurt that badly, unh is not hurt that badly. the hospitals are going to get paid. the bad debt may be a thing of the past for them. i understand why hca is the biggest winner, and i think it will probably go higher. >> take the unh, though, and isn't the trade done? it's run up ahead of the decision. it's run up this year. it was at the highest level for the year, i believe, yesterday. maybe it's time to simply rotate out. what's the next catalyst for a unh, for instance?

>> ucht nh is a play on employment. the employment is not good. as i said earlier, i said what's happened here is this is still one more reason why you don't form a business. at the same time, these companies are just incredibly profitable. while i think all they've done is give up what they made the other day, i don't want to throw them away, and i don't like to chase stocks that are really up. i'm just thinking about we had the ceo of humana on, and he was on this morning. he really told a good story. the stock's getting hammered. tomorrow it gets hammered. and then tomorrow you go back to humana. the company is real lly prepare for this. at the same time, i think this is a terrible decision for the possibility of more employment for this year. look, this is not a great thing for small business. i i think the market is afraid that small business will lay off people. the market is taking it overall right in that this is just

another reason why you should not hire and another reason why you should fire. >> unless, jim, presumably you're in the health care sector, which already makes up 20% of the american economy and is now going to have 30 million more people coming under insurance. presumably, that is an area that expands. brumably, in some extent, it will compensate with job growth there for what you've just described to us in the rest of the economy. >> i think that's a very logical way to look at it, simon. i think what you're going to hear is the discourse, political discourse about -- because we are in an election year. we're going to have a republican say, look, this was the ultimate job killer. let's say we get a terrible job number certainly within the realm of possibility. i think what you're going to hear is listen, here's the deal. we have bad unemployment, it's going to get worse in 2013. the reason is obama, obama care. what you're going to have, i

think that's going to set the tone, not what you just mentioned, which is that maybe there will be more jobs created. >> jim, we're going to let you go. thanks for phoning in. >> thank you, guys. appreciate it. >> let's bring in cnbc's john harwood, talk about some of the politics behind this as well. john, we talked about in the last half hour how soon congress could try to repeal. we heard rand paul say that is the next step. how early could a vote come? >> carl, we've heard the week of july 9th from eric cantor, the majority leader, he put out a statement saying the house will vote again to repeal obama care. that vote will go nowhere. it will be instantaneously dead in the senate. it's a gesture on the part of republicans and a reflection of the fact they're going to continue making the argument that this law, which is not overwhelmingly unpopular, but marginally unpopular in the country, is a bad thing, is a tax. that argument, i heard you allude to that, the statements i just got from senator ralph

portman, who's a potential vice president for mitt romney, saying they have affirmed this is a tax. so they'll turn this into a tax argument, which is one that mitt romney has been making broadly against president obama. that's where things are going to be joined. so far, the health care law has not been a positive for president, and the fact that it's been upheld means that mitt romney has the opportunity to keep hammering it. >> had it gone the other way, john, in advance, as the president suggested to us, as a vote of judicial activism. given the judgment they've made similarly, could this be described as a political act by justice roberts to secure the legitimacy of the supreme court rather than open a can of worms? >> sure. i don't know what was in justice roberts' mind, but, of course, this is something that will change the way he is viewed by some types of americans and by liberals who may have loathed him before, and by conservatives

who may have considered him something of a hero. you're going to see a turnabout there. many times members of the court are making a decision, they're mindful of what the politics are. they're mindful of public reputation of the court has suffered and become seen as more of a polarized institution like the congresses, like the presidency has become in the modern era. i think, yes, political considerations go into how they apply their legal reasoning. >> finally, john, how does this affect, do you think, romney's chances in november? people are begin to go look at the in trade contract, which obviously had the mandate decision extremely wrong. the argument about it refueling the republican base. does that hold water with you or not? >> yes, it does. i don't consider intrade a marker of anything, as proven by the mandate.

yes, look, we saw in our journal nbc poll this week that a plurality of americans say health care law is a bad idea. he's got a little bit of an advantage there. it is extremely unpopular with white americans who are a key base. 29% of whites say it's a good idea. 50% say a bad idea. that's where mitt romney's base is. african americans and hispanics like it more. the president is appealing to those groups and gets strong majority support from those groups. the lines are drawn. nobody on team obama would argue or has been arguing that this law or among the democratic political community, this has always been a big plus politically for him. republicans consider it more of a plus, and they're going to keep trying to exploit it. now, it is possible that the public will absorb the information that this court, which they understand to be led by a conservative justice, has

embraced the law. does that change whether people perceive the law is a good idea or a bad idea, possible. we'll have to see. meantime, how does it affect employers? good morning. if i am an employer of a company with 48, 49 employees, how are you feeling today? >> you're going to have to find them health care or find another way out. i do worry about the competitive side of this, but it's the law of the land. we've got to figure out how to make our health care system work. i believe in access for 30 million people. i don't believe in a $1 trillion unfunded mandate. that's what we have. we have to find a way, or we're going to bankrupt medicare, and it's going to make u.s. companies a lot less competitive, not just small companies, but large companies. the real issue in health care is lifestyle. over half of the costs from

health care comes from lifestyle. we've got to get on top of that issue, and it's going to require the health care organization to do some very innovative things. i think we need to move beyond politics and get on with trying to make the health care system work and make it cost competitive. right now we just have a very expensive disease care system, and americans' health is getting worse, not better. >> let's say you're a ceo of a fortune 500 company, and you know that very well, actually, bill. and it's going to cost you more per year to comply with this new legislation. does that mean necessarily that you will probably not hire as many people. just trying to get a handle on what the actual impact is at hiring and unemployment. >> i may not hire as many people, but i'm going to get on with a major fitness and wellness program. i'm going to pay them for body mass index and ensure that they have good nutrition, good diets, good exercise, and we're going to have a major program inside our company.

i know major employers. we're going to pay for outcomes. i'm going to negotiate for insurance companies. if i can't do it with them, i'll go to the hospitals. we're going to have to get there. we have to get people before they get sick. that's the only way the nation is going to get healthy. that's how germany and switzerland have done it. that's what we've got to do. >> could i just pick up on the point we made about competitiveness. the rest of the democracies and developed nations already have universal health care. when you say you know about competitiveness, are you suggesting we look more to life as the chinese are, than we do actually to the european neighbors? >> i want every employee of medtronic or any employee that i serve on the board of for health care. i want to ensure they're healthy because i want it fully insured on the job. it's not a question of whether we're going to have it or not have it.

we're going to have it. i want to make sure it's cost competitiveness. this bill does nothing for that. it it just has access. we've got to change the system and change our mentality about health. i think employees will have to pay a significant amount for health care. i think most of the american people will have to do that. we're going to have to make changes to fund for medicare. >> before we let you go, bill, your take seems to be we're not thrilled with the decision? but you're going to have to live with it. >> i want to get out of politics and start health care. we spent 3 1/2 years in politics. we need to move on and make health care work. the health of americans is getting worse while the costs go up. that's not true in germany and switzerland. >> bill george, thank you so much, bill. always good to talk to you. that's probably a message we're going to hear from the president when he speaks today at 12:15 eastern time. expected to make a statement. i don't think there's going to be any q&a. when that happens, we'll bring it to you live, obviously.

>> bill was mentioning, as a ceo of the company, he would get on the line and arrange fitness programs, et cetera. just taking a look at interesting stock reactions here. take a look at shares of weight watchers. wtw up by 1.5%. big outperformer in today's market. our fast trade mon yi guy pointed that out. nutrisystems up by 1.25%, and it does go with this theme about preventive care and companies encouraging people to be more active in how they manage their own health in order for them to cut their own costs down. >> 152 points down on the dow. it's about time we brought in rick santelli from chicago with the santelli exchange. good morning, rick. >> good morning, simon. you know, i always like to take a step back when big things happen. so we're going to take a step back. what are we looking at in my opinion? process versus preference. was this my preference? i'll be honest with the world.

i didn't think it would pass. i was one of the intrade thinking people. i was wrong. but i'm still very happy at this point. i'm a big believer in process, pragmatic process, as laid out in the constitution. john harwood said something that i hear is a big topic. today he framed it as follows. he thinks there's less loathing toward roberts by the democrats based on his decision today. that embodies every single thing in my opinion ts wrong with government and the type of government in terms of the individuals in congress that we have now. the supreme court did what it does best. whether we agree with it or not. the thing with the outcome is what makes people like or dislike the supremes, i think it's a horrible dynamic. i just hope and i challenge the conservatives in congress to take this decision with respect. with respect. because in the end, i think there's a big analogy here with what's going on in europe.

you can try to have the mighty above tell the people below how they should live their lives, what they should get, and the government big enough to give you everything you want. in the words of thomas jefferson, big enough to take away everything you have. what are we left with really? we are left with an issue that should, by all indications be voted on by the american public. no matter how the supreme court decision worked out, no matter what the legislative process tells us, no matter how ugly this process was to get passed. in the end, i think it's more than appropriate that this will be in my opinion part of the referendum in november as to whether the public wants this or not. as far as what the professionals think looking into this, i'm going to have a guest in about 15 minutes has a remarkable doctor, and i mean remarkable. he's from las vegas. he can move a family in poverty into his shelters. he can clean them up, take care

of their pets, buy them clothes, give them resumes and put them out in the real world and an apartment and a job, get this, for $1,500 a family per year. do you think the government could do this? he's going to weigh in on this, not only from the mandate side but from the logistics of the government orchestrating a program this large. back to you. >> rick santelli, well said this morning. glad to have your insight. we'll talk to you in a bit. if you're just joining us, dow down 148. the supreme court has upheld what dozens of presidents have tried to implement, and that's a national health care system, and as we all know, the process, as we work our way toward potential appeal, is far from over. on december 21st polar shifts will reverse the earth's gravitational pull and hurtle us all into space. which would render retirement planning unnecessary. but say the sun rises on december 22nd, and you still need to retire. td ameritrade's investment consultants can help you build a plan that fits your life.

we'll even throw in up to $600 when you open a new account or roll over an old 401(k). so who's in control now, mayans? i got it, i'm sorry. these people, huh? you know i've found that anger is the enemy of instruction. you don't know the egos that i have to deal with. you're probably right. thank you! whoever you are. i'm pretty sure that was phil jackson. he's quite famous... million championships... triangle offense innovator... [ male announcer ] the audi a8. named best large luxury sedan. nice wheels zen master. thank you...todd. ♪

want to talk about the private stocks. we have the author of health care investing. charles is the co-author of health care equity research credit suisse guys. good to see both of you this morning. charles, you had a great report a few days ago in which you outlined all three major potential scenarios. how likely did you see this one happening? >> this is the scenario we essentially had built into our models. made no changes to earnings estimates on this. however, i do think the follow through from this in the coming days and weeks as more money will come into health care now that the cloud of uncertainty has been lifted. the big picture is we're going to spend as a country about $2 trillion more on health care now with this law than we would have

spent without this law. that's all money coming into health care. i think it will ultimately be good for the managed care stocks. >> you say the cloud of uncertainty being lifted. we're now hearing from eric cantor, the first vote is going to be the week of july 9th. we're going to see a lot more health care ads and a lot more discussion about turning this over in congress. >> well, i would say, one, i agree that we will see multiple expansion because the overhang is removed a little bit. i have to say this is actually the start of the beginning rather than the beginning of the end because we still have costs, and we still have quality issues that have to be dealt with that were going to need to be dealt with whether this was overturned or not. there's more to come. >> favorite names, les? now that this initial trade has essentially happened. >> i prefer some of the innovators and cost controllers. so the hms's of the world and even the united healths, by i think is getting unfairly hit. maybe the intuitive circles as well. >> talk us through why the insurers would benefit at the

end of the day. there will be more people that will be insured. at the same time, there's more restrictions on what they can and can't do. they have to take sick people. they'll have to charge more for those people. >> this will create winners and losers. there's going to be $2 trillion more spent on health care. those insurers -- and i think united is one of them. that's a top pick of ours. i think humana is one of them. some insurers are going to benefit by getting more in new lives than they might lose in lower profit margins. another one i point out is weight watchers. i think bill mentioned in the previous segment, and i totally agree. employers are going to pay $2 trillion. it's going to come out of corporate america, it's going to come out of companies in the dow jones industrial average, it's going to come out of taxes. we are going to respond as a country. i think wellness is the next thing employers are going to focus on. obesity is the new smoking. weight watchers is, i think, a great way to pay that. >> off of bill's interview, i did key off wtw and see that the stock was climbing. it's now up by 3.33%.

n nutrisystem also higher on this whole decision. in your view, did you put this in your model at all. is this something that the estimates have not factored in for weight watchers? >> the estimates have not factored in for weight watchers. been around since 1963, catering mostly to individuals. the company is going towards the "b" to "b" and "b" to "g" opportunity. it will motivate employers now that they have some clarity on what's next. employers have to take health care costs into their own hands. this law doesn't do it. what can employers do? i think they'll absolutely focus on obesity. it's a driver of health care costs. and weight watchers has a unique solution to cater to the corporate customer. >> and finally, les, what would you stay away from in this environment? >> we would stay away from anybody that's going to benefit from overutilization. that would be people like the labs, for instance, where they're just big targets for cost control efforts. >> guys, appreciate your time.

what a morning. les, charles, thanks so much. >> thank you. >> we'll have much more coverage on the affordable care act up next. with a new continuous spray wand. and a fast acting formula. so you can kill bugs inside, and keep bugs out. guaranteed. ortho home defense max. so you can kill bugs inside, and keep bugs out. guaranteed. this is new york state. we built the first railway, the first trade route to the west, the greatest empires. then, some said, we lost our edge. well today, there's a new new york state. one that's working to attract businesses and create jobs. a place where innovation meets determination... and businesses lead the world. the new new york works for business. find out how it can work for yours at thenewny.com.

home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance, where the costs to both repair your home and replace your possessions are covered. and we don't just cut a check for the depreciated value -- we can actually replace your stuff with an exact or near match. plus, if your home is unfit to live in after an incident, we pay for you to stay somewhere else while it's being repaired. home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance. because you never know what lies around the corner. to get a free quote, call... visit a local office, or go to libertymutual.com today. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? zagat just gave hertz its top rating in 15 categories,

including best overall car rental. so elevate your next car rental experience with the best. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz. in your car. now count the number of buttons on your tablet. isn't it time the automobile advanced? introducing cue in the all-new cadillac xts. the simplicity of a tablet has come to your car. ♪ the all-new cadillac xts has arrived. and it's bringing the future forward.

the supreme court has upheld obama care. the dow down 137. a shot of washington, d.c., where governor mitt romney is going to speak at 11:45 eastern time of the as you can see from the sign on the podium, repealing obama care is going to take on new meaning today in light of that decision. want to bring in scott cohn, looking at the impact of the health care decision on fraud, scott. >> it's something we've been looking at in a long time. one of the arguments the administration advanced to keep the entire law intact was there were things in here that had nothing to do with individual mandates and so on, but anti-fraud measures, medicare and medicaid fraud could be upwards of $160 billion a year.

so the affordable care act included a lot of measures that were aimed to try and fight that. they included tougher sentencing and penalties for people who violate the law. some of those have already been used. more screening of providers and insurance companies. and also some increase d authority for the states, but that presumably is if they accept this medicaid expansion, which has been narrowed in today's court ruling. when you consider that we're looking at millions of people now coming into the system and this expansion of medicaid, it creates all kinds of new complications in the war on fraud. $350 million was allocated for enforcement of anti-fraud measures under the affordable care act over ten years. that's nothing when you consider there are going to be so many more people now involved in the system, and our friends at the health and human services office of inspector general, which has been at the front of all of this, are now parsing through

the decision to see about the fools they've been using to fight fraud. as we've reported for some time now, it is a very, very difficult battle because, with a system this large, a pie of money this big that's now presumably getting bigger, the battle against fraud is going to become that much tougher. >> thank you very much, scott cohn, for that. certainly a very tough issue there. let's get more on the impact of today's supreme court ruling of health care, and more specifically, focus in on the biotech industry. let's bring in on the cnbc news line jim greenwood, the ceo of bio, the biotechnology industry association. thanks for being with us. >> when it comes to thinking about what this ruling means for your industry, is it similar to the pharmaceuticals industry whereby it would be a modest impact, but seeing the individual mandate is held up, more people will be insured, and therefore more coverage of buying medicines will be insured, that this is a net positive? >> well, there's a specific

provision in this legislation that we worked on very diligently during the whole legislative process, and that's the piece that involves biosimilars and getting these biosimilars, the large complex proteins that are used to fight cancer and multiple sclerosis and a number of diseases, and getting protection for our intellectual property and having the incentives to invest in biologics was critical for us. so to the extent that that has been preserved, we are sighing a sigh of relief because we did not want to go back to congress and relitigate that. >> so to be clear, this is 12 years of marketing exclusivity. >> it is. it means that the generic companies will not be able to go in and make buy logics and get them approved by the fda until the innovative product. without that, we feared, i think legitimacy so, that there would

be less of an incentive, far less of an incentive to invest in the innovative products to begin with. >> are you removing a potential negative here, or is this a positive that investors can play in your view? >> i think it's a positive. it was a positive the day we accomplished it on the passage of the bill to the extent that there has been uncertainty around it. it's been a negative. so now i think we can -- there's literally no threat that we can perceive of politically that will be undone any time in the foreseeable future. >> you're saying that repeal will not happen, jim. >> no. i think repeal of the biosimilars provision. so even though there will continue to be political skirmishes after the election on obama care, if you will, as a whole, there had been broad bipartisan support for our provision. so we don't feel that even though the democratic party or

the republican party will go after that provision, even though the president himself is opposed to it. >> i remember you coming on when the bill was still being crafted. so put on your political radar for just a moment. if there is a vote on july 9th, as the speaker is now saying, as leader cantor is saying, do you think that's going to go anywhere? >> well, of course not. the fact of the matter is that the senate is still controlled by the democrats, and the president would veto anything. so to large measure, this is now a political football that wi will -- and will be so for some time to come. it will be so through the election. it will be so after the election and into the new term. i think there are some provisions of it that will be still debated and contesteded politically. but fortunately, the provision that means the most to our industry will not be included among them. >> so can i just boil it down for some of the viewers who

might be listening to you, but not aware of this biosimilars situation. but a longer exclusivity and the longer it is kept out of the hands of generic drug makers, it sounds like that means higher medicine costs for the average person. >> it delays a competition, if you will, the generic copies of biologics. more importantly, for all of those patients who are waiting desperately for treatments and cures that can come from new and innovative biologics, the important factor is the incentive to invent those will continue to be there. you cannot spend 1 billion to $1.5 billion over the course of 12 years to invent a new biologic just to have competition in three or four or five or seven years hence. without that protection of 12 years of exclusivity, it could very well spell the end of innovation of new products that

really are going to be the breakthrough medicines of the future. and frankly, the medicines that will save the health care system immense amount of dollars by reducing the incidence of very expensive chronic diseases. >> james, thanks for joining us. on this very big and important day for the health care industry. james greenwood, president and ceo of bio. >> hampton pearson has done amazing work all morning long bringing us the decision and the color in the wake of it. >> reporter: amazing decision. we needed to take the time to figure out what the court had decided. so we want to recap. here are basically how they answered the key four points that were the lynchpin of this whole challenge to the affordable care act. so they upheld the mandate, but they upheld it as a tax, not as a penalty. so that got us away from the issue of the commerce clause deciding the case. severability not an issue. once you invalidated the mandate and therefore upheld the whole act. the medicaid expansion critical to a lot of states and hospital

budgets around the country. they upheld the medicaid expansion but with conditions and basically a little more flexibility for the states as far as choosing to participate or not participate, et cetera. and finally, they decided that the anti-injunction act, which, in essence, said because it's a tax, you can't challenge the law until somebody actually pays it. the court ruled that it did not apply. so those were the four key points they had to answer. in drilling down and reading a little more flavor of the decision and how they got to yes, to 5-4, there seemed to be an intent among certainly the four liberals on the court to find any legal way at all to save the mandate. that's why you got really a narrow decision here ruling that the mandate was a tax, not a penalty, and therefore elements of choice could still be there for individuals. you either get insurance or you pay the tax, and that was what

got to 5-4 going forward. so that vote next week in the house to overturn obama care, we know the likely outcome because of the republican majority, but this is also going to be spun as, if you vote, you are voting for or against a tax. why? because the supreme court has now said so. >> interesting analysis, hampton. some analysts may say by hook or by crook. either way, it's the law of the land. want to get to mary thompson. want to bring us up to speed on the markets. >> just about 30 points off the session lows. markets dropping for the lows as traders continue to look and investors continue to look through the supreme court's decision. we want to run through, of course, the stocks involved in this and how they've been impacted, starting with the hmo index, which actually spiked following the decision. at that point, it was its biggest weekly gain since june 8th. it's pulled back since then. this despite the significant gains we are seeing in medicaid

insurers, keep in mind, even though the states -- i should say the ruling says that states could either opt into or stay out of expanded medicare. basically, it's a win-win for these insurers. stocks trading at three times the average daily volume reflecting that. different story right now and the knee jerk reaction essentially for the insurers, such as cigna and aetna, they are now lower across the board. but hospital stocks, which stand to benefit in large part because they're reimbursements and possibly a larger population they will serve, they too are trading higher in the wake of this. another group that's under pressure today are the device makers. they have been hard hit and were lower going into the decision. that's basically a broad look at how the health care stocks have reacted today in the wake of that decision. other than that, the market remains under pressure in large part not only because of health care stocks with broad weakness there, but weakness in financials. technology is very weak today. materials also under pressure as

the risk off trade continues to come off. let's dig deeper into financials because they've been in the news today. again, away from the supreme court's decision we had a new york times article that mentions a model puts the high end of potential losses from that trade at jp morgan being $9 billion. keep in mind the company has said it could be a $2 billion loss this quarter, and potential losses for over $1 billion for each of the quarters as well. but the $9 billion one of the largest ones we had seen. that accord to go a model according to the new york times reporting on that. also, barclays is under a great deal of pressure as well today as we move on to tech stocks. we had morgan stanley, goldman sachs, jp morgan's estimates being cut by citi concerns on weak trading. i've been calling around on the trading desk saying, why is tech so weak? no one could give me a concrete answer. there was some concern about a story in digitimes raising concern about the supply chain,

which doesn't suggest a ramp up for mass production for apple's latest iphone. that's putting some pressure on apple. that was the only reason i got for that. other than that, tech week as well along with the broader markets. guys, back to you. >> a lot going on, mary. thanks so much. >> credit suisse was suggesting that it could rise by a quarter as a result of this because you're going to so reduce the number of people who are not insured, and those bad debts. bad debts, write-downs for the hospital's about $7 billion, $8 billion last year. obviously, that now diminishes because they'll be able to get more people to pay through that mandated insurance. >> holding steady with strong gains. >> and the losers, wellpoint, cigna, and jp morgan crowding into that trade as well. meantime, straight ahead, senator marco rubio gives us his reaction to the health care ruling.

recently, students from 31 countries took part in a science test. the top academic performers surprised some people.

so did the country that came in 17th place. let's raise the bar and elevate our academic standards. let's do what's best for our students-by investing in our teachers. let's solve this. we were talking we were talking about the managed care companies and the hospital operators. let's take a look at the big firms. gfk down about 1%. j&j down .5%. now the law is upheld, pharma has to continue to pay the 2% fee. if the bill was overturned, revenue and epa estimates might have gone up. it would have gone away which would have impacted pharma's bottom line.

they're actually estimating. >> in terms of pharma estimates, as large of a reaction as we're seeing in the other health care sectors. simon, carl? >> thank you, sima, we'll continue to watch for that. >> we'll continue to watch the market reaction. some have seen the vascularlatiovascula in the overall index. it seems to be something for stocks in the next couple of months. not just because of the impact on small business and hiring, but because we don't know where the effort to repeal is going to go in congress. >> that's the very part of barcla barclays. it's at the lack of core of confidence when it comes to small businesses and as well as large businesses. it will, in fact, impact hiring, and that's a theme we'll hear again and again. >> if you had a democrat on the panel, they would be celebrating the fact the law we thought to

put in. we have to move on. we have an important guest. >> florida senator marco rubio joins us from the hill this morning with the reaction to today's decision with today's supreme court. senator, good to have you. welcome. >> thanks for having me. >> where do republicans regroup now? what's the next step? >> first of all, let's be clear. i think it's pretty telling for the obama administration is a victory for the middle class tax increase. that's what this is. that's what the supreme court has said today. it's important to realize what the supreme court decides is not whether something's a good idea or not. what they decide is whether it's constitutional. and the reason why they say this is constitutional is because this is a tax increase. for folks watching back home, here's what this means. this now means, if you don't buy health insurance, you are in unlawful compliance with the law, and the irs can come after you and will come after you. we have now created an irs problem for millions of americans. anyone who thinks that's good for economic growth is out of their minds. and i think that's what -- >> i understand you might think it's not good for economic growth of the i'm not hearing

you say that it's unconstitutional. >> first of all, i continue to believe that it is. i'm not on the supreme court. here's the bottom line now. it is constitutional according to the supreme court because it's a tax increase. we have to live with the consequences of this now. by the way, there are a lot of things that are constitutional that happen to be bad ideas. this just joins the list because now millions of americans will have an irs problem beginning in 2014. we just came out with numbers today, less than 2% growth, an anemic economic growth. you watch today the numbers on the market. you watch the economic reaction to that. it will be negative because people do not think this is good news, creating an irs problem for millions of americans is not good news. >> forgive me, senator. isn't the penalty around $95? ultimately. isn't that the starting penalty? that would seem quite small to a lot of people. >> as the years go on, the number begins to increase. the bigger point is now americans who are out of compliance, they have to prove to the irs they have health insurance. if you don't have it, they're

going to chase you. they're going to take away your refund. they're going to increase your tax next year. how is that good news for anyone? and not to mention, by the way, this is a broken promise. barack obama said he would not be raising taxes on the middle class. this is exactly what this is. when he told george stepha stephanopoulos on abc this wasn't a tax increase, he obviously did not know what he was talking about because his lawyers before the supreme court argued this was a tax increase, and today the supreme court affirmed that. >> republicans have spent two years trying to mount this challenge. a loss in court today. how long does the repeal effort go if the votes don't go your way in the early days? this vote supposedly set for mid-july. will this effort continue into infinit infinity, or is there a point where you say it's the law of the land, let's move on. >> i think you always try to get rid of bad ideas as long as it's been on the books. that's what i want to do as long

as i serve on the senate. do everything i can to ensure this tax increase doesn't go into effect. here's what's going to happen. i hope there are democrats in the u.s. senate that will say, while they agree with all of us that we do have a health insurance problem in america, they never intended to create an irs problem for millions of americans, which is now what millions of americans are going to have beginning very soon. this was never what anyone wanted, i hope. i hope we'll have a chance to redo this thing in the right way, not this way. >> finally, some political watchers are saying, this is going to alter the way the romney campaign is going to spend its political fuel. it was largely about jobs, health care is going to take up a big part of the oxygen in the room. is that true? >> i think this is going to become a big issue again. that always has been. think the focus is going to be back on it. as americans in practical terms now realize the irs -- they're now going to have to prove to the irs that they have health insurance they're going to get hit with a penalty, and they're

going to have an irs problem. that issue, as it hurts our economy, as it hurts unemployment figures, as it hurts economic growth, you're going to hear more and more about this on the campaign trail. this is one of the main things this election is all about. >> senator, could this be viewed by republicans as a silver lining? does this reinvigorate support for the republicans seeing that there are several polls out indicating a plurality of americans did not agree with the individual mandate? >> i try not to analyze it that way. i love my country more than i love my political party. i think this is bad for america and bad for our economy. after all this noise about how this affects the campaign, there are millions of people out there struggling. this is one more thing we've put on their back. i think this is terrible. i just do. i don't think this is the right way to deal with this issue. i wish reasonable minds would prevail. >> to be clear, the fact that 30 million or 40 million more americans might come into health care is a bad thing in your view because of the way that it's paid for. >> i think that we all want

americans to have more choices in terms of health insurance. i've never denied, i don't think anyone does, that we don't have a health insurance problem in america. i don't think you do that by growing the debt, taking choice as way from people, by trying to force states to deficit spend in order to put people on the medicare rolls, and turning the irs into a mechanism for health insurance. i don't think that's the approach, and i think we'll see the impacts of that very soon unfortunately. >> senator, it is going to put the onus on republicans to offer alternatives on the number of uninsured, cost escalation, preexisting conditions. will the party produce new ideas, or do you see a vote being a vote on the same ideas republicans have already put on the table? >> well, first of all, i campaigned on new ideas with regards to health insurance, and i'll continue to talk about those. i think americans should be able to buy health insurance the way their employers do, not having to pay taxes on that money. i think you should be able to buy insurance from any company in america to sell it to you.

i think small businesses should be able to partner up with other small businesses, and by the way, i think he should figure out ways to incentivize tort reform at the senate level. these are all measures. and there's a role for the government to play in high risk pools, to help insure people who are chronically ill and have a difficult time to find private insurance because of that. these are things to talk about in a reasonable way, but we don't have to sick the irs on people in order to do that. that's the fundamental problem we face today. >> thanks for taking the time to talk to us. >> thanks for having me. >> senator marco rubio joining us from florida. congressman peter we will kelke us from vermont. it's been said in pelosi's office that teddy can now rest. is that the prevailing view for democrats today? >> it's a tremendous amount of relief because the cloud has been lifted. if teddy were here, he'd be thrilled with that. he would understand that gives

us permission to work on practical implementation. there are a lot of challenges to making this health care law work, and one of the challenges we had was the nullification approach the republicans took in the house, where they repealed it and didn't offer anything as an alternative. argued that it wasn't constitutional. that had things stalled. the court has ruled. it is constitutional. now the challenge for us is to make this work, and there's a lot of work to be done. >> do you think the risk of repeal is going up or down? >> it's down. mr. boehner says he's going to do repeal again. it didn't get through the senate. it's not going to get through the senate even if it gets through the house. at a certain point, you have to have a party that's willing to be practical. they lost on this, all right. there's an acknowledgement by the supporters of this health care bill that we have to work on it, make it be implemented right, do it well, but that takes some cooperation on the part of the republican party that's against this. they're not there yet. so the civil war of politics on

this is going to continue. but it's under the reality that the supreme court has said this is constitutional. and at a certain point, you have to decide whether you're just going to get with implementation, doing something practical, or you're going to go through your wish list that somehow you can undo the supreme court decision, and that won't happen. >> congressman, how do you deal with the prospect that it may further polarize the electorate? we heard senator marco rubio suggesting now you're going to bring the irs into people's lives to check whether they have health insurance or not. it's a powerful political statement for the republicans to now be able to make, isn't it? >> i think the way for us to get rid of the polarization is for us in congress to do something senator rubio says he wants to do. to get people together and work in a practical way to resolve some of the rough edges on this. the politicians kind of like the polarization. we're feeding it. what we've got to do is step back and say, look, how can we

make this work for our employers? how can we make it work for our citizens? bottom line, the health care system in this country has been broken. we're paying more. we're getting less. we're at a competitive disadvantage with our global competitors, with the burden on employers. it doesn't work. we have to change this. we now should double down on practical implementation. we should do that, as senator rubio said, together. if this is used as a political issue constantly, then that's a diversion from getting down to the hard work of public policy. >> democratic congressman peter welch of vermont joining us from the hill. congressman, thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> dow is down 133. markets have been pretty stable in light of the decision. interesting to hear him talk about the idea that the parties have got to be practical. that's what we expect the president to say later on this afternoon. >> right. to hear from senator rubio, the emphasis will now be on a tax on middle class americans.

it's a very powerful statement. as he points out, it could be perceived as contradictory to previous statements that the president has made regarding an increase in taxes. >> and here's governor mitt romney with his statement. >> i disagree with the supreme court's decision, and i agree with the dissent. what the court did not do on his last day of session, i will do on my first day if elected president of the united states. that is, i will act to repeal obama care. let's make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do. what the court did today was say that obama care does not violate the constitution. what they did not do was say that obama care is good law or that it's good policy. obama care was bad policy yesterday. it's bad policy today. obama care was bad law yesterday. it's bad law today. let me tell you why i say that. obama care raises taxes on the american people by approximately

$500 billion. obama care cuts medicare, cuts medicare by approximately $500 billion. and even with those cuts and tax increases, obama care adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt and pushes those obligations on to coming generations. obama care also means that for up to 20 million americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep. obama care is a job killer. businesses across the country have been asked what the impact is of obama care. three-quarters of those surveyed by the chamber of commerce said that obama care makes it less likely for them to hire people. and perhaps most troubling of all, obama care puts the federal government between you and your doctor. for all those reasons, it's important for us to repeal and

replace obama care. what are some of the things we'll keep in place and must be in place in a reform, a real reform of our health care system? one, we have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so. having 20 million people, up to that number of people, lose the insurance they want is simply unacceptable. number two, got to make sure that those people who have preexisting conditions know that they will be able to be insured, and they will not lose their insurance. we also have to assure that we do our very best in each state in an effort to ensure that every american has access to affordable health care and something that obama care does not do that must be done in real reform is helping lower the cost of health care and health insurance. it's becoming prohibitively expensive. and so this is now a time for the american people to make a choice. you can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger

government, more and more intrusive in your life, separating you and your doctor, whether you're comfortable with more deficits, higher debt that we pass onto the coming generations, whether you're willing to have the government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like, or whether instead you want to return to a time when the american people will have their own choice in health care, where consumers will be able to make their choices as to what kind of health insurance they want. this is a time of choice of the american people. our mission is clear. if we want to get rid of obama care, we're going to have to replace president obama. my mission is to make sure we do exactly that, that we return to the american people the privilege we've always had to live their lives in the way they feel is most appropriate. so we don't pass on to coming generations massive deficits and debt. where we don't have a setting where jobs are lost. if we want good jobs and a bright economic future for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace obama care. that is my mission. that is our work.

and i'm asking the people of america to join me. if you don't want the course that president obama has put us on, if you want instead a course that the founders envisioned, then join me in this effort. help us. help us defeat obama care. help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and that's killing jobs across this great country. thank you so much. >> governor mitt romney, brief statement on what we all expected him to say is the repeal of the affordable care act. john harwood in washington has been watching this action all morning long in light of the decision earlier today. john, safe to say the character of the election changed this morning? >> reporter: i'm not sure it did change all that much, carl. remember this is the status quo. mitt romney's begin making those arguments for some time, and he sort of punctuated it today by saying what the court failed to do on the last day of its term is what i'll do on my first day

as president. he talked about the medicare cuts in the law, which he's always talked about, the taxes, the spending, all of those issues he's trying to put front and center. you know, i got off the phone with one of his strategists just a moment before his news conference who said, now we get to run some of the issues that we ran in the 2010 congressional elections on, which is p opposition to obama care. of course, the 2010 elections was about many things, including the economy, and this one is mostly going to be about the economy. i think that mitt romney feels the arguments that he's been making are intact after this ruling, and that's why they see some political upside for them. although we do have to wait and see -- i think we have to admit the shortcomings, or our inability to look forward and see how this decision might interact with public opinion. do people absorb the idea that the supreme court has blessed it and changed their own opinion, but we don't know that yet.

>> a morning of big news, john. thanks for helping us get through it. guys, we'll see you tomorrow. enjoy a well deserved vacation, simon. >> enjoy the european news in my absence. >> fast money is after a break. in your fight against bugs. ortho home defense max. with a new continuous spray wand. and a fast acting formula. so you can kill bugs inside, and keep bugs out. guaranteed. ortho home defense max.