later, a conversation on the health care law's expands medicaid. we are joined by marilyn werber serafini of kaiser health news and former medicaid administrator charlene frizzera. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal" on this wednesday, march 28, 2012. the third and final day of the supreme court's oral arguments on the health care law. the justices will hear arguments on whether the controversial individual mandate can be severed from the rest of the law also. , whether the expansion of medicaid violates the constitution. yesterday, the justices heard the heart of the case. on monday was a question of

whether the supreme court has jurisdiction over the case now before the individual mandate goes into affect. you can go to c-span.org to see our coverage of the health-care debate. you can also tune in to c-span3 and c-span radio. today on "washington journal ," we will talk to reporters and law professionals. first, a couple of other stories in the news. the house and senate in today. here is the latest from "the washington post." host: the parents of trayvon martin were in washington yesterday testifying. this is from "the washington times."

host: stand your ground the bills are under scrutiny. the law in florida and elsewhere are getting a second look in the aftermath of the shooting. another story from washington. this is also from "the washington times." in politics, newt gingrich is shaking up his campaign staff. "the new york times" says he is acknowledging it is impossible for him to win the republican presidential nomination outright. he's cutting back of his staff to focus on emerging victorious at the party's convention this summer. mitt romney's opinion ratings are negative. they are hitting an all-time

high. and favorability ratings have increased in "the washington post"/abc news poll. "politico" is looking at this. they detail what is in the plan for the house, elevators leading to the garage, and other things. the supreme court's healthcare oral arguments. we of two reporters here. emily etheridge, "congressional quarterly" staff writer and jess bravin, "wall street journal" supreme court correspondent. thank you, as well. jess bravin, you have the big story today in "the wall street journal." what was your overall take away from yesterday's arguments? guest: basically, the conservative wing upper the

court is very skeptical -- wing of the court is very skeptical. it will come down to the votes of probably justice anthony kennedy, who expressed concerns about both positions in the argument, and perhaps the chief justice, john roberts. host: some scrutiny and some looks at the attorneys arguing both sides of the case. tell us how the solicitor general donald verrilli did. guest: the government's chief litigator before the supreme court. he is an experienced litigator there. when he set out to make this principal argument, it seemed that he choked, literally, and we do not know if that's because some water went down the wrong pipe. as one administration official told us, he was overcome by the momentous occasion. he sort of stumbled over his

words at first. once the questions started flooding, he did as well as one would expect in that kind of high-pressure situation. host: jess bravin writes this in "the wall street journal" today. you were in the court room. tell us where justice kennedy was leaning. guest: some justices, when they ask questions, they are really telegraphing what they think. justice kennedy, when he askes questions, it tends to reflect what he is really curious about and more of a genuine intellectual inquiry. he said something like, "many things in life fall upon a blurry line" and so forth.

justice kennedy, in his concern about the law, he observed that this mandate that most americans are required to carry health insurance or pay a penalty is something new. he was not aware of an example where the federal government compelled a purchase of a product from private industry. he said, from the opponent's position, that changes the relationship between individuals and the federal government. on the other hand, he also acknowledged that the government's factual arguments about the nature of the health- care industry and the role that millions of uninsured people play in affecting actuary th calculations is a real thing and something the government has to take account for. he did acknowledge some of the government was not inventing its program out of thin air. it seemed that justice kennedy

found these factual issues of great importance and ones that, at least from the comments he made at the court, did not indicate for sure if he had decided to have the better or worse argument. host: let's take a listen to justice kennedy yesterday with the solicitor general, donald verrilli. [audio clip] >> you create commerce in order to regulate it? >> that's not what is going on here. in this case, what is being regulated is the purchase of health care. that itself is economic activity with substantial effects on interstate commerce. host: justice kennedy. jess bravin, what do we learn from that exchange? guest: we should give a context. this is a case that is not about whether there's a fundamental right to not carry health insurance. that differs from other sorts of

constitutional cases where we talk about freedom of speech or freedom of religion, where neither the federal or the state government has any power to interfere. here, what is being discussed is whether the power to require this type of purchase rests with the federal government as well as the state governments, or only the state governments. this is because of the peculiar structure of the united states. it is unique. under the united states constitution, the federal government has a certain specified powers. one of those powers is to regulate commerce among the states. over the centuries, the supreme court has expanded the definition of commerce as commerce itself has expanded and changed with the changes in transportation technology, communication, and so forth. the commerce that was once more easily defined it can't flash across the world -- more easily

defined can flash across the world instantly. it is not about the fundamental right to carry health insurance, but rather the federal government has the power. but justice kennedy is asking is, does this particular mechanism driving people to buy health care insurance fall within this specific power to the united states congress. host: here are the numbers to call if you would like to join the conversation about the supreme court's oral arguments on health care. you can also e-mail us, send us

a tweet, and you can join the conversation on facebook. we have a variety of questions there. we will hear the decision in a couple months. they are expecting june. emily etheridge, "congressional until then, what happens with the health care law? our people speculating on what might come next? guest: it was a little bit of a sharper tone. it seems like it will come down to the conservative justices. the democrats came out saying we really think the court will uphold this law. we do not have any contingency plans. we're so confident, we're going to keep on going. administration is continuing to push for things. republicans say they will try to matter whatlathe law no

the court rules. host: because the political advantage they could have by doing that. guest: representative steve king said this law could be constitutional, but still a bad idea. no matter what, they want to get rid of it. they want to put in their own package of health care changes. host: let's get to the phones and hear what joe has to say. republican caller in salt lake city, utah. caller: hi, everybody. i want to commend all of you for holding these hearings and the supreme court for taking this issue up. this is exactly -- this is a lesson in democracy for all the children and all the people in the country. this administration, if they were not stopped, they are such extremists that they would put

all this on the people whether they like it or not. i am proud the supreme court is taking this up. they are defending the people's rights. when you look at it, the supreme court are people, too. they have to live with it. they do not like it one bit. it's a lesson in our country, and democracy. this is how the country should work. i am real proud the supreme court is taking this up. i am proud you people are involved in democracy and making sure the rights of the people come first, instead of an extremist government, like obama trying to force his will on everybody. host: jess bravin, there's a question of what the justices feel as individuals. then there's the question of the constitutionality and making a decision on the merits of the case. justice scalia is someone who was watched as a conservative.

his past case history gave some speculation that he might be a swing vote. what did we hear from justice scalia yesterday? guest: i think that was always a fairly optimistic view. it probably died yesterday. justice scalia is probably the least likely to hide the ball comes to this.t he does not and accept the premise. the market is just a transactional device for paying for health care. he clearly sided with a view of the challengers, which is that health care and insurance are separate markets and the

compulsion of people into the insurance market was not necessarily related to the regulation of an existing market in health care. that distinction is really at the heart of the discussion about commerce. i did want to say something remarks from salt lake city. it is true that as we're watching the supreme court exercising what we call a judicial review and having the last word about the statute, but it's not precisely an example of democracy. it's more of the example of the limits of democracy. at the time this measure was adopted, it was adopted by majorities of the house and the senate, the democratically elected majorities. on a campaign promise to do just that, to sign a health care

bill. the arguments at the supreme court are exactly the opposite ones joe is making. the legislatures and president enacted this law. the question is whether the un elected supreme court can take what is considered an extraordinary step and overrule and strike down a law that the majority of voters, at that moment in time, supported. that has nothing to do with whether the law is a good idea. the court members frequently say it's not their job to decide whether the laws are stupid or smart. in this case, the court would have nothing to say if a new congress, a new president, or the same ones came in and repeal the this law. that has nothing to do with whether the one that's on the books is constitutional. the challenges are asking the court to block, strike down, a

measure that the political majority adopted. you might say a lesson in anti- democratic element within our constitution that's designed to safeguard certain values. host: emily etheridge, a poll or this week looking at the health care law. 46% disapproved. over here, a pie chart of how much understanding people have. 48% say it is confusing. what's the public perception of the health care law? plurality ofght brutalit people oppose the law. they think it's not liberal enough. usually it's because people

think it goes too far. one of the problems with having the biggest parts of the law not rule until 2014, the mandate that people buy insurance or pay a penalty, the state run exchanges, the medicaid expansion, those do not, and for a few more years. we've had this bill passed for two years. it has been law for two years. no one really knows quite yet what will happen. people will say, i know you did this, but i still have my employer's benefits. where is the change? i'm not sure what will happen. host: we are joined this morning by health care reporter and a supreme court reporter here. let's go to robert, a democrat in jacksonville, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. a couple different questions. if the supreme court rules this unconstitutional, why is it then the social security mandate

and the mandate we pay -- why is that not constitutional? that is a mandate everybody has to pay. a lot of republicans tend to say they tend to be activist judges, because they overrule what the congress and the senate did. if they pass a law, i do not necessarily know if i agree with the mandate itself. i really do not like judge's overturning, whether its republican-led congress or democrat-led congress. this will come down to ideological grounds.

host: he says he does not like the power that the judges have. guest: that part of how our constitution is written. to the first part about social security and medicare, we do all pay into those. a lot of the democratic senators said the same thing yesterday. patrick leahy said yesterday, i do not see how you can make that case. he said he did not want to see the court go down that path. those are the exact feelings he had. he also made the point that when the laws were passed a few there was the sameose the sam kind of pushed back. over time, those programs came to be very popular. they still think that will happen to the health care law. point was made

by justice ginsburg in the argument. there is a reason and that is one that lawyers understand but sometimes is not immediately evident from a logical perspective. the reason is that social security is a -- if you are a critic, you could say a socialist program. the government collects taxes from everyone and runs insurance programs itself. in order to do that, congress exercises a second in the real power in the constitution, to impose taxes and to spend, to provide for the general welfare. congress, in doing that, from its limited set of tools that it has, picked up a pool where the authority is very clear, to tax and to spend. social security, medicaid, and similar programs are based on the taxing power, which is understood to be quite broad. this is not exactly a tax.

while the government is requiring people to pay something, it is requiring it to pay it to a private company. that is the distinction now. this money coming out of your pocket. you are getting the same thing, which is an insurance card. maybe it doesn't really matter to you if it's going to be an entity that has a web address that ends in .com or .gov. from a legal standpoint, it does have significant. the government has argued that its taxing power also covers the affordable care act mandate, that because those who fail to comply with it will be assessed a penalty, which is key to inco, collected by the irs, along with the tax return. some federal judges have agreed to that theory. the supreme court did not seem so open to it. the point which the justice ginsburg said, under the

challengers theory, the government could have a complete takeover of health care industry, does not make sense. host: let's take a listen to justice ginsburg. she is having a dialogue with paul clement. he is representing the 26 states who are opposed to the law. [audio clip] >> we need to have a group that would subsidize the ones who are going to get the benefits. it seems to me you are saying the only way that can be done is if the government does itself -- cannot involve the private insurers. if it wants to do this, social security is its model. we cannot have the insurance industry. is that your position? >> i do not think it is, justice ginsburg. there are other options. the most straightforward one is to figure out what amount of

subsidy to the insurance industry is necessary to pay for guaranteed issue and community rate. once we do that, we could have a tax that spreads generally 3 abutting to raise the revenue to pay for the subsidy -- generally through everybody to raise the revenue to pay for the subsidy. guest: what constitutional theory essentially prevents the government from approaching the problem in a way that it thinks it's a wise this -- thinks is wisest. in other words, the idea of building on the existing private industry and attempting to what the sponsors thought was fill a gap, instead of replacing it across the board with what justice ginsburg said was a government takeover. paul clement, considered one of the best litigators' of our time and a former solicitor general under president george

w. bush. he said there were other options. he mentioned one of them, which would be a subsidies. the government handing out money directly to companies collected through taxes. the government simply giving americans money that they could use for insurance. this comes back to the fact that this argument, while it is constitutional, is not a constitutional argument about fundamental rights. it is constitutional argument about structures and powers of government and where powers within the federal government of the united states lies. no one at the supreme court argument disputed that. what they dispute is that the federal government has the power to do just that. paul clement says there are certain ways the government can reach this permissible objective in certain ways it cannot. they chose the one that they cannot.

host: we have a tweet in from don. michael is an independent scholar and in new york -- an york.ndent scholcaller in new go ahead. caller: my wife has worked at abc news for 25 years and has one of the best insurance plans you can have. she flies home during the summer to take care of her medical needs. the harvard study approve the following. germany, denmark, and sweden, which have a single-payer system, have the top five life expectancies. the united states is 49th. with a private system, we are

ranked 49th worldwide. i think the private-payer system has proven successful, if you want to live longer. thank you very much. host: let's get a response from emily etheridge. guest: it is true, when you look at the rankings. it is hard to really look at whether that's a function of our system or a function of our country being just a different type of country. our population is much bigger. we have a different system. we have some of the best medical professionals in the world. there are a lot of other issues going on within our health care system that are not necessarily about how we get insurance and whether we get insurance. there's a lot of variety in the system.

host: let's go to larry, republican in new york. caller: hi. how are you? good morning. i feel the health care law is unconstitutional. i feel it will put a burden on our country. every day, the government is taking away our freedoms. i think the supreme court should strike it down. i am happy with the insurance i have. i do not need no government interference. people want health insurance, then they should go find a job that has it. thank you. host: diane, democratic caller. caller: good morning, libby. i haven't seen you on there for awhile. you have a ponytail today. host: what is your question today?

caller: not a question, but a statement. i was going to comment on a couple things jess said earlier. i take issue with that because the fact is, these justices -- it is not only how their opinion is going to reflect. i also want to make a comment about the fact that students, college students and our young people who could still be living at home, 26 years old, will be under this, and are under this under our laws for obamacare. the people that have pre- existing problems, as my son has, many people across the

united states are not throats of their insurance due to this. i have worked all my life. i've had insurance all my life. the misrepresentations that it's going to cost -- the whole point is, people, we should have a health-care it system that does help people. throwing up the price of insurance is the fact that there are so many that are going to emergency rooms on a certain basis. if you have an insurance policy where you can go and use that, which i have ever since i was a woman, and provided for my son in college until he was 23 at that time -- it is about the money for the insurance companies. it has nothing to do with republicans and democrats. arlen specter was on their last

week. he was the deciding vote. he was a republican and then went back to being a democrat. anyway, i feel that we all -- it has nothing to do. we're going to the people who have had insurance all these years and our seniors. they'll end up paying four others in the country. it does not work that way. i think the u.s. supreme court will rule this as constitutional. i think the dissenting vote will be scalia. i think kennedy, ginsberg, and justice breyer will be the opinion. host: first, let's go to emily etheridge, "congressional quarterly" staff writ. guest: two of the points that i am brought up, pre-existing conditions, and children stay on

parents' health insurance until the age of 26 are two of the most popular provisions in the law. those are things that people want to see. the administration is now making the argument that you cannot have that provision -- raise premiums or deny people with pre-existing conditions. they say those two things have to go together. you cannot have the benefit without also giving all the people into that pool. host: jess bravin, let's go through some of the justices we have not talked about. i'm looking at "the boston globe" here. justice thomas famously does not ask questions during oral arguments. take us through the lineup. give us your scorecard at this point. guest: 1 we can start with, the

justice who seemed almost certain to support the law, the four supported by democratic presidents. justice ginsburg, who made those remarks about social security and some of the programs that seemed more extreme than this one is and held those were constitutional. to her, this seemed obviously an economic problem. a problem of people being done eviunable to pay for health care when they need it. justice breyer put forth a broader theoretical approach as to why it he suggested this law might be constitutional. that had to do with other sorts of constitutional powers under the commerce clause. he observed that if there were some terrific epidemic affecting

40 million americans -- some horrific epidemic infecting a 40 million americans, exercising that power, he believed, required americans to get inoculated, if that was going to protect the national economy. if they can do that, they could do this. host: let's listen to justice breyer. we will hear the oral arguments from yesterday. [audio clip] >> you pointed out and i agree with you on this that the government set up these emergency room laws. the government set up in medicaid and medicare. the government set up chip. there are 40 million people who do not have private insurance. in that world, the government has set up commerce. it is all over the united states. in that world, the decision by the 40 million not to buy

insurance affects that commerce and substantially so. i thought the issue here is not whether it's a violation of some basic right or something to make people buy something they do not want, but simply whether those decisions of that group of 40 million people substantially affects the interstate commerce that has been set up in part through these other programs. that's the part of your argument i'm not hearing. host: that is justice breyer. he is speaking to michael carvin. jess bravin, take us through the other two justices that were appointed by a democratic president. guest: justice senato and sotomayor and justice kagan. there was one area where she seemed skeptical of the government. that was in their claim that this was an exercise of the

taxing power. it seemed like she might question whether it fell under the taxing power. justice kagan, the most recent just disappointed to the court, -- the most recent justice appointed to the court questioned what it was all about. it meant that the government could require them to do it after they were hit by a bus and brought to an emergency room. if they could make them pay at the point of purchase, why couldn't they do it at a more rational point. host: we're looking at live images outside the supreme court. we're watching officers give out tickets to people waiting in line. some people stay out all night. some people camped out for a number of days to get into yesterday's arguments in particular. now we see the folks waiting to get in this morning.

let's hear from neil, an independent caller. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i cannot speak glibly to the constitutionality of what is going on. if kept in tact, it will benefit many people. it becomes a quantitative thing, as opposed to something that is qualitative. i spent 25 years in health care management in the administration. sadly, i must remark that i wanted one thing. the quality of your health and the quality of your health care is predicated on two factors. sadly, who you know, and how the deep your pocket is. yes, it is available. what about the quality? it is a very important matter. we cannot put the cart before the courshorse.

host: monty tweets in. to emily etheridge, talk us through our caller's concern and then monty's concern about the uninsured. guest: the law would not address what those insurance plans have to cover. there's a requirement. people pay for their health care. there are some minimum, essential benefits the plans would have to have. there are other question. how do you increase the quality of providers? how do we make our health care system better? how do we stop spending money on may be unnecessary procedures and things that do not work? the people behind the law were designing it to make sure not only do people have more coverage, more health insurance, but they get better care once they use that insurance and go

to their doctors. host: what happens if the insurance industry -- what happens to the insurance industry if the individual mandate is struck down? let's look at a tweet here. jess bravin, rational payment of insurance. guest: i cannot really answer that. that's not really a phrase that i've heard come up in the debate, the rational payment of insurance. in justifying a lot under the commerce power, the court has to find that the government had a rational basis for exercising this power. i think it is extremely unlikely that any justice would say they have no rational basis for doing it. the question is whether or not the power itself exists. host: emily etheridge, what happens if the individual mandate is struck down? what happens to the insurance companies that still have to

ensure americans? guest: the court could decide to take down the mandate and not take other requirements down. the insurance companies -- the requirements that they have now -- they say that's not really financially viable if you do not have the requirement that to get people into the pool somehow. you need to be able to broaden the pool of people buying insurance. include a healthy and people who are not fighting it. -- include the healthy people and people who are not buying it. caller: as i listen to the

various discussions, the idea that this somehow likened to automobile insurance. why can't somebody point out the simple fact that the mandated automobile insurance is liability insurance? it has nothing to do with fixing the car, if you use the analogy that the car is the person. there's no requirement for me to have insurance on my car. it is all liability, which will protect someone else. i cannot quite get my hands around the logic of that being an applicable, rational argument. the other one is, the buying of the muskets that goes back to the 1870's. that law, as i read, was only 45 white males.

it's so far away from the reality we have today. those two keep popping up. i would like to have your distinguished panel address why those are rational reasons for doing something when they do not seem to have any parallels. thank you very much for c-span. i am a c-span junkie. it is the place to get your news. host: jess bravin, can you respond to john's question? guest: he brought up two of the questions supporters have raised. the insurance mandate is similar to prior government requirements. first, the question of automobile insurance. it is true that automobile insurance is state mandated. it falls under state authority. no one questions that. the rationale is quite similar. it is not because it deals with

cost-shifting. the reason states adopted the mandatory insurance laws is for a liability, but it's for liability for others. it is a way that i guarantee that the damage or cost i impose is not transferred to them. the theory behind the individual mandate is the same. it is that if someone gets sick -- if there's a car crash, society does not feel an obligation to fix your fender. the idea is to cover the exact same contingency, to protect people who are paying insurance, who are able to -- from having to bear the cost in an unfair way. that is the policy rational, which is severed from the constitutional question. the muskets issue is this. this was brought up by a law professor from ucla with a good

book on the history of gun laws. he pointed out this is not the first mandate the federal government has imposed on people. it did earlier require certain americans to acquire weapons, muskets, for national defense. the concept of who was a citizen and what citizenship rights existed in the early 19th and 18th centuries were quite different. that was a different time in our history when women could not vote and african american citizenship status vary from state to state and so forth. our definition of who could vote at that time, i do not know if that's really irrelevant. secondly, the fact that the government might find it important to class by a certain group of people to carry

musket's does not speak to their ability to say there's a much broader group of people who need to carry health insurance. the government can say we only want people we consider fit to fight to of weapons for the militia. our separate goal of protecting the, by spreading the risk of catastrophic health needs involves a larger pool of people. as a policy issue, it would not make sense to say only white males ages 18 to 45 need to have health insurance. host: let's go to an e-mail. this touches on what was argued the very first day before the court on whether or not they can rule on it or not, because the individual mandate has not got into effect in cannot be challenged until 2015. here's a comment from south carolina by martha. "emergency care does not turn away people based on their insurance or lack thereof, so how will obamacare change emergency services?" emily etheridge?

guest: people would still be cared for if they do not have insurance. the idea is we would spread that group of people who have insurance by expanding medicaid and by having this mandate. you could still choose not to have insurance. you would pay the penalty to the government. there's no requirement -- there is a requirement that you have to have health care. you just have to pay for it if you're not going to have it. you still are going to get care in emergency rooms. no one is going to turn you away. host: carl, democratic color. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is this point of sale issue. the state attorney general's argument is that commerce does not take place until the point of sale. therefore, it can be regulated.

advertising takes place before the point of sale and it is regulated. i can of falsely advertised something. there's no sale made. the argument is not that the government forces you to buy something. it is when they can force you to buy something. host: jess bravin? guest: the answer would be merchants who advertise goods are voluntarily joining the marketplace. they're entering the stream of commerce. they are purchasing advertising in most instances. even if they are not paying for it, they are trying to induce sales. they have entered the marketplace. advertising is a recognized part of commerce. therefore, they would be subject to regulation. there are also fraud laws related to advertising. the challenge here is, someone sitting in their room trying to

avoid any interaction with the health care industry is not part of commerce. therefore, what is happening under this law is they are being compelled, driven, forced to do something to do something that they would prefer not to or would rather spend the money on something else. that is outside the government's power to regulate commerce. that cannot create commerce in order to regulate it -- that would be the argument. host: we're talking with jess bravin, "wall street journal" supreme court correspondent and emily etheridge, "congressional quarterly" staff writer. justice roberts, the chief justice, has been one of the people that court watchers are looking to to potentially be a deciding vote, someone who potentially authors the opinion. let's hear a little bit of his exchange with solicitor

general verrilli. [audio clip] >> unless i'm missing something, i think you're just repeating the idea that this is the regulation of the method of payment. i understand that argument. it may be a good one, but what i'm concerned about -- once we accept the principle that everybody is in this market, i do not see why congress' power is limited to regulating the method of payment. what other area have we said congress can regulate this market, but only with respect to prices, but only with respect to means? once you are in the interstate commerce, you can regulate it. pretty much, all bets are off. host: oral arguments later on today on c-span3. you can also go to our website, c-span.org. jess bravin, tell us about the chief justice. guest: when he was in private practice and working with the

solicitor general's office, he was considered one of the best advocates of his day. he can very easily internalize an argument or not, whether or not he agrees, and express it quite compellingly. we certainly saw that yesterday when the chief quite cogently articulated both sides of the debate and therefore left it somewhat open which side he most fully believes. that's why most observers say, along with justice kennedy, chief justice roberts, the old men decision in this case may not be as clear as with the other members of the court. what he said there, and this is frequent in supreme court arguments, they say things with tremendous contextual significance for the lawyers. beginning in the early 19th century, regarding the federal commerce power and other powers. essentially stating that if the power exists, then the congress

and the federal government can exercise it to the fullest degree, and not because the constitution gives congress the power to enact anything that is necessary and proper to implement its existing powers. the real question is whether the power is there or not. the power is there, it can be exercised to the ultimate degree. it's the power to regulate the financing in this way exists, then the power to regulate the marketplace may exist in all that we cannotan fathom. if we open the doors to this, we could potentially be opening the door to all kinds of federal regulation we cannot anticipate now. that's really the great fear of people who are philosophically opposed to this.

then the payment of a few hundred dollars per year, they are worried about the philosophical implications. host: emily etheridge, you are nodding your head. guest: people are concerned that if the government can make you buy this product, what else can they make you buy? when kent the supreme court stepped in and say you have overstepped your bounds? host: we have a question on twitter. joseph asked if there's any chance it will be called a tax? guest: there was a chance, but it seemed quite slim after the arguments yesterday and on monday in which none of the justices from either wing of the court was enthusiastic about that argument. that is actually a consequence of one of the many questionable political judgments that sponsors of the law made. when the bill was pending, they use the word "tax." at the time, it seemed obvious

to a lot of lawyers and legal scholars that the law would be on much firmer constitutional grounds if it explicitly invoked the taxing power. the senate version use the word "penalty." here. for some reason, there was an assumption that americans prefer to be penalized than tax. the word "penalty" was used in the senate version. there was some debate on which was the better way to go in terms of nomenclature. once the democrats lost a filibuster-proof majority, but they were essentially frozen into the version that had already passed the senate that used the word "penalty." even if they wanted to change the word, they could not. we were stopped using the word "penalty." that could come back to penalize them when the supreme court rules on the taxing power. in by e-ven weighs

mail. "no one is exempted from this medical responsibility. this will be the key argument in the health care law." that is his opinion. let's hear from paul in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. i have two questions. assuming this is upheld by the supreme court, what are the long-term ramifications as far as states' rights? since the federal government cannot seem to balance its own fiscal house -- get its own fiscal house in order, this would add another program. i am concerned about balancing the budget. thank you. host: emily etheridge? guest: it's not necessarily a new government-run insurance program. all of those things will be run by the states. it is private insurance that would buy to a state exchange program. yes, the federal government is helping to fund by giving money to the states to set it up.

you will still be buying insurance from private insurance companies, unless you choose to go into medicare or to qualify for medicaid, which are already existing programs. host: ester is a republican a caller. caller: good morning. please excuse my voice. i'm in my 80's, but i have been following this. i heard president obama say that -- will not be covered by this. i heard him say it myself. i carried insurance. i carry the supplemental insurance with my medicare. we will still be paying for those people's health care. if people could not pay for their homes -- they bought homes they could not afford. does anybody believe they're going to pay a penalty or buy insurance? host: i will ask that to emily

etheridge. two questions. one is about illegal immigrants. the other is about whether or not people would actually pay the penalty. what would be the repressions? guest: the penalty would really only be about $700 per year for an individual. as a lot less than what people pay for insurance right now. some people may choose to make that economic decision. it could be cheaper not to have insurance, especially if you're young and healthy and do not foresee getting hit by a bus. we do expect that some people will choose to take that option, which they are able to do. as for illegal immigrants, that is true that they would not be required to have insurance. they're not supposed to be participating in the program. when the congressional budget office and other programs do estimate how many people will still be uninsured ones the law takes place, a big chunk of that population is people who are here illegally. host: jess bravin, on twitter,

we have a question. guest: probably not. because there has never been a program designed exactly like this, there's no precedent on point. us why it has been such an exciting case for legal nerds to follow. they are basically going into uncharted territory. edents thatrec point in both directions. it's unlikely the court will overrule. what they will do, they will clarify limits that they have inferred from prior cases. i think it is unlikely they will explicitly overruled any existing cases. host: joy, democrat in california. welcome. caller: good morning. host: good morning.

caller: i have a couple of comments here. i've heard a couple of comments, both from yesterday's "washington journal" and today about republicans saying that we actually all really do have health care. we can just go to the emergency room. people usually go there when they are in extreme pain or a broken leg or this and that. i am 52. if i was to find a lump in my press this morning and i go to the emergency room, they are not going to treat me in the emergency room. they're going to send me to a gynecologist or an oncologist or whatever, and then medicaid would step in. if i was of age, medicare. the cost does shift to the states to the federal. it is not -- you know, it's not

health care in the sense unless you have a broken leg in the fix you there. . host: emily etheridge? guest: as a big point that people are making. we do some help pay for health insurance. they're getting insurance said they may not be able to afford on their own. not many people in the country could probably pay all out of pocket for cancer treatment that might go for years and years and years. that is part of the issue here. also, with the medicaid expansion that this law would have in 2014, which the court will hear today. that's one argument administration is making. they will not be ending up in the emergency room, unless they are very, very sick. people will see their doctors earlier. that saves cost by preventing

more serious illnesses. host: let's hear it a bit more of the oral arguments from yesterday. this is justice scalia. he is questioning the solicitor general. [audio clip] >> the 10th amendment says the powers are reserved and not just to the states, but to the states and the people. the argument is the people were left to decide whether they want to buy insurance or not. >> but, your honor, what the court has said, and i think it would be a substantial departure, when congress is regulating activity that will affect interstate commerce, that will be upheld. host: that is the solicitor general with justice scalia. larry tweets in -- jess bravin, take us through this argument of state power versus federal power.

guest: it is true that 13 states did proceed the federal government and they did establish a first the articles of confederation and replace that with the united states constitution in 1789. subsequently, the other 37 states were admitted to the union. the constitutional structure makes federal lawsuit came to the states. the 14th amendment gave the federal government extensive supervisory powers over the state's to prevent states from trampling on individual rights, but that is beside the point, because the question is whether or not congress can require people to have health insurance under its power to regulate commerce or perhaps through taxing power. that does not implicate the states. most lower federal courts --

all federal courts say the states have now interest -- have no interest in trying to prevent citizens, their residents, fighting the federal government, which the citizens elect, has decided to do. the only interest is in the medicaid program where they have a financial stake. they say they like the program because it helps them with their own responsibilities. >> we will hear more about medicaid later in the program. before we let you go, you have been a court reporter for a long time. what is this like for you? guest: well, it is different in

you can sense the importance. the room is filled. the room is often filled, but here, the tension in the air, the expressions on people's faces, it is the difference between a live play and watching it on television. no offense. it is definitely a moment everyone understands is important because we come into the chamber knowing what has happened over the past two years, over the past four years, over the past decade as the debate over health care and federal power has proceeded. so, when it is so difficult to predict and divided ideologically, there is tension, and we are focused -- fortunate that the justices are clever people and keep it entertaining and interesting. jess bravin, supreme court correspondent for "the wall

street journal," thank you. emily etheridge, we look forward to having you on again. coming up, we will hear more about what is happening today for the supreme court, and the idea wednesday individual mandate -- on whether the individual mandate can be separated from the rest of the law. c-span is in front of the supreme court. let's see what is going on. >> we are joined by wilford. what do you do? >> i teach fifth grade. >> what is your interest? guest: my students deserve to have medical care. it is important for my students to see the need to be healthy. a lot of times when you are not feeling well, you do not want to

learn. if they feel well, they will get the health care they need and will be able to succeed. host: what are you hoping to hear from the justices? guest: i am hoping i hear they will not cut any of the medicare across the nation. our students need this help. i teach in a lower social economic area and i am hoping there will not cut medicaid. host: can you talk about what medicaid provides? guest: it provides some student needs, doctor visits, to be able to go to the doctor so they can feel well. some of my students need glasses and they are not able to afford it. host: tell us about your time in d.c., especially because of the

arguments yesterday and what you think might happen today. guest: i am hoping the justices will understand the problems that we are having if medicaid is cut. i hope they will listen to us and see the big difference it would make if it is cut with our students. host: if there are cuts, whether the state's ability in arkansas to make up the difference? guest: could you repeat that? guest: what is the state's ability to make up the difference? guest: i am not really sure, but i'm hopeful they will understand where we are coming from. host: thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host: we will hear more from the team this morning. we are joined by professor david

cole. we wanted to have you on to talk about several ability, the aspect of this ongoing case. tell us the details. guest: it is the question of what you should do as a court when you strike down one part of a lot, but there are many other parts of the law. if this court decides based on yesterday's argument that the individual mandate, which is one part of hundreds of pages of the affordable care act is unconstitutional, the court then asks can we just strike that down and leave the rest of the bill standing, or is it related to other portions of the bill that we have to strike them down as well? host: take us through how both sides feel about this.

on the one hand the government is defending the law. states and individual business owners do not like the law. guest: not surprisingly, the challengers say if one part of the law goes down, the entire law should be struck down, he'd been provisions the have no connection to the individual mandate. the government takes the position that if individual mandate goes down, the rest of the law should not be struck down, but they contend that the provisions that ban insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, they have to be struck down because congress found it essential to the workings of those provisions that the individual mandate be in place. then there is a third party here that is appointed by the court to argue a position that neither of the parties before the court are arguing, namely

that the court could and should strike down the individual mandate and should not invalidate the rest of the law. that is what the law were called -- that is what the lower court's held. the rest of the law could work, maybe not as well as to what was the individual mandate, but it would still work. -- maybe not as well as it would with individual mandate, but it still would work. host: our guest is professor david cole. here are the numbers are -- you can call to join the conversation above severability . host: let's get to the phones and hear from a democrat in

macon, georgia. hi. margie. caller: regular american citizens paid for in health care for everyone in the world with the global health initiative and. -- what about the ever cultural bill and the other thing is did the demand -- our agricultural bill and other things they demand that we pay for, like the banks? guest: you make a good point. when the questions many of the conservative judges seemed concerned about yesterday was the notion that somehow what is wrong with the individual mandate is that it requires us as citizens to take affirmative steps. of course, we are often required to take affirmative steps. we have to file taxes. we have to pay taxes for things

we do not approve of. i have to pay taxes that support the highways across the country, even if i do not drive. so, really, that question should not be relevant to the commerce clause question that was before the court. the question before the court was can congress as a matter of the power to regulate commerce regulate health-care and health care insurance, and in doing so, it is requiring people to take affirmative steps, but then not ought -- that ought not to be a constitutional barrier. host: let's go to twitter. the idea to cover the most expensive clients, companies

would collect dues or fees from healthy americans. guest: that is the government of's argument. if you take the individual mandate out, the law works in a counter-productive way. you then have a guarantee that you can buy insurance and not pay any more for a after you get sick will leave more people not -- until after you get sick will leave more people waiting. that is not our insurance works. people have to share the costs. the government says you cannot have one without the other. if you strike down the individual mandate, you have to strike this down. a number of states have put in place protections against this kind of discrimination by insurance companies without the individual mandate. it has not worked very well in those states. it has worked better in massachusetts where there is an individual mandate. it is not been a total failure

in the sense that the states have not abandoned the guarantees. if congress were told law, you can have this guarantee that protect people from being discriminated against, but you cannot have the mandate, would they be happier with that than with a law that does not provide that protection? that protection is very popular. most people are in favor of the prohibition against insurance companies as a minute and against them because they are sick. host: julie, you're on the program. please down the -- please turn down the tv. do you have a question for us? caller: good morning. my question is -- i'm a veteran with the va. my question is what i'd be required to pay -- to buy this

insurance if i'm already under the va for health care? guest: no, you would not. the individual responsibility provision covers people that are not covered by some other insurance plan. 93% according to the urban institute, are covered either by veterans' insurance, their employers insurance, medicaid, medicare. it is really the 7%, and only 7% that do not have insurance, and what congress found was that those people are essentially shifting the cost of their health care to the rest of us because when they do not buy insurance, they can not predict the they will might get sick tomorrow, and when they are sick and need health care they will not be able to pay for. then, we, the taxpayers have to cover their costs because at the end of the day the emergency

rooms will give them care. somebody has to pay for that. the result is the average insured families premiums go up by $1,000 per year because of this 7%. that problem is what congress was seeking to solve with respect to this provision. host: david cole is a law professor at georgetown university. let's look at a story in "the washington post." to hear another side, the court calls on its friends. when they want to hear a side of the issue that no one else supports, that will be the case today. it is the case that could await on the third and final day -- await a private lawyer who will argue that even if the court invalidates the mandate that all americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty if should leave

the rest of the law in fact -- intact. tell us how the court picks? guest: i did not think anyone particularly knows exactly how they picked, but they tend to pick attorneys to have a stellar reputation, like robert long who argued the first day a position nobody wanted to argue. so, there really go out and just get people who they have seen argue before them regularly, and who they trust will do an excellent job, and i am sure there will be an excellent job in this case. host: "the washington post" has interviewed a gentleman who was been in this case before. he did not hesitate when he got called. he was a law professor at the university of kansas. in this case he is representing

a position that the court has as them to take. he says "i empathize with the gentleman taking this position this week because there may have been a moment or two when the judges were asking questions, not by the argument i was making, but i wanted to say you asked me to make these arguments." guest: it is a strange position. you do not have a client. how will they go out to lunch with? the court is essentially his client. the fact they want to hear his argument does not mean they agree. mr. long, for example, did not appear after the arguments to have sold a single justice on his position. today's arguments will be taken seriously -- namely, when the court strikes down a provision because it is unconstitutional,

it is extraordinary, but it is even more extraordinary to strike down other provisions of the law that are not violating any constitutional right, and nonetheless take them out of the law. no one challenges any other part of this 100-plus-page law, except for this provision, so why should the court to invalidate the whole because one provision is invalid? it will be an interesting day. host: let's go to an independent scholar in hayward, california. caller: i think we are missing that individuals are part of the gross national product of the united states. if you do not invest in individuals, and you want to send people to war and fight

different wars overseas, your people are not healthy -- how do you expect us to defend ourselves? it is a point of national security as individuals. we're all in this together. if people are unhealthy, cannot get jobs and the unemployment rate is high, where do these people go? guest: that is a good point. it is a matter of national security, personal security, and as the caller points out, it is a collective issue, and that is what medicaid and medicare are. they are collective problems -- collective solutions to a collective problem. they require all of us to do something affirmative -- pay in to make sure that those of us who are sick and poor or aging

and for will be covered when the needs arise. -- and poor will be covered when the needs arise. a lot does is try to make sure people will not be discriminated. the opposition to the bill which seems dedicated on the notion of individual liberty ignores the fact that we are all in this together as a nation and we sometimes have to adopt collective solutions to collective problems. that is what insurances. that is what medicaid is. that is what the affordable care at this. host: david cole teaches constitutional law, national security, and criminal-justice. he has litigated cases before the supreme court that dealt with constitutional issues. in listening or reading the coverage of what has happened, have you had any indication of how the justices might lean on

the issue of severability or the overall impression of the health care law? guest: a lot of impressions on their overall view of the individual mandate -- i think quite clearly four justices are skeptical of the constitutionality of the individual mandate. four justices are very supportive of the constitutional -- constitutionality of the individual mandate. justice kennedy will be the swing, and he has said things that will encourage both sides. how they feel about severability is much harder to say. it is a question that does not arise until you decide that one part is unconstitutional, and it may well be the conservative judges who are most critical of the individual mandate provision are also judges who want to do

-- be the least active list in terms of striking down the rest of the statute. they might be inclined to strike down one provision and not the rest. on the other hand, the conservative position in the broader public is get rid of the whole law, and that is the position that the states are taking. i think it's really hard to predict on the severability question. host: jimmy tweets in if you want to hear a great litigator, listen to paul comment on yesterday's tape. you can hear that on c-span.org. as we go into the next round of arguments today, how does the solicitor general, the friend- of-the-court, go into this final

day? guest: probably with some sense of relief that it will be over. for don who argued monday, argued yesterday, and will argue today, three days, back-to-back, that is remarkable. paul clement did not argue monday, but he argued for the states yesterday and is arguing both issues today, severability and medicaid, which are important issues -- is a lot to prepare and argue a single case for the supreme court. it is one of the most intense experiences a lawyer could ever have in his or her career, and doing three arguments back-to- back must be totally exhausting. i'm sure they look forward to some sense of relief. host: steve is a republican in indianapolis.

caller: good morning. i have been listening to the arguments and i just want to talk to the american people about the fact that we have a government that controls everything and our constitution, you know, protected us from that, but the attorneys had turned it into -- completely control everything. i was looking up into the skies and i have seen what the airplanes have put in the air. i think that as our government doing it as well. how can we trust these people to take care of our health? i deny use the system. i hope to never have to use the system, and i'll -- but now i will be forced to use the system. it is so on american. guest: i hope you never have to use the system, too, but you never know. one of the main plaintiffs who

filed the lawsuit was someone like you who said that i am not using the system i will never use a system. she recently filed for bankruptcy, and one of the reasons was unpaid medical bills because she needed medical treatment, even though she did not think she ever what and she could not pay for it. the thing about the program is it is not saying the the government will provide you health care. it is simply saying you will still get health care from a private doctor. he will still get insurance from a private provider if you choose. it is simply saying if you have to get into the system. you cannot sit back, not get insurance, knowing that if you ultimately get very sick you can go to the emergency room and get treated for free. that is not how collective responsibility in our country works. if we are all responsible to work together to insure -- we

are all responsible to work together to ensure this can be dealt with in a responsible way. host: a tweet then asks -- host: is it a political question their wrangling with at this point? guest: there are many political questions regarding the health- care bill, but the questions before the court are not is this a good bill or a bad bill, it is as politically a good idea or a bad idea. the question is under the constitution congress was given certain powers, in particular the power to regulate commerce and the power under the necessary and proper clause to enact other laws that are useful to make sure that its regulation of commerce is effective. the only question before the

court is this -- is is this appropriately within congress' power, and if not, how much else of what congress has done should we do away with? host: tony, an independent scholar in florida. -- caller in florida. caller: first of all, if you did not buy gasoline, you do not pay for that. you're a great salesman. at what point do you become a criminal for not purchasing health care next paying the $800 a year fought -- health care? paying the $800 fine. we could start there. guest: there is no criminal penalty. the only sanction is that you pay a tax. second of all, yes, it is true

if i did not buy gasoline, i do not pave the gas tax, but i do pay my income tax and that is to build roads and all kinds of the infrastructure we never years. that is what it means to be an american, living in a collective society. we come together to help each other. we do not insist that we are all standing on our own two feet and have no concerns about the other we have concerns about the other, and we try to deal with it through laws that make sure we can deal with collective problems like securing our problems from enemies, like securing s four -- from disease. host: here is an old story from cnn. this is when the law was signed. and a dog that does not have health insurance -- an adult

that does not have health insurance by 2014 will be penalized $95 or 1% of income by 2016, it increases by -- $695. guest: again, that is pegged people whot the fail to get insurance essentially impose on the rest of us. is it fair to say that the 7% that do not have insurance should make every other american family pay $1,000 extra? that is really the question that those who oppose the bill have to ask. host: craig, independent in manhattan. caller: good morning. anytime something new comes in people are afraid and they're

mentally lazy and do not want to learn anything new, even if it would profit them. sometimes the effect is new, it scares them. -- the mere fact that it is new, it scares them. i want to ask about imminent domain. the supreme court upheld the eminent domain for commercial reasons they you could have property served from you if an entity would pay higher taxes, and one more point, when people say let the state give you your health care, a lot of people, especially african-americans, remember governor george wallace saying no black person is coming into this university. a lot of people do not trust the state. they would give confidence to the federal government because

they're less arbitrary to the locality. i would rather have the federal government gives me what i need as opposed to the states. thank you very much. guest: i think you put your finger on it in a sense of the real question is not whether any government can require people to purchase health insurance. it is only whether the federal government can require people to it purchase health insurance. if the arguments made before the court and the law's challengers concede that states can require people to buy health insurance. massachusetts has a program that is essentially a very similar. it protect people from discrimination from insurance co. and it makes people buy health insurance or pay a tax. that is clearly constitutional. nobody challenges that. the only question is given the this is something government can do to us -- we do not have an individual, god-given human

right not to be required to buy health insurance, states can require us to do that, the only question is whether this is a high ridge of the kind of issue that is appropriately dealt with -- that kind of issue dealt with by the federal government. when you deal with economic matters that have been interstate character, of a national scope, it is more appropriate to deal with them at a national level rather than the state level. at the end of the day, this is not really an argument about individual rights. it is an argument about which government should have the right to impose this burden on us, and for many reasons, including concerns about the scope of the problem, it makes sense to give congress the power. host: the american action form and the blue dog research forum conducted an opinion poll of

former supreme court justice courts and lawyers said gone before the court and ask them what they expected the outcome to be, not what they wanted the outcome. -- the outcome to be. 38% said the issue is partially severable. 36% expect the court to say severability is on the table. what are you hearing from attorneys, your peers, about what expectations are on how the court will go on this issue? guest: and mike individual mandate, severability -- and mike individual mandate, - unlike ity seven -- h the individual mandate, severability is not something

people sit around the dinner table debating. there is a presumption against striking down more of law that has been identified to have a problem. so, just without knowing anything, you would bet that they're more likely to sever and strike down only this provision. i think it is very unlikely they will take the state's position. the state's position is you should strike down every last sentence of this law because one sentence is unconstitutional, even though most of those sentences have nothing to do, no winter plan whatsoever with the individual mandate, and -- no interplay whatsoever with the individual mandate. it is wildly implausible. i think the real debate will be where they go with the federal government's position, assuming this strike the individual mandate down.

where do they go with the federal government's position that the guaranteed issue in the discrimination provision cannot work without the individual mandate, or will they say we do not know whether they can not work. we know the provision is problematic. congress can always respond. host: david cole, law professor at georgetown university. he is the co-author of a cult less safe, less free -- a call less safe, less free -- "less safe, less free tickets to the process the justices will call for -- less free." how will they actually decide

these? guest: they have a conference on friday, were they all come into the room, and they will indicate their initial lenience -- leanings of all of the cases they have heard this week. this week they have only heard one case, said they will indicate their leanings on all of the issues. once the it -- once it is clear how many votes are in what camp, then either the chief justice or the senior justice in the majority will assign the opinion. the other justices will begin to write their separate opinions or their descent, but then there is three months of exchanging opinions, writing draft, during which it is permissible and sometimes happens in the justice changes their vote. they will decide friday where

they stand provisionally, then they go back and try to write it up, and sometimes when you write it up, you say i am not sure i can go with this or i am willing to go with that, so we will not know for sure until the very last day. host: so many of the arguments are contingent. -- all right. if they decided there were five votes in favor of the conjunction -- anti-intentioned act, the rest of it does not get decided. if they decide the individual mandate is unconstitutional, they do not have to address the severability issue. it is not clear how much will end up being decided. host: david cole, a law professor at georgetown university. thank you. guest: thank you. host: the "washington journal"

team has been at the supreme court all morning. they spoke to a turnings -- attorneys that have been in the courtroom. host: we are with three people were watched three days of the proceedings, and we will talk to them about their perspectives. guest: by practice in california. host: do you have a special interest in today's proceedings? guest: baidu pro bono work for the american cancer society, and we favor the law as it is time the end we want to make sure the minimum provision is intact and it is not severed. if it is severed, only the rest or the remaining law should be intact or enforceable. host: severability is the key

point you are watching? guest: yes. host: what is of concern to those you represent? guest: the imposition of the mandatory purchase of health care insurance, if that is severed, and we have a lot of uninsured, we feel taxpayers will pick up the tab, so it is not good for as. host: we have another court watcher. guest: ed,, a member of the d.c. bar. i am here for two reasons. it is an extraordinarily important case. it is only one we got closer to the event that i realized how important the case was. the second reason it is it is

the drama unfolding you -- in the courtroom. it is something i do not want to miss. host: what is something that comes to your mind that maybe the average person at home does not see? guest: the one thing that's strikes me as the home of the questions. perhaps the answers are phrased more legally than the normal person would understand, but the questions are really grounded in human activity, and you would have to come to the supreme court to understand that takes place here. it is unfortunate that more people did not have the opportunity to see that unfolds. i think it would appreciate the work of the supreme court. host: our final court watcher? guest: hans, heritage

foundation. host: what are you watching for? guest: i think the government had real problems the last two days making their arguments, and i think a lot of court watchers believe that the chances they will get struck down went up based on the questioning yesterday. the severability is just as important as the question of whether the individual mandate it's constitutional or not because that will determine whether or not the entire law gets thrown out or just parts of it. again, we will be looking at the quality of arguments and the question's been asked by the justices. host: medicaid is a topic that came up today. does anyone have an interest in what happens and the importance of that arguments when it comes to the scope of the arguments? guest: debt as the one i am least interested in.

guest: people have not paid a lot of attention to that claim to being made by 26 states, but that is an important argument because the expansion of the medicaid program is going to be such a huge an enormous additional expense to the states that it is a crucial issue. host: 3 watchers of the supreme court. for your time, thank you very much. host: c-span will be falling what happens at the supreme court threw out the day. we will hear more from our team on the scene. we will also broadcast the oral arguments later on today. you can tune into c-span radio or watch on c-span3 and you can find information about all of our coverage at c-span.org.

we're now looking at medicaid. our guests are charlene frizzera, former acting administrator at the centers for medicare and medicaid services and marilyn werber serafini, with "kaiser health news." let's start with you, marilyn werber serafini, break down the difference between medicare and medicaid. budget helped in the experts accidently say one when they mean the -- host: -- guest: he even the experts at at some of the say one thing when they mean the other. medicare is something everyone ages into. it is the program for seniors and disabled people as well. medicaid is a program for the poor, people that are below or at a certain level of poverty. varies by state. is a joint program between the

federal government and the states. it does vary. there are certain federal requirements that certain income levels must be covered, but some of the state's exceed those guidelines and they cover more people -- states exceed those guidelines and cover more people. medicaid currently covers 60 million people. host: the supreme court has been tackling oral arguments in the mornings, today they are doing two issues, looking and severability and then did this afternoon they will look at medicaid and whether the affordable care at expansion of the program the buy list the constitution. let's go to charlene frizzera. tester with the affordable care as does to medicaid budget take us through what the affordable care at the estimate -- take us through what the affordable care at dusting medicaid.

host: -- guest: there is a federal poverty the man now. the cover people to a certain level. this expands debt and requires that states cover more people under the medicaid program than they currently have to cover. host: if you would like to call about this issue, here are the numbers. host: marilyn werber serafini, tell us what is at issue here today, what are the states concerned about? guest: it is all about money. the health care law is estimated to cover 16 million new people, people that did not before qualify for medicaid. that costs money. now, what is interesting is at the beginning, the first two years of the health care law, starting in 2014, the federal government picks up 100% of the

cost, but after those two years they cover less, and by 2020 the federal government is still covering 90% of the costs, but the states are in tough budget situations and they saying enough is enough. if that puts us over the line from being a shared program that we choose to participate in, and it is a choice for the states to participate in the program, to being coerced. you will hear co-workers and a lot. the states say if we have to cover 16 million new people that will put us in a place where we have no choice in the matter. we cannot do without this federal money, and there will be more coercion. host: charlene frizzera, if the medicaid mandate is overturned, if we find out the supreme court says this does not fly, will past expansions of the program be lost?

guest: past expansions will not be lost. the mandate is separate from the medicaid expansion issue. that could stay in place and they could mandate of the medicaid program covers more people still, but the question is the goal of the health reform was to cover all of the uninsured. it erases that circle of continuity. he will put a bigger burden on the medicaid program to cover a lot of people they have not covered before. host: linda on our democrats line in connecticut. caller: i have two questions. if the individual mandate is severed and struck down, does this not -- leaving the other provisions in tact, does this not ultimately hurt the private insurers that would be part of the exchange? my second question is broad, but we do not have a constitutional right to food, anything else.

if we can strike down health care, based on strict constitutionalism, why not food stamps? why not public schools? why not anything the government provides that is not in the constitution? thank you so much, and you have a great day. host: marilyn werber serafini? guest: if the individual mandate is struck down, many things could happen. it is possible a lot could disappear. that includes the medicaid expansion -- the whole law could disappear. that includes the medicaid expansion and the exchanges. the exchanges are set to go in 2014 and the insurers as part of this law have new requirements placed on them. for instance, they cannot pick and choose who they cover. there would be no pre-existing

condition that they could deny people insurance. so, if the whole law goes away, that goes away also. the pressure on the insurance industry would not be increased, however if the court decides that the individual mandate can go away but the rest of the lost is in place, the insurance industry is calling to scream bloody murder. they will be unhappy with the idea that day will have to take everyone, the sicker people, but the healthier people might decide not to come in, and that makes it a lot more expensive for them. host: there is a story i am looking at that says "insurers at risk -- a supreme court decision might expose environmental and educational laws to legal challenges, while hurting stocks that surged

anticipating more than $600 billion in new spending over the next decade." marilyn werber serafini, water people talking about as far as implications -- what are people talking about as far as implications of what could happen next? guest: if a lot goes away? that is a good question. republicans have been talking about repeal, but few have them -- you have been talking about what they would replace it with. -- but if you have been talking about what they would replace it with. my instinct is that when a law like this goes away, it often takes up to 10 years before we really, politically, it can get into position to deal with this again. what we have coming down the road that cannot be ignored is medicare and the budget. because we are on this deficit reduction track and because democrats and republicans are

both talking about the cost of these entitlement programs to the federal government, i would imagine that we would then turn to a discussion about medicare and reducing spending in medicare. host: the bloomberg story says the decision came as a surprise according to the chief counsel for the washington-based council. it was upheld by the 11th circuit court of appeals. the medicaid expansion issue is the sleeper issue. the state's argument has the opportunity to open pandora's box. the consequences of their arguments are more extreme. one of the positions. charlie is a republican cholera in texas. good morning. -- caller in texas. caller: i was wondering, if the

court finds that they could sever out the mandate, and they leave the balance of this law intact, does that mean it that a whole other bevy of lawsuits will be filed to take out, for instance, this proposed panel of bureaucrats that are going to decide whether we should receive health care as a matter of budget? host: charlene frizzera? guest: that is a great question. if you separate a lot -- there are provisions in the law and legislators can change anything in the lobby wants to. the board that was referred to -- there is a lot of discussion about repealing that board. legislatively, that might

happen. they might agree to change the law to give the of the board. there are two ways that could happen. if that does not happen because of legislation, anyone can file a lawsuit. they are hoping they could get rid of controversial issues through legislation to make it more acceptable for both parties. host: charlene frizzera is the former acting administrator for the centers for medicare and medicaid services. she is the chief operating officer and deputy chief operating officer and director of the center for medicaid and state operations. maryland were surfy is a special correspondent for "type -- marilyn werber serafini is a special correspondent for "kaiser health news." danny, ohio. caller: i have a few comments.

[unintelligible] if we started having our own country with taxes -- why do they not quit giving to other countries. obama is not a king. why do we not have a nationwide recall? obama, or bin laden said one time if he could not destroy us with bombs, he would tell our economy. host: you do not support -- you do not summit is supporter of the president, the you also not support the health care law? caller: i did not, because it is not it is a freedom of choice. i think -- because it is freedom of choice. i think congress should make a decision. lately, they cannot make a

decision on whether they need to eat or sleep. host: we will leave it there. guest: you brought up the issue of freedom of choice. this law has not reached a popularity that president obama hoped that it would. still about half of the population does not like a lot. that is what polls across the board had shown. a lot of the reasons that people give is freedom of choice. they feel like they want to be able to choose whether they have insurance or not, and this takes away that choice. host: charlene frizzera, what will the medicare -- medical system do? doctors, how will they deal with caseloads if this is upheld and more people need to seek their services? guest: one of the goals of health care reform is to change the delivery system. everyone agrees the current system does not work.

the way primary care physicians are not entering the field -- everyone acknowledges there is a crisis. the goal is to redesign the system, finding ways to deliver health care using other kinds of practitioners. there are a lot of efforts to head nurse practitioners do a lot of the care for patients. there is also a goal to try to change delivery so you have a continuum of care organizations. guest: what charlene frizzera is saying is important about nurse practitioners. we will have a problem if this law goes through and is fully implemented in 2014, we will talk about 30 million new people having health insurance are the to medicaid or private insurance. there is a big concern that there are not enough physicians currently out there to rob the

country, and especially in -- throughout the country, and especially in under-served areas to meet the demand. we saw this in massachusetts when they put their insurance in place, and there is concern that there will be a physician shortage, especially at the beginning. host: california, gary, republican caller. caller: i used to work for the state of california, and the biggest problem piracy in government anywhere is tremendous -- problem i see in government anywhere is a tremendous waste. they cannot fire people. i used to tell people the reason high work hard is because i am working for the taxpayer, not people in government positions. they're taking whatever they can from the government and the huge

waste this will create, it will overwhelm us, and it will destroy our economy. although prices will go up because the doctor -- all of the prices will go up because the doctor will have a guarantee. that is a huge issue. money is the biggest thing we need to deal with. someone gets an easy chair, and they know they do not tested do any thing extra -- they do not have to do anything extra. they will collect their paycheck. that is wrong. guest: i would like to make a quick comment about that. one of the things they're health care law is trying to do it is invoked risk-sharing. that puts the responsibility of folks to do a better job because they will make more money or lose more money depending on how they work together as a group to manage health care. we are hoping that

accountability in with financial incentive will make people much more accountable and get rid of waste in the system. host: lola, a democratic caller. california. caller: i love your program. i feel that a person that is able to get health insurance is a privilege. i have not had a chance to get health insurance because i came down with hypertension, and recently i have -- i had sugar diabetes. i am not old enough to get aid, and not wealthy enough to buy insurance. i am caught in the middle. my granddaughter was born with her insurance and she has problems with her legs.

we were not able to pay her insurance on time, and they cut her off. i had to wait a whole year to get her insurance. host: marilyn werber serafini? guest: i am guessing your part of the population that supports the health care law because in 2014 you may or may not get a subsidy or qualify for medicaid, but regardless you would be able to get insurance through whatever your state insurance exchange would be. they would be prohibited from turning you down because of your hypertension or whatever other problems you might have. host: robert, a republican, said that the georgia -- savannah, georgia. caller: no people on medicaid where every need is taking care of -- i know people on medicaid

where every need is taking care of. they do not to pay anything. i think if they pass this -- let this bill go on, the whole country will go bankrupt. it is out the only way they can up with it is by bribery and paying off people because there were people that were voting against it in the congress and turned around and then they went and voted for it. it should not be a law. guest: that is a great question. it sounds like the person is probably what we call dual- eligible. they basically get medicare coverage.

kate picks up some of their health care -- medicaid picks up some of their health care. they have a low income. they are having their health care paid for through the health-care system. host: americans are divided politically on their opinions on this. a poll shows a lot of americans do not know what the health-care law does for them. guest: that is correct. we have a public that is divided and we have a public that does not understand it well. the job for the obama administration -- this is an election year and that is a big deal. this is going to affect the

election and the election is going to affect what happens next. there are many people who believe the obama administration has not done as good job to explain what is already in the law. on provisions in the law -- some provisions in the law are wildly popular. the question is whether the administration is going to be able to point out the popular provisions in this law. the biggest changes covering the 32 million new people, that will not start until 2014. can the obama administration make a good enough case and explain this to the public? host: democratic caller from pennsylvania. caller: the gentleman from california -- i think people

were missing the point. the waste that the insurance companies have -- i am covered and my premiums have gone up double before obamacare took place. i think i would rather have the government run medicare. it would be for the people. the insurance companies do not care about your health. guest: part of what is happening today -- they are monitoring the administrative cost that insurance companies are being charged. 85% of their costs are in health care. they agree that the administrative costs are too high. cms is working hard to make sure

they monitor that. they are telling health insurance companies that opinions are too high. cms is doing that outside the health care reform law. host: we have a different perspective from twitter. "the alternative will be to go to a single payer system." guest: that is and is shifting take on that -- that is an interesting take on that. even democrats have stopped pushing for a single payer system. the act passed in 2010. john dingell has been pushing for single payer for decades. even he pulled back on it.

he recognized this would not be political feasible. we will have a mix going forward -- some say it might be mixed up. even if republicans keep control of the house and the take control of the senate, there is little possibility that they will get the 60 votes necessary to get the super majority where they can avoid a filibuster. we will have democrats and republicans. the democrats to get single payer and there is little chance that that would happen. when obama first came into office, they were not able to go down that road. host: you mentioned congressman dingell. how this medicaid coverage

issue is affecting people in that state. "whether or not this is a job- killer or a job-creator. the program -- it will take effect in 2014. covering more poor people, it is saves money. opponents will argue this week to the supreme court. the states will lose their eligibility -- their funds if eligibility is not extended." the cost michigan $835 million through the year 2020 -- it could cost. guest: states have been

wrestling with the issue of the cost of medicaid. considered year leaving the medicaid program altogether. most of the money that's spent on medicaid in that state and in every state comes from the federal government's. it is a shared program. taxes did a study on this and determined that there was no way they could pull out of the program. it is an optional program and their budgets are in terrible shape at the moment. this is not something that they thought they could let go. host: does this article get to the heart of the debate? guest: it really does. this is no longer a partnership.

you are required to do things that go against the threat of the program. host: the federal government sends money to the state and will not do that without tying some strings to it. there will say you have to cover kids. there are many, many requirements on the states for how they have to use that money. guest: this is what the states are bucking. they want to have more freedom. they want to run it the way they see fit. the government would simply send money to the states and let them run it the way they think that they should. host: lee from waldorf,

maryland. caller: i have a terrible cold this morning. we need a military style health care core. we need doctors and colleges that charge so much to educate. witty non-profit system in this country -- we need a non-profit system in this country. the lobbyists that will attack us and waste money. we need to work outside of the profit system. i am a republican no longer. this will be my first year as a voting as an independent. host: this shows you how it worked up people are on both sides of the issue. guest: there are many people who

feel as you. people are frustrated. we had an earlier caller who talked about washington not being able to get anything done. they will have plenty to do whether this law is upheld or overturned. host: we have an e-mail. "33 million more people would have medicaid chips. receive taxe credits. if this is struck back, everyone that is uninsured will remain without coverage." is she correct/ ? guest: a lot of those provisions are really separate and they are severable.

you really could put this into focus. they are not tied together necessarily. if the mandate goes out, some of the other provisions will allow people on their own to choose those options will stay in place. guest: a lot of what has happened since the passage of the health care reform law is still going to happen. the industry is changing already. some insurance companies have allowed parents to claim their children on their policies. the big question is going to beat whether taking of the mandate, whether that destroys the law or if they can pull it out. there will be a big cry from the

hospitals and insurance companies that the rest of the law will not work well, especially for them if they are required to still not consider pre-existing conditions. if these other requirements still stand but they do not have the bulk of people coming into the system. host: marilyn werber serafini is a special correspondent at kaiser health news and also a distinguished fellow. she was it health care reporter for the national journal. charlene frizzera is a senior adviser and served as the centers for medicaid and medicare services acting administrator from 2009 until 2010 and has spent over 30 years

there. caller: good morning. i am a republican and have always been a republican and of never voted democrat and probably never will. the provisions in this health care law -- i can keep my children, policy until they are 26. these children and other people will be able to get insurance and not be denied for pre- existing conditions is a wonderful thing. it really is. but this mandate -- i have some problems with it. what do you think of the insurance companies if this is upheld? they will be raking in so much

money. they will be the biggest winners out of everybody. host: what do you hope to see happen this week? caller: i would like to see the individual mandate taken now and i would like to see other provisions state in the bill. the mandate -- i have a lot of problems with that. guest: the problem is how do you pay for that? if you did not make everybody get into the insurance program, it is hard to pay for people with pre-existing conditions. it is hard to pay for coverage for students. it is harder for them to make money. it is severable but everything

would be more voluntary. you would not be required to get insurance. host: marilyn werber serafini? guest: i think that is the biggest issue and that is the issue -- the insurance industry and the hospital industry, they made deals with the obama administration when this law was being debated. they said, will agree to take people with pre-existing conditions and agree to have all these rules placed on us, including the medical loss ratio. but i have to spend a certain amount of money on the benefits. i will agree to that but you have to get everybody into the system so you can guarantee we

have health the people and sick people paying in. of just sick pool people, that makes it difficult for them to maintain their business. host: a question by charles on e-mail. will the insurance companies continue to raise rates? will they force you to go with a government program? guest: that is a great question. that.s now working on they have the authority to make them decrease those rates. i think the administration has done a great job by making sure that people do control the cost and they put out a regulation that says they can determine on

a reasonable payment hikes. host: democrat's line, pat is in cleveland, ohio. caller: i do not trust the supreme court to do the right thing. this is not the supreme court of 30 or 40 years ago. the republicans were for the mandate until the obama administration started to get this program started. "i want a mandate, i want to mandate." let them see how it is to pay for it. even santorum. he has a special-needs child. this is political. this is not for people that want insurance.

they did not want this because the democrats put this forward. guest: you are right. it is very political. the route the republican campaign so far, we have seen mitt romney's republican competitors -- this is what they are trying to pin on him. this has been a great point of contention. this is very political. host: mississippi, bob. caller: good morning. i like to add my two cents. i am on medicare and a military retiree. it has not been expressed about

the way that the administration is trying to increase the cost to military retirees. it is unbelievable what they are doing to us. i enlisted and we will get health care for you and your family for the whole term of your life. they did away with all of that and put us into the civilian market and we had to buy insurance until we turn 65. my medicare cost at the present time is for part a, part b, close to $1,000 a month. the military retirees are getting the shaft under this

particular program because they did not attack in this particular bill but they throw into the dod budget. guest: yeah. that has been in all the papers lately, raising the cost of the benefits to veterans. government has to find ways to save money. what they look at our government benefits. they have frozen the federal pay. they're not allowing bonuses. what can they do to try to stop some of their problems? the health insurance benefits are part of the discussion. the government is trying to find ways to save money. host: brand is a republican from missouri -- brenda. caller: my son cannot afford

insurance right now and my stomach is in knots that he will not have coverage. if the mandate goes through, he cannot afford insurance right now. will they take the penalty out of his meager check? where does that money go if they take it out of this check? right now it is a matter of gas, food, and shelter. he cannot afford insurance. where is the penalty going to go. they said this might cost $1 trillion to implement but now it could be $2 trillion and he still will not have insurance. the bureaucracy is sticking its belong.re it doesn't

guest: i do not know what your income situation is. he might qualify for medicaid or he might qualify to get federal subsidies beginning in 2014. a lot of people are going to get these subsidies. even with subsidies, there will be some people who are going to fall through the cracks. some people will get it hardship exemption, meaning they still cannot afford it. some people aren't too much to get subsidies and they still cannot afford this. some people still will be left without insurance. host: what about americans who fall through the gray zone? they could still hit some of the

requirements for some assistance. guest: that is what the federal exchanges and the state exchanges are supposed to do. "i need insurance and can you help me?" people can get group discounts where they could not before. hopefully he would be able to go to an exchange and there be some kind of a group plan where the insurance would be much cheaper than any options that he has today. in the end, he should save money. it is astronomical compared to the cost that it would be every month or every week to get insurance. guest: to help draw the line.

after 2014 when all of this may be kicks in, medicaid will go up to 133% of the federal poverty level. that is almost $30,000 for a family of four. in the past, many adults did not qualify for medicaid. most adults did not qualify for medicaid. that is going to change. host: sharon from tallahassee. caller: thank you. thank you to the ladies and good morning. we need to stop blaming the president for the state of

medicare and medicaid programs. we know that our governor ripped off medicare when we put him in office. please, just leave the president alone. it blamed your governor. he turned down the money the president offered the state. thank you, ladies. host: we're seeing that unfolds in the court today as this issue is debated in the oral arguments because it does. the government position against the state's position. guest: every state is having budgetary problems. even before this, before people are added to the medicaid rolls

under this law, this is an age old issue for states. the government pays most of the money for medicaid but states have to put up their share of the body to see the federal money -- their share of the money. texas considered leaving the program because it cannot afford its share of the cost. this is an extreme tension that is bubbling up. host: monica from miami. caller: hello. good morning. i am all for the insurance. marilyn was talking about the different options that families can have. it needs to be raised to still

qualify for medicaid. it is still not a lot of money. maybe there could be a bigger expansion. butall for the insurance i'm not for the mandate. i think congress should have come up with another option of how to pay for this health care and to offset this money without having to mandate somebody to pay for the insurance. host: marilyn werber serafini. guest: a lot of people in washington are talking about what to do to get more people into the system if the supreme court kills the mandate were killed a whole thing. one of the ideas being discussed in washington is to encourage people to get insurance on their own voluntarily by penalizing

them if they wait to get it. if you are well and do not get insurance and later you get sick, it might be more expensive. that is one of the possibilities. there are other possibilities. host: we have a tweet. "how does the health care act -- should people have to decide between paying the rent?" touched on the question that our caller had of raising the amount of money a household can meet to qualify for the expanded medicaid program. guest: this gets back to the question of how much you can put on states to pay for that. one of the options have to be

medicaid coverage. they could put them in the subsidy bucket. if you want to cover them, good. you should find other ways to do that, putting that back on the states is untenable. host: buy yen from vermont -- diane. caller: thank you for c-span. my comment had to do with the 50 million that they say they are trying to ensure. i hear on the floor -- it is always about compassionate and how horrible that would leave these people behind. compassion is one it is freely given. when you force people to be

compassionate, you make racism and sexism to be a problem. it is not compassionate to compel people to take care of one another. that is a human instinct that we'll have normally. for the government to compel us to care for people that we do not know -- socialism only works inside a family unit. it does not work, it large- scale. i think they are very much overstepped. it is unconstitutional. i am an american. i don't know anyone who will comply. host: do you have health insurance right now? caller: i do not. it is humiliating. it is a horrible thing to do it your family to teach them it is

the other people's problems to take care of you. host: what we do it in the event of a catastrophic emergency? caller: we have never been turned away. we have been to the emergency room. we make a payment arrangement. we have never been said no to. guest: that is part of what started the whole issue around health care and why we need to change it. when you wait that long you're sicker cost more money. when you don't have the ability to stay healthy -- part of this was trying to figure out how to you help people who wait until they are six. i agree with you, there is compassion. the health-care costs of such a

g gigantic cost of our gross national product. how do we figure out a better way to run at the health-care system? the country cannot afford to rob the cost escalate. what do you do to control it? host: tim from iowa. caller: thank you for c-span. i'm a retired die in des moines -- retired guy. we in the u.s. pay double what they pay in any other industrialized country for health care and we get worse results. and we did not cover everybody. 45 these and people died according to a study in 2008 because they have poor health

care insurance -- 45,000. we should never forget that in 2001 we had government surpluses. the cbo estimated we will be completely out of debt. george bush to press to wait 12 be in dollars deficit -- took us deficit. billion timet: during george bush's in office, he spent some money on health care, too. he credits the medicare prescription drug program which democrats have wanted for many years. there has been some spending on health care that is not just democrats. host: what will you be listening

for today? guest: this is a sleeper issue. everybody is focused on the individual mandate and perhaps not been a lot of discussion on medicaid. some courts have decided medicaid is ok and some say the expansion has to go. there has not been a lot of that. it has not been as debated as the individual mandate, so i'll be listening to everything. guest: i will be listening also. i will be focused if they decide not to do the medicaid expansion, there is a group of people who will not be covered. they are not eligible for the subsidies. what do you do with the group in the middle?

host: there is a story from bloomberg. "the supreme court will be taken up this question at 1:00 p.m. this afternoon." thank you so much to our guests. charlene frizzera, an administrator at spend over 30 years and was the acting administrator in 2009 and 2010. we have also been speaking with marilyn werber serafini, special correspondent and a distinguished fellow at kaiser health news. "washington journal" team is in front of the supreme court. >> outside the supreme court with the attorney general from south carolina. today's argument in part about medicaid.

how do you look at it? >> forcing the states to meet mandates that they cannot afford. arguments.ing at two we are arguing that the mandate and other provisions are not severable. if they fall, the whole law falls. you have the federal government telling the states that, we will hold all previously committed money if you did not allow folks that were not eligible to be on medicaid -- if you did not include them. the states have an idea of what their bottom line is and they cannot meet the bottom-line. they are basically having a gun

put to their head. >> if the act is overturned, what do you tell people in your state? >> we are not against health care reform. i am against having a federal government that can regulate anybody who breathes. if a child needs a heart transplant and i did not have the money to pay for that transplant, i commit armed robbery. my intention is to save the child live. that does not make the act of robbing a store at any last illegal. congress could have passed this under the tax authority. it was unconstitutional.

what they passed was illegal. i will not challenge the intention. there are other ways to provide for them. this is not the way to do that. >> how do you look at today's arguments? >> i was guardedly optimistic yesterday. i am pleased they are asking questions that we raised two years ago. >> the attorney general from south carolina, thank you. >> thank you. host: c-span continuous coverage of oral argument regarding health care. you can hear the oral arguments on c-span3 and c-span radio.

at 1:00 p.m., there will ask the question of the medicaid expansion constitutionality. you can find all of our coverage online at c-span.org. we'll take your calls on open phones. here are the numbers -- democrats -- 202-737-0001. republicans -- 202-737-0002. independent callers -- 202-628- 0205. we have an e-mail from jean. "what this health care --"

host: harrison is calling on our democrat's line from virginia. caller: good morning. i wanted to comment on the charges. i had an accident in california about a year ago. the leader of the health walk -- i stumbled and fell on the sidewalk and bloodied my nose. the leader of the group said we after call an ambulance and taken to the emergency room to it checked out. i said i did not want to do that. i've had lots of bloodied noses. i did not want to create a big scene. i agreed to go and they came

with the ambulance. we went -- i did not go on the gurney. i just stepped up into the ambulance. we went to the emergency room. they insisted on putting me on a gurney. the nurse comes in, take all your clothes off and put this gown on. i said i'm not going to take my clothes off. i didn't want to, anyway. she said the doctor will be upset. i said there is nothing wrong with me except a bloody nose. host: how did it turn out for you? caller: let me finish. host: we have a lot of calls

lined up. caller: i am 85 years old. the hospitals and doctors overcharge and it is out of reach at it will bankrupt the medicare program by the charges. i was in there for three hours. they wanted to check me out all over. they wanted to x-ray mmy nose. host: how much did you end up getting charged? caller: i get a bill about a month later from insurance. they have raised by premium twice since the new health-care program. what happened -- are you still there? i am on a cell phone.

sometimes i get cut off. i was getting check out in the emergency room. the bill was over $3,000. host: we will go want to wait tweet. christie is it republican from connecticut. caller: i have been preaching about severability and did not know the term until today. congress should not simply passed legislation to grab insurance companies from dropping you shih tzu get a serious illness and to private insurance companies from refusing to insure you or if you were over50. that is what they should have done. that gentleman who just spoke

said it all. you will collect all this money and there are a lot of people that would not be able to afford the $700 for the penalty. free so-called preventive care to women? where is this money coming from? i'll take what you're giving me for free. it is it not foree. all this woman's care stuff has to be expensive. host: the architects of the health-care law hopes to of everybody covered or face a penalty. they will be getting payments for those that are less of a risk. caller: none of it holds water. it is too expensive.

caller: my comment is, back in the 1960's before we have the government involved in of medicalehe cost coverage and people go into the % to 6% of the economy. in 50 years, 40% of our economy will be from medical coverage. there are a lot of people getting rich off of the medical coverage and providing medical care and nobody seems to any plan to control these costs whatsoever. springpening up for the

here in the united states where our people will have to rise up because it will not be able to afford to live here. that's my comment. host: let's look at some other stories in the news. a front-page story from "the washington post."

host: looking at some other stories from politics. mitt romney faces a hurdle in gaining hispanic votes. this is in "the washington times." newt gingrich says, "i will support him." host: steve is a democrat from savannah, georgia. good morning. caller: i am starting to believe the average republican man or woman in this country has become the king and queen of the

slippery slope fallacy. they always talk as if they have a crystal ball to predict the future. this will bankrupt the nation. are you a statistician? well plans about things without proof about what is going to happen in the future. my rock, is in response to the republican letter that said she did not have insurance but she has never been denied. she goes in and freeloads and gets her free health care. this is the problem. this is not a perfect bill. this is an attempt to fix that problem. who do you think is paying for that? somebody is. you say you have never been denied care.

that is my comment. caller: hello. i am a republican but i will be voting for obama this year. i am from arizona. i'm super embarrassed at what we've done to our citizens in arizona by denying them care through attrition. the governor decided that if you don't have children after july 1 of last year, no matter what happens, you don't get care here. it is embarrassing. you have the lady from kaiser. i'm a therapist. i regulate showing cartoon. it chose obamacare in understandable terms -- it shows

obamacare in understandable terms. what is the human cost? the gentleman said that republicans have a crystal ball. i am a republican but i'm voting democrat. i agree with him. the woman on $20,000 has never been denied care. that is the problem. what cost is that? how many times can the serve people without being paid? host: we have a comment from james on twitter. lowry from indiana -- laurie. caller: good morning. i have been a caretaker for some

body-- they had a good job and they had good insurance. they lost their job. they started now with diarrhea. next time you have diarrhea, just think if you were sick for four years. how would you maintain insurance? host: i am so sorry. it sounds like an emotional issue for you. caller: i support having health care for americans. he did not qualify for medicaid. host: what he qualify under the new monetary limits? caller: absolutely. he has had three surgeries in

one year. host: i'm so sorry for your suffering. thank you for sharing your story. caller: good morning. i think this is a good thing. health care, go ahead with this. congress has been wasting taxpayer money fighting the president on everything he has done. he has done only can and is still doing good. they have not come up with anything. they are trying to fight this down. host: a different perspective on twitter. "we're going broke anyway."

tom in south bend, indiana. what is happening this morning? caller: i'm listening to all of your callers. i like to say it thank you to c- span. two points. most of your callers are good at putting out the problems in the health-care system. we are not debating policy in the supreme court. we have a constitution that constrains with the government is allowed to do, thankfully. i did not hear a lot of people talking about the expansion of the commerce clause. originally, the commerce clause only allows regulation of interstate commerce itself. the court has expanded that to be anything which affects interstate commerce.

you're not allowed to sell wheat without it being regulated by the government because that affects the interstate price of the marked. anyone who looks at the institution -- constitution would see this is an abuse of power. one caller said the republicans have not put any solution forward. i pay pretty close attention to what happens on the hill. they have come up with some solutions. the republicans put out an alternative health care plan. i think there's too much politics going on. if people looked at the constitution, they would realize it does overstep the federal boundaries. we have to have a serious solution where we can cover

people without violating the constitution because the constraints of the government is allowed to do. host: will looking at live images in front of the supreme court -- we have been looking at live images. there are two big aspect to today's case. at 10:00 a.m., they look at severability. people are getting tickets right now and they will be allowed to sit in and listen to those arguments. we also saw some line holders for a fee earlier this week. some folks slept out overnight and the sprinklers went on early in the morning. calls about your

anything that is on your mind including the health care oral arguments. here are some other stories. this is from "the washington post." "home prices continued to fall." oft: we're seeing some signs life, according to "the washington post." stops a host: let's hear from leon

in south carolina. good morning. caller: i have several comments. those people -- one from savannah and the other lady from vermont that lives on $20,000 that was never turned away -- she did not say she got her health care free. she paid for it. sieges said they never turned her away -- she just said they never turned her away.

i agree with the guy that said everything is to expensive. i am an insurance agents. it is way too expensive and it needs to be standardized. it shouldn't cost you more to get a certain kind of service, whether they have insurance or not. the government took care of the things based on the constitution. they are doing about 80% more than what they should be. more money would be staying in the states. i am in disagreement with the way they are trying to go about it.

i think it is better if we have right free market based system without the government's a finger in everything and with some cost controls and things like that. it would be better. there are ways to fix the system without changing it completely. host: david in fairfax, virginia. caller: good morning. i have three points. i like to say i find it insulting that charlene frizzera could be told that the former head of medicare and medicaid that time a federal employee as a military retiree. she needs to understand the nature of military service and what is involved. what is involved.