. congressman waxman was at the forefront years ago to put regulations on tobacco and to begin what many would consider very high taxes on cigarettes. they are taxes that many americans do not seem to mind. then, the congressman acknowledged that he is not the pr guy. there are others that will be working on the message. whether they take a message it is going to be a little hard. >> do you have a sense on a will take the lead? >> we do not know if the democrats really want to run on this issue. we have seen senator reid over the past few days. let's move on, the court has made a decision.

leader nancy pelosi did the same thing. how much do democrats really want to talk about this issue? >> democrats will be talking more about the economy. there is a sense that part of what happened when they lost things in the senate. they did not have a strong message on health care or the economy. there was a sense that they really needed to focus on jobs in the economy. that think that is what we're going to see them doing going forward. if they do talk about health care, they're going to have to figure out a way to talk about it that is easily guess double by the public. they have a challenge in 2010. >> president obama made his statement after the court ruling. he started getting into the nitty gritty of what this means. that is hard for people to digest. democrats continued to struggle with a single message on health

care. i think there are risks for republicans in diverting their message away from the jobs and economic issues. they will frame health care in terms of the economic debate. want to do that messaging, i do think you start losing people. -- once you do that messaging, i do think use are losing people. >> other takeaways from our conversation? >> adobe interesting to see -- if so be interesting to see how long republicans keep talking about this. they need to do it. do they pivot after that? i would think that they do. they need to know that they are talking about it. it is interesting that he said

that the american people should know that if they end up with a republican presidents and a republican controlled congress that it will be is the same. that is interesting. thank you for being here today. >> you can see newsmakers here on c-span. >> coming up we will show you reaction from the day the supreme court health-care decision. president obama and met ronnie's responses first. the house republican leadership -- mitt romney's responses first. then the house republican leadership. >> this is the conversation me

to have that nobody is having. what role should the government play? >> gretchen morgan sent it tells this the prime lending collapse and one continuing initiate of home ownership. >> if you what to subsidize housing and want to talk about it and the populace agrees, then put it on the balance sheet. make it clear. make everybody aware of how much it will cost. when you deliver it through the third party enterprises, fannie mae and freddie mac and do it with private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot of the subsidies for themselves, that is that a very good way of subsidizing home ownership. we have seen that in 2008. >> more tonight on c-span.

>> this was the scene outside the court. mitt romney spoke from washington, d.c. and said if americans get rid of obamacare there have to replace president obama. these remarks are about 10 minutes. good afternoon. earlier today, the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act -- the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. in doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in america -- in the wealthiest nation on earth no illness or accident should lead to any family's financial ruin.

i know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost. that's how these things tend to be viewed here in washington. but that discussion completely misses the point. whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the supreme court's decision to uphold it. and because this law has a direct impact on so many americans, i want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you. first, if you're one of the more than 250 million americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance -- this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. they can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. they can no longer drop your

coverage if you get sick. they can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. they are required to provide free preventive care like check- ups and mammograms -- a provision that's already helped 54 million americans with private insurance. and by this august, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and ceo bonuses, and not enough on your health care. there's more. because of the affordable care act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans -- a provision that's already helped 6 million young americans. and because of the affordable care act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs -- a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on medicare about $600 each. all of this is happening because of the affordable care act. these provisions provide common-sense protections for middle class families, and they

enjoy broad popular support. and thanks to today's decision, all of these benefits and protections will continue for americans who already have health insurance. now, if you're one of the 30 million americans who don't yet have health insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from. each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost, this law allows them to do that, too. and i've asked congress to help speed up that process, and give states this flexibility in year one. once states set up these health insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against any american with a preexisting health condition. they won't be able to charge you more just because you're a woman. they won't be able to bill you into bankruptcy.

if you're sick, you'll finally have the same chance to get quality, affordable health care as everyone else. and if you can't afford the premiums, you'll receive a credit that helps pay for it. today, the supreme court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance. this is important for two reasons. first, when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums. and second, if you ask insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, but don't require people who can afford it to buy their own insurance, some folks might wait until they're sick to buy the care they need -- which would also drive up everybody else's premiums.

that's why, even though i knew it wouldn't be politically popular, and resisted the idea when i ran for this office, we ultimately included a provision in the affordable care act that people who can afford to buy health insurance should take the responsibility to do so. in fact, this idea has enjoyed support from members of both parties, including the current republican nominee for president. still, i know the debate over this law has been divisive. i respect the very real concerns that millions of americans have shared. and i know a lot of coverage through this health care debate has focused on what it means politically. well, it should be pretty clear by now that i didn't do this because it was good politics. i did it because i believed it was good for the country. i did it because i believed it was good for the american people. there's a framed letter that hangs in my office right now. it was sent to me during the health care debate by a woman named natoma canfield. for years and years, natoma did everything right. she bought health insurance. she paid her premiums on time. but 18 years ago, natoma was

diagnosed with cancer. and even though she'd been cancer-free for more than a decade, her insurance company kept jacking up her rates, year after year. and despite her desire to keep her coverage -- despite her fears that she would get sick again -- she had to surrender her health insurance, and was forced to hang her fortunes on chance. i carried natoma's story with me every day of the fight to pass this law. it reminded me of all the americans, all across the country, who have had to worry not only about getting sick, but about the cost of getting well. natoma is well today. and because of this law, there are other americans -- other sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers -- who will not have to hang their fortunes on chance. these are the americans for whom we passed this law.

the highest court in the land has now spoken. we will continue to implement this law. and we'll work together to improve on it where we can. but what we won't do -- what the country can't afford to do -- is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were. with today's announcement, it's time for us to move forward -- to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law. and now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time, putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead. but today, i'm as confident as ever that when we look back five years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, we'll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward. thank you. god bless you, and god bless america. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> as you might imagine, i disagree with the supreme court's decision and i agree with this assents. what the court did not do on its last day in session i will do it on my thursday if elected president of the united states. let's make clear that i understand what the court did and did not do. what they did was say that obamacare does that violate the constitution. what they did not do is say that obamacare is the law or the policy. a obamacare was bad policy yesterday. it is that policy today.

obamacare was bad law yesterday. it is bad lot today. let me tell you why i say that. a obamacare raises taxes on the american people by approximately five under billion dollars. a cut medicare -- $500 billion and cut medicare by $500 billion. even with that it as trillions to our deficit and to our national debt and pushes those obligations onto future generations. they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance they want to keep. obamacare is a job killer.

it was the federal government between you and your doctor. for all those reasons it is important for us to repeal and replace obamacare. we have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so. having 20 million people up to that number of is the insurance they want is simply unacceptable. -- lose the insurance they want is simply unacceptable. people with pre-existing conditions will be able to keep it. we must help each state to insure that every american has access to affordable health care. something that obamacare that does nodoes not do is help lowee cost of health insurance. it is becoming prohibitively

expensive. this is not a time for the american people to make a choice. you can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government in your life, separating you and your doctor. whether you are comfortable with more deficits are willing to have the government put in place a plan that causes you to lose the insurance you like or whether you want to return to a time when the american people will have their own choice and health care and consumers will be able to make the decision. this is a choice for the american people. if you want to get rid of obamacare we will have to replace president obama. my mission is to make sure we do exactly that. we return to the american people the privilege they have always wanted. we do not pass on to coming generations massive debt.

if we want good jobs and a bright economic future for ourselves and our kids we must replace obamacare. that is my mission. that is my work. i'm asking the people of america to join me. you do not want the course president obama has put us on. join me in this effort. help us defeat obamacare and the liberal agenda that is government to bio big. thank you so much. >> there's an afternoon house republican leaders pledged to work every day to repeal the health care law. john maynard said while he respects the decision at the health-care law was hurting the

economy. if this is about 20 minutes. >> thank you, everyone, for coming. i was at the supreme court to hear chief justice roberts decision on the affordable care act. we respect the court but we respectfully disagree with the decision. just because the court upheld the law as constitutional does not mean that it is a good law. the unprecedented government power, fundamentally changing the individual and government. the court ruled today that the affordable care act is a tax. it is the largest tax in america's history. we also know that cbo has estimated that 20 million americans will lose employer health insurance.

if as a mom and a wife making health care decisions like many families in america, we have already seen our premiums skyrocket on average $2,100 per family. for all of these reasons and more, the american people oppose this bill. the opposition has increased since the law was signed two years ago. that is why republicans pledged to america to repeal this law. we are determined more today than ever to repeal the slot. the supreme court spoke today that they will not have the final word, the american people will have the final word in november. >> i'm anne hayworth, a physician myself. i have the privilege of caring

for patients in the hudson valley for 16 years. i am here to represent patients and doctors across the country. my colleagues tell me that they are very concerned about their ability to deliver the care that their patients deserve and that they have come rightly to expect under the terms of this law. in particular, i am worried about medicare patients. as an ophthalmologist, i took care of many of them in my career. this 2010 law takes $500 billion out of medicare. this directly compromises their access to care. it is unacceptable. we resolve here to honor the goals of that law, to have affordable health care for all americans. affordable health insurance. the wrong law. we can't afford to impose a $2 trillion bureaucracy on the american people. what we can honor those goals and ways that make sense.

if we are here to put patients at the center of health care. patients, their doctors, their providers at the center of health care. not the federal government. she is right, we are more determined than ever. we will succeed. >> renee elmers, representing the second district. a newscaster will be written for health care as a result of the supreme court decision. it is a chapter that we will continue in the fight. i came to washington because of obama care. as a nurse and with my husband as a surgeon here in washington now, we knew that we had to fight against this for health care. we knew we had to fight against this. as a mother i'm concerned about our children. as a nurse i'm concerned about our this.

it cuts this out of health care. it continues the independent payments advisory board which toby unaccountable individuals who will make this for our seniors and their citizens. the fight continues. uncertainty remains. the vision that has kept me awake so many times as a nurse, saying myself holding the hand of a patient while the doctor comes into the room and says that their life-saving treatment will be tonight because the advisory board deems it unnecessary remains in my mind. we are and will remain committed to this.

we will repeal obamacare. this will continue to be our fight. then the chapter for reaffirm, with accountable responsible health-care we have put in place. >> thank you. the court ruled that this is a constitutional law. it does not mean that it is the policy. i have been in health care for over most of my professional life. health care to me is intensely personal. i'm very passionate. the of the course of the last 80 months i've had physicians and senior citizens come to me and say this lot is that. it is going to bankrupt us.

it may be constitutional. it is not good policy. our goal needs to be to enact laws that do the best for american people. that we did everything in our power to keep the cost of health care down. this law does not talk about tort reform are take any of the necessary steps to reform the cost of health care. the president says if you like your health care you can keep it. i am here to tell you that i hear from folks all the time. that is not one to be what happens. so many employees will put their employees into the exchange and they will lose their choice for health care. that is unacceptable it to be unacceptable for the american people.

today begins the fight. today begins the chair debate on how we're going to reform health care in the united states of america. thank you so much. >> good afternoon. the health care law is hurting our economy. it is dry up health-care costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law. what americans want is a common- sense approach to health care reform. it will protect the access to the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower cost. they will not repeat this.

health care coverage has become too expensive for too many people. the number one concern for families and small business people says the cost. the republican health care reforms will lower health-care costs. women make about 80 some of the health care decisions for their families and our country. republican health care reforms will assure that they make health-care decisions and not bureaucrats. >> this afternoon. today's decision underscores the importance of this election. the people of america will have a choice to make in november. clearly it is a choice that will bear upon the direction of this country as far as their health care is concerned. the decision today really indicates we have entered an age in which the government in washington will be controlling

health care unless something changes. most americans, i believe, still like the health care that they have. the president has continued to say that his law will allow folks to keep the health care that they like. what we have seen is that is not the case. obamacare will preclude people from having the health care that they like. we have seen this law increase costs. we are committed to changing that. we are committed to making sure we can return to patient-based health care in this country. we want to keep costs low. we want to increase access. that is why when we return the week of july 9, i have scheduled a vote for total repeal of obamacare repealed. that way, we can clear the way towards trying to again focus on accomplishing health care future that is focused and

patient-centered care, and better access. the decision raises the question, is the patient going to have the decisionmaking process or are you having a form of government run health care? it is a debate that will drive this house and the nation. the debate goes much deeper than just the ability for the access and the cost. at a time when america faces 40 months of unemployment above 8%, i am fearful. the discussions i have had with small-business owners, the decision today will determine decisions they make in jobs.

the economy will not be turning around because this health care bill harms the economy. their study showed there will take people off their current health care plans they have and raise the cost the debate has -- raise the cost. the debate has only begun. you see a group of individuals behind us, they will not be the only ones. across this nation it will be a healthy debate. when -- we look forward to working with those individuals and listening to the nation. health care that empowers the patient to make their own decision. >> today was not a good day for freedom. it was not a good day for struggling american families who wish to keep the health care they have. i respect the ruling of the supreme court and i respectfully and vehemently disagree with

that. for those who have concluded it is constitutional, i remind them a constitutional law does not make for a wise law. the $1 trillion deficit of the obama administration are clearly constitutional. they are not wise. the today will continue. this is hurting our economy and hurting jobs. every day here from some small- businessman who tells me they will never hire more than 50 people. they have spent three and a $50,000 in compliance costs and have laid off six workers. the lot -- this is a hundred dollars billion in taxes. premiums are up. the affordable care act is not -- has not proven so affordable. for struggling families. for taxpayers, much less a

dwindling federal treasury. most importantly, americans want to be able to choose their own doctor. they want quality health care. it want access to health care. they want portable health-care at a cost they can afford. the president's health care threaten that. the supreme court has heard today and where -- we respect it. it is the republican -- as the republican leader said, second week of july, the people's house will be heard from and the people from america will be heard from. >> this decision was a troubling decision. we'd clearly disagree with that decision. as chief justice roberts says, it is not the role of the courts to protect the people from their political decisions. the people chose in 2008 and we are living under the consequences of that choice. the doctors and patients are troubled. this love -- law violates every

single principle we hold dear as a nation in health care. whether it is accessibility or affordability, or high quality care, or choice for patients, this law violates the law and makes it more difficult. we will work together with their conference and the american people to make certain this law is repealed and we move forward in a logical, rational, delivered with patient centered health care. patients and families and doctors making decisions, not government. >> you would like to ask a question from all you have to do is raise your hand? anybody wants to yell, that will insure do not call on you. -- i do not calling you. >> can you explain how

[inaudible] sworn to uphold the constitution, you do not agree with the policy but is there not inconsistency there? you do not like the policy but you respect the decision of the court. >> the court makes a decision about whether this law is constitutional. it does not mean that the law is wise. it does not mean the law is good for the country. billick through the decision today and the chief justice and his -- in his opinion outlines the fact that the commerce clause is not constitutional. it is a tax that can proceed because of the congress has the ability to impose taxes. the government could decide that we're going to tax you if you do not eat broccoli on

tuesday. apparently, that is not constitutional but i do not think it is a wise law. all you have to do is raise your hand. >> the senate was unable to [inaudible] what make it necessary to go ahead again [inaudible] >> i think the real outcome of today's decision is to strengthen our resolve. to make sure that this law is in fact repealed. we will work every single day and the american people will have a chance to make their decision on election day. elections have consequences and

the election as a consequence of the most americans disagreeing. >> we surprised that chief justice roberts was the swing vote? >> i am blessed i am not a lawyer. it is not for me to decide. i am disappointed in their decision, they came to a decision to my respected. >> a democrat say the fact that you're holding another vote to repeal is a sign that republicans are sore losers and there are laws that republicans have passed that they're not holding votes constantly to repeal. >> resolve. there is a lot of resolve

amongst our colleagues and the american people to stop a law that is hurting our economy, driving up the cost of health care, and making it more difficult for employers to hire new workers. the american people want this bill repealed. they want common sense steps above -- about imploring them to choose their doctor. >> [inaudible] >> we will -- the american people will make that seven and on election day. >> do you think it will help motivate [inaudible] >> what i am concerned about is a law that is driving up the cost of health care and making and hire for -- harder for employers to hire people. >> this ruling that the penalty is having taxing power, [inaudible] would future republican powerhouses put in a penalty for failing?

>> repealing this entire law is the right thing to do. it will help our economy and bring down health-care costs. it will save medicare from being cut by $500 billion and we can put in place common-sense steps that will help the american people have better access to the quality care they want. thanks, everybody. >> chuck schumer said chief justice john roberts's opinion upholding the health care law is a welcome display of >> also on thursday nancy pelosi called the decision a victory for american families. she commented on the republican efforts to repeal the law and the weeks ahead. this is about 15 minutes.

>> good afternoon. pretty exciting day. the decision that was announced by the supreme court is a victory for america's families. it was a victory for american families when it passed the affordable health care act and the president signed it into law. since then, tens of millions of people are already benefiting from the legislation. children can no longer be denied coverage due to pre- existing conditions. young people and students and young people can stay on their parents health care policy until they are 26. it is a big victory for women. it is about wellness. it is about prevention. it is about the health care of america and not just health care.

it is pretty exciting. earlier i met with a caucus after a decision was announced. it was no surprise to us. we thought the we are on solid ground and terms of the constitution. it was just a question of what the vote would be. without confidence, we happily embrace the decision that came down -- with that confidence, we happily embrace the decision that came down. the best is yet to come. i want to say a word about senator kennedy or for coming year. i thanked him for a lifetime commitment to making their a right and not a privilege in this country. he called it the great unfinished business of our

society. i knew that when he left us, he would go to heaven. this decision came down, inspiring one way or another. he can now rest in peace. is dream for american families has become a reality. i will be pleased to take any questions. >> the president has said on numerous occasions that it is not a tax. >> i have to look at the language of how we identify the bill in the house. the documentation was part of the decision. it is a step forward for

american families. take yes for an answer. this is a very good thing for the american people. what you are talking about is washington talk. what is happening out there is that families and children with pre-existing medical conditions will not be discriminated against any more. same thing when the bill is fully implemented. that is what is important to people. technical terms, that is for us here. >> republicans say this decision raises the stakes for the election. there'll be a health care debate in this election. >> we need to take a step back and say, why are we here? we are here to do a job for the american people.

we are here to act upon our belief. it is a belief that many of us share. health care is a right and not a privilege. we believe the health care bill needed to be passed so that families will not be punished because they had a diagnosis or an accident. we believe it is about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that people can now pursue the aspirations depending on their talents without being a job-locked because it taught has a pre-existing condition or a fear of a diagnosis. they can be a writer. they can be self employed. this is about our responsibility to reduce the deficit. there is no other reason to pass this them because of costs to families and businesses,

large and small. costs to our economy in terms of it being a competitiveness issue. politics be damned. this is about what came to be. anytime you want to waste time, what does this mean? we undermine our purpose in coming here and acting upon our beliefs. we are very excited about this day. it is a start. it ranks right up there when it passed medicare. now it is being upheld by justices of the supreme court. >> chief justice roberts called get a gun to the head.

the states had to comply or else they would lose medicaid funding. why was it designed that way? >> with all due respect, a characterization -- here is what it does. but this very carefully. again, we wanted to have balance in the legislation. we wanted it to have legitimacy and a well-received. what it says is that for three years, states will receive 100% of medicaid funding for this bill without any matching funds. that is not a gun to the head.

the house language as more clarity. 100% of the money has matching elements to it, but not to the expansion of medicaid in this bill. they're not bothered at all by the decision in regards to medicaid. we think most governors would accept 100% funding without matching funds. >> are you going to be walking out on the house took the? -- today? >> thank you firm opinion that up. i have a few things to say about that. it would have been mischievous of me. you think it was a matter of mischief. it is no coincidence that this

is taken up the same day the supreme court decision came down. it is too much of a coincidence. especially when the motion of contempt was only passed one week ago. what the republicans are doing with this motion on the floor today is contemptible, even for them. it is contemptible. the constitution tells the branches of government that they should work together and try to resolve differences without getting an upper hand are showing strength -- or showing strength. the house of representatives

wanted to go forward was such a motion. trying to resolve it is not sending a bill to the floor of the house based on a false premise. this is not the truth is on the floor today. it was a false premise and asking for a boat. they tied to guns -- and asking for a vote. tying it to guns. it had to grind. we had two employees at the white house. josh was the keeper of the president's papers. for 200 days, we tried to get info from the white house. they stonewalled it. once in and month out, the chairman of the committee and i and our leadership said, keep trying. we did not want to bring this to

the floor again. we want to exhaust every remedy. that is not what is being done here. it is a railroading of a resolution. it is based on a false premise. it came to the floor of the house in a manner of less than two weeks for when we spent 200 days try to get word one from the bush administration. these people have gotten thousands of pages of documents. the documentation is from the attorney general. >> will you be walking off? >> i am just saying, there is an attitude in our caucus that we should not on a process that is coming to the floor.

i myself and then to stay long enough to vote no and then i will see what many in our caucus thinks we should do. i will honor the wish of my caucus. but i will be there long enough to make sure that the record is straight on what is going on. we are honored by the work of cummings. i want to be able to speak firsthand and what was said on the floor following this. this is not about anything other than they are trying to undermine the chief officer of our country, the attorney general. it is the first time in the history of america that a cabinet officer has had a contempt of congress resolution

on the floor against him or against her. i believe, as i have said from the start, it is their attempt to undermine his effectiveness and that of his department to address issues that are going on in our country that have many other complaints. they do not like the fact that he is not moving forward to descend the doma act. again, it is about a lot of things. that is why i say it is contemptible. in some circles, they would call it "lies." i do not like to use the word. it is abuse of power in the house. i will vote no as many times as i possibly can today on what they are doing. i will make my decision.

i support the walk off. i will make a judgment when the time comes. >> what is your message to republicans who are scheduling a vote to repeal the health care bill the week after? what is your message to them? >> first of all, i have not seen their hearings. have had hearings about the legislation that will come back a few days after? it will have a book to say, if you are a child that has been existing conditions and you can no longer be discriminated against, we will overturn that. if you are 26-years old and younger and you are on your parents policy, pull the plug on that as well.

they make their own decisions. it clearly points out that the law passed by the congress and signed by the president was up held by the supreme court. they are still fighting a fight. they'll be the handmaidens of the special interests in our country. they fight for the health insurance industry over and over again at the costs to the taxpayer. this is just more of the same. no surprise about it. it will be interesting to hear the argument.

if it does anything like what mitt romney said this morning, you cannot have it both ways. he will not be able to discriminate against someone with a pre-existing condition. the supreme court -- i do not know. maybe he will pay for the pre- existing costing out of his own pocket. you cannot have it both ways. this offers us get opportunity for clarity on what the bill is actually about instead of being at the mercy of $200 million negative campaigns and misrepresentation. some would call the other things. they put it out there to create extreme confusion. it is hard to talk about what the bill does. now we have a decision. they are talking about overturning it. we can say with clarity, this is what the bill does. this is what they want to take

away from you. this is how they will increase your costs. we will let the public decide. thank you very much. thank you. >> house and senate democrats stood on the steps thursday and praise the 5-4 ruling up holding the health care law. members were joined by families usa to declare the decision [inaudible] this is about half an hour.

the committee was in charge of passing the affordable care act to the committee and to the senate. today's decision is a resounding confirmation of the constitutionality of the affordable care act. this is great news for america's families and our economy. this moves us forward for every person. even though the law will not be fully implemented for several more years, it has already made a big impact. 105 million americans no longer face a lifetime cap on benefits. more than 5 million seniors have saved more than $3.7 billion in prescription drug costs.

nearly 17 million children can no longer be denied coverage because of pre-existing health conditions. consumerscision keeps in the driver's seat. today's decision projects more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction. today's decision allows us to continue our work replacing the current sick care system with a true health care system. one focus on wellness and prevention and public health and keeping people out of the hospital in the first place. the supreme court has made it clear what we have known all along. those trying to block healthcare reform by standing on the right -- wrong side of history. for those of us who believe quality health care is a right and not a privilege, this is a great day. it is time, time for speaker john boehner to put politics behind us and no person is denied coverage due to pre-

existing condition. no one has their coverage canceled when the get sick and to make sure that women are no longer brazenly discriminated against by insurance companies. i have often said that the affordable health care act is like a starter home, suitable for improvement. i joined -- call on republicans to join us in making sensible refinements. in by republicans to bring their tool kits, not their sledgehammers. let's make the affordable healthcare act work for every puerto rican. the choice is to go forward or be dragged backwards. the majority of americans and now the supreme court has said we want to go forward. the justices have spoken. let's get back to work, building a reformed health-care system that works not just for the wealthy or the healthy but works for every american. with that i want to introduce a

great partner who was been in this far -- fight, who has written part of this, from maryland, senator barbara mikulski. [applause] >> the morning, america. good morning, the world. do you want to know what democracy looks like? come to constitution avenue. this is what democracy looks like. the congress voted for health care. the supreme court has ruled on health care. healthcare is legal. constitutional, undeniable and irreversible. let's hear it for democracy. we can go forward with making sure that 32 million people have universal access.

we have broken the stranglehold of insurance companies wear pin-striped guys sitting in their board rooms decided who got health care. we know the people will get the health care they need that their doctor says they need, and there will be able to afford it and be able to get it. the crowds are cheering. and for women, it is an enormous victory. today we have been able to affirm that insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate on the basis of gender. where women pay 30% more for their health care as men with the same health care status. simply being a woman will not be a pre-existing condition. we cannot be denied health care

because we're pregnant. because we have had a c section. or because we have had domestic violence. we affirm our brand of health -- preventive health care, we will be able to get preventive mammograms and get to care. we have fought for the men. it is very noisy here, it is very noisy -- very exciting year. this is the voice of democracy. open, free, to all. god bless america. thank god the supreme court -- [inaudible] >> ben cardin, senator from maryland. i have had the honor of serving with senator barbara mikulski. i want to thank my colleagues that are here from the house of representatives for they're incredible work on behalf of the american people.

this is a good day for the american people. the one -- they won today. the decision affirms the proper role for the congress of the united states. it allows us to move forward with quality, affordable health care for all americans. healthcare is a right, not a privilege. you're able to continue to move forward. it allows us to move forward with the reforms to protect consumers against the practices of insurance companies that would deny them coverage, pre- existing conditions that allow families to keep their children on their insurance policies until age 26 and allows us to continue to expand medicare coverage, the coverage gap for prescription drugs and wellness exams for our seniors. let's move forward with quality health care for all americans and do it in a more affordable, cost-effective way. this is good for the taxpayers

of our country. the important message from the supreme court is that it is time for democrats and republicans to move forward with health care. let's not read-litigate what has been done. let us continue to make progress so that all americans get -- candidate have health care in it let us continue to make progress so all americans can have health care in america. this is the message from the supreme court and this is what we continue to do. thank you. >> thank you. this is an historic decision and an important moment for our country. the people of delaware, my constituents, my neighbors, friends kathrin and malini have had their lives changed for the better by the affordable care act. for me has always been about the people whose lives are

changed for the better credit than the politics being shouted by the opponents of this important bill. i am pleased that the supreme court today affirmed its role in our constitutional order by deciding on narrow and appropriate grounds to uphold the four elements of the affordable healthcare act. let me tell you what this matters to be people in my state. melanie met my wife at a breast cancer walk. like her mother and sister before, she was diagnosed with near-filled breast cancer. her husband left her when he heard this news and she lost her health care, provided through her husband's employer. having lost health care, she could not get health care through a new employer. she lost not only her opportunity and getting life- saving treatment, but her home. facing bankruptcy, facing death, it was through the affordable healthcare act that

she was able to get health insurance despite her pre- existing condition that made possible critical care in delaware's hospitals. another woman, katherine. when her husband passed away, her daughter lost health care because she could no longer afford corporate. -- cobra. it was through the affordable healthcare act that health care was reinstated for doctor. -- for her daughter. dozens of others who fought so hard to pass this landmark bill can tell you dozens of similar stories from their states. it is time for us to work together. republican and democrat, senate and house, to focus on the issues that matter to the people of america. providing affordable, high- quality health care, insisting on progress on moving forward rather than on those who would fight to take america backwards. i am grateful for the slimmer --

landmark decision by the supreme court today, of holding the constitutionality of the corporate session -- the conditions of the affordable healthcare act. thank you. >> i am turning it over to rep keith ellison who will introduce the house members who are here and also family, usa. >> let's hear it for our senators, everybody. [applause] we're joined by dr. pollack. back in the day, roosevelt went -- wanted to see health care for all americans. truman wanted to see it. kennedy wanted to see it. we remember how president kennedy fought for it. -- clinton foght for it. but today, health care for all americans has been found to be constitutional. we are out here today marking

this victory, clear that this was the right thing to do and clear that we are going ahead full and continued to make health care truly something that all americans can have and enjoy. i'm so proud to be here with members of the progressive caucus and the progressive community who fought for health care, who will continue to fight for health care. [inaudible] let me say to the members of the caucuswho fought so hard and we have more miles to go. let's take a moment to celebrate. healthcare is constitutional. for words ever, backward never. let me say, come on up to my co- chair, mr. grijalva of arizona. >> thank you very much and despite the shrillness next door.

today is a significant day for the american people. a huge step by the supreme court by rolling the core of the affordable healthcare act has provided steps for the fundamental right that everybody in this country should have health care. today, it is a firm that a minimum level of coverage for every american is constitutional and right. we should celebrate that. more to do, yes. we have broken the ice on a decade-old inability to do health care and discussion. -- in this country. the people next door should be happy. today the supreme court affirmed that romneycare is constitutional and they should be happy about that and celebrate it with us. today is a victory not just for president obama, not for those of us who supported this, but a victory for the american people on this long, tough road to get

us through to this point to create a climate in this country where health care is a fundamental right, available and affordable for every american. thank you very much. [applause] >> i am congresswomen carolyn maloney. god bless america act, god bless the constitution, and god bless those on both sides of the aisle who have made health care their top priority. thank you, president obama. it is a great day for americans, not for one party or another or for an ideology but for the 34 million americans who will have access to affordable, available health care. it is a great win for the seniors who will no longer fall through the doughnut hole and four women who will not be discriminated against by insurance policies that historically charged them more

for their premiums than their male colleagues. and women will no longer be treated as a pre-existing condition. thereby denying coverage for our pregnancies, sections, and the very important preventive measures in the bill that will help prevent cancer and diseases. it is a great victory for our country which is joining that family of economically advantaged countries that are providing health care to their people, all their people. and time to go back to work, creating jobs for healthy americans. >> i have a lot of congress members waiting. i am sorry. he is next. >> today, the supreme court did not disgrace itself.

in upholding the affordable care act, the supreme court has shown that even in a time when washington often seems to have reached a new level of dysfunction, there remains a respect for the roll block a respect for -- rule of law, respect for congress, and -- [cheering] -- and respect for the rule of law and the ability of congress -- [cheers and applause] there remains a respect for the ability of congress to legislate on matters that affect the welfare of the american people. that is what was at stake today. by not caving in to the most craven political calls, the supreme court has stood by 70

years of legal precedent to insure that 32 million brookins -- americans will now have access to health insurance to insure that 42,000 americans will no longer die every year for lack of health insurance, to ensure that many of the benefits of the affordable health care act to ensure that people can no longer be denied insurance, health insurance, because of pre-existing conditions. this is a good bill, it is a good start. we have more to do. the supreme court said today that despite the reactionary nature of the courts, the affordable care act is so clearly constitutional that it upheld it. the supreme court did not disgrace itself today and we can go on from here to legislate for the better welfare of the american people. >> we're going to have right now, dr. pollack. of families usa.

thank you. >> good morning. i'm the executive director of families, u.s.a., the national organization for health care consumers. today is a holiday, and for -- today is a hallalujah moment america's families. tens of millions of people are going to get help so that insurance is affordable. it means insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, like children with asthma and diabetes. it means insurance companies can no longer set an artificial cap i and what they're willing to pay out when somebody has a catastrophic illness or an accident. it means that women will no longer be discriminated against

and have to pay higher premiums. it means that small businesses will get tax credits so they can afford to provide health coverage for their workers. and bottom line, tens of millions of people will get health coverage for the first time. this is an extraordinary moment and the effort to defeat the affordable care act has been stopped in its tracks. now we get on with the task of implementing health reform in every state all across the country. this is truly a moment for america's families. health reform is moving forward. [applause] >> i am from the ninth congressional district. imagine today, the burden of worrying that is now lifted from the shoulders of millions and millions of americans. well lager under -- no longer

will families have to worry that someone will have a catastrophic illness and not only will they have to do with the illness but the whole family may go bankrupt because of it. that will not happen because of obamacare. no longer with -- will a woman with breast cancer or men with prostate cancer worry that she will not have access or he will not have access to the health care they need. there will have access to health care. this is such a great decision. we congratulate chief justice roberts and the majority of the court for deciding that the law of the land is that health care, finally, in the united states of america, is a right and not just a privilege for those who can afford it. thank you. >> and now, we have the chair of the women's caucus.

>> brothers and sisters, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. today is a day we have been waiting on for over a century in this country. to supreme court's decision uphold obamacare, and i said very broadly today, is especially important for women and children, the most vulnerable among americans. women are twice as likely as a man to be dependent upon their spouses for health care insurance. children who are covered until they're 26 are dependent upon their parents for health care. as the co-chair of the women's caucus, i am especially in celebrating this decision today.

for women and children in the united states. i hope that in november, when will appreciate -- women will appreciate the work and the sacrifice that democrats have made to bring this bill forward to the supreme court. thank you. [applause] >> flore richardson of california. >> i would like to focus on two points. in 1968, at six years old, laura richardson from california, i wanted to become a member of congress. i thought there were laws that were not fair. i want to say to chief justice roberts for showing for the first time in a long time that government can work if we focus on the fact that we do what is right. in my district, we have people who cannot afford to have

health care. we have young people who, due to no fault of their own, can i get a job and therefore do not have coverage. today, chief justice roberts and the other rubber -- members of this court said we are going to get back to doing things right. my second point for president obama. i remember many of my colleagues here just over a year ago, we walked across the street, we were spat on, we were carlstadt -- we were cussed at for setting up for people. and today, now, we're able to say that the right thing was done, let's get about doing more work and stop the politics and help the american people. thank you. >> and former chair of the progressive caucus. >> thank you. today, the supreme court affirmed the will of the american people.

but you know, the struggle is not over. you can hear that the republicans are going to try to dismantle step-by-step by step everything that is in this legislation, and everything that the american people stand for. but instead, we now can strengthen this act. we can at healthcare for all -- add health care for opri we can health care for all. we can make sure there is competition to make sure that we have medicare for everybody. and when we do that, nobody will worry ever again about whether they have health care in the united states of america. thank you, supreme court. thank you, progressive caucus, thank you, progressive community. thank you, democrats. we all made this happen.

thank you very much. >> we have others to speak. >> thank you for coming out. i represent the people of central new jersey. the history of the united states has been a history of extending human-rights to every person. to provide access to excellent health care for every woman, child, man, is part of that progress. today the supreme court has allowed that progress to continue. we have work to do. we should not be continuing the service we see around us. we should be getting to work to make sure we extend affordable excellent health care to every person in america. the supreme court decision makes that possible. [applause]

>> today the supreme court has upheld the affordable care act we took a lot of hits on behalf of the american people. no amount of noise coming from the right will change that. it is the law of the land. the people of the united states have one. they have better access to affordable health care. unsustainable health care costs will be controlled. we will be stronger, more competitive country. i am proud of the work the black caucus has done to expand access and take our nation closer to health equity. i want to thank our partners who worked with us and supported us to make this day possible. i want to thank secretary of

civilians for her commitment to implementing the law. -- of one to think secretary kathleen sebelius for her commitment to implementing the law. we will work with state partners to make sure no state denies citizens the right to medicaid expansion in the bill. now it is time for republican colleagues to begin to do the work of the people to pass a jobs legislation and take care of the people we were elected to serve. [applause] >> is peter welch still here? >> thank you. i represent the first congressional district of maine. i am proud to stand with my colleagues celebrating this great victory. the extreme right-wing conservatives may be trying to

drown us out today, but they could not drown out the supreme court. the supreme court decided with the american people and against the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies that want to deny us access to health care insurance. this decision means for all of those who have had sleepless nights wondering if their child can stay on their insurance coverage or whether their pre- existing condition will be covered and for those seniors who wonder if they will have coverage under medicare, they do not have to worry anymore. thanks to the leadership of the president, nancy pelosi, progressives, and democrats, this lot is standing. we can continue to fight for improvement. i am proud to stand with my colleagues. for once, i am proud of the united states supreme court. [applause] >> sheila jackson lee of the

state of texas, a great progressive leader. [applause] >> oh, my god. i am brought to tears today. i want to thank everyone standing here. many of us come from the poorest districts in the land. i happen to come from one of the poorest districts in america. i stand here today in the name of the sick laying in hospital beds or young mothers trying to get children immunized or those of the elite who cannot substitute money for prescription drugs because they have to eat. i stand here desperately gratified for all those hours of town hall meetings, saying there was no caring in this country, to be able to say that the sick

need to be taken care of. i stand in a place where i could not be on the day of the emancipation proclamation when the slaves were free. i could not be there. but my ancestors could tell me what it meant to be free. today i stand on the steps of the supreme court feeling freedom for those who lay sick in their beds. god is ever-present for those of us who understand the militant go -- who understand the omnipotent god in ourselves. they were willing to uphold the constitution that allowed us to send young boys to war, allowed us to tax even the poorest. if we had undermined the constitutional infrastructure of the commerce clause, our government would not exist.

i have we stand here today feeling my pain has been overcome. my mother who died as a vocational nurse and lived with a sickness that was caught that if we did not have universal medicare for those over 65, that they would lay dead in their graves even before they could see their grandchildren. i stand here saying america is a great country. democrats are willing to sacrifice because we believe in the humanity of all woma nkind and mankind. i walk away in dignity. oh, yes! [applause] >> our last speaker is going to be hanson clarke from michigan.

>> and represent the city of destroyed -- i represent the city of detroit. this ruling is clear but simple. it says health care is the right for all americans. when more people have health insurance, it is affordable for everyone. it makes financial sense. we needed this to make insurance affordable for even the sickest americans. we needed americans were healthy to buy health insurance. the more of us who have health insurance, the cheaper it is for all americans. thank you so much. >> thank you, everybody. this has been the progressive caucus. we will keep fighting and moving. take care. four more years. [applause]

>> members of the house tea party caucus reacted to the supreme court ruling upholding a health care law on thursday. michele bachmann leads the caucus. she said the decision was inexplicable and there was no foundation in the constitution to uphold the individual mandate. they speak for about 10 minutes. >> thank you for coming. i am a member of congress and proud to represent the sixth congressional district of minnesota. i was just seated in the supreme court chamber as i heard the decision come down. we had a brief reaction before. we have invited members of the tea party caucus to give their thoughts today. others are making their way over from the capital. we will begin with the first reaction. please introduce yourself and your district. >> and sandy atoms of florida's 24th district. i am very disappointed, but it

makes me more resolved to continue the fight to repeal this legislation. this is to raise your health care cost and interfere with your doctor's. it is impeding businesses from hiring people. this legislation must be repealed. i am committed to that. >> my name is jeff landry from louisiana. i am proud to be here with representative michele bachmann, sandy adams. at the end of the day, our founders relied on one group to solve our problems. it is not the supreme court. it was we, the people. it is time for the people to speak up and demand congress repeal this law and solve the

problems that have been ailing this country for 30 years. my commitment to you is that i will continue despite and ensure we repeal is damaging legislation that now knows no limits to the federal government's power. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i think he had it exactly right. a final check on the power for the government is the people. if you object to the law and overreach of the federal government as we take more of your money and rights away, it is up to you to elect the people to put a stop to it. people like the representatives here, people around the country committed to less taxes and more freedom. our forum for the redress of

grievances is ultimately the ballot box. it is up to each and every one of you in november to exercise their right to vote and say no to laws like this takeover of health care and new tax mysteriously created by the supreme court. thank you very much. >> clearly, i am disappointed in the supreme court's decision today. they at least limited congress's ability there. but they allowed it to stand under the tax laws. one thing that the supreme court did confirm today is the president obama broke his word to the american people. for years he said it was not a tax. the supreme court confirmed it is a tax, a massive tax increase on american families,

middle-class families, the very people president obama said he would not tax. i'm more resolve than ever to go back and go to work to repeal this entire law. we will be having hearings starting next three to go back to repeal this law, to fix the things that are broken. remember, obamacare promised to lower health care costs. it is confirmed now to increase health care costs. it has made problems worse. we need to fix the problems in health care. the final thing i will say is, look, the u.s. supreme court had their say here in the last thursday in june. the american people will have their say on the first tuesday in november -- [cheers and applause] >> support sunglasses for dogs! sunglasses for dogs, congresswoman! >> congressman john issa.

today, a lot of destruction was created by this decision. the impact on senior citizens, this is probably the most devastating blow to america's senior citizens who have half a trillion dollars cut from medicaid -- medicare. and they will also limit the choices of our seniors and also their choices as far as freedom in this creativfreedom. as a business person, this is a death knell for businesses in this country. small businesses have been reeling from just the thought of this going into a fact.

more todecision will do hurt our economy than anything we could do in washington, in the state houses or across this country. so this is a bad day for business. it is a bad day for our senior citizens. and it is a bad day for america. congress needs youto repeal this now. >> i want to thank the members or just a small sample of the tea party caucus in congress. we have a very large contingent of members in congress during gates and many things. they are reacting to this unprecedented decision. there are just a few things we want to say appeared as a result of the president's trillion dollar program, all across the united states, spontaneously, you saw america's attending, some for the first time, a town hall meetings of their member of

congress. that was in august of 2009. they stood up and they held their member of congress, the senator accountable for what happened with obamacare. the people were not happy. and we saw a revolt happen in 2010 where the american people did come to the ballot box and we saw and nancy pelosi lose the gavel to her hand as a direct result. and because of that, we saw a new majority in congress that did pass the repeal of obama's space care. the members of the tea party caucus -- obamacare. the members of the tea party caucus did vote to repeal obamacare. we have the job one-third done. now we have to complete the job in the senate and also in the white house. it is imperative. we don't have a choice. because our legal remedies have

now concluded in the supreme court today. with no foundation in our constitution for upholding the individual mandate, this court has ruled today and this has meant a turning point in american history. with the largest expansion of government power over our liberties and even our very lives so that now government, for the first time in the history of the country, has the power to force everyone a new to purchase whatever product or service government tells you to buy just because you breed. that has never happened before in the history of the united states. dr. john fleming from the great state of louisiana. [cheers and applause]

>> it is kind of hard to follow michelle bachman, don't you think? she is doing a wonderful job for us. absolutely, strong conservative woman. i am a congressman from the fourth district of louisiana. i am a physician. i have been a doctor for 36 years. i still practice medicine when i have the opportunity. i'm also a small businessman. i have an understanding of the microcosm of data. obamacare, we all know, is defied by two-thirds of americans. we know that it creates nothing

but a job-bureaucratic system. it has taken away the consumer choices. it is interesting to your relationship between your doctor and you as a patient. -- it is interfering into your relationship between your doctor and usa patient. he said it was not the supreme court's job to fix the mistakes by congress. it is up to the people elect the members of congress and the president to decide upon a policy you want in this nation. as such, it is now our responsibility as members of congress and the new president coming forward to repeal obama care block stock and barrel and pull it up by its roots. do we have support for that? is anyone in for that? remember, if you are going to

have more people covered under health care insurance, you need to make it affordable and attractive, not force it through law. what we want is more consumer choices, not more government mandates. i will also run with one other point. the difference between health care coverage and access to health care. there are countries around the world that at 100% health care coverage. you can walk into a clinic and ask for care. but in those clinics, you don't get a timely care. they have 100% coverage, but they have to wait in long lines and sometimes die in the process. this is not a value that we want here in america. thank you to everyone for coming out. in the second week of july, the

house are representatives will be voting once again to repeal obamacare. if this does not happen, if it is not get past all the way to the president's signature, then you get to decide on november 6. >> now then senator barack obama talks about why he would not support to the supreme court. >> let me thank senators specter and lady for moving along the confirmation of judge roberts. let me also say that i remain distressed that a white house during this confirmation process, which overall went smoothly, failed to provide

critical documents as part of the record that could have made us -- could have provided us with a better basis to make our judgment with respect to the nomination. this white house continues to stymie efforts on the part of the senate to do its job. and i would hope that the next nominee that comes up for the supreme court that the white house recognizes that is -- that it is its duty not only to the senate but to the american people to make sure that we can thoroughly and adequately evaluate the records of every single nominee that comes before us. having said that, the decision with respect to judge roberts nomination has not been an easy one for me to make. as some of you know, i have not only argued cases before appellate court, but, for 10

years as a member of the university of chicago faculty, taught courses in constitutional law. part of the culture of the university of chicago law school faculty is to maintain a sense of collegiality between those people who hold different views. it is the intellectual rigor and honesty with which he or she arrives at a decision. given that background, i am sorely tempted to vote for judge roberts based on my study of his resonant agee of his room, his conduct and the hearing and the conversation that i had with him yesterday afternoon. there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that judge roberts is qualified, fit -- qualified to sit on the court of the highest land -- qualified to sit on the

highest court of the land. he is personally decent and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. and it is absolutely clear to me that judge robert truly loves the law. he could not have achieved his excellent record without that passion for the law. it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does in fact deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95% of the cases that come before the federal court, the adherence to precedent, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, and respect for procedural regularity, and and impartiality in presiding over our adversarial differences. all of these characteristics make me want to vote for judge

robert. the problem that i face, the problem that has been voiced by my other colleagues, both those were voting for mr. roberts and those who are voting against mr. roberts is adherence to constitutional construction will dispose of 95% of the cases that come before the court so that both scalia and ginsburg will arrive at the same place also a time in the 95% of the cases appea. in the 5% of the cases, those are the ones that are mostly difficult. that last mile can only be

determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's perspective on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one's empathy. and those 5% of really hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. the language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. in those circumstances, your decisions over whether not affirmative-action is an appropriate response to the history of this nation or whether the general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproduction or whether the commerce clause empowers congress to speak on those issues of broad national

concern that may only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those were not disabled. in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is defined by what is in the judge's part. now i talked to judge roberts about this and he confessed that, unlike professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. that is not how he -- he did say bullies and aske beliz always seen the law as the way to level out the playing field between the strong and the week.

i was impressed by that you because i've you lock in much the same way. a problem i had is that -- because i view the law in much the same way. a problem had is that, he has much more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the week. his work in the white house in the solicitor general's office, he seems to have consistently decided with the dismissive of political eradication. i want to take judge roberts at his word, that he doesn't like

bullies and that he sees the law and his work as leveling the playing field between the strong and the week. but the gravity of the decisions you will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the accord, i ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that ihe appears to share with those in power. the bottom line is this. i will be voting against john roberts nomination. but i do so with considerable reticence. i hope that i am wrong. i hope that this reticence on my part prove unjustified and that judge roberts will show himself

to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the court's historic role as a checke on the impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. i hope he recognizes who the weekend to the strong mark in our society. and i hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to be bullies of all ideological stripes. which leads me to conclude with one more item in this process. i was deeply disturbed by some statements that were made by largely democratic advocacy groups when ranking member senator leahy announced that he would support judge robert. although the skills have tipped in a different direction for me,

i am deeply admiring of the work and they thought that ranking member senator leahy has put into making his decision. the nouri -- the knee-jerk unbending and what i think is the unfair attacks were unjustified. unfortunately, both parties have fallen victim to this kind of pressure. i think every senator on the other side of the aisle, if they were honest, would acknowledge that the same unyielding, unbending, dogmatic approach to judicial confirmation has in large part been responsible to the kind of poisonous atmosphere that is held in this chamber surrounding judicial nominations. it is tempting than for those on the side of the aisle to go tit- for-tat. but what i would like to see is all of us recognize that, as we

move forward to the next nominee, our understanding that in fact the issues that are confronted by the supreme court are difficult issues. that is why they get up to the supreme court. that the issues of the supreme court are rarely black and white and that all advocacy groups who have illegitimate and profound interest in the decisions that are made by the court tried to make certain that their advocacy reflects this complexity and don't resort to the sort of broad-brushed dogmatic attacks in the process of the past and constrain each and every senator in this chamber for making sure that they are voting on the basis of their conscience. thank you very much, mr. president. >> you can see more of president obama as a senator and more

about judge john roberts and his conversation on the c-span video library. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> for "news makers," henry waxman talks about the supreme court's decision upholding the law and what is next as republican leaders pledged to repeal the law. "news makers," today at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the politics of the health care ruling, we want to -- host: we want to welcome gail russell chaddock, washington editor of "the christian science monitor. congratulations on your

promotion. and edward-isaac dovere. thank you for being with us. these are headlines from a couple of days ago, but they do symbolize where this is going. this is from "the daily news." from "the new york post." a picture of the president, smiling with doctors garb, saying "argh." [laughter] guest: this is the big story of the week and has done a lot to redefine the way that obama looks going into the next couple of months. forget about the actual court decision and the law, which is important, but politically this was very significant for the president. guest: it is not only the bier issue of the week, but i think it is the big issue of the year. host: this is from "time magazine." what do the rules of roberts mean for the court and obama? had he flipped? the headline is the new power

gain -- "did he flip"? what did you learn? guest: there is a lot of speculation about what happened here. first of all, there was a thought that he might vote to uphold the law in the case of a 6-3 with anthony kennedy. there was a sense that something strange happened. in addition, in the ruling itself you see that the defense is not like most, where they grappled with majority opinion. they went off on their own direction. there is a sense that given the fact that it was a surprise move for roberts, given the fact that the dissent does not look like most, it may have been in the majority opinion that was at some point abandoned and moved away from.

host: there are even some typos -- guest: there are even some typos that suggests that. host: john roberts, "dealing more than a historic ruling, deliberately or not he has sent a message to politicians." was that a motivating force? guest: it seems to be. would you look at the ammunition that you see being rallied on the democratic side, especially, about the court, and who these bid were, it is bush vs. gore all over again. the court is of the only institutions left that has any standing with the public. that really was at risk. something we know that judge roberts feels a great deal about. host: this is from "the new york times."

guest: it is obviously impossible to get into john roberts head, but it seems he is saying to the country -- look, if you do not like this law, there is an election in november and you can vote for a republican majority in congress to repeal the law, but do not think of the court as the place to come to to undo the work done through the normal legislative process. host: normally we do not focus on the weather, but this is from "the baltimore sun." maryland, washington, d.c., hard hit by this storm friday on -- on friday evening.

guest: there was no power at his home. caller: there was -- guest: there was no power at his home, so if there was payback, it did not come from pat co. it is just a symbolic gesture. host: he joked about this on friday. guest: he is off teaching in malta. [laughter] guest: that was the point. host: let's get to your calls and comments, focusing on the politics of this ruling. what does it mean for the republican and democratic campaigns? as always, you can join the conversation on our twitter page. join us on facebook as well. let me show you how the mitt romney campaign responded thursday and friday with the ruling.

[video clip] >> the bottom line is that the supreme court has upheld health care law. >> in a few months, americans will cast their ballots and make a choice. do we continue on a pass of rock -- a path of rising health control costs? do we continue with massive tax increases to fund a $2 trillion program? do we continue to stifle our economy with a government that discourages higher ruling? ♪ the supreme court may have made their decision, but the american people have not. >> the next president of the united states will repeal obama care. >> at day one, job one, repeal obama care.

host: what has happened is this has moved back into the political course. one analysis over the wind saying the president won the legal battle but mitt romney may have won the political battle. guest: healthcare is not popular with the public and the president had an interesting comment when he said in 10 years we will look back and see this was the right decision. he is trying to get people to take the longer view because the short view is not attractive. insurance policies are going up. immediate promises don't look like they will be kept. some states are way far behind in setting up exchanges. the president has to maintain a sense that this is historic and will take a while but in the end americans will be happy with it. host: going into the decision many expected it might have been a 5-4 decision with justice

kennedy the key swing vote or a 6-3 decision and that is what was said why did justice roberts fail to get the 6-3 majority. do you have an answer? guest: justice kennedy really didn't agree with the law. what he said from the bench thursday is he called it a vast judicial overreach. i just dis-- this is not just that i disagree but he was opposed so there was no hope getting him on the side of upholding the law and justice roberts decided he was going with that. host: we will go to this editorial critical of the ruling thursday saying hospitals will see the bad debt imposed on them by uninsured patients, manufacturers of medical devices will face a 2.5% tax on gross sales which will cut up to 40% profits. an example of how tax policy is

crafted by a government big business coalition and small businesses will see their healthcare costs rise and it is supposed to provide some tax credit relief so confusing as to be unusable. guest: there is a lot of pain in the short term. not all saw this as a total loss. the chief justice's opinion that weapons inspector into the kphrs opinionhief justice's that when into the commerce clause, the commerce clause is huge. that has been the judicial vehicle for most of congressional activism since the new deal. some conservatives are looking

at that part of the decision saying victory for us. you cannot in the future have congress overreach the way it has getting into the lives of americans. we will see. but it is a mixed decision. some are declaring victory. host: the president and romney campaign reportedly had two or three different versions of speeches ready to go. guest: they were prepared, we were prepared for several event bombities. -- eventualities. i'm sure you were as well. it is the supreme court. there is no way to predict what would happen and you saw the first couple minutes after the decision came out several outlets got it wrong because they were rushing to get it. we and the president and mitt romney and every or news organization in town was prepared for this to go in several d directions. i do think the problem the president has is right now there are no real benefits that will be seen from the healthcare law between now and november. there is just the threat in people's minds of what might happen because of this slamming -- looming on the horizon. but it is important because the

president has won a victory. you think of the way he would be viewed if he -- if the court had struck down the law. mitt romney had been pressing the idea he was the failed president that tried hard to get things done but was not very good at it. a court decision that struck down the law would have fed that and been dangerous for the president. host: this is the response from the president and his campaign on thursday. >> i know there will be a lot of discussion about the politics this, about who won and who loss. that completely misses the point. whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law in the supreme court's decision to uphold it. if one of the more than 250 million americans that have health insurance you will keep

your health insurance. this law will only make it more secure and more important. insurance companies can no longer up pose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. they can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting children. they can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. they can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. they are required to provide free preventive care lake checkups and mammograms. young adults under 26 can stay on their parents' healthcare plans. seniors receive a discount on prescription drugs. by this august nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative cost and c.e.o. bonuses and not enough on your healthcare. all of this is happening because of the affordable care act. today i'm as confident as ever that when we look back five years from now or 10 years from

now or 20 years from now we will be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward. host: that ad is available on our website. one of the interesting things in the president's speech and in that ad from the romney campaign the president is trying to explain what is in this healthcare bill. guest: the president tried to push this bill through in various ways, but in the initial stages one of the things he came under criticism for in hindsight was not explaining enough what this was going to do for people, so the president is in this position now of having the law upheld but still most people don't even understand what it

would do for them and what it means in the way that the healthcare will be changed in this country. but one of the important things the president needs to do is make sure people are not focusing on the big word republicans would like them to focus on out of the supreme court which is tax. john roberts ruled to uphold the law but under the definition of the mandate that president obama really didn't want people talking about, which is it is ok to put this penalty there as long as you call it a tax. and if barack obama can get people to think about the stories, the effects it will have on people's lives rather than this is a big tax increase, that is where he wants to be politically. host: here is the 10 jury -- the 10-yearquestion. if the president wins in november the healthcare is disaster how will the roberts decision be viewed?

that is a what if question. guest: it is a great "what if" question. i think it depends in part on the other part of it. can congress continue to expand legislation in the lives of americans using the commerce clause? justice roberts said no. and you had even the affirmation of that majority some of the liberal justices saying no, we don't agree with that part of it. and it is an open question as to whether that part of it has the force of law or precedent for ongoing justices. the other aspect of it in listening to the ad, this isn't just an ad war between two campaigns. thanks to the supreme court decision citizens unite d we have citizens with undisclosed funding who have leaped on this, americans for prosperity started a $9 million campaign. crossroads called for a national campaign all making the same

point. this is about taxing you and undermining your possibility of getting a job. host: if you join us on c-span radio on channel 119 our guests are the political editor of the christian science monitor. her work is available on line. and the deputy white house editor for politic can he. -- for politico. let's go to the line. caller: i want to say one thing. as far as this election coming up goes, i have no -- i'm hopefully and cautiously optimistic that obama will be elected for four more years. that is my opinion.

and i think think landmark decision is a feather in his cap and will be his legacy for years to come. and each thing he has done from -- you know, with this bill, basically in everything he has pursued since he has been president, he has come through for the american people. and all he wants is a clear playing field for all of us. equality for every last one of us. and people who can't afford -- this has been a breath of fresh air for the people. host: thanks for the call. would you like to respond? guest: just the problem with

that argument is that right now most people care about the economy and jobs. i think about 5%, when asked, list healthcare as their top concern. so, the president and democrats, who took a battering in the last election, lost the house and lost, i think, seven senators in campaigns where healthcare was the main issue. so, they don't look forward easily to another campaign where healthcare is the main issue unless the president can do what steve was pointing out, trying to make clear to people what the caller said, that this is historic, important and you want to overlook the economy and focus on the historic importance of this legislation. host: inside "new york times" a look at major rulings in the term which wrapped up last week. you can see some significant decisions many were 5-4. john says the difference between

this 5-4 and the previous 5-4 decisions, this one had a kevin active vote with progressives. -- this had a conservative vote with progressives. on the two key issues the more liberal members won. healthcare and immigration. guest: those are the two issues people were thinking a lot about but as a whole term we finished up there were other decisions this week that went in ways that peopleere not expecting or might not have wanted from the more liberal perspective. one of them was the case that came down on monday that upheld citizens united. there was a challenge because of a month state campaign law that -- a montana state campaign law thatbasically the court said no, there is no way to get around citizens united. there are no limits that you can

put on corporate financing for campaigns. so, i think it would be foolish to see just the health care ask decision and immigration decision as making it that the court had a liberal leaning term. host: we will talk about that montana law tomorrow morning on "washington journal." one other point from "new york times" is that the justices decided 65 cases after hearing arguments and 10 in summary fashion. guest: a very disturbing problem. to what extent has the media so misled the american people that what appeared as a great surprise in fact wasn't? you saw a lot of the mistakes in the first few seconds after the

decision was announced because the justice began talking about the commerce clause people said he is going to get rid of the mandate therefore the law goes down. that was wrong. in the pressure to be fast and the pressure to be grabby, i wonder if we are simplifying to the extent that nuances of public life are getting lost. that may be something that journalism reviews will have a field day on. guest: the other thing that i think you saw when they were in the three days of argument before the court it is hard to read the justices. you might say it is impossible to read them. people were focused on trying to get some sense out of what happened in court those three days and there were a lot of questions that were coming from the justices that seemed very combative and people were trying to read into that. there was a somewhat stumbling performance from the attorney

general that people thought maybe that would affect it. but what was lost sight of in that is these are the nine most elevated and esteemed jurists in the country and ruling on something that would have a great impact on the country and to think we could have guessed off of a few questions that were asked or that it would have mattered that the attorney general cloaked on his water for -- choked on his water and stumbled when they had to think about these big issues is kind of foolish. host: the "new york post" points out that mark whitaker said he was disgusted after cnn it mistakenly reported first that the supreme court had overturned the law and david hinckley looking at the ratings troubles with cnn but the biggest buzz

they got was from its healthcare ruling gaffe. you want to get the story first, you know and you want to get it right. guest: it is a problem. we live and die by hits and being quick is the way to be first and being quick is also the way to be wrong. guest: i work for politico and nobody ever accused us of being slow to jump on a story. but on thursday morning we had reporters all over the court and outside the court and people in the newsroom and we waited until we had heard what the justice, what justice roberts said and had read the decision. you needed to read to page four of the decision to get to what actually happened. we made the decision and going in it thursday morning and then as everything was happening, it was about 10:20, that we would

wait the extra three or four or even 10 minutes to make sure we got it right. but it is a constant struggle. host: we have the call from new york city on the line for independents. welcome to the program. are you with us? caller: good morning. i would like to thank forker -- formergovernor romney from massachusetts. he deserves a lot of credit for creating the blueprint for obama care. i live in the state of massachusetts -- i lived in the state of please and i was a former resident of the state. mr. romney cannot run away from being involved in universal healthcare. host: thanks for the call. he brings up a key point that if you look at the massachusetts law there are a lot of similarities between what he implemented and federal law.

how does he get around that? guest: with great difficulty. especially if you come into a general election. his biggest problem is probably during the primary race where he had to convince conservatives that he was one of them, having been the governor of a liberal state and having, as the caller said, giving birth to obama care. however, now that the court has spoken and the issue is squarely in politics, it has helped rally the base because this is the only option left to get rid of obama care, to have a republican in the white house and have strong are republican -- stronger republican representation in the senate take it back. so, i think you see people that otherwise said is he really conservative enough, this mormon thing, whatever, healthcare

becomes the square issue in this campaign. there is no alternative for conservatives but to rally behind somebody they have doubts about. host: it is said i listened to the case in march and predicted that the court would uphold the health care reform. i never wavered. bonnie is on the republican line from maryland. caller: i have a comment and a question. my comment is when i was 62 an uninsured driver hit me and i had to go on medicaid and it made for everything. -- it paid for everything. name brand drugs and everything. once i turned 65, they took me off of medicaid and put me on medicare. now i pay a co-payment for everything. you can't get name brands unless it is approved. you can't get tests unless they are approved.

and my question is, isn't it true that this new obama care has done nothing more than throw the seniors under the bus because it doesn't cover anything? it doesn't governor glass -- doesn't cover glasses, dental, name brands. you can't get tests unless medicare aparagraphs it. -- medicare approves it. so, both the democrats and republicans are throwing the seniors under the bus. we are no more value so you are going to throw us in the home, no teeth to eat with, you can't see. it is ridiculous. host: the next hour we will focus much more on the specifics of the ruling and what it means for health insurance providers, small businesses, individuals. we will ask that question as well. do you want to weigh in on her point of view? guest: i think we have seen just the beginning of this.

because one thing the current health care reform didn't really do was get into cost contain ment. and we are just beginning that. it was part of the initial impetus for healthcare reform but it was dropped. remember the discussion of death penalties and that was talk -- death panels and that was talk about throwing seniors under the bus. that was a very emotional argument about why cost containment would be bad. but it will come back. if you look at any graph about healthcare, it basically eats up gross national product in the foreseeable future. something has to be done. and to individuals it will look like one after another cutback. host: the umpire strikes back using that word because that is how john roberts described himself during the confirmation hearings the first to appear from behind the curtains at 10:00 a.m. sharp and forced a

tight grin and scanned the audience which on this historic day >> roberts explained why he sided with the four liberal justices not because he thought the healthcare law was good policy but because he thought there was not a constitutional reason to invalidate the individual mandate at the score of the law. stella has this point on the twitter page. burning the flag is constitutional but is it right and does it do good? -- and does it do good? so the debate continues. ann is on the phone from greensboro, north carolina. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. i think that this points out with romney exactly how much a man with no principles he is. how can you run against a program that you developed?

the healthcare program. and the person who helped him write the program also helped the president write it. guest: romney has a problem here in that he has that in his past. but this brings out that he has yet to present exactly what he would do for the healthcare system if he were elected president. you saw even in the comments i -- comments he made on thursday right after the court decision where he spoke about things that he wanted to be in the law that are actually in the obama health care reform. so, it comes to a point that many people are starting to pick up about mitt romney, that he has yet to lay out his plans of what he would do as president. he said he won't do it because he doesn't want people to pick them apart. but when it companies to the -- but when it comes to the

healthcare system there are people motivated in the republican base who just want to get rid of the obama reforms no matter what and will be extra energized to get rid of them. but there are going to be people who are looking for some level of explanation from mitt romney of what he would do and for voters who are undecided who they will go for between obama and romney still and still until the last week of october, they are going to be looking for some sense of what would a second obama term look like and a first romney term look like. neither candidate has laid out too much in detail about what the answers to either of those questions would be. host: we will talk more about the politics behind me on capitol. the house and senate in recess and come back july 11. henry waxman is the ranking democrat on a key committee looking at the healthcare law. he's joining us on the "news makers" program after the washington journal.

here is a preview on that. [video clip] >> it was said there will be a vote july 11 on repealing the full law. what is the democrat strategy for dealing with that vote politically and do you think there will be more democratic defections? when you voted on this in january of 2011 there were three democrats that supported it. do you think there will be more? >> i don't know. there are more republicans than democrats in the house and they passed it just as they have already done. we still don't know what they would replace it with. they are going to repeal it? a lot of people will get insurance for this. a lot of americans will need there because they will lose their skrbgs. when they have health insurance through their jobs and if they have a collide with an illness

-- have a child with an illness they won't be able to get insurance for that child. this assures americans that they will have is the security of health insurance. i wish the republicans would say look, they fought it, they lost, the supreme court said it is constitutional. let's do something to get people working and get the economy moving, not just rehash this issue over and over again. host: henry waxman the ranking democrat on the house energy and commerce committee and reminiscent of the snoopy cartoon, take the ball and go home. we heard from the democratic leader the highest court in the land ruled on healthcare and it is the end of the debate but that is not the case. guest: no, it is not mainly because there is an election coming up. it is interesting like news organizations we are prepared for all sorts of things except for what happened. republicans were prepared to win this. john boehner, speaker of the house, said publicly we really

have to be careful not to spike the ball. don't celebrate too much. not a problem. but has a big chunk of this law been on the floor after this week, i think that you would have seen house republicans come out with a whole series of proposals. they had to. they content look as if they if theycouldn't look as didn't care about all of the uninsured people and issues going on in healthcare. they had to produce something. what would it have been? we won't know now because there isn't a lot of incentive to say what you would do when there is so much political capital to be gained from trashing what the president has already done. but we know something about it. we know republicans are talking about tort reform. that is, try to change the medical system so the doctor isn't afraid of being sued unless he has a patient go through 42 tests when two or three would do just as well. it is that kind of element. think of ways to change the existing system that republicans

clamor they can do but with this decision there is no more incentive for them to do it until after the election. host: another says i get it governor romney will tell us what he will did after he gets in office. guest: on the congressional side i think we know on july 11 there will be a vote in the house to repeal obama care and it will pass. we can say that. because the house republican majority is more than enough. host: and this will be the second time they have voted on it. guest: i think we can also say with pretty much certainty, maybe not 100% but 98%, that several at least democratic members of congress are going to vote for the repeal, too. you saw that just this past week when the contempt vote for attorney general came up. there were 17 democrats that voted for it because this is an issue that perhaps will play very differently in house races and senate races than it does for the presidential race.

i do think the president is in somewhat stronger shape himself going into the summer and november with the supreme court decision going the way it did. but members of the house and senate are going to be in a position of defending a tax that they supported in swing districts and red states where democrats hope for pickups. you see that going on very much the democratic members are pulling away from the healthcare reform, pulling away from the president. doing what they can to create distance. in north dakota, where it is a democratic seat that the democrats are helping to retain but seems an uphill battle it say the least. the democratic nominee there did everything she could to say she did not support the obama health care reform. because it is a problem in the house and senate races in a way that i think could be incredibly important. that is what you find in 2010.

guest: cross guest: they said this week that part of the rationale is that this will go further down the ballot. they think it is the kind of issue that could turn the election. host: we will look at the policy later in the program. robert has this point on our twitter page. a private solution always has a government alternative. when the government takes over, what alternative will you have? guest: @isaacdovere. guest: @russellchaddock. i need many more followers. host: good morning, ben. wartburg? thank you.

caller: if this person is so smart like the guy from georgia said, how does he figured the people are going to pay for this insurance when we have lost our homes and jobs? it is not a democrat or republican deal. it is a millionaire deal. the fat cat bankers and insurance companies are the ones going to prevail over this. the poor people are just getting poorer. like the lady said, they threw the seniors under the bus.

guest: the caller has raised the heart of the political question. no matter what you know about politics or read, when you go to the voting booth, you ask yourself how you feel. am i better off? it is the quintessential question. it is not hypothetical. it is real. people will vote in november about how they feel about all lot in november. host: the obama campaign has raised about $60 million. the quarterly report will be coming out. we do know from the romney campaign within the first couple of hours on line to raise over $4 million. guest: it is not very different. it is more than the average day would be in a month, but it is not a huge difference. it is not likely would have raised no dollars at all. they have energized their fund-

raising base with this. it seems like they are prepared to have money to fight the president based off of the health care decision. the obama campaign was announced repeatedly whether they have a fund-raising influx, and they declined to get into it. it suggested the romney campaign was pulling money in from this and the obama campaign was not. when politicians raise money, we hear about it. host: john said the one thing different about romney care is if i did not want it, i could move out of massachusetts. difference.s a big host:lee asks, is a traffic ticket a tax? guest: the democrats will press the argument to get into

people's minds in those sorts of terms. traffic tickets to raise money for the municipal or state coffers. that is what they will try to get this into people's minds as. the chief justice called it a tax. that is what a lot of republicans will be doing it, whatever they can get people to focus on. host: the term obamacare is a slur word, she says. we need universal health care. two different points. on the term "obamacare," which the white house and campaign seemed to be increasing. guest: we had discussions about

it. we decided not to use obamacare at the "christian science monitor." if someone uses it in a quote you are stuck with it, but not to embrace it. the criticism was the president was not involved enough, that he had thrown it over to nancy pelosi and a house in congress and that was a mistake. we know is the president's signature program, but his handwriting was not on those first drafts in an obvious way. guest: the president last summer said he liked that people called it obamacare because he liked getting the message to us that he cares.

guest: that is interesting. guest: one thing the obama campaign is trying to get people to think about when it comes to mitt romney is that he is detached and does not care about the plight of people and the president does. i think they are trying to pull out of the slur and turning it into a positive thing. host: james has this point. the chief justice has the mind of a 5-year-old. who appointed that fool? there were references to george w. bush this last week. guest: it is worth remembering that when george bush appointed justice roberts, he nominated him to be an associate justice. when rehnquist died, he moved into being chief justice. he was seen as reliable,

conservative, people call that a home run. there was a lot of adulation from the pick of roberts, especially following up on where the nomination process had been before that. myers was being talked about. conservatives are unhappy with where justice roberts was on it. but when he was appointed, that is not where people work. guest: an interesting trivia question for viewers. think about various justices. earl warren appointed by eisenhower. david souter, sandra day o'connor, they were all appointed by republicans and seemed to go off the reservation.

here is the question. can you think of any justice appointed by a democratic president that went off the reservation to some extent? i cannot. i wonder why. are republicans not good at figuring out how people will evolve? host: one big thing about the c-span and libraries, you get a chance to get an historical perspective. here is senator obama. [video clip] >> judge roberts record and history of public service, it is my personal observation he has used his formidable skills in opposition to the weak. in his work in the white house, in the solicitors general office, it seems he has sided with those who are dismissive to those eradicating racial

discrimination in the political process. in these papers he seemed dismissive of the concerns that everyone knows it is harder to make in this world and economy when you are a woman rather than a man. i want to take judge roberts at his words -- that he does not like bullies and he sees the law and the court as a means of evening the plane to between the strong and weak. but given the gravity of the positions he will participate in during his tenure on the court, and ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and overarching political philosophy he has shared with those in power than to use your

words provided me in our meeting. the bottom line is this. i will be voting against john roberts' nomination. host: gail russell chaddock that is from the floor of the senate in 2005. john roberts went on to overwhelmingly when the confirmation by the senate. some perspective? guest: if you want even more astonishing video, look at the state of the union address in 2010 after the citizens united decision. the president looks straight at the chief justice sitting directly in front of him and let loose a critique of the court. he said -- in our lifetime we have not seen a president make

something like that. you would have to go back to fdr to see something like that. the president said as a senator, we will judge him by his deeds. i would say this deal has gone a long way to vindicating his concern. host: has this gone to the right and not the left? guest: i think the justice roberts' decision has changed the perspective on what right and left means. host: good morning. welcome to the "washington journal." caller: why can't democrats and republicans get along? why can't we have the same coverage as the senate and house of representative? guest: the reason they cannot get along is there are huge ideological differences in a different way of seeing the world. there has been polling about how people have reacted to the

health care decision. half of the people think it was a good thing. half of the people think it was a bad thing. people see the issues differently. politicians in power are trying to retain power. politicians not in power are trying to change that. you saw how bitter the divisions were last summer over the budget battle. these are the opposing philosophies and ideologies of government. host: in recent polls showing only 6% rate health care as their main issue. romney is going to make it the main tenet of his campaign. is he?

is the economy driving his campaign? guest: he would like the economy to drive his campaign. this has been an unexpected lift because it will help to mobilize his base among the issues they care about. republicans feel their natural advantage is the economy. they do not seem to talk about it much. people realize they are in serious trouble. we talked this week about passing a bill that is going to help students with student loans so the rates will not double tomorrow as they would have otherwise. in the earlier budget deal, the grace period along exists. instead of getting months to get your bearings before you start paying the loans, you have no time at all. that is the kind of thing you

do not have to say much about. students will know that. it will impact whether they are showing up at the polls at all and who they vote for when they are there. host: first this e-mail -- and another point of view to your earlier observation. comment? guest: that is an example that disproves my thesis. thank you. if this caller has a twitter, i would be glad to follow him. host: we will get a reminder

before the end of the program. let's go to tom in ohio on the republican line. caller: two quick statements and one question about mr. roberts. some states have more poverty than others. health care should be left up to the states. bear with me. upheld the mandate. i think mr. obama being a scholar in the constitution, he knew it would be a tax. he did not want to tell us it would be a tax. host: which goes back to our earlier point about the republicans. this gives them something to fit into their narrative. guest: there is the sense that obama and democrats in congress pushed it forward under a guise. it could be a huge strike against them if played in the

right way. this is a situation where it is hard to see how this will play out, what it will look like in two months. certainly mitt romney was expecting there to be a decision striking down the law. he may be relying on some energizing of the base. i think barack obama is happier with the decision than he might be otherwise. guest: it is nice not to have the signature achievement of your first term start down. host: you have more twitter followers because you have sparked a decision. their decisions should be based solely on the lot and application. guest: the point.

that is right. host: how big of a defining issue will it be when voters go to the polls? guest: i think it will be less important then. it will be about how people feel. are you hopeful for the future? do you think you lose your job? that has always been the number one issue in campaigns and will continue. guest: in the last year mitt romney has been running, every time the conversation is focused on the economy, he does better in the polls. we're going to see more conversation about the economy. this friday there's another

monthly jobs report. there are four war between now and election, including one the friday before election day. economy is not in good shape. it does not matter as much what happened with the supreme court on thursday. that is where the conversation will be. that is what i think most people will be voting on. host: politico and the "christian science monitor," gail russell chaddock the editor of the "christian science monitor." edward-isaac dovere from politico, thank you for being with us. we will continue the discussion on health care law. sports will analyze the constitutional implications, the scope of government, and look at what steps congress can take going forward. joining us at 1:30 p.m. live on c-span. click the details of the health care law and what it means for our country for the very people involved, we introduced ron pollack and joe anto withs at

the american enterprise institute. what impact does this have on states? guest: the states have to decide whether they will expand medicaid or not. it is a big issue. the states are facing huge fiscal problems. financially, very difficult. politically, it is easier to have the government to you what

to do. now they have to make up their mind. some states will take advantage of the enhanced federal payments for medicaid for a few years. many states will have trouble with that because they're facing big problems having to cut back programs to make a commitment that could cost millions of dollars of the next 10 years will be tough. guest: at the end of the day, all states will pick of the medicaid program. it is important to understand what the federal government is offering the states for the affordable care act is unprecedented generosity. in the first three years, the federal government will pick up 100% of the medicaid expansion. then it ratchets down, but it never goes below 90%. in the average medicare program, the government pays 56%. this is very generous. congress passed the children's

health insurance over a decade ago. while the funding is more generous than the regular medicaid, is nowhere near as generous as what is provided in the affordable care act for this expansion. every one of the 50 states decided to pick it up. i think every state will pick it up. orrin hatch is not exactly a friend of the affordable care act, but he thought the states would be crazy not to pick this up in the generosity. host: where does the money come from? now approaching a deficit of $16 trillion.

who pays for it? guest: there is the state and federal payment. i have to agree with ron about whether the states will be eager to commit billions of dollars over the next 10 years. the answer is it will come from all of us. taxes are going to pay for this. we're going to have to cut back programs. we have the huge deficit program. i think we will see a major battle next spring because the debt ceiling will again be a problem. this time, they're not going to defer to a super committee. they're going to have to make real cuts immediately. host: i would like to go to a couple of different scenarios

and a quick response from you. for those uninsured right now, what is the law mean for them? guest: millions of people will gain health coverage through two different ways. for those middle or moderate income, they are going to get tax credit subsidies on a sliding scale. these subsidies go deeply into the middle class. it goes to 400% of poverty. for a family of 4, it is $93,000. it is provided on a sliding scale. people who need help will receive more help. that is going to be a way in which about half of the people who gain coverage will receive it. the other half is going to come through the medicaid program.

the medicaid program is focused on the poorest of the poor. about half of the 34 million who will gain coverage will get it that way. host: what is your view? guest: it remains to be seen if the states will be ready to enroll people for insurance. 37 states have not even passed legislation to authorize movement in that area. it is true states like california, massachusetts, and maryland are doing reasonably well implementing. if the insurance plans do not meet the standards, the money cannot flow. that is going to require information from government agencies that has never happened. we will see a flow of information to the states, but i do not think we will see it next year. host: if someone has workers that are uninsured, what does this mean for a small-business owner. guest: those with 25 employees or less will be able to sign up on the exchanges. the problem will be for businesses above 25, still small businesses, still having

trouble in this economy. but they have an obligation in forced by penalty to offer coverage or pay the penalty if their employees go to the exchange and get the subsidies. host: if they pay the penalty does that mean they are injured? guest: the employer pays the penalty. the employees still have to buy insurance through the exchange. guest: the small businesses with fewer than 25 workers are already eligible for tax credit subsidies up to 35% of their costs. in january 2014, it will go up to 50%. you can have small businesses in excess of 25 who can go into the exchanges.

nobody is going to be penalized as a small business because there is no penalty for those businesses with fewer than 50 workers. host: will its drive private insurers out of business? guest: no, insurers will be in better shape. as you get more people with coverage, it adds business to them. there are a number of insurers we have been working with who are cooperating nicely. guest: the mandate is weak. there remains the question of will young people signed up for coverage that is more expensive for them than it would have been otherwise. i think that is a real debate. insurers remain concerned. guest: with respect to young adults, as you at older and sicker people because insurers can no longer deny coverage, they cannot charge a discriminatory premium based on health status. the worry the insurers have is there going to add older sicker people. to make sure premiums are moderated, you have to add younger people who are healthier. the tax credit subsidies provided will disproportionately help younger adults. those subsidies are provided on a sliding scale. the lower your income, the more your tax credit subsidies. young adults in entry-level jobs or who do not have a job will disproportionately benefit from the subsidies. host: we're talking with ron pollack, executive director of

families usa, and joseph antos now with the american enterprise institute. the medicaid expansion is going to be paid for by the money we save getting the poor out of emergency rooms and getting the proper preventive care. guest: it would be great if that were true. study and analysis demonstrates how little money is accounted for by the insurer. it is trivial in a healthy economy that spends $1.5 trillion. guest: if you provide them with primary and preventive care, they are more likely to get it as opposed to waiting for a disease to spread and then need emergency care. there is an interesting aspect of this. we have 50 million people in the country uninsured. all of us who have insurance wind up paying for them. when they need care, they go to an emergency room and cannot pay for it because they are uninsured and do not have the resources to come up with the dollar. all of us wind up paying because we get a hidden surcharge on our bills. it ultimately translates into higher premiums. as joe was saying, you have $50 billion in uncompensated care. that ultimately means those with insurance with family coverage, it ads over $1,000 in extra premiums to pay for that. our premiums for that part of what we pay will come down.

guest: if you provide them with primary and preventive care, they are more likely to get it as opposed to waiting for a disease to spread and then need emergency care. there is an interesting aspect of this. we have 50 million people in the country uninsured. all of us who have insurance wind up paying for them. when they need care, they go to an emergency room and cannot pay for it because they are

uninsured and do not have the resources to come up with the dollar. all of us wind up paying because we get a hidden surcharge on our bills. it ultimately translates into higher premiums. as joe was saying, you have $50 billion in uncompensated care. that ultimately means those with insurance with family coverage, it ads over $1,000 in extra premiums to pay for that. our premiums for that part of what we pay will come down. host: why do you want to stop people from using the emergency room as their primary care? guest: we want to make sure people get the best care possible. that is to get preventive and primary care. at the onset of disease or pain, you want to check it out. you want to get a test for things still a problem does not spread and cause a much greater

health problem or ultimately die. host: instead of seeing a doctor, you wait. you go to the emergency room because you do not have insurance. guest: who plugs up the emergency room? medicaid beneficiaries. just because you have insurance does not mean you have access to health care. there is no guarantee the doctor will be there. the medicare program is scheduled to take enormous amounts of payments away from hospitals and so on. that is unsustainable. it means it will be harder and lot easier for people to see a doctor or get care and hospital. the medicare program rules the

roost. if medicare is paying medicaid rates, we will see million lining up waiting for services. that is not a promise of this law. guest: for a hospital, it is better to get medicaid payments than no payments at all. the affordable care act provides additional funding for primary-care physicians. it will be valuable making sure people have greater access to physicians. it is a significant improvement. guest: goes away in three years, it is a serious detriment. this is a law that puts sugar on the take up front. when that is done, we face serious problems. congress will have to find ways to make this problem efficient and affordable from the federal

budget standpoint. host: let's go to the line for democrats. thank you for waiting. caller: i am from pennsylvania. since the democrats and republicans are split down the middle. what is the mindset of the republicans, the poor and middle class, knowing this will help them? john roberts made a good decision. i cannot understand. the man got the republican party talking about him like he is a piece of crap. host: some are calling him a benedict arnold. guest: the more relevant question is where republicans stand on health reform. the fact is nobody wants a health system that does not

work. that is what we have now. unfortunately, the affordable care act did not make any substantial changes. it basically added more money to parts of the help system that do not work. we need to rethink what has already been enacted. host: you can see the debt clock. republicans are asking, can we afford a new tax and new health care program? guest: several things need to be said. the congressional budget office told us it reduces it by $135 billion. in the second year, it does it

by one trillion dollars. it creates efficiencies in the system. there are savings achieved by greater efficiencies. in terms of the real concern people have about the federal deficit, this improves end not harms. the question wayne asked about where republicans are on this, we have heard repeal and very little to replace. i think republicans are going to be under pressure to find an alternative program. i think the affordable care act is going forward, especially if the president is reelected. i think it would be great if

there were a bipartisan cooperation to improve it. host: what is the aei solution to get young people to buy insurance? guest: the first step is to make health insurance less- expensive. the affordable care act has a requirement for essential benefits. people will have to buy more generous coverage than they are able to afford without subsidies. we're in a tight fiscal situation. we're going to have to balance the good intentions of having people have more generous coverage with the reality that people cannot afford it and we cannot afford it. if you have had children in their 20's, you know the last thing they think about is health insurance. they are invincible. they believe nothing will ever

go wrong. we need education. one of the good things is extending coverage through parents policies up to age 26. that requires parents to be aware this is important for their children. it also means they are going to have to look harder. employers are beginning to drop the offer a family coverage precisely because this is costing more money. you go in one direction to make improvements.

unfortunately, you have to worry about the reaction. guest: we have these tax credit subsidies. for a young person that feels they may not need health insurance as much as someone older, now we are changing the equation. we're making it more affordable. they are going to get the bulk of the tax credit subsidies because they are more moderate income in entry-level jobs. i think we will see a lot of young adults gain coverage through provision joe mentioned. they can stay on the apparent policy until they're 26. beyond that, they will get tax credit subsidies. it will be more appealing to buy coverage. host: we're discussing the health care law sustained by the supreme court. we welcome our listeners coast to coast. robert is on the phone, glendale, ariz., the wine for republicans. good morning. caller: i am going to make a couple of comments and then hang up and listen off air. i believe obamacare and romneycare are the same. someone sent a twitter earlier that made perfect sense to me. with romneycare, i do not have to live in massachusetts. as a productive person, i think it is insanity to support what

is called obamacare. i am not old enough to be on medicare, but they are being thrown under the bus. it is suicidal to support this act. host: let me ask you a question. we have heard from mitt romney who has said it is a states rights issue. it was good for massachusetts but may not be good for the rest of the country. do you agree with him? caller: yes. what i wish he would say is in massachusetts, i had a local population that wanted this. this is what i had to do. i supported it i thought it was right. i thought was right for

massachusetts. i do not necessarily think it is right for alabama or montana. host: stay on the line. ron pollack. guest: when governor romney signed into law the massachusetts health reform, he not only touted it for massachusetts. he said this is a great model for the nation. he was clear about that. there is greater similarity between romneycare and obamacare then there is between romneycare and ronnie candidate care. he is being politically expedient by taking something he said would be a good model for the nation and now saying i will repeal is on the first day. this is politics, as the whole debate has been. host: bert, we will come back to you. caller: i agree with what the man just said. is the same case with obama.

they're both harvard-educated politicians. if you are productive middle- class person, it will cost more than what they are saying. you are looking at the largest tax on the middle class in history. one thing people are not talking about yet is that they are going to hire 30,000 additional irs agents to implement this. they're not hiring 30,000 additional doctors. my wife is a nurse practitioner. a lot of doctors do not take medicaid patients. there are more doctors not taking medicare patients. concierge practices are the old-fashioned way. the patient pays the doctor. host: they are much more expensive. we will get a reaction thank

you. guest: robert is right. there is increasing concern about access to health care. it is absolutely the case if you cut payments by putting millions more people into medicaid and cutting payments, you have cut half the business of the health care sector. when romney said his model in massachusetts would be a good model for the country, that did not necessarily imply he did not think citizens should have a view. that is not what he thinks. he never said that. romney may be a politician, but he is fairly consistent in saying people ought to have a voice in this matter. this was a decision made. it is not popular. less than half of america in the latest poll thinks obamacare

is a good idea. it clearly says there is a debate here. guest: i do believe governor romney has been consistent, but he has been consistent in his inconsistency. it is true if you look at the surveys that asked people if they support or do not support the affordable care act, there is mixed reaction. if we go into depth, they asked if you like the idea of preventing insurers denied coverage because of pre- existing conditions or providing coverage for those under 26. the support is off the charts. the problem is right now people are not clear those things are

in the form will care act. as that becomes better known, this will give tremendous support. i think president obama is going to cherish the notion this is called obamacare. as people experience these benefits, they will find it is really helpful. guest: it will not help in the election. they will not experience anything until a year later. host: every sunday, we partner by airing sunday programs beginning with nbc's "meet the press." we have a sneak preview. nancy pelosi on with david gregory this morning saying it is not a tax on the american people. it is a penalty for free riders. that is the democratic spin. joseph antos. guest: no question about it. it does not change the fact that what you are being required to do is buy insurance that for

many people is unaffordable. the question is not what we think about the mandate but what we think about the law. we have divided opinion and major problems. guest: the point you raised is important. the new death panel -- we will hear from republicans is these are taxes on middle-class and all of that. nonsense. it is only going to affect a tiny number of people who can afford health coverage but refused to purchase it. in so doing, they pass on their bills to everybody else. even chief justice roberts indicated in his opinion this

will only affect about 4 million people and not 300 million people as republicans would have us believe. this is not a tax on the middle class. this is not a tax for people around the country. it is saying, you choose to buy coverage so you are paying for it. if you choose not to get it when you can afford it and pass on your bills to everyone else, you are going to have to have some responsibility and pick up part of the cost. host: joe is on the independents' line.

caller: this is my experience. i am a self-employed man of 13 years. i have the cross/blue shield. my premiums are $700 a month. i am a healthy man. i made a doctors appointment the other day. he told me i cannot give in to see him for a simple blood test until august 6. that is way over a month just to see the doctor. i purchased my health insurance through the free market. i have a blood test every three years. i keep on top of that to see what my health is. i just called the other day to see the doctor. i have over a 35-day wait just to see what my health is. host: a similar point from colorado. having insurance is not the same thing as having health care. guest: they are correct. we do have a shortage, especially of primary-care doctors.

that is not going to be overcome overnight. that is not a problem of affordable care act. it is a problem of where we are as a nation. the affordable care act makes a contribution to the solution. we will have to do much more. the affordable care act does provide additional resources so we can train more primary-care doctors and alleviate the shortage causing joe, ron, and others real problems. this will not be fixed overnight. it takes incremental steps in the right direction. host: nobody is going to like the coverage mandate on all policies. on the democrats' line, good morning. caller: i work in the field, i do not want to name the program. we take care of the head injuries and spinal cord

injuries. these people have guns, motorcycles, rode without thomas, have all of their toys. one thing all of them have in common is they did not spend a penny on health care. what is my constitutional right not to take care of these people? they shoot themselves in the head. they clean their guns. they have their ski trips and everything. i am the middle class productive individual. where is my rights not to pay for their short-sightedness? host: joseph antos. guest: there is a real question about where you draw lines. as a nation, we decided we're going to take care of people in spite of their stupidity. it does not mean we should turn around and also provide generous subsidies besides taking care of their serious health problems. generous subsidies so they can

maintain that lifestyle that chris is mentioning. to the extent that is happening, that is a serious problem. i would argue as a civil society, we cannot leave these people on the street. guest: chris has a valid point. when somebody who can afford health coverage decides not to purchase it, all those with insurance pay for it. it is inevitable. when the hospital provides care, they have to pass on the bill to those of us with insurance. an average premium for family health coverage is raised just to pay for the uncompensated health costs of the uninsured averages over $1,000 a year.

that is inflicted upon those with insurance. the affordable care act said if you cannot afford coverage, you have a responsibility. if you do not fulfill the responsibilities, you will pay a portion of the costs rather than push the costs onto everybody else. host: let me follow-up on this. this is from a veteran. how will i be able to retain my current insurance policy if my employer chooses to stop providing medical benefits and instead paying the penalty? how do you respond? guest: if he is living in a state with the health insurance exchange or the federal exchange gets off the ground, he will be able to buy insurance. if he is a middle-class person, he will not be eligible for significant subsidies. he may not be eligible for a

subsidy at all. it could be more expensive for him. host: will there be a shift in the supply of health care providers closing or leaving practices? it seems this may be one of the largest unanticipated consequences of the health care law. guest: this is anticipated. we know who joe and ron are having trouble finding a doctor. it has nothing to do with the affordable care act. it is going to add millions of people without coverage. that is good. we still have a shortage of doctors. the affordable care act makes

incremental steps to correct that. it is going to be a continuing problem. it is one thing i hope democrats and republicans work together on so we make sure there are increasing numbers of primary- care doctors. host: join us on our twitter page on the health care law. this person points out the health care law will add $1 trillion or $2 trillion, not to mention the debt interest which may explode at any moment. the next call is from new jersey. caller: think about this in a different way. we can pay for this health care with our taxes. the reason i say that is we have already put the tax money out. the tax money is being put in the wrong areas. i say that because giving loans

to companies, we're giving millions of dollars to these companies and they are failing. we're putting billions of dollars into other countries. egypt, every year we give them $1.3 billion. i know we did in different ways and for different reasons. but i am sure they can get along with maybe just $1 billion. that leaves $300 million which would give us $1 million per person in this country for health care. the second item i would like to speak about is the fact of taxes and no one ever mentions. they say 53% of people pay taxes. i think it is smaller than that. host: thank you for the call. guest: his point is a good one. we have to decide what our priorities are. the president and democrats in congress have decided our

priority is to pump $2 trillion into the economy during the first years paid for largely by cutting payments to doctors, hospitals, and medicare. the fact is we have education, energy, environmental issues. we have defense. every issue under the sun. the decision was made in a top- down approach that health is going to be it. now we're going to have trouble. it will be seen next year. trying to deal with the sequester which will take a

huge amounts of money out of the federal budget. a policy that neither democrats nor republicans like, because we did not have the national agreement about how we want to allocate resources in the first place. guest: when we talk about top- down, i call that leadership. he was elected to lead. he has led. congress was elected to decide and have decided. what is interesting is we got new news from the congressional budget office. people thought the supreme court may repeal and strike the entire statute. what will that mean for the budget? the congressional budget office, the non-partisan arbiters, told us if the form will care act was struck, it would add to the deficit by about $250 billion in the next 10 years. these fiscal problems would have been exacerbated had before

will care act been struck. host: a couple of tweets on the table. she points out romney suggested obama should copy romneycare, and he did. you will see the editorial he penned. next is francisco joining us from arlington, virginia. caller: i have some comments. i sincerely believe romney would get far more votes with independents by saying i designed it. it worked well for massachusetts. i am ready to come up with a 2.0 version for the country. people do not like the denial. people want to hear new possibilities.

what we need in the republican party is a progressive way. the party base is narrowing. what we need is a -- the party base is narrowing. reassurance is not being discussed anywhere. that is one area that needs work. there was a paper released called reinsurance. all we had in the republican party was laziness. that is what i think. we do not have good thinkers right now that come up with new ideas in solutions. host: you are laughing. guest: is tough to be a politician.

you cannot make anybody happy. the caller is right. any republican going for high office has to deal with those facts of life. that was true when obama was running for president four years ago, as well. the question really is not in where are we going when romney is not a candidate yet. the issue is not what he says. the question is, what does he say after the convention? what does he say afterward he gets elected? i agree with the caller. when governor romney becomes the nominee absolutely must show leadership to republicans on this issue. guest: the reason governor

romney is having problems is that in the republican party, the right hand does not know what the far right hand once. that is making it very difficult for governor romney to actually come up with a proposal. if he does something that is somewhat reasonable that looks like it is going to in dance policy and -- advanced policy and the far right hand will not let him do that -- is walking a very careful line right here. i think it would be terrific if he gave us his version of health reform now that he has given up on his original version. i do not expect to get much

specificity. host: this viewer is saying the democratic congress switched. obamacare is a massive tax that was rammed through congress without knowing what was in it. let us hear a republican voice from james in louisiana. welcome. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i understand that we support the bill, but i would appreciate total honesty. what about abortion india for all care act -- in the affordable correct? guest: i would just caller what we've learned it from people in the catholic health associations and the nuns who do not want abortion. they said, as clearly as they could, this is not a bill designed to promote abortions. host: bishops feel differently. guest: there is no question that the bishops and the nuns feel differently. frankly, i think many people are more prepared to side with the nuns and then they are with the bishops. host: good morning democrat. caller: just had a couple of comments. i believe if the congress and

the federal employees had to pay 20% of their medical costs, just like the people on medicare do, that would save the country a lot of money because they get their health insurance covered 100%. if you ever saw the queens jubilee, those people are on national health care. they did not look like they were dying. they all looked pretty healthy. host: okay. kiki for the call from wisconsin. -- thank you for the call from wisconsin. guest: can assure the caller that i paid my insurance is in deductibles just like everybody else. the fact is, it is a good plan. we have a lot of choices in place. but, it is an employer- sponsored plan. it is very similar to the plans available in most large companies today. companies today.