to $400 a pound or bushel. that was thought to make the farmer better off, and it did. it may be customers worse off. someone had a good idea. it is wasteful to burn raisins. let's take the reasons we would otherwise burn and give them to school children and we could sell a few. if we do we will get that extra money to the farmer too. now we have schoolchildren with raisins, we have the farmer having more money. sounds like a pretty good program. you have taken some raisins. what i don't see is how either the farmer or schoolchildren are any the worse off. if they are no worse off, what compensation are these farmers entitled to? of course, free riders would become yet better off and could charge at the higher price the program creates a hundred dollars.

but after all that isn't the , issue because you have to have as a rule no free riders and to admit that as a rule, everyone including perhaps these plaintiffs, are better off than none at all. now, that is a very simple argument. it is what i understand to be the argument for the fdr, the 1949, yet we have endless cases complexities and opinions and fines, so i am probably wrong in the simple argument. i doubt i am wrong. nonetheless, i went to explain what is wrong with it. [laughter] mr. kneedler: we agree with what you said, except that it is not a taking of a raisin. it is not a take. it is the regulatory program classically analyzed, there's a reciprocity of advantage. one of the phrases this court has used among producers. this does not distinctly affect the petitioners.

it applies to all producers. if petitioners are correct since , 1949 every year there has been a reserve requirement. every producer has had a per se taking. justice kagan: i largely agree with what the chief justice said, the way i think about this program, this does seem a weird historical anomaly. am i right that all the rest of these agricultural programs are done differently, such that saying this would not affect other agricultural programs, and also are there any other programs out there, forget agricultural programs but any , other programs out there that we should be concerned about if we were to think about this as a taken? mr. kneedler: with respect, agricultural programs, there are eight or 10 programs that have

other reserve provisions in them. most of those are not active in the sense of reserve, like this one. if this one has outlived its usefulness the committee has not proposed a reserve requirement, -- justice kagan: you said there were eight or 10 other programs that have -- mr. kneedler: they have, like this once has provisions permitting use of a reserve system unlike this one they are not actively utilizing. justice scalia: how long have they not used it? mr. kneedler: i think most of this has been in the last decade. i don't know precisely. one of the things that happened in this industry in the last ten years is it has changed quickly. you will see from the brief filed by sun made and the reason bargaining association they'd leave the reserve requirement should no longer be instituted but they also believe

petitioners should not be permitted to be free riders on this program. justice kagan: what of non agricultural programs? are there regulatory programs where the government says produce something that is characterize it will -- characterizable property? mr. kneedler: the most immediately relevant one which this court sustained was where you were asking about records and information. that is the case in which there was a condition for marketing pesticides. the manufacturer had to submit information to the epa. justice kagan: we know about that one. anything else out there. tell me what the realm of regulatory programs is that we ought to be concerned if we were to say that the production of stuff that somebody claims a property interest in is taken. mr. kneedler: i am not specifically aware of other programs but monsanto and the

requirements of the information to the government, for example is widespread and in our society . what the court basically said was if it was known before the entered commerce and applied their application if they knew the material would be disclosed to be public or used by the government for approving other applications -- justice scalia: the government can prohibit the introduction of harmful pesticides into interstate commerce. i'm not sure it can prohibit the introduction of raisins. you know, dangerous raisins. [laughter] i'm not sure it can prohibit the introduction of raisins. that would not be an unconstitutional condition. mr. kneedler: the court's rationale was not a sunday fact that it was -- the product was a dangerous although that was the setting.

the fact was that the manufacturer knew when submitting of the information to the epa that would be subject to disclosure and its property value we've eliminated or appropriated by the government for use in evaluating other applications. chief justice roberts: what you say from monsanto -- justice scalia: what you say from monsanto what you take when looking at your brief, you say producers who are dissatisfied with reserve, a pretty audacious -- if you don't like our regulations do something else. mr. kneedler: that is not the only option they have. they have the option of selling grapes for other purposes. chief justice roberts: four wine? mr. kneedler: wine or other uses. these grapes the overwhelming majority have a variety of uses and that is one of the things a grower will take into account. chief justice roberts: if you don't like regulations you can challenge them in court to see

if they can comply with the constitution. the answer is always you can do something else and we will never have these kinds of cases. mr. kneedler: no, this is a substantive point i'm making. the substantive point is there's market regulation, people who are growing crops, and operating under the marketing order for 30 years before they challenge all of that. chief justice roberts: i'm sorry , justice kennedy. justice kennedy: given the taking is ok, everything will work out. mr. kneedler: no. the fundamental argument is it is not taking in because the borrower voluntarily submit the total amount of its reasons to the handler. the handler separates them into two quarters, one to be sold now and one to be sold later but , they both have to do with timing and regulation of sale which petitioners acknowledge the government can regulate the timing and manner of sale.

that is exactly what happens here. there are two markets. one is the free market, the other is the tightly regulated market for exports, other outlets that do not compete with the domestic market. chief justice roberts: if we say the pledge of allegiance in public schools, if you don't like it go to a different school. i don't understand why it is not the same analysis here. this may be taking of reasons -- of your raisins or not, but if you don't like it grow , something else. mr. kneedler: monsanto is not the only case where that -- by the way, i do not believe that nolan cut back on the rationale of monsanto. what nolan said was we will not cut back on a rationale, we do not regard the ability to build a house as a governmental benefits. it did not say it reaffirmed the idea of an exchange where the government was giving a benefit of clearing the product for use. justice scalia: whereas you say

introducing raisins into interstate commerce is a government benefit. mr. kneedler: the regulatory program is a governmental benefits. justice scalia: no. you say the activity in regards to this taking is the regulatory activity which is subjected to this thinking, the introduction of state commerce, that is something of a benign government can give or withhold. mr. kneedler: it is permission to do it, which is exactly what the court says in monsanto. but it is not the only case. yee was for real property, that was a case involving mobile home park and claimed it was the taking of there because the mobil part-owner was subject to rent control and it was argued that was like loretto, they forced physical occupation. the court said no. lee's critical distinction was

they voluntarily chose to enter the rental market, to enter promotional transaction and the government because they voluntarily had done it, regulate what was being charged. justice breyer: mr. mcconnell was asked about the lender case. -- justice alito: mr. mcconnell was asked about the lender case. i take it you don't think the leonard case has an important bearing on this case. a passing reference on the issue of fungible good. am i correct? mr. kneedler: we think it is a critical point. justice alito: you did not suggest this case is just another version of leonard and we should affirm based on leonard? mr. kneedler: to the extent that leonard was about tax. this program was not identified as a tax partly because the raisins don't come to the government. the raisins are going into a pool that belongs to all of the producers and divided up among the producers. these are not things that are

appropriated for the government's own use. we think that leonard is critically constructed from points like this with respect to property like this. the oyster shells are like raisins and what the court said is they are fungible and their only value is commercial sale. this is not the ownership of loretto, where real property which is unique and personally identified. the raisins are for sale. justice kagan: put all the regulatory aspects of the program aside for a moment and say this is a simpler program. the government says to the raisin industry and says we could tax you and say you have to deliver 2% of your net profits. we are not going to do that. we will take 2% of your raisins. would that be constitutional? but that be a taken? mr. kneedler: that would, i think be like leonard.

it would be an unkind tax. i don't think there is anything that would prohibit that being done. and we think the fact that that would be ok is instructive as the court's discussion of leonard suggests. justice kagan: you said you don't think of this case in that way. why don't you? mr. kneedler: it is an analogous in the sense that congress may be able to do this in a different way. the reason i said was different is the oysters -- the raisins excuse me are not being used for , the government's program. they do not go to school lunch programs. if the government wants raisins advise them. justice scalia: we don't usually allow committees and producers who call the government to impose taxes, do we? that is usually done by congress and this is done by some committee. mr. kneedler: right but the committee is elected by producers. justice scalia: so they can impose taxes, you are saying?

mr. kneedler: no. what i am saying is the government may be able to impose something, some exaction as a tax. but this is a regulatory program adopted by producers. important to recognize, and marketing orders to producers, i have to be bound by. -- justice scalia: whatever the majority of producers agree on, i am bound by? mr. kneedler: they agree that there is a disagreement -- justice scalia: i am not saying the disagreement converts to take in. i am saying it does not carry much what to say this is adopted by producers. if 51% of producers want to do it, there are 49% that don't want to do it. mr. kneedler: i think is a good indication that the premises that congress enacted this act on in 1937 operated then and operate now for the benefit of producers.

it should not be necessary in any one particular year when the regulatory program is in place to calibrate whether the benefits outweigh the burdens. justice scalia: central planning was thought to work very well in 1937. russia called it for a -- russia tried it for a long time. mr. kneedler: again, it will be modified and the committee decided not to impose. justice alito: you made the point several time that the government sells these for the benefit of the producers. what if the producers, some of them think they can do a better job of selling them? they are a better producer, marketers, better export contacts that others don't? mr. kneedler: this is just standard regulation. what congress has said is that if you sell, you so under the manner set up in this program. chief justice roberts: we were talking about that type of regulation, i understand.

the raisins have to be so big or you can't call them raisins and have safety inspections. we sell the raisins and give some of what is left to the producers. i don't think that is a common approach to market regulation. mr. kneedler: there are two pools of raisins. how you treat or how you implement the notion that there are two different pools of raisins may vary. where you have that, the similarities are much more pronounced. you have the free tonnage reasons which the growers are immediately pay for and handlers can put on the market but there was a judgment made when the marketing order was established and sun maiden and the association believes it was still true in those years that if you have the big surplus as there was a around the turn of the century it would make the prices plummet if the extra raisins were put on the open

market because demand for raisins is inelastic. what the marketing order does his estimates would be free tonnage estimate will be and that is completely open to the market. reserve raisins, if you -- they are essentially vilest because you don't need them to satisfy the existing market. you take them off the market to prop up the prices of the free tonnage raisins and then the committee will sell them when they will not undermine -- or in a manner that will not undermine justice alito: suppose this program were carried out with respect to real property. would you provide the same answers? owners of property in a real area think that the value of the property would be increased if they all surrendered a certain amount of that property to the government for the purpose of creating a park or for some other reason. so they get the municipality to

set up this program and one of them objects to surrendering this part of that part of his or her land. with that not be a taking? mr. kneedler: property would be fundamentally different. justice alito: i thought you said there was a difference between real property and personal property? mr. kneedler: not saying there is a categorical difference but the lucas decision is instructive. the court was talking about the ability to regulate real property and said there's a difference between real property and personal property at least personal property being used for commercial purposes which would be rendered vilest -- rendered valueless by virtue of government regulations. justice ginsburg: what is the limitations? mr. kneedler: six years i think , it would be. justice ginsburg: has there been any reserve in the last six years? mr. kneedler: the last one was

2009-2010. i want to correct one fact -- justice scalia: explain why the market for raisins is inelastic. people won't by more reasons if they are cheaper? mr. kneedler: that is correct. it is the quality of raisins and there is a limited set of outlets. raisins are primarily used as food ingredients in raisin bran and things like that. the price doesn't affect demand and therefore if you put a great surplus on the domestic market , the prices will crater. this has a very sensible approach. justice kagan: you don't have to convince us this is a sensible program for you to prevail, do you? mr. kneedler: no. we do not. justice kagan: we could think that this is ridiculous program. isn't that right? we could think it is a ridiculous program. mr. kneedler: it is one that has been around since 1949. the argument again means every growers in 1949 has --

justice scalia: it doesn't help your case if it is ridiculous though. [laughter] mr. kneedler: it is not, let me be clear, a ridiculous program. justice kagan: this a serious point, because the ridiculousness or sensiblness of a program is not for us to decide. mr. kneedler: i agree with that completely. this is a regulatory program and should be part of the regulatory source. justice ginsburg: you were asked this before but your answer wasn't clear. marketing orders of this sort, have any others been operative as this one has been? that started in 1949? mr. kneedler: less than operative in the past -- most of them are not operative in the sense of the reserve, my understanding is the reserve provision has been triggered. justice sotomayor: those are the government selling the reserve?

mr. kneedler: i think that is true of maybe several others. i am not sure. some have to do with the the difference between the handler and the producer. go ahead. justice breyer: i want to correct a factual error on the field price. in one year there were a $10 and because of the mathematical calculations, the claim was the petitioners would be better off without the research for. is not correct and the mistake was the assumption all the raises would have been sold at the field price if they were all put on the market and that is inconsistent with the premise of the order. the only reason there is a high price for the free tonnage raisins is the other ones are taken off the markets because they would not have been recovered in that way. justice alito: how many of these programs are there? of marketing orders? mr. kneedler: i think there are scores of them. justice alito: i am trying to put the -- chief justice roberts: i am trying to put the eight to ten in relation to how many. mr. kneedler: i don't know the

total number but we can follow up with a supplemental leather. -- supplemental letter. this is not fundamentally different from the others and government has not acquired these reasons for itself. the government doesn't actually keep them in its possession. it just tells the handler to keep them and sell some later rather than selling them now and that is not an appropriation of private property. chief justice roberts: thank you, counsel. mr. mcconnell, you have five minutes remaining. mr. mcconnell: thank you, mr. chief justice. several things have been cleared up. the government does concede the government takes legal title to the raisins. the government does -- justice sotomayor: i listen to these all the time to the extent that we have a shoot -- eschewed taking formal titles as meaningful with respect to actual control or actual benefit, these take the title but it is not for their benefit.

it is the benefit of the beneficiary. mr. mcconnell: that is true, justice sotomayor. but the government is not a trustee here. justice sotomayor: in a form yes. it is to sell to reserve raises at the best price it can get. given the limitations on the free-market. mr. mcconnell: it sells for the best price and uses the proceeds for the regulatory purposes. chief justice roberts: you only have performance in rebuttal. you have any other points? mr. mcconnell: as to the factual point it is not a calculations based upon selling all of the raisins at the field price and calculations based on being able to sell all the reasons that the price of the secretary has said would be the price in an unregulated market which is $747. that is certainly not true that

these reserves raisins are valueless. they are an extremely valuable commodity and most of the years the producers of the reasons -- the raisins receive absolutely nothing for them. the important point is that it is not any less of it taking even if there is a benefit. i have no doubt for example that in loretto, the value of the apartment went up because there was the cable, it became cable ready but that did not make it any less of the taking as this is the per se taking and many benefits only goes to whether there might be some kind of implicit compensation as a result of the benefit but this is an eminent domain proceedings but that might be relevant. this is, in fact, only an administrative enforcement

action in which the department of agriculture was entitled under the constitution to demand either the raisins or monetary equivalent without any payment of compensation. justice breyer: why isn't it for them to make that argument? because of the argument, you are better off, etc.? do they way it? mr. mcconnell: no, it is the regulation. i am sorry. if you look at 7cfr989.16c, you will see that is the provision for what happens when the handler does not turn over reserve raises to the department of agriculture. it has very specific provisions and there is no provision for implicit income compensation. justice breyer: the fact that all the raids and producers are

better off because of this program, including you, but no free riders. that is what is the compensation. can they argue that? mr. mcconnell: under this regulation i do not think it is open to the department of agriculture to argue that the i think that would be a logical argument if this were eminent domain proceedings and we were trying to figure out what the proper value of the raisins is. reserving the point that we believe this program does not benefit the producer, and it we believe it makes the producers demonstrably worse off. the only people who benefit from this program are the recipients of the subsidy of the export subsidies. chief justice roberts: the exporters. mr. mcconnell: that is right. justice kagan: can i take you back to the first thing you said in this argument? you said typically the handler doesn't take a product and the handler doesn't pay for the product.

you would think the here will only have a takings claim assuming they have a takings claims for the raisins they produced and not for the raisins of the people produced but you said that is not correct in this case? mr. mcconnell: that is not correct because the check point out from the raisins and marketing association to the producers for every raisin, not just the free tonnage reasons but for the reserve tonnage raisins as well. the horns are actually the only people with financial interest in the raisins in this case. that is unusual. chief justice roberts: this is probably neither here nor there but what is the impact of the drought on raising producers? do you know? mr. mcconnell: it is not good. [laughter] justice scalia: carefully guarded response. [laughter] justice alito: i wonder if i will be able to take a shower when i go home. chief justice roberts: thank

you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> now we move to cases the supreme court has yet to decide based on the subsidy of americans under the health care law and allowing the power of states to limit marriage to heterosexual couples. most of the comments we got from viewers today dealt with those two comments. ut the gay marriage thing. in this country, we have faced so much the rest of this -- divisiveness that this little issue about gay marriage -- i am hoping the supreme court will say -- decide quickly one way or the other. i am hoping the decision will be one that will not create even more divisiveness in this country. we don't need it. i have gay members in my family.

i'm not talking about reasonably, i am talking about 30, 40 years ago that nobody in my family ever said a thing and we are conservative republicans. we just sat there and said, that is their life. we have recent people that have come forward and said they were gay. we just believe that is their life. the magic word here is marriage. i think if a person wants to get married, let them be. politically speaking if the supreme court rules in favor of gays getting married, what is the big deal? >> yes, the courts in texas about the gay and lesbian marriage. first of all, the word marriage means based on the bible.

that is where the word came from and it is based on men and women being married. if two men or two women decide to marry then they can never be married. they can be civil union. you can call them on the other thing. they cannot be married. if the supreme court goes against god's law to say that they are marrying these people, this country will be in so much judgment. it will be really, really horrible what will happen to this country. i pray that americans will wake up and stop thinking that it is a small matter like that men ♪an said. it is going against nature. it is not a small matter. it will really divide this country and i really hope and pray that they will stop that. >> >> the justices meet again on

thursday to hand down more opinions. they usually finish their work by the end of june. one of the cases deals with subsidies and the affordable care act. up next, a discussion on what the impact of a ruling against the obama administration would have on health care for the u.s.. according to families u.s. a test families usa, many families are at risk of losing their health insurance. "washington journal" continues. host: he is the executive director. good morning. the supreme court is soon to make a decision on subsidies for those who get health care from the government. what could happen if the supreme court sides with the plaintiffs in this case? guest: in word -- one word, chaos. millions of people will lose health insurance.

there are 6.4 million people in 34 states receiving subsidies. if the supreme court sides with the plaintiffs, they will use -- lose them. people will not be able to afford health-care coverage. their lives will be in jeopardy. what will also happen, when those subsidies are withdrawn the people who are most likely to decide not to get coverage are younger, healthier people. you are going to have sicker older people finding some way to get insurance. when you have a pool it's composed of older and less healthy people, guess what happens to premiums? we are going to see what people call a death spiral. some of the supreme court justices called a death spiral. in each year, more younger and

healthier people drop out. the premiums will escalate. some have estimated that the increase in premiums will be 47%. it's going to mean for everybody, the health-insurance insurance market will be totally chaotic. host: people might have some avenues of recourse. where can people turn for subsidies? caller: they will have to beg or steel. it's going to be really hard. for most people the premium subsidies are very substantial. it means that there would be an increase of over $3000 on average read in some states it would be more than that. for a lot of people, they will

be unable to in ford -- afford health insurance. the affordable care act says people who have pre-existing conditions, they can no longer be in's -- discriminated against. those protections will stay. these people who have those protections might not be able to afford health insurance coverage. it's going to be a hardship for people. a lot of people will be at great risk. host: what is the role of congress? guest: congress could fix this. there is a bill that could be passed in moments. i must say that those who have encouraged the bringing of this lawsuit, they have a special responsibility.

they tend to be republicans who opposed the affordable care act. what we have seen in terms of proposals offered by republican members of congress is they don't really replace what exists today. a lot of people who are uninsured today or lose a job they won't be able to get subsidies under these proposals. the best that could happen is those who are getting subsidies might be able to keep them. here is the key thing. each of these proposals holds these partial fixes. those changes are not going to be signed by the president. for republicans who have encouraged this lawsuit they are probably going to want to say to their constituents, we want to protect you.

they will shed tears about people losing coverage. the proposals so far that we have seen, they do not appear to get the job done or they hold these partial fixes hostage in a way that will never happen. host: we are going to talk about those fixes. we are going to talk about the supreme court. if you have questions for our guest, you can call the line. but about the audio proposed by some that congress could pass a short-term subsidy. guest: anything that leads it to

the states, many are not going to opt into it. that is true for states that are led by republican governors who are running for president they won't think that is a helpful way for them to win of the republican nomination. i am not very hopeful about what would happen in texas or louisiana or florida or wisconsin. if the supreme court rules with the plaintiffs, i think were going to see lots of people who are just going to be left out in the cold. in texas, there are 800,000 people getting subsidies. i don't see a formula by which they would get those subsidies restored. in florida, 1.3 million people are getting the subsidies. we have not seen the governor or the house in the state legislature say they are willing to do something to restore the subsidies. some states may restore the subsidies. tensile vein yet delaware --

pennsylvania delaware, arkansas are thinking about running the marketplaces. it will be unclear how the states will come in and how many will not. host: calls from you, let's start with barry in michigan. you are on. good morning. caller: i am curious when they talk about these subsidies. if they make this unconstitutional for the health care, does that mean all subsidies are unconditional? anybody? if that's not the case, how will they pick and choose what is constitutional for this person or not that person?

i don't understand how this is going to work. guest: let me respond to his comment. constitutionality is not at issue. what is at issue is whether the affordable care act allows us subsidies to be provided for all 50 states. in 34 states the state runs the marketplace. does the statute allows subsidies to be provided? it doesn't have any implications generally with respect to subsidies for other programs. as a former law school dean, i

think this lawsuit is specious. you have to look at the entire statute. if you look at the entire statute, you have to conclude that the lawsuit is specious. the statute says that in all states, people can apply for the subsidies. why would people have the right to apply for subsidies in 34 spates if they will always be turned down? that doesn't make any sense. the statute says that the federal government should report to the department of treasury who is getting subsidies, how much they are. why would the federal marketpl ace report this if they are supposed to be withdrawn? the statute says eligibility is based on income.

people could be eligible for subsidies. none of these things make sense. i think the lawsuit is specious. we have to take this lawsuit seriously. for justices decided to hear this case. they did it under extraordinary circumstances. there were two courts of appeals. they had already scheduled oral arguments on the exact same issue. the court leapfrogged those two circuit courts to hear this case. there were four justices who wanted to hear this case. host: margaret is from florida. you're next. it good morning. caller: i am so glad i tuned in.

i find it interesting that you said anything with a straight face. you mentioned sarcastically about the house and shedding tears. when this was slammed through without a republican vote i think it's interesting following justice roberts we walked all over and talked about how stupid the public is. you used to be the dean of a law school and suddenly this is a specious law case. how many people were against this monstrosity. you can be against this without having something alternative that they should have set up.

i would remind you of the people who lost their coverage, who lost the insurance and the good things they had. i would remind you of the people who will not be covered by this monstrosity. our president says last week something very sarcastic about our supreme court. now we are to talk about this today. i think everybody should talk about gruber. as you smile and smirk and act disrespectfully, they represent many people who were against this act. host: i get the impression guest: i get the impression margaret does not like the affordable care act. i would remind margaret and others of the great progress that has occurred as the result of the affordable care act.

we have seen more than one out of three people with previously uninsured coverage, more than 16 million people gaining coverage, we have made significant progress, i think we are going to see the court uphold the provision of the second, and i think it will continue to make progress after 16 million people getting coverage, many more well. host: steve is next from florida. caller: thanks for taking my call, you call this affordable care act when it has a $200 deductible. a doctor wants to run all kinds of tests on me. i have to pay $10,000 at the end of the year. now, they don't cover medical or dental or eyeglasses. what good is this affordable?

why can't they just throw us all on medicare? thank you. guest: steve raised some important issues. i very much agree with him on it. the affordable care act does not cover people over 18 years of age with dental care, it does not include eye care. those are things i hope would be changed sometime in the future. right now, neither dental care or i care is included. -- eye care is included. i hope we do much more in enabling people to get coverage without high deductibles. that is the next agenda item and many efforts are being made to include a variety of key services for drugs, primary care, that would be allowed to be provided in advance of the

deductible. there is no question, we still have a lot to do to make the care more affordable. we have taken great strides in making sure it is affordable for the first time. host: were the subsidies always intended to be given for the health care program? or with the state have to take them over? guest: the subsidies we are talking about our permanent and are provided on a sliding scale, what we mean is that the lower your income, and the greater need, the larger subsidies. the federal government picks up 100% of the cost, that is a permanent provision. host: from new hampshire, dan. good morning. guest: not only is the lawsuit specious, another example of the right wing claw reaching out. my main statement is that the

states are all republican states and the ones with two previous calls, from florida they hate the law. what i would like to see happen is let the insurance are gets in these states collapse so they put pressure on the legislature to set up an exchange. as far as the 31 million that lady is talking about, that is because a 44 states did not expand medicaid. that is my comment, thank you. host: he raised a number of issues, first he raised the question about whether the plaintiffs in this case are appropriately plaintiffs. i think he was referring to the lead claimant. there was a rather long article in the new york times that interviewed mr. king. he is eligible for veterans

benefits, so it makes no difference how the court rules he will be in good shape. there is a question as to whether some of the plaintiffs have standing. dan is also right that one of the reasons we have a significant number of people uninsured despite the tremendous progress that has been made over 60 million people gaining coverage, is you have -- 16 million people gaining coverage, is you have 22 states that have not implemented the expansion. the poorest of the poor are not getting protection. this includes it states throughout the way up to virginia. that has been a significant part of the problem. despite that, we are going to continue to make progress. host: it could be an option though. guest: it is an option, and some of the states, i have hopes that they will decide to implement the medicaid expansion.

we've had 10 states so far with republican governors who have decided to implement the medicaid expansion. these governors said they don't want the affordable care act but would love to see it repealed but it exists and i will make sure that people in my state receive a benefit. host: they get federal assistance? guest: well with the medicaid expansion, right now that is 100% paid for by the federal government through 2016. it is 100% paid for by the federal government. 2017, it is 95%. the state picks up 5%. then it goes down, but it never goes below 90-10. host: from nashville, tennessee grant joins us. caller: good morning, there is no option for socialists and i am one of those medicaid persons who is not covered in tennessee. you forgot the answer to the question, but he put it a different way.

why can't they lower the age of medicare or why can't they put the people who cannot get medicaid on medicare? guest: that is a good question, i failed to answer steve's question. they keep reminding me. -- thank you for reminding me. it is possible from a legal standpoint that we could change the medicare law and make it eligible for people under 65 years of age. from a political standpoint, i think that will be difficult. there are a number of people who wanted what many call a single-payer health care system, and that is what you are talking about. there were precious few votes and the congress for such a single-payer system. it could be done, but politically it is difficult. host: the new york times wrote in terms of the subsidies being lost says that large for-profit

insurance companies benefited from the law with subsidies enabling millions of new customers to sign up for employer-based coverage stalling. as the market -- this could be a possible growth engine. in your experience is that what is going on? guest: that is accurate, we have seen a reduction. it has not been huge of,m but we have seen an increase in the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance. that is the dominant way people have health coverage. there is been a reduction over the last few years. insurance companies understand that a marketplace that is likely to grow, is also the marketplace that allows individual coverage. that is what the affordable care act allows and with the subsidies, it makes it a whole lot more affordable for people to gain coverage. host: is that reduction due to what the affordable care act did when it comes to the insurance companies? guest: no, this reduction

occurred way before the if a affordable care act happen. costs of insurance have risen substantially, some employers stopped coverage others kept it that they charged more for premiums and the dr.'s and other out-of-pocket costs. increasingly, and players are feeling burdened by the cost of health care and to players are diminishing their commitment, by and large, in small increments with each year. as a result we are seeing more people now interested in the individual market place. host: here's victor from maryland. caller: hi, i have a question for you. is this affordable health care -- if it is so good, why is obama and his democrats, wire they exempt?

-- why are they exempt? guest: we have seen people in government, whether it is the president or numbers of congress hitting subsidies -- getting subsidies as part of their federal employment. this affordable care act, which provides opportunities for people to get coverage in the individual market, is mainly for people who do not get coverage in the workplace. whether it is the president or members of congress, they have been getting coverage in the workplace. the affordable care act really is there as a safety measure as more and more people need coverage outside of employment. host: chesterfield, new hampshire, this is ron. guest: good morning, welcome. he hit the nail on the head, the hypocrisy of the republican party is laughable.

most of the senators and most of these congressmen are millionaires. that they receive subsidies and have tried 50 or 60 times now to do away with subsidies that will help the poor, sick, and elderly , it is ridiculous. the have boxee is laughable. -- the hypocrisy is laughable. all of the hypocritical things the republicans are doing drive me nuts. they are so self-righteous but cannot look in the mirror. the affordable care act, i think every republican senator and congressman should lose their subsidies and their free health care. they don't need it, they can afford it. other people could use help. guest: it will be interesting if the court rules against it, which i don't think could happen -- would happen, then it would

be a question of whether these members of congress who encouraged his lawsuit are going to bemoan the fact that their constituents are losing coverage. will they actually take affect to continue getting them the subsidies? i think the jury is out on that question. so far, i cannot say i am terribly encouraged by those that i have seen. it will clearly not become the law of the land. host: someone was on our program talking about the same topic and taking a look at what might happen in the supreme court and weighing in on what might happen if the supreme court does decide to hear his response. >> if the court rules for king, in eight hours resident obama will say you can fix this, just change a few things in the statute and everybody that has

received a subsidy will be secure. it will send a strong and direct message and will be one that will be heard. then the republican-controlled congress will respond in a way that is not quite as certain. there are basically three different points of view among republicans, one is that this is the moment that will allow them to repeal, and hopefully lopez -- replace, the affordable care act. some say it goes too far as a means of taking the law apart so why don't we just ask for a lot of changes in exchange for those three words? and also there are those that say let's pass a temporary fix and after the election we will have the ability to go back and do it the way it should be done and like it to be done. host: the former secretary said a message would be heard but the responses on short, he seemed up the about it. -- upbeat about it. guest: i have to complement the

former secretary, here is a key health care leader in the republican party and very responsible. i don't think we know yet how congress is going to respond. what we have seen is not encouraging. this can be fixed, and easily. there is a will to do it. i think right now, the three groups that secretary leavitt was talking about, so far it seems likely that members of congress are not going to want to change and allow this fix to happen without undertaking a real slashing of the affordable care act. the president will not sign it. if we don't get any accommodation and congress, the question raised the floor in the new york times article is that this will be dragged out state by state and i think maybe half the states or more might come in and start running exchanges but

the other states like texas or florida where there are huge number's of people getting coverage and the subsidies those people would be left out in the cold. host: talking about the supreme court as it considers the subsidies. francis from new york, hello. caller: a couple of questions, i have heard the german say that the government is paying for this. according to our laws, the people are the government. the majority of the people don't like this law. i am a 60-year-old man living in a gated community and i have to pay for maternity care? not only for myself, but for other 60-year-old males? i don't understand how the government can step in and, this is like them saying no more gas

engine cars, you have to buy electric. how can they dictate what we want to buy? guest: what francis is raising certainly the subsidies are paid for with tax dollars. there is no question, that's how it is financed. what it does, is for the first time it makes health coverage affordable for many millions of people. i think that is a positive thing. francis may disagree with that i think it is very positive. it is true that one of the things the government did with respect to the affordable care act is it provided more standardized plans. it plans to make sure that substandard plans would no longer be the way people get coverage. much of what people used to have , for those that had health coverage, some of us call swiss cheese insurance policy. it had a hole in nutrition. the whole idea was to establish

and ultimately we also want to make sure that women are not discriminated against when they get insurance. that is why, as part of that standard, we have maternity coverage. host: from springfield, virginia, here is my. -- mike. caller: thank you for taking my call. most of them have laws, they have id. they are charged -- what can we do about that? host: hold on my, hang on the line. could you repeat that? caller: what i said was immigrants. they are not supposed to go

through central insurance. most of them came and were given good numbers. they pay their taxes. some of them also have ids. if they pay taxes, at the end of the year, they should have insurance, i know you are supposed to go into the marketplace for insurance, so what are they going to do? guest: so, he is right, those people that are undocumented they cannot get coverage in the marketplace. those people who are immigrants that are documented cannot going to the marketplace. they also can't if they are poor get medicaid coverage. mike raised a very tough question.

if undocumented immigrants cannot get coverage through the marketplaces, what can they do to get health coverage? it means that for those who are undocumented if they have a job, perhaps they will be able to get coverage in the workplace because an employer may be providing it. they can go to community health centers. community health centers are in communities across the country and they provide health coverage for people who cannot get it otherwise. so that is a recourse for undocumented immigrants. they can at least go to primary care from a community health center. california is beginning to do something interesting last week california adopted a measure that allows children under 18 years of age who are undocumented to start getting coverage in california. that is a step in the direction that i think mike is looking for. until that happens nationwide, and it is not clear that it

will the best choice is for people to go to a community health center or if they have an emergency, go to the emergency room. host: if the court decides for the plaintiff, what recourse does the president have in resolving this? guest: i think the president is going to say what he already has, that is that this is an easy fix. he will probably produce a bill that shows in one page how you can get this fixed. he is smart and realistic. i think he recognizes that the republicans in congress cannot pass that one page bill. what the president and administration will do is work with the state that are considering expanding marketplaces and try to help them so that they can get to this quickly. time is of the essence because starting november 1, there will be a new open enrollment. under the affordable care act.

those states that are seriously considering setting up marketplaces will need help quickly and the administration will have to try and help. host: no executive action or recourse? guest: the president cannot wave a magic wand with an executive order that has all 34 states extending coverage. what he can do is help the states by making sure the procedures the states need to go through in order to set up a marketplace, for example, the most difficult thing is setting up a website. as you know, the administration had great difficulties in the early. of the affordable care act. -- early period of the affordable care act. possibly, they might be able to use the healthcare.gov website. those are the kinds of things that would make it easier for estate -- a state. caller: medicaid expansion means

an increase to the taxpayers in that particular state, eventually. if it is covered by government subsidies, that also is an increase to american taxpayers because we are the government. this is a whole can of worms that obama opened from day worm when he pushed -- day one when he shoved it down congress's throat with nancy pelosi when she said you must pass the bill so you can read what is in it. guest: brenda is of course right about the fact that medicaid is paid for with tax dollars, no question about it. florida is interesting. the governor and the house in florida have rejected the medicaid expansion.

today, florida would be able to expand the program with 100% funding from the federal government paid for by taxpayers across the country. florida today has a medicaid program which has been operational for close to 50 years. florida, currently with its medicaid program, gets $.60 out of the dollar from the federal government. florida has decided to do that. now they are being offered 100 cents on the dollar for expansion and the governor is saying no. i don't understand, it seems like a no-brainer. there are so many things the state gets out of this in addition to being able to get federal dollars coming in and set of just going to california or new york or kentucky. they now get those federal dollars. in addition, states often pay for what we call uncompensated care, when somebody is

uninsured and goes to a public hospital and it picks up some of those costs. perhaps, even more importantly in every state, we have seen reports and analysis about what it means in terms of jobs. that impacts the health care factor. florida would benefit very significantly by expanding medicaid. host: if they decide for the plaintiff? what is the likelihood that subsidies would end immediately? guest: i don't know what the answer to that is, there has been a lot of speculation. justice alito who seems to be siding with the plaintiffs, suggests there should be something like a six-month delay. it is not clear what the court will say. there are a good number of people saying we will need some time so we can figure out what to do and get congress and the states to the opportunity to

work this out. the answer is so far unknown. caller: hi, there are three points i would like to make. first of all, those three words were intentional. all you have to do is listen and you know that they were intentional. blame obama for this. secondly, billions of people lost their insurance and they were forced onto the registries. some had to receive medicaid when they were paid zero four their health insurance. their employers were paying it. the third point is that deductibles are so high for some people that they cannot afford to go to the doctor anymore and you will in the future sea depths result -- see deaths result.

guest: i want to take her last point first, she talked about high deductibles and she is right, too many people have high deductibles. we at families usa support the affordable care act but issued a report a month ago that said even though we made tremendous progress in getting people insured, over one out of four people who had year-round insurance could not get necessary care because of out-of-pocket costs when they needed it. often it is deductibles. there are a variety of things we hope would be done in the future to deal with this problem. brenda is right, a lot of people sometimes feel it is unaffordable to get the care they need. one thing that can be done is that we can exempt more services like primary care from the deductible. if you want to get a checkup from the doctor, you can get that and don't have to pay the deductible.

we are hoping that more such critical services are made available. host: who covers the cost? guest: it is picked up by the insurance company because they will have to pay the primary care physician. the other thing is we can increase the protections that people have when they have coverage, such that right now for those people who are poor, those below 250% of poverty they have a cap on how much they have to pay out-of-pocket in a year. we can improve those protections. host: jerry is from pennsylvania talking to ron pollack of families usa. caller: yes, i have a few questions and comments. first of all, when nancy pelosi said you have to pass this to see what is in it or you have to

pass it to see what's in it, i am glad that the republicans didn't sign that because i don't think any of you people try anything before we read it. and we have bloomberg telling us how busy we are that they have to lie to us to pass this bill. the we have president obama taking billions out of medicare to pay for this. then we have billions of dollars to put this into place. and people are not getting affordable care. that is a joke. if this health care is so wonderful, i would love to see all of the senators and congress , i would love to see them all pay for it and to have the same insurance we have. they should have to live by the laws they pass. they give.

-- thank you. guest: she also raises a number of points. one thing i think is porton to understand -- is important to understand we have seen surveys of people dissipating as a commonwealth foundation, family foundation, what we find is that the people that are participating are very happy with the coverage they are receiving. they feel it is something they don't want taken away. the other thing is that it is true that if you look at public opinion surveys, there is a mixture in view on whether the affordable care act is good or bad and slightly more are opposed to it than favorite. -- favor it. when you look at two other sets of questions, it is a different story. when you asked the public if they want the program to be repealed or stay in place or

improve, there is only a minority that say they want to see it repealed. it is clear that the affordable care act is something that the american public would like to see stay in place. host: eventually, how you deal with sustainability and costs and expenses? guest: one of the things that is a lesser-known stories of the affordable care act is that in the last few years since the affordable care act past, we have seen a slowing down of health care costs. i don't think anyone, even people like myself who support the affordable care act, say the affordable care act is totally responsible. heart of it was clearly the economy has slowed down but clearly the affordable care act has had a beneficial effect. what we saw before it was passed was a skyrocketing cost.

that's why employers were dropping coverage and we are seeing a deceleration and cost. so far, the record is good. caller: good morning c-span. host: you're on charles. caller: i'm talking about that obama care and i have heard a lot of republicans say they want to repeal it but obamacare has been doing really good for people i know, even my wife has it. she only has to pay $10 a month. they won't raise the minimum wage. obama, one of the good perks we had, he is trying to make things better. a lot of people, they have some much money, but they don't think about the poor people. i hope the supreme court, the court of the land prevails for people like me.

these people have had insurance all their life. they could afford it. some people can't afford it because they have to go to the hospital and don't have insurance and they give you a prescription and send you right out. all of the republican colors need to sit down. look at all the poor people in this country, we have a big problem right here and right now and we have to take care of the people here because poor people count two. -- too. you will have a blessed day today, anytime i know the supreme court is going to go along with obama, he is a good president. the republicans are be ashamed of themselves. they didn't but for him but i wish everybody has a good day. guest: charles makes a good

point but i want to add onto that. there is no question the affordable care act has helped lower income people and families. medicaid has been a key instrument in doing that. charles talked about his wife getting coverage and paying a pretty small premium. there is no question that for those people who really need help the most, they are getting the most help. in the marketplace, the subsidies are provided on a sliding scale. the thing i want to add on to what charles is saying, this is not just for people -- poor people. some of the people getting subsidies are middle income people. some of the subsidies go up to forge a percent of the federal poverty level. of course, the higher income you go on that scale, you are going to get less help.

this really helps middle-class people and increasingly, middle-class people are finding health insurance has been unaffordable and need help. yes, it is helping the poor but it is also helping others who are working, cannot get coverage through the workplace, cannot afford health insurance, and the subsidies are making them affordable. host: let's take a call from one more viewer, jerry from new york. caller: think you for taking my call. i have a perception for my ophthalmologist. the aca is in my deal has, the steel house. my purpose in calling as an independent is to comment on the dialogue that has gone back and forth. to make the short, the bill was passed by a reconciliation something that is a backdoor manipulation rather than an up or down vote, i happen to be neither for or against the aca

but that is a point that is often missed. there is a significant difference between medicare and medicaid. medicaid, and law, it is important when court decisions is not a payback of a payment of tax dollars as a benefit otherwise unearned. there are technical realities to medicare, block box and the like, that have it coming out of taxes essentially paid for by people to whom it returns by the state. medicaid as distinct from medicare is like the aca in many parts which is a chimeric of two -- chimera of two. pardon the intended pun, as it sees fit. that is a reason that medicare is not a third rail necessarily politically perhaps but medicare is law and it will be

very hard to manipulate other than perhaps by changing the retirement age but not the entitlement versus medicaid. what happens in these discussions is each party has its perspectives. so mr. pollack when asked about mammograms, a man in a gated community asked about maternity leave. the point of the caller which is built into the aca, which has been come to be known as a group or ask -- gruber-esque backdoor. the supreme court found you being the person who does not need this health service, in order to pay for someone who does. i truly would not call it subterfuge but expedients that tends to make people on both sides, republicans and democrats

, otherwise upset and revert to partisanship. host: i have to cut you off there because we are running short on time. guest: he opened up, jerry mentioned about reconciliation. it is important to understand that there were votes in the senate that passed the affordable care act and it got 60 votes out of 100. ultimately, it passed on this process of reconciliation, but at that point it was 59 votes. this past with a substantial -- passed with a substantial majority. it is not fair to call it subterfuge. i am going straight to the court right after here. we have a number of people who are coming into town who are getting the subsidies who will talk about their own situation and how they would be affected,

depending on how the court rules. caller:host: >> on the security breach at the personal -- the office of personnel management. catherine archuleta will testify about spending that could help prevent the breaches from happening again. that is life this morning at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. in the afternoon at 2:00, it a subcommittee hearing on carbon emissions and their impact. that is also on c-span3. >> the new correctional desk the new congressional directory is a handy guide. with color photos of every house

and senate member. also, district maps, a foldout map of capitol hill, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. order your copy today. it is $13.95, plus shipping and handling. >> another case still tending in front of the supreme court could stop same-sex marriage in many states. judges in both desk judges invoke the constitution to revoke the marriage ban.

keith: good afternoon. i am keith hill. i am a former press club vice president and a member of the newsmaker committee. i will be today's moderator with glad president and ceo, circuit -- sara kate ellis. after the speaker's presentation we will take questions for the remaining time. once a members of the press have asked of their questions, we will invite non-press club members to ask the questions . please keep your questions brief and to the point inspeeches please, so we can get in as many questions as time allows. anyone with questions should identify themselves and stay to

-- state the agency and organization they represent. i would like to bring up an event. on july 8, coach jerry -- coach barry traut will speak at a luncheon. turn off all cell phones to vibrate. the u.s. supreme court will soon decide oberg are failed riches -- obergerfeld versus hodges, which will require ohio to recognize same-sex marriage lawfully entered into in another state. what will happen to the movement after the decision is handed down? today's guest will discuss ramifications for our against the plaintiffs. sarah kate ellis has been president and ceo of glad, the nations lesbian, gay, bisexual transgender media advocacy organization since january 2014.

before taking the position, she was an award-winning executive and communications strategist whom it programming the spotlight to the diversity of the lgbt community. the floor is yours. ms. ellis: thank you very much. thanks for having me today. so there is one way a can come -- so there are three ways that the ruling can come down. one is affirmative, which is a yes. if that happens, it will be a great celebration. but we will be back on monday or the following day. because there is still much to be done. number two, the way the ruling can come down is that the states that do not have marriage equality will have to recognize marriage equality from other states. that is a half win you can look at that way.

the third way as we get it now -- a no altogether. which means we will be having to do a lot of work in the future. any way in which they come in, there's still a lot of work we have left to do. at glaad we just commissioned a poll of over 2000 americans and asked them how they really feel about the lgbt community. it is an understanding of what the culture is out there for the lgbt community. we asked them on a five-point scale and then we asked about everyday situations such as bringing kids is that powerful -- bringing kids to a same-sex household for a play date, bringing your kid to a same-sex wedding, finding out that a

child is a transgender child. well we've found is that one out of three americans is still uncomfortable with the lgbt community. when you look closer. any look at the south, they go even higher. 10 to 20 percentage points. when you look at the community -- when you look at the transgender community, those levels increase up to 40%, so 90% of americans are very uncomfortable with the transgender community. from there, we have a bus tour in the south. why we do that is because we want to accelerate acceptance of the lgbt community. no matter the way scotus rules , we have to create a culture in which americans can live. -- in which lgbt americans can live. so we traveled from states, 10 cities in seven days and we met with community leaders. we premiered to many -- two mini- documentaries and we met with church and faith

leaders and had very vibrant conversations on how to help accelerate acceptance. additionally, we've been working closely with visibility. those are two points that i'm making out of this entire study. when you look globally we have real challenges globally and as acceptance is moving forward in america, discrimination is being exported globally. we are working closely with advocates on the ground across the world to accelerate acceptance. i think that's about it. keith did a wonderful job of introducing me. i am sarah kate ellis. i have been at glaad for a year and a half. i come from the for-profit side and we do media advocacy, so it is about raising the stories of everyday americans, but also people who are well known who are supportive of the lgbt community because we know and understand, to build acceptance

in this country, that you need to know somebody because it opens your heart and mind and change public opinion. we work hard to change public opinion in this country. without icann take -- in this country. with that, i can take questions. keith: i'll take the moderators prerogative and ask a couple questions before you open it up. first, a couple controversies in the last several years. in 2011, glaad supported at&t in the eventually canceled merger with t-mobile when it was reported that glaad had received $50,000 from at&t. second, in 2013, glaad gave former president bill clinton

-- he was noted as an advocate for change by glaad. my question is have either of those controversies effected how you broadcast your message in any way? ms. ellis: fortunately, none of them happened under my watch. that being said, when you deal with corporate america, do you want -- do you want best me to start over? fortunately, none happen under my watch. i am the leader they are now and i feel at this stage that bill clinton gave, he talked about coming onto his journey of acceptance for the lgbt community. -- it was a powerful platform for him to talk about that. moving forward, glaad is the

advocator and we have been known as a watchdog. there's always a lot of controversy around glaad because we do call people on things when they're not going well. i have to say the media and i've -- and us have a really good relationship now. glaad was formed out of protest in front of "the new york post" almost 30 years ago this october when the post was reporting on aids and calling it the gay man's disease. we have always had an advocacy and advocacy arm to us. keith: on the journey of self-discovery what about situations wary of recognized individuals who may have talked against gay marriage at one

point but are now coming around. how do you address the so-called dichotomy or that kind of flip-flopping? ms. ellis: i think it is a journey. acceptance is a journey. and we talked about a recently and they're bringing their congregations along with them to the place of acceptance. we have to give room for people to discover, to understand, to educate, to meet people who are lgbt and go on this road of discovery and acceptance. it takes time and we've seen that in the lgbt community and we talk about that openly that it is a journey to acceptance. keith: i would like to shift gears a little bit.

it was reported a week or so ago most american airlines and wells fargo took some had -- took some hits for their lgbt rainbow. american airlines has a rainbow flag on the tail of their planes. how do you approach her how do you help the corporate community and advocating for lgbt acceptance. before the ruling comes out or up until the ruling has come out, how has glaad gone about trying to change the corporate mindset and get them to accept the community? >> you know, the thing we know is being diverse and inclusive is very good for business. once the business case scenarios were made, most of corporate

america got on board in supporting the lgbt community because they understood not only does it affect their bottom line, they retrain great talent and recruit great talent. with corporate america, and they got the memo on the business case came out that it would help their business and they've been very pro-lgbt and they realize taking some of the heads -- some of the kids -- some of the hits, the bigger social impact is really important in the business impact is really important. keith: at this point i will open the floor for questions. >> you mentioned what happens as it got work to do. if you get a ruling that is a half loaf or a ruling that makes it more difficult, how will you go about doing that work?

ms. ellis: first, i mentioned one out of three people are still uncomfortable with the lgbt community. that is focused on raising the stories, meeting lgbt people through the media because we find a lot of people who don't accept or not pro-lgbt don't know anybody who is lgbt. but the other thing is, from a media standpoint, what we would do is probably raise the story of these couples being hurt by not having a positive ruling we would talk about attacks that were put on them with the human side, that is our job to raise awareness on what the human toll would be for not having a positive ruling. >> do you have a game plan

prepared? do you have something that you will immediately rollout depending on what the court does? ms. ellis: we have all three scenarios covered in terms of how we will proceed. we are not a policy organization, right? our plan is a media plan and how it would raise those stories and make sure that there is enough awareness if there is a negative ruling, how that hurts american families today. >> you talked about how there is lingering problems for lgbt -- lingering problems for acceptance of lg db lgbt people. i am wondering what is the mechanism by which we get people to be more accepting any issues to be more exposed and how you envision getting people there.

ms. ellis: i think a lot of it is by meeting lgbt people appear to do it through movies. movies are one of america's biggest cultural exports. we are doing a lot of work with movie studios to have them be more inclusive because they don't get a good rating on being inclusive and high productions judeo movies. another is telling stories of everyday people we now and you have done extraordinary things are live ordinary lives in the face of adversity. this way, people get to know people who are lgbt. with caitlin jenner coming out recently, before caitlyn came out, we knew that 8% of americans knew people who are. now we are in the market seen how did that move the needle is such a high-profile and coming out as transgender. getting people like that who can do positive portrayals is really important to moving acceptance

forward. [inaudible] >> i don't -- >> let's say they're pushing an idea on a larger populous who may or may not have agreed with that? >> that's a great question. 39 states having marriage equality is over majority ask that doesn't seem very top down. it seems bottom up actually. when you look at the landscape and how we've been fighting for marriage equality it's been gradual and slow building to this moment now. so, i think it's been very much

a bottom up strategy in order to get -- and also if you look at the statistics over 60% of americans are pro american equality. so that's a super majority at this point. it's really -- it's definitely a bottom up move. >> certainly nationwide but would you say it's a bottom up in those states that are not on board with marriage equality? >> each state could be its own country in america. we often sometimes say that. but i think that you know, the people of america have spoken and are ready for this with over 60% saying that they are for marriage equality. so i think that the states are ready. i do think that we have our statistics over work

cut and especially in those states where southern and the middle of the country where it might be a little bit slower to move in that direction. but overall we're in a good place. >> they say you have to recognize out of state marriages but you don't have to perform your own in ohio and the states that have resisted doing that. wouldn't that basically legalize it because all the people would have to do is go out of state and then come back and they would still be able to have the benefits of marriage. >> yes, but you also have to think about in theory, correct. there are people who can't leave their state whether they're sick whether they don't have the means to, so it's not -- out for us across the country it could get into an socioeconomic issue as well. and it's not fair to those people that are in those states.

in theory yes, but in practice it's important that we have mire rapblg marriage equality in those states and we will be pushing for that if we get the second ruling. >> i in 2015 is the betrayal of gay characters a plus minus or wash? >> it all depends on what media you're talking about. in the network front, the networks do a good job actually of media portrayal. inch incorporating them into storylines and giving a diverse viewpoint. when we get to transgender there is one show the bold and the beautiful which is a soap opera that is exported more than it is viewed in the united states. the only recurring transrole.

so we have to pick up the transrepresentation. when we look at the studios i mentioned studios don't do a very good job. they're a very low numbers of portrayals and usually they're the joke, victim phaoeuzed killed all those things. and then when you look at the news media, i think the news media does a fairly very actually pretty good job at portrayals. they give diverse representation and good interviews. i think some media institute or news segments that could do

better. >> what could glad do or what other things can glad do to get the film industry to change its mindset as far as hg lbgt community is concerned. >> i'd love them to take a page from corporate america who understands it's better for business and i think that the film industry would see it's better for their business as well. however, one of the things that we are doing right now is not only do we measure them every year so we have a place, a baseline to have the conversation. but the other thing that we're doing is compiling the past two years the representation of lbgt people in films to show how negative it really is. we're figuring if we play it

back for them then they'll be able to see what we're talking right now is not only do we measure them every year so we have a place, a baseline

so so i think it's an important for them to be inclusive because i think it it will add to their bottom line and not detract. >> recently ireland became the first country in the world to accept gay marriage of the is there anything that glad could learn from the irish experience as well as other countries a better acceptance of gay marriage the lbgt community than we do? >> what's interesting about ireland is that it was popular vote. i don't believe that a

minority's rights to be voted on by a majority. it went very well. we worked on that actually at glad. when we do global work we help get the questions right and the answers right and get as much media around big events as possible. so, i think that, yeah, we should take a page from their book. i don't think voting on it is the page to take but that a very catholic country has beaten america to the punch here is why i'm cautiously optimistic we'll get a positive ruling from the supreme court. we just saw it in mexico last week. so we're seeing a lot of really positive affirming lbgt movement as we are seeing as much resistance and i don't want to downplay that as tall because it is still criminal in many countries to be lbgt.

>> ireland as a country on some social issues is wrong and sex self marriage they moved to the rare knowledge how do you take these traditionally right or left wing positions and get to where you want to get in places without necessarily trying to say we're moving left or right? >> see i don't think it's a left-right issue. it's an issue of love. it's an issue of family and that's one thing where i think ireland took what we do really well which is when we first started on the marriage equality road we talked we talked about rights and protections. when we realized those weren't resonating we started talking about love and family and appealing to what we all have in our -- in our nature is to

protect our family and love our family. and ireland actually took that and upped it even a notch. some of their campaigns were sheer brilliance where they had a grandson calling his grandmother and coming out it her. it's about love what we're talking about and not left-right. and i think it gets moderate in the left-right when it's about family. it's about making this country even better because when you have love and strong families a country thrives. >> let's see where you see a case where a southern baptist preacher says he doesn't want to perform same sex marriage, could he be sued? or is that somehow -- there is a gray area in that? how does that work? >> you know freedom of religion

is critical to this country. i think where it gets shady and tkpraeu gray is when it gets out of the place of worship and gets into businesses denying services. that gets into a gray area. it could be the next life or death emt services. i think it's really important right now there's over 80 anti-lbgt aring freedom bills pending. what we want to be careful about those are about denying people services every day. and that's business. when you're talking about the churches within your confine of your church you have your religion. >> let's focus on the

transgender community for a minute. i had a discussion with someone yesterday because she didn't know the difference between transvestite and transgender. do you clarify that for us. i gave her what i thought my definition of both of those were and hopefully that was correct. >> it started a national dialogue and it's so important to have these conversations. so someone who is transgender is someone that my definition has been -- feels that they are -- they feel different inside than their body shows. so they want to align their body with how they feel in their heart and their mind and that's what transgender is. it's been a very impactful couple of years in the media for

the transgender community and we've seen a lot of visibility grow out of that. but i also want to warn what we've also seen is eight murders of transgender women. so while we're seeing a lot more visibility we're also seeing an an up tick as reported. so many people are misgendered or not out, so eight is what we know of this year which is more than one a month. so we're really focused in on accelerating acceptance for the transcommunity. >> and transvestite? >> there's a lot of no minute clay cher around it. >> it tends to be someone who dresses in women's clothes but doesn't identify as a woman full-time.

>> we've mentioned caitlin jenner several times. before that it was rene richards who was a professional tennis player. and before rene richards there was christine jorgensen in the 19 fifties. i have two questions but first, how specifically if you can talk about it would this case help the transgender community if the first option holds true, the first option that you mentioned earlier where you say, yes you have to accept the same sex marriage, period. how would that help the transgender community; do you see a direct assistance?

incorrect? both? neither? >> any time that we've seen marriage equality come it a state we've seen the acceptance rates in that state of the lbgt community go higher. so i think what we know if this positive affirming ruling comes in, acceptance will be excel rated just by ruling coming in for the lbgt community. >> my second question i'd like to focus on an article that was published in my company's human resources report written by genevieve genesis. and two things that struck me in this article first they quoted

that there are an estimated 700,000 transgender adults in the u.s. workforce. 700,000. second thing, she quoted a consultant who said, "when you transition you don't transition in a vacuum. everyone in your life transitions with you, whether you like it or not." my question is, does there need to be -- does a critical mass need -- does a critical mass need to be reached before the transgender community gets the same level of acceptance as the -- as gay lesbian and bisexual? in other words, i'm thinking that -- this old commercial if

you tell two friends they tell two friends and so on and so on. if there's a number above which a turning point could occur and then the transgender community begins to be accepted by the general public, do you think that the numbers need to i crease before that will happen? >> well, i always get a little nervous around numbers just because, especially when it's self-reported and it's in the transcommunity. when we were on the southern bus tour i had a young come up to me and said, i didn't even know who i was until two years ago. she didn't see it and hadn't heard of it. she knew what she felt inside wasn't lining up with her body but she wasn't affair of what transgender even meant. so i think even building visibility about what

transgender is increases hopefully the people who are living in pain right now who are potentially suicide candidates understand who they are, accept who they are and see that they can live in this world happily. i worry about the numbers quite frankly but i do think that as we see people transition, as we hear their stories and as we learn about their lives and family we become more open and more accepting to them. i think we're on that road. i do believe we're on that road and i think that laverne cox is a great example. we worked with laverne cox for a number of years, over five years and was on the cover of "time magazine" as the transgender tipping point and then with caitlin coming out that

interview with diane sawyer was viewed by more than 20 million households. for the first time in millions and millions of households they met someone who was transgender and that does a miraculous thing for acceptance. >> have you seen any change in the numbers since caitlyn jenner did the -- oh was on the cover of "vanity fair." >> we don't have automatic reporting for that. but i -- my professional guess is we'll see more people who say they know someone who is transgender and we'll see more people identifying as transgender because they know who they are. they've been struggling very quietly in the recesses of the country and now they'll have something to put a name to --

and feelings against that they are. >> you talked about a bus tour that you've done throughout the south. could you talk a little bit more about the bus tour and people you've met, any negative impressions or any negative experience that you had during the bus tour? >> it was a phenomenal bus tour. we did six cities -- i mean six states, ten cities in seven days. we started in nashville and we did the first ever country music concert for the lbgt affirming concert with ty herndon who is an out texas artist. we had to stop taking artists on because it was going to be an all day affair.

that was the first of its kind and it was accepted really, really well. no pro tests or anything of that nature. we were thrilled with that. we went on to alabama where we met with community activists and then we went on to meet with military families, lbgt . /* military families, families and how we could bring stories to light and shine the light on any issues they were still having. and then we premiered two mini documentaries one on south carolina. we were in charleston and then we were in coloradombia and then umbia and then georgia. but i think we met with a lot of faith leaders and that was

interesting to me. because they really are at a point of acceptance and they're trying to figure out how to bring their congregation along and most of the most successful people or faith leaders have done about a year or two journey with their congregation, having these conversations about who are we and what do we stand for and how do we be inclusive and diverse as a community. so, i found that really fascinating. the other thing i found in as fascinating a lot of the activists or people on the frontline who are living their every day lives aren't organized. so i think a lot of organizing happened in those smaller towns across the south which i think already could you see the light bulb go off for a lot of these community activists where they realized they we