act and supreme court reporter david savage of the "los angeles times" and "chicago tribune" will join us. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] and today after more than 50 votes to awaken this law, after a presidential election based on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme court the affordable care act is here to stay. host: and that was the president's reaction to the supreme court's latest decision regarding the 49ers. and we want to know what is your reaction? is the a.c.a. now the law of the land? is it here to stay? should the g.o.p. still work to replace it?

if you are an affordable care act enrollee, we want to get your view as well. if you can't get through on the phone lines, make penchant via c-span media. and send an e-mail todown @c-span org. here's "u.s.a. today" "obama care prevails." "wall street journal" says that the high court saves health law. and "washington post" "health care act survives court."

here is the "washington times." "supreme court saves obama care." and here is "the new york times." "justices give obama another health care victory." in the attached article, the impact of the law appears most clearly in the shrinking number of uninsured americans in 2014. the number of people without health insurance coverage fell to 36 million from 44.8 million in 2013, a decline of nearly 20% according to data released this week by the national center for health statistics. --

host: that's a little bit from "the new york times". >> peter, the president says the law is here to stay. what will republicans do next? now the focus turns to the 2016 presidential candidates. "health law ruling puts new pressure on the g.o.p. presidential candidates." the and "the washington post" says what's next for obamacare? most action isn't expecting from kroenke. -- congress. when he was pressed, he was quolet as saying we do not have a willing partner in the white house. we know that the president would veto anything that would pass.

and as a result, we who is a willing partner help people help get the people the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower costs. here's some of the reactions --

guest: we'll give our viewers more of that coming up after we get some phone calls and some viewpoints from those outside of washington. host: and here's some tweets we've already received from viewers. robert says scotus just punched the republican ticket to win. and here i mylan. once judicial activism is another's constitutional constructionism. and part of that conversation with karen. it's only judicial activism when one disagrees with the court's decision, wink-wink. and sea of tranquility says big win for the rich insurance corporation -- zd scotus -- affordable care act

enrollees, 748-8003 for you. david on our independent line as we look at the -- outside the supreme court. another decision today. go ahead david. caller: thank you. i think yesterday was a great day. i've had several friends who have been paying $600-$800 a month from insurance costs and their annual expense was a $500 check-up. i mean they're the winners in this case. host: david from washington, d.c. caller: good morning. it's a good day for the united states. this is a case -- the supreme court always has a long-standing rule that it will rule -- with regard to the contempt of the law.

so if there's contradiction, the rule with the law's intent and roberts points that out from scalia's own words on the a.c.a. so there's no question about this. this -- "inaudible] host: now, there are crowds outside the supreme court this morning because it's another decision day. a lot of these crowds are waiting for the gay marriage case. that could happen today or that could happen on monday. ted cruise reacted to the health care decision yesterday on the senate floor. guest: >> ted: i believe 2016 would be a national referendum on repealing the obamacare. it's unpopular with republicans. it's unpopular with independents. it's unpopular with democrats. it's unpopular with young people.

it's unpopular with hispanics. it's unpopular with everybody it is hurting. host: and there are -- ted: and there are millions being hurt by this law. the court adopted and put its stamp of approval on the i.r.s.'s blatant unlawful reading of the statute to make subsidies and taxes applicable to individuals on federal exchanges when congress explicitly provided the opposite. host: back downstairs to greta. guest: here's what other contenders had to say yesterday. -- those of us who pledge to repeal obamacare must redouble our efforts and not waste time and energy in today's scotus ruling.

reaction from those running, chris christie -- host: and one of our viewers -- republicans have had five years to replace health insurance fix and have produced nothing. rethat would is from vegas. he's a democrat. what's your view? caller: i want to talk what the last tweet was there.

they did have all the time to have a plan of their own in the last five or six years. and going further than that when bush was in office right here, where was their plan then if there was something that was a priority? the reason why is the supreme court did them a favor because they exposed them for not having a plan. and all they're about is a free market. they never had a plan like hillary clinton did or ted kennedy. that's not their interest. so for them to come out and say oh, you know, it was such a horrible thing, this affordable care act, their just hypocrites i call it. that's my comment. thank you. host: joe in woodbridge, virginia. joe's a republican right here in the suburbs. hi joe. caller: hey, two quick points. number one, we already have a single paid government run health care system and it's called the veterans

administration. how is that working out? i don't believe why the democrats and obama and a good portion of americans want to move towards a single pay government-run health care system. it doesn't work. number, two all of my friends are in the private sector. and obamacare has been absolute disaster for middle cass working americans because all of my friends lost their policies, then had policies reissued to them with higher premiums and high deductibles. from what i've seen, it's been nothing but a transfer of wealth system from working americans to non-working americans to get free or low cost health insurance. host: that's joe in woodbridge, virginia. and mickey is an a.c.a. enrollee. mickey in byron, georgia, when did you enroll in the affordable care act?

caller: i enrolled as soon as i could when it first rolled out. i did have a little bit of difficult, you know, getting enrolled but i was able to have it on january 1 of that year. the last month of the year in december i could not even afford insurance. i'm own a self-employed family business but just a family operate and i raise $1660 a month and i could not treat to treat my insurance. i'm a diabetic. i have tons of precondition, which if i didn't pay the premium one month, i was out of insurance and would have never gotten it. but it has -- i had a heart -- and two stint that was put in in december 22 of last year. doctor told me i was a walking care man. affordable care saved my life

without a doubt. host: do you know how big your credit is? georgia is one of the federal exchange states. guest: yes. mine is right at $1,000 a month. we're a small business that barely makes it. what we have made it you know, been in business since 2000. but we struggled. but the one point that people don't understand is if i didn't have the affordable care and i was qualified. my only alternative would be to go on complete disability, which i was qualified, but i suffer at work every day and i would have cost the taxpayers of this country a whole lot more than the taxpayer that -- as a result of my health issues. but, you know, i am blessed to

be able to continue to work because of the affordable care. the other part i'd like to make and this is very very important and everybody continues to miss this point. the people that work for these big corporations, railroad governments, school systems, state workers, you know, they pay a premium every year every month but their premium is such to satisfy their workplace. subsidy is tax breaks for that corporation. it is income for the employees. the employee does not pay taxes on that money. so that money is free money that the employees are getting and have been getting for years. if you didn't work for a big corporation and you worked for a small business, and the small business couldn't help pay for that premium, then you did not get that big nice stacks. because if you made $100,000 a

year and you were getting $1,000 a month, you would have been paying $12,000 tax-free money every year because that was income and people don't understand they've been getting that for years but they don't want nobody to have credit and tax -- you know t tax credits but they get it. they have been getting them. host: mickey, thank you for sharing your experience with us. democratic senate leader harry reid also spoke after the decision yesterday. harry: once again, the affordable care act prevailed. so mr. president, i say respectfully to my senate callings and i mean that. stop banging your heads against the law against this nation. stop it. move on. republicans should be really -- they should pause for a minute and look back.

mr. president, i don't know the number anymore. i don't know. i lost count of it. is it 75? it's certainly approaching 100. the actual votes have taken place. the repeal of the law never came close to passing but they've done it time and time again. stop it. host: and back downstairs to greta. guest: the minority leader saying stop it, move on. our caller before saying the government didn't have any alternative if the court had ruled in their favor but they were working behind the scenes on a plan in case the court had struck down the subsidies. the problem is they couldn't agree on one proposal. this is what "the washington post" says this morning though, about a way forward in what republicans might want to do. republicans do have some ideas. they support for example, the law's provision preventing insurance companies with pre-existing conditions and requiring them to carry their young adult offspring their

policy. one republican said also pointed to a bipartisan proposal advanced by house energy in commerce -- many health experts say that a piece meal approach would send health care costs soaring. so that and the wonder pest about certainties there and about what republicans would do. host: and john boehner had a reaction yesterday as well. john: the problem with obamacare is still fundamentally the same. the law is broken. it's raising costs for american families. it's raising costs for small businesses. and it's just fundamentally broken. and we're going to continue our

efforts to put the american people back in charge of their own health care and not the federal government. host: some reaction from our facebook page. we, the people, need to wake up, writes joan. the supreme court cannot rewrite law. call the white house and/or your congressmen or senators -- host: nora in the bronx. caller: i'm so happy that they ruled in favor because this health care law, the affordable care act helps all americans.

no one should be without health care. it's not a privilege. it is a right. and the republicans behind closed doors have a sigh of relief. for five and a half years they did nothing but try and destroy it. all they said, repeal, repeal, repeal. and then only over the last year, they said they want to replace. replace what? they don't have any ideas to replace anything. and for that guy who said single payer or health care for all. medicare -- i'm a senior citizen and i'm on medicare and it's great. so it's nothing wrong with single payer. maybe that will come down the line but no one should be denied and health care. and it saves lives because people now can go to the doctor. they don't have to use the open door of an emergency room. that's just a band-aid on a disease that could be maybe not eradicated but could be controlled like diabetes, hypertension and heart condition. i'm retired, health care

professional and i saw what it was for people not have health care. and i think it's great and i'm just so happy and the republicans should stop. get on with voting rights. get on with infrastructure. get on with trying to help the american people. all they want to do is down minorities, stop old people from voting students from voting but yet they don't want to do anything about gun control. it's a travesty that those people -- when the 20 children died in connecticut, i thought something would be done. nothing. you can get a gun quicker than you can get a chance to vote. host: that's nora up in the bronx. we are talking about the health care supreme court decision yesterday. we're going to spend all three hours on it this morning on the "washington journal." front page of the "financial times" this morning "victory for obama." as supreme court throws out challenge to health reform. the u.s. supreme court has handed barack obama a huge

victory of the president's national health care reform and safeguarding insurance coverage for more than six million americans -- host: up next is karen from portland oregon, a democrat. hi karen. caller: hi, there. i have been enrolled in a.c.a. since it first began. my insurance premiums went from $800 a month to $284 a mon. my co-pays are very reasonable. i have the same doctor. and i think it's the best thing that's happened in a long, long time. i think the republicans are just not recognizing the facts.

this is not a punch card for a republican president in 2016. i believe we will have a democrat for president in 2016. thanks. host: brent cardinalston, west virginia, on our republican line. hi, brent. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would like to give the states a simple proof here and any time we hear the left talk about the debate is over, people who oppose us should shut up people should be silent, the argument is done. it's the law of the land just like global warming and now it's the a.c.a. any time they start talking like that, it's a sign of their desperation to stop this debate. the supreme court engaged to

keeps the monstrosity of a bill alive. and yesterday was a classic example. we have a phrase in the law that clearly says exchanges are to be established by the states. and ted cruise nailed it perfectly. fidelity to the institution and to the through a matters and that matters more than a few six million people getting health care at a higher cost at the cost of a nation who has $20 trillion debt. if the law does not protect us, if the words in laws mean nothing, then the law protects no one. and no one is equal. host: so brent, would you like

to see the congress take this back up? would you like to see the congress repeal it? replace it? what? caller: absolutely. i would love first of all to see the a.c.a. repeal in its entirety and week after week after week, pass it and send it to barack's desk and let him veto it and continue to do it until he either leaves office until we have a president who upholds the constitution or we have a veto-proof majority in congress. as far as replacing it, that's another little dirty trick that the left has been using this g. they're not having an honest g. they know full well while this law is being debated, that the republicans proposed numerous alternatives.

so they continue to say the republicans have solutions. yes, we do have solutions and they're free market based solutions which what someone ought to consider when we're living in a country that's supposed to be free. that is what is at stake here, it's our liberty. it's not about health insurance and that's what this law provides us. health insurance, not health care. there are millions of people who are cover who do not access health care. we now have this unconstitutional tyrannical health care law and i don't care what the supreme court says. the constitution says what it says. it means what it says. and it doesn't mean anything else. and that is where the discussion should end. thank you. host: brent, what do you do in charleston, west virginia? caller: i work -- really would

rather not say what i do for a living but i do have a job and i'm gainfully employed and a career and i pay taxes. and when i see these large distribution programs go into effect and i'm harkened back to what the founders dish forget which founder it was who stated that when you tax the people who produce to give money to the people who produce nothing, you are losing your freedom and that's exactly what we're having. the solution of a government handout is a non-solution. it has resulted over the last 50 years and $22 trillion having been spent, a poverty rate that is the same as it was 50 years ago when the war on poverty began, and we have the cycle of generational dependency upon government. how about the dignity of self-determination and self-reliance and giving people

an opportunity to do for themselves instead of relying on a government handout? and instead of -- health insurance is not a right, by the way. neither is health care. host: all right, brent in charleston west virginia, thanks for your time this morning. justices alito thomas, and scalia descented. here's some language from justice scalia's descent having transformed two major parts of the law of the court today. have turned its attention to a third. the act that congress passed makes it -- what do you got greta? guest: could this law be

challenged more in the courts? "the washington post" this morning, a little notice provision in the law could be another focus for conservative opponents to challenge the law beginning in 2017. the provision known as section 1332 could allow the president toway some of the main components of the law. this is according to the health policy experts. waivers could allow governor po put their own impresent on the reform and eliminate some of the more controversial parts of the a.c.a. "washington post" goes on to say there's also the case that was brought to the court by the republican leadership. john boehner's lawsuit against obama. it focuses on the administration's action to delay the laws employer mandate and reimburse insurance to reduce health care cost for lower income people. republicans argue the money was never specifically propet. the white house says it is

spending the money properly. the cases pend negative u.s. district court for the district of columbia and the architect of the king v burwell challenge said the house suit could be challenging but he doubts the house would be granted standing to sue because it would have to establish and had been injured by the administration's actions. c-span tweets in -- host: vicky is an a.c.a. enrollee in minnesota, democrat.

hi, vicky. caller: hi, peter. thanks for taking my call. i enrolled about a year ago. i have had insurance for almost nine years. i've always worked and usually got my insurance through work. but i moved to wisconsin and i lived there for eight years. i just recently moved back back about a year and a half ago. and i couldn't find a job where i got enough hours to be able to collect insurance and that's pretty much -- i am a caregiver and i've also worked in large professional daycare centers. so i chose a career with low income. i couldn't go out and pay some of the policies people paid. i depend on my job to help me with my insurance. so i went for almost nine years not going to a doctor and i'm going to be 60 this year and i have problems that i needed to care for and i was too proud to go and apply for welfare or

medical assistance. i did try once in wisconsin a few years ago to get on medical assistance and they told me that they had so many people on their list if i didn't have children to not even apply. so i just kept trying to save my money and do my own little things with medical but i've had a history of skin cancer and i could feel it coming back and i lost some of the use in my knee and i was having a hard time working. i moved back to minnesota a year and a half ago. i'm from minnesota. and i must say it is a wonderful state. and i love -- host: vicky what, do you think minnesota runs its own health care exchange. what do you think of it? caller: yeah. well, i just got on a year ago and it's really saved my life. it's taken weight off my shoulder. i've got my care -- and one of the things that they do is they do preventative care. they send you to a nutritionist and they do all the stuff they

can to prevent it and if they can get people to stop some of these illness and send them to the emergency room that they're already saving money. host: how big is your duck didn't? caller: i don't have one because right now, i'm only taking care about $1,000 a month and it's partly because of some of my medical problems. but i also live with a friend who we do a lot of the barter system with my rent and so much the other things. really helped me out. i'm so grateful to have some insurance because it really scared me. host: do you know how big your subsidy is a month? caller: no, i don't. host: ok. how much out of -- let me rephrase that. how much-out-of-pocket do you spend on health care a month? caller: well right now, none, because it is covered with my

policy is because of my low income. host: ok. all right. caller: and you know, that's one of the things i hear all these callers saying is the people that are just trying to -- they don't have to do anything and they get something for nothing and that's not true. i didn't have the ability to go out and make some of the money that other people have. in the business that i had you know, 10 to $13 an hour, how can you afford the policies that they have out there? how can you afford going to the doctor? i went to the doctor before i had this insurance for 45 minutes, it costs me $485. what if somebody with my income make that? i'm not lazy. i'm a hard worker and a good worker. and, you know, we just -- some of us just can't make the money that other people make and that's the way the world is. host: vicky in minnesota, and this is ivan in jamestown, new york independent line. caller: yes thank you. i'm disappointed with the ruling

yesterday. but that's water under the bridge and miles down the river. so come november 2016 when i enter the voting booth i'll think of three things. the first one will be how my health insurance premiums increase from $266 on july 1 2012 to $647 per month effective july 1, 2015. the second thing i'll think of is the political party that enacted this law in 2010 where their leaders said that a my health insurance premiums wouldn't increase, b, you have to vote for the bill in order to see what's in it, and c how the senate rules were suspended to allow this bill to pass back then. and then the last thing i'll

think of is mr. gruber who says i am too stupid to understand health care economics. and after thinking of that i'll mark my ballot and go home. so, thank you for your time, sir. >> and you're looking at live pictures from outside the supreme court today. 150 you can see a lot of people are waiting on the gay marriage decision. that could come down today. that could come down on monday. we don't know. the supreme court is sometimes hard to read and hard to follow when they're going to do things. so that's why you're seeing a lot of people lined up. but we're talking about the health care case this morning on the "washington journal." james tweets in this question -- is there principle lick really a in america who had mitt they're uncomfortable with the way john roberts became the rural of the land? greta brawner is following the

news. guest: what was the reaction from wall street yesterday from the sixth street decision? stocks for hospitals went soaring. ruling boosts hospital stocks and this is what "u.s.a. today" says. health care fifths trounsd insurers with gains of 7% showing who the real winner of obamacare are. what was the reaction inside the white house yesterday? the "washington post" with that story this morning. it says that there were cheers throughout obama's camp as efforts of health care is cemented. it was the health care decision that had cheers. the ruling affirmed obama's reaction saying affordable care act is not a privilege for few but a right for all. -- president obama: five years

in, this is no longer about a law. this is not about the affordable care act. as legislation or obamacare as a political football. this is health care in america. and unlike social security or

medicare, a lot of americans still don't know what obamacare is beyond all the political noise in washington. across the country there remain people who are directly benefiting from the law but don't even know it. and that's ok. there's no card that says obamacare when you enroll. but that's by design. for this has never been a government takeover of health care despite cries to the contrary. this reform remains what it's always been -- a set of fairer rules and tougher protections that have made health care in america more affordable, more attainable and more about you. >> and the "washington times" this morning. they call this law scotuscare. obamacare lives the "washington times" lives through the manipulation of law and abuse of the language by chief justice john roberts. a sloppily written health care law is rescued by a sloppily

reasoned opinion with mr. robert author of the opinion suggesting that the law orderly could not survive judicial examination -- ricardo from pennsylvania. good morning. with a do you think about the scour's decision on health care? caller: good morning. i'm elated. i'm elated. health care is for everyone. and you know something? you ever hear people debate the health care people? why it should be repealed? all these people have health care. they all have health care. you never see people that don't have health care debating why they shouldn't have it. i'm elated. i'm fortunate. me and my spouse, he and i, we both have health care. we're on medicare and then our jobs pay for our supplementals.

so we're fortunate. but everybody should have health care and then you listen to these people, cruz and rubio. i mean cruz, he's using the health care, isn't he? he's on the a.c.a. doesn't he get health care from that? i mean, it's pitiful. it's really pitiful and people got to remember we have to fight for 2016 to get a democratic president. but i enjoy your program and i thank you. host: thanks for watching, ricardo in lansdowne pennsylvania. and from the "hill" newspaper, there's a house bill. brian babin who is a freshman republican from texas has proposed that the supreme court enroll in obamacare. a caller from richmond, v.a. hello. caller: yes, c-span. i just like to enjoy watching your programs. you really know how to keep the

politicians honest even when they don't intend to be. i like to start off saying that the supreme court made -- might as well stuck the knife in the back of the american people. twice they had the opportunity to throw obamacare unconstitutional. twice they denied people justice. i mean -- obamacare is going cost us more than it does intent to save. obama keeps touting oh, obamacare is working. obamacare is working. i guarantee it's not going to work. i listen to the news a lot. obamacare will actually increase the amount that you have to pay out-of-pocket. this thing needs to be destroyed once and for all. host: do you have health care and how do you get it? caller: i do have health insurance. it's through work. >> and do you think that's the best system? caller: yes.

host: what do you say to uninsured people who would like to get insurance but it's not offered through their jobs? they can't get it through the government. what would you say to them? caller: you better be ready to shell out big bucks if you're on obamacare. host: abby -- joe from the democrat line. caller: the republicans need to sit down somewhere. they are hypocrites. when they don't want everything president obama have done, they try to make things better in this country and they are rebuked it because he was a black president and rubio and cruz and all those people like the man from pennsylvania said, they keep going around here and want everybody to be -- because they're able to pay. everybody is not in that shape and they need to -- they talk about supreme court which is ruled by the republican party.

well, when the supreme court gave word -- or eoh, they love that. now, the supreme court is no good because they didn't rule in their famplee see, that's hypocrite. you need to stop that. they need to sit down. and they are not going to win the white house again in 2016. and they're going to show up because the very same people they're trying to rebuke right now, those people are going to the poll and they will be defeated soundly. the republican party need to change. if they don't change, they will never get back in the white house. people are tired of them. they told the people if you give us congress, we will show you what we can do. with a have they done? boehner and mcconnell have done nothing but just sit there and waste our time and money. they don't want to help people in america but they can go overseas and spend billons over there on isis and they want to fight wars all the time. help the people in this country first. we are the people that made this. i'm a veteran and these are the

people that made this country great. host: how do you get your health care? caller: well, i'm on med care and i get v.a. host: does it work for you? caller: yes. and i have a lot of people that do not have insurance and need insurance and this obamacare has been the best thing for them. people can go to the emergency room and then able to pay for it and then they are going to charge add it to other people that do have insurance. so we need to realize that we got something to help everybody. everybody should be entitled to health care. you know just as good as the one that's able to pay. everybody's not rich. everybody don't have republican money. host: more reaction --

host: now penelope tweets in that i used the phrase earlier and she doesn't like it. don't lining the news desk. sounds like pundit. greta brawner is working and what do you want to share with us? guest: president obama plans to travel to charleston, south carolina to give the eulogy for the reverend of the church where they had that shooting last week. the coverage here of that funeral begins on c-span at 11:00 a.m. eastern time. here is some tweets from

reporters who are covering it. ryan says this funeral for the reverend doesn't begin for hours but already hundreds are lined up to get in. "the associated press" reporting thousands are expected. anding me -- and megasays -- thousands expected for obama's tribute. and this from a reporter. hillary clinton plans to attend the south carolina funeral today. also there is some breaking news . that's out of france. there has been what the -- french president says a terrific attack on an american-owned factory in southeastern france. "the associated press" reporting that suspects have been identified and multiple arrests have been made in that attack. host: and all morning this

morning on the "washington journal," we're going to be taking your reaction to the health care case passed by the supreme court yesterday. pardon me. and david savage of the "l.a. times," he covers the supreme court for that newspaper. he will be joining us and he will be taking your calls as well. and we'll be here all morning listening to your reaction. and now, we're going to hear from michael in toledo, ohio, independent line. caller: i'm so excited about the supreme court room and i don't believe-the-they have made the wrong decision. i believe that health coverage was not stretched by the supreme court and all insurance should be included and i believe they made a right decision because if you look at all the decision they've made in the pass with regards to anything, you've always had a ruling that was made law as opposed to just sending -- if you look at all the descending opinions, they

were incorrect in their rulings. and the supreme court prevailed in the right rulings. and i am so happy because people that have been poor for many, many, many years in this country was not able to afford any kind of medical care whatsoever. let alone insurance because poverty stricken people was not -- was always deemed to have been had to put a foot in their neck and was never able to get anything done. and i'm so happy for everybody in the country. host: all right, michael in toledo, ohio. here's a map in "u.s.a. today" going the exchanges. the dark colored states are the ones who have federal exchanges. the light colored ones have state exchanges. and it's the dark colored states that were could have been affected had the supreme court ruled in a different way yesterday. chris in elk river, minnesota, republican line. hi chris. caller: good morning sir. how you?

host: good. caller: good. i just wanted to -- you had a previous caller from minnesota, a gal from minnesota. host: yeah. caller: and i'm in minnesota. so i don't know if people are actually aware of how this works. my insurance quadrupled. i have one daughter and myself on an insurance plan. my deductible is now $9,000 a year. >> and how do you get your insurance, chris? caller: it's through my employer. host: ok. caller: and the people -- i have a daughter, 24 years old. and she is not on my plan. now, she works a minimum wage job. she has better health insurance than i do. and i'm paying for it. and so what happens is they put people in an area. we are all in a big area. so where you live determines

what area you're in. and so they group all these people together. and the people who have jobs pay for the people that don't. how is that right? can you tell me how does that make sense sir? host: that's chris from minnesota. up next is paul from pennsylvania. a democrat. paul you're on the "washington journal." caller: good morning. thank you so much for taking my call. i'm a longtime c-span listener although i do have to take a break from it because it's plenty -- somebody said your pundits. no. you let people talk. you never correct them even though they're blatantly wrong. anyway, here's my point. i think the supreme court of course made the trite decision. it was a typo. it was a technicality. obviously this is what the

senate intended in the house. and as far as of it being unconstitutional, it was passed by the house of the senate, unhe would by the supreme court twice. that's the definition of constitutional. and the supreme court, there would be 34 states. every presidential candidate would be asking them from now until the election. ok, what are you going to do about the 6.5 million people that have lost for insurance? not counting the people that would lose the medicaid suspension. talking about the 15 million people that the republicans have no plan. when the rates were increased and people their salaries were losing, they lose their insurance every month. if you lost your job you lose your insurance. so these people were drowning. they needed a lifeboat. and that's what the affordable care act is. and the republicans have said hey, that's a terrible lifeboat. but where is your lifeboat? oh, we don't have one. you know? and the best thing they could

have done for the republicans, now, what they would do now is they will use this to raise money even though they say they want to repeal it. they don't want to repeal it. they don't want to deal with that. it's just like abortion. when bush can throw the legislature and the supreme court and the executive office, they didn't do anything about abortion. because they know the american people don't want to go back in history. and plus, they would lose the fund razor. host: all right. that was paul from pennsylvania. this is gary on twitter. justice roberts is the new suitor. we can only hope he retires like suitors and let someone in who will defend the constitution. "the new york times" pines this morning on the supreme court decision. wisdom from the supreme court is the title of their editorial. thursday's decision was a powerful defense of the law. stronger than observers might have expected from this court.

the justices could have upheld the provisions on subsidies to federal as well as state-run exchanges as a reasonable exercise of discretion by government agency, in this case, the i.r.s. --

host: that's "the new york times" lead editorial this morning. robin, a democrat. go ahead. caller: i really have a problem with this whole situation with the obamacare. my insurance -- i'm on medicare. i always get health insurance

from my state because of my ink.o. now, i'm paying an extra $125. what i don't understand is how people could say this is a good thing because look at how we got there. first of all, when nancy pelosi, when this went into law, she walked cocky with that big gavel in her hand. this whole thing was shoved down our throats. nobody even knew what was in the bill. so will you tell me how possibly people could say this is a good thing when they didn't know it was in the bill to begin with? i just think it's a bad thing and i'm all confused and i don't think i'm going to be a democrat because i'm not going to vote for hillary clinton. she's been lying from day one from the state department. she's terrible. so i don't know where i'm going after this but i just don't like obamacare. host: greta what, do you got? guest: robin's points, doubts remain over this law, "the new

york times" reporting this. many questions about the law's impact were not resolved by the court's ruling. among them is whether the law is making health care truly affordable for most consumers. many people complain that they must pay several thousands before they receive tangible benefits from insurance policies -- also to our swrure tweeted in about john roberts hoping that he may retire soon. that viewer might be disappointed. "u.s.a. today" has this. roberts now completing his 10th term on the bench is just 60 and could serve another two or three

decades, they report. a prospect that has become less distasteful to liberals but more disturbing to conservative who is doubt his confirmation era assertion in 2005 that judges should be like umpires. host: "wall street journal" lead editorial. the political john roberts for the second time in three years. chief justice has rewritten the affordable care act in order save it. beyond its implications for health care, the court's 6-3 ruling in king vs. burwell is a landmark that betrays the chief's vow to be an umpire and not a legislature. he stands revealed as a most political justice. the black letter language of obamacare limits insurance subsidies to an exchange established by the state but the democrats who wrote the bill in 2010 never imagined that 36 states would refuse to participate. so the white house through the i.r.s. wrote a regulation that also opened the subsidy spigot to exchanges established by the

federal government. chief justice roberts has now become a co-conspirator tor in this executive lawmaking. that's the "wall street journal"'s lead editorial. and in the "hill" newspaper this morning is this article. senator hatch praises roberts as remarkable judge. but here's a little bit of senator hatch on the senate floor yesterday. >> the court has decided to rule against the common sense in the plain meaning in order uphold the affordable care act which by the way, justice roberts says has a lot of ambiguity and poor draftsmanship. even worse with today's decision, the court's ruling failed to hold the bottom administration accountable for its reckless execution of its own law. the plain text of the affordable care act authorizes subsidies only through state exchanges, not the federal exchange. this decision will allow the administration to continue

ignoring the law in order to implement its own preferred policies. as justice scalia said in his dissent, we should start calling this law scotuscare. only justice scalia would come up withing me like that which i find humorous. host: on hatch praises roberts as remarkable judge. he went on to say all i can say is the chief justice is a remarkable judge. he's a tremendous human being. i have tremendous confidence in him and i believe in him. i differ with him on this opinion. on the other hand, it is a very clever opinion and i have to say only a clever judge could have written it as well. alex from kansas, independent. what do you think about the supreme court's decision? caller: good morning sir. i'm impressed about roberts holding up the ruling because he was appointed by george w. bush.

my point is that prices will be going up. insurance-- the second-largest insurance company in the individual market and the oldest health insurance company in the u.s. is going out of business at the end of the month. from what i understand assurance had 96 people with organ transplants receive new policies. they were paying between 1000 and $1500 a month. how much is the cost, $1 million

at least? that is right there. insurance companies will not be able to afford it. it will fail and go to a single-payer system. it will not be practical for small business -- host: we leave it there. that is the first hour of "washington journal." we will hear from you on the supreme court's decision on the affordable care act. coming up in a minute, david savage of the "l.a. times" and the "chicago tribune." ♪

>> here are some of our featured programs this weekend on the c-span networks. c-span saturday night at 8:00 eastern on "issues: spotlight" we look at iran and its nuclear ambitions. at 6:35 sunday night, profile interviews with kentucky republican senator rand paul and vermont independent senator bernie sanders. on booktv on c-span 2 saturday night at 10:00 eastern, author nelson dennis on the history of perjury go -- puerto rico. sunday night at 7:45, a historian goes over the life of ronald reagan. on american history tv on c-span 3, a little after 9:00 saturday

night, commemorating the 800 anniversary of the magna carta. brenda hill on how the document influenced both countries from the lights -- rights of liberty and property to the limits of executive power. sunday at 6:00 p.m., the general marquis lafayette came to america in 1780. we were in jamestown to go of the replica of that friendship. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> while congress is out for the july 4 holiday break, booktv takes over prime time on c-span 2 featuring a different subject every net. monday the war on terror. tuesday, book publishing. wednesday, the digital age. thursday biography and memoirs. friday, science and technology. that starts monday, june 29 at

8:30 p.m. eastern. look for the latest on nonfiction books. booktv, television for serious readers. "washington journal" continues. host: david savage, your front page story in the "chicago tribune" says roberts once again shows independent streak. the wall street journal calls him a co-conspirator in executive lawmaking. guest: there are different ways to view this. when john roberts came on the court, he only wanted to get the idea across that we are justices and judges. he did not mean we are not -- it is not simple like calling balls like an umpire, it is that we

are not on one team or the other. in this case, as long -- a lot of your callers have been interested in how to interpret this call and whether they like it or not, but this is a 900 page law. it had one provision that said when you are calculating the subsidy, it is for policies for people enrolled in an exchange established at the state. that is at the end of the law. a whole lot of the law before it says things like every qualified taxpayer can get a subsidy based on his or her income. then it says to the states, you need to set up an exchange because states regulate insurance. and people will buy insurance through that exchange. congress new, contrary to what the wall street journal editorial says, congress news saw republican states would not set up an exchange and they set

up a fallback that says the federal government in that case shall establish such an exchange. the common sense question they came down with is does that federal exchange step in and serve as the state exchange? or was it something completely different so that the last provision makes the federal exchange useless? if you live in the state -- and there are a lot -- that did not have a federal exchange and you wanted to buying insurance, the narrow reading of the law would say sorry, you may be able to buy the insurance, but your subsidy is zero. i think it is one of those situations where i think we get together a bunch of good lawyers, do not have a view on it read the law closely. i think a majority of lawyers will say that when i read the whole law, not just that provision, the only way it makes sense is if to say an exchange

is an exchange, whether federal or state. therefore, the subsidies can go forward nationwide. if you read it the other way, congress promised every taxpayer who qualifies a subsidy, but they will get zero. i think roberts says that does not make sense. you could not read the whole law and come to that conclusion. host: when you look at the map of the u.s. and who was under a federal or state exchange, the federal exchanges are the darker colored states. by the numbers, you can see most people are operating under a federal exchange. guest: right. a lot of state officials will tell you they were never told that this was a choice that would screw their own citizens, in effect. if you were a state official in virginia or illinois and you had to say shall we create this next range and spend our own money or

we are having trouble why not rely on the fence, you may sit down in a meeting and say let's go with the federal because it will work and save us money. no one ever told the states that if you do that, all your citizens will lose. you will create a federal exchange and no one can really use it. that is why this case came as a surprise to a lot of people. host: that the supreme court even to get? guest: yes. on two levels. at the time of the law, no one paid attention to this phrase. it came up in 2011 and 2012. one of these conservative groups focused on it and said wait a minute, you cannot provide these exchanges around the country because the states have not created their own exchange. initially, i think the democrats and liberals who support of the law said that cannot go

anywhere, but it gained some traction in the lower courts. and then the supreme court took up the case last fall. a lot of the supporters of the law we're worried last fall. it takes for votes to grant an appeal. five for a majority. they thought if four or five of them see this as a strong argument, we are in trouble. last fall until this spring, there was a lot of anxiety that the supreme court may well read that narrow passage and say sorry, no exchanges -- no subsidies in about two thirds of the country. host: i want to be the first sentence from justice scalia. "having transformed to major part of the law, the court today has turned its attention to a third. " has the court transformed the law?

guest: that is for someone else to judge. if you read the whole law, they have given it the most reasonable interpretation for the law. i realize someone can look up the provision and say that means sorry, no subsidies, but i think most people who would read the whole law and analyze a fairly would say the only way it makes sense is that congress wanted to set up an exchange. and congress did not care if the state or federal government ran it. as long as there was an exchange and you sought insurance and qualified based on a low income, you could get a federal subsidy. justice scalia says we have to read that narrow provision the way it is and so therefore the court rewrote it to uphold it. but in the end, that is the question they had to decide. host: in your piece in the l.a. times, is the court -- i

apologize for this phrase, but is the court going left? is the court not a conservative court? guest: hard to answer. i think they are not going left. i think roberts is moving to the middle. in that sense -- imagine -- take the situation. the -- a liberal court would not have granted this appeal in the first place. a strong liberal court would say this makes no sense. like democrats said, this is preposterous. the law was intended to provide affordable health care nationwide. surely did not mean only in 14 states. but the supreme court took this challenge seriously and took the case. having taken the case, that would suggest it is not a court that is far left. i read a lot of briefs in the

case. early on, i thought the argument was strong. look at that phrase, all lawyers will say the court has to decide based on what the law says. but if you read the whole law it does not make so much sense. i do not think this shows a sign of the court moving far left and certainly not john roberts. he dissented in the civil rights case involving housing discrimination yesterday. it was a 5-4 vote. i think john roberts is someone much more comfortable with the court being in the middle seeming nonpartisan, not too far left or right. that is where he wants to be. i do not think this will do, a strongly liberal activist court. host: wild and wonderful tweets in i have yet to see a legislative act that did not

have an ambiguity somewhere, an open door for the courts. host: i agree with the first -- guest: i agree with the first part. john roberts is experienced as a government lawyer. he worked in the reagan and bush white house. he has been an appeals court judge. any government lawyer who has done that a while will say you get some complicated laws on insurance or bankruptcy were warm or whatever. and some of the provisions do not make a lot of sense. they seem to contradict. you have to work through one of these dense laws and try to make it makes sense. interpret in no way -- in a way that makes sense. judges and lawyers are faced with that problem all the time. it is easy for someone on the outside to say follow the law based on what it says. sometimes that turns out to be complicated.

that is what this is about. i do not think that means you are rewriting the law when you try to make it make sense as a whole. host: david savage is our guest. "l.a. times," "chicago tribune" supreme court reporter. claude is on our democrat line. caller: good morning. obamacare, ever since he became president the first time and the republican party give him a hard time i think he had to do an executive action to go to the supreme court. i do not condone it, but i believe in true party message. he had to do what he had to do. thank you. guest: he did not exactly go to the supreme court. his demonstration did put out a

regulation. the irs said we will provide tax subsidies for anyone who qualifies and lies insurance on an exchange, regardless of if it is a federal or state exchange. that was the obama administration issuing this regulation. the fight was about whether that regulation was illegal under the law. host: steve king: the tweets didn't roberts kick aca ownership back to congress? by doing so did he reduce the power of the third branch of government scotus? guest: this was a law passed by congress. it may have some laws bad-- flaws, bad wording, provisions that do not work well. i think roberts and most judges' view is that is for the

legislators to deal with. if they want to improve it or whatever, that is their job and not ours. host: richard is a republican. hello. caller: good morning. i have the year he and medicare. they do not cover kids. when the resident said -- a health care. when people say look how this is doing, that is what is going on in reality, you know what i am saying? guest: i agree that medicare does not cover children. that is correct. host: david savage, where does this case rank as far as major cases? guest: the hard thing about it is this was a huge deal, if the

court had ruled the other way. this happens a few times where the court takes up a case, and if they end up affirming the status quo, it is important, but it is important for what they rejected. had they have five of them agree with the challenge and says -- and say yes sorry, no insurance subsidies in states without their own exchange, three quarters of the country would no longer have been able to subsidize insurance. 6.4 million people would lose subsidies. a lot of people think and chief justice roberts said it that it would cause a death spiral in the insurance market. because if i am very sick and need a lot of medical care, and you are healthy and do not need a lot of medical care, i am likely to keep my insurance and

you are likely to say i will drop mine. the insurance companies under the law have to offer coverage. so even if i am sick, i will get it. you do not want to pay for it and 10 others like you do not want to pay for it. you can see what will happen. ensures costs would go way up. the number of people playing would go way down and it would ruin the market. a lot of people think that is the court had agreed with this, it could have been the death knell for the law and it would have unraveled. host: dee is in portland, democrat. caller: i have been listening to the conversation ever since the supreme court passed this affordable care act. what i am wondering is why is the whole country in such an uproar because roberts and supreme court did what they should have done? i think the affordable care act for them to accept that as

something they should rule on, was outside of the scope. they do not make the laws of the u.s. we know that the majority of the supreme court are conservatives. whatever issues, for them and i might add the small majority of them are race-based. are seven old, white people who come back and they have had such an issue with poor black people that everything that comes before them, they need to have power over that. we fact that they even went over the act scares me. i think a lot of the harm and hurt in this country, voting rights. the reason roberts came is the whole world is looking at them. look at how evil they have become. guest: i am not sure what's evil

about the court. i felt they had to resolve the issue. your guess is as good as mine as i a lot of people have strong views on the affordable care act. i think the jury is still out as to how effective it will be over time. it is bringing down the number of people uninsured but it is still a matter of political controversy. i think justices are more comfortable with inking -- and this is a conservative view -- is that the elected legislators should pass the laws. we should not rewrite the laws, change the laws. that is what they have done. they left the law in place. congress wants to change it, that is their job. host: what axis do you have to the nine justices? guest: limited in the sense that i cannot go up to them and see them a lot and talk to them as

friends. i see them around the building or at social events. i have done this job a long time. you watch them in the courtroom. if i watched you every day and have you answer questions about different issues in the news, after a while i would get a good sense of how you view the news. i think if you cover the court read what they write, follow the arguments, you get a sense of how they think and react to issues. i do not have access to them as friends. they are nice people, i know them, but they do not confide with me on their personal thoughts about law. but it is the case that if you pay attention, you get a good sense of how they think about the law. host: do they grant interviews, off or on the record? guest: yes and yes.

yes. we have some off the record lunches with some of them. i used to be able to see them in the summer. they do not like to do a lot of sick out interviews where they are quoted. but there have been a trend where they write books and then they talk and do interviews on c-span, so there have been more public interviews. it is the case i want to talk about my book and not cases or whatever. they are doing more interviews but, as i say, you do not learn -- they are smart people. they want to talk about some subjects and not others. we do not get secrets about what is going on. host: in winchester virginia, and affordable care act enro llee. hi shiela.

caller: i consider myself an educated consumer. i did my homework before i ever signed up through the federal exchange because virginia does not want to pass that even though our governor tried to get us to expand medicaid. i got in march of last year. unfortunately -- thank god i have the insurance -- i got dressed cancer -- breast cancer in october. if you try to go to the doctor without insurance, they will not see you. most of my doctors will take my insurance. some have said no. but i am still doing well and hopefully beat my cancer. if i had not been able to get this insurance. one question you asked about was subsidies. one i started out last year, i

started at $125. every year, it goes up incrementally, to the point i will pay $467. that will be a great hardship on me because i do not make the $20,000 a year. so half of my income will be on health care. at this point in my life, i have to have it, because i have to follow through with checkups and such for the next 4.5 years for my cancer. if not, i would be dead. host: thank you. david savage, any reaction? guest: she has a good argument for the law. what could be worse than to have a serious illness and not the able to get insurance and get treatment? i wish her the best. host: when lawyers argue cases,

are they jerked it towards justice kennedy for the most part, as the swing vote -- are they directed towards justice kennedy or the most part, as the swing vote? guest: lawyers have to write a brief first. you have a lot of time to do that. the oral argument in the court goes quickly. it is hard to figure what the justices will ask. when you structure your argument in the brief, they will try to focus on the middle position or some reasonable position that may sway justice kennedy, so yes. every time i talk to lawyers who do that, they always say we are counting to five. we are thinking how can i win over five votes, because that is what they need. in this case, they had three votes. that is not get you much. host: we have been showing live

pictures of the supreme court all morning long. there is quite a line out there. why are they out there today? guest: there are five cases left . one of them is the gay marriage case. a lot of people interested in that. i think a lot of people -- some are very interested and involved in the case and others are just tourists or individuals in town who want to be there. you can lineup and there are 150 seats are whatever. they come out at 10:00 to deliver opinions. it goes on half an hour or so. i think that is why a lot of people are out there. it is something to see, if you're able to get in. host: there are some of the gay marriage supporters in front of the court. 150 seats for spectators. what other cases are still on the docket? guest: there is a lyrical

redistricting case that people in california and arizona and some other states are interested in. a lot of fighting about partisan gerrymandering. california and arizona, voters created a citizens commission, impartial, to draw congressional districts. that is threatened because there is a provision in the constitution that says the legislature of the state shall decide on who goes to congress. it is a big question on whether voters and the citizens can draw districts or whether it is reserved to politicians. there is a case about lethal injections and the drugs used from oklahoma still pending. there is a big environmental case about a rule 25 years in the making that regulate hazardous air pollutants. mercury, arsenic.

this has gone on since 1990. the clean air act was amended then. the industry is fighting the role and saying it is too costly. supreme court, justice kennedy i think, will be the deciding vote -- they are split on whether this will take full effect on power plants. cold producing states say it will force the plants to shut down. it is to costly to change and cut down on emissions. environmentalists and health people say mercury is a terrible thing to get in the air and water. and that we ought to spend the money to get out of the air. host: how do we know in advance what cases the court will decide that day? guest: we do not. i have been doing this a long time, and they tell us at 10:00 we will have decisions. sometimes they say it will be a lot or a few decisions, but we never know -- i did not know the

health care case was coming yesterday. i do not know whether the gay marriage case is coming today or monday. all we know there are x number of cases to be decided and there will be decisions today. stay tuned. host: and again monday if necessary, correct? guest: yes. we get an informal guide that they will come monday. we think that is the last possible day. today for sure and monday. host: one of the cases yesterday was on housing, what was that decision? guest: the fair housing act from 1968 survey -- prohibits racial discrimination in housing. you may not to sell or rent to someone because of race. everyone understands that means if a landlord or someone says i

do not want to sell to you because you are black, that is intentional discrimination. but there is a line of separate cases that say what if a lending institution has a set of policies that have a discriminatory effect on racial minorities? the obama administration has gone after some big companies. you run one million different mortgage applications and it turns out african-americans are charged higher interest rates, for example, then white buyers, even if the income is the same. that is said to be a policy that has a discriminatory effect. the bank does not say it will discriminate the it seems to have a discriminatory effect. the question is does the law broadly cover those claims or just the narrow claims? not a 5-4 vote, they took the broad view rather than the narrow view. host: and justice kennedy going

on the five side. guest: a familiar theme. julian castro is our guest on our newsmakers program this week. they will talk about that case. that is sunday at 10:00 a.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. independent line, you're the last caller for david savage. caller: how come these -- how can these people have pride in themselves by making their neighbor pay for their health insurance when they are not man or woman enough to pay for it themselves. and you answer that? guest: that is a part of the law. that is the way medicaid and medicare work. there is a lot of provisions of the law were the government pays for someone's insurance in some way. that is why the affordable care act has been a matter of dispute.

it does provide subsidies for lower income people. some think that is a great idea and i think you think it is not a good idea. host: are the justices in human from public opinion -- immune from public opinion? guest: i think they are aware of certain reactions to decisions. if you're in a job like that, almost every decision you make some people will really like it and some will really hate it. they develop a talk skin. they know there will be a big reaction and they can put that aside. they know that some will like it and some will hate it. john roberts is surely aware that a lot of conservatives will not like the decision, but his view is my job is to interpret the law the best way i can impartially. host: let's take the gay marriage case. there has been a dramatic

increase in support for gay marriage the last couple of years. without affect how they write or view our poem on a decision? -- or view or vote on a decision? guest: yes. that is a case where the court does not want to get too far out of public opinion. if 10% of american people were for gay marriage, they would be hesitant to say that is a matter of a constitutional right. but if two thirds of the american people have come around to thinking this should be a matter of equal treatment and equal rights, i think that in the lack of their mines -- back of their minds --as a matter of equal rights, you have the equal right to marry someone of the same-sex, 30 or 40 years ago that would have seemed like an extreme proposition. now the majority except to hear.

the short answer is yes. the change in public sentiment does affect their view. host: david savage of the "l.a. times," we appreciate you coming down and taking your calls. i know you are on -- going back to the court. we have another hour and a half to get your reaction to the supreme court upholding the affordable care act case yesterday 6-3. 202 is the area code if you want to participate. 748-8001 four republicans. 748-8000 for democrats. 748-8002 for independents. 748-8003 for those enrolled. guest: "the hill" reporting

republicans are plotting a strategy to repeal the affordable care act. they will use a special budgetary process to repeal obama care after the court repealed -- ruled a second time to uphold the law. majority leader mitch mcconnell from kentucky proposed using budget reconciliation to repeal large chunks of the law. it will allow republicans to pass a repeal package to the upper chamber by a majority vote, bypassing the 60 vote threshold. the gambit is less relevant in the house where the majority party's republicans. he is expected to follow through on his earlier proposals. he views the budgetary tactic as the only way to get an obamacare repeal to the president's desk. but the president will veto it.

it will enable publicans to satisfy base supporters and draw a contrast between the parties. also on the supreme court case and the cases before the supreme court this term, "late" has this -- "slate" has this. it says that this may be the best term a solicitor general has ever had. he goes through and says he has never seen the court's arguments so closely lining up with the solicitor general's arguments on this health care law. a good term for this solicitor general of the obama administration. here is a tweet from david axelrod yesterday, the campaign manager for president obama's presidential bid in 2008 and 2012.

to his everlasting credit, he says, and the credit of the critical institution he leads, the chief justice played it straight in today's ruling. host: the national journal says if they will -- were going to kill obamacare, it would be dead by now. carl in chicago, illinois, democrat. what do you think about this decision? caller: i listen to a lot of the callers who opposed this. when i listen to their comments, i do not there them -- hear them address the fact that -- what about those people who did not have insurance who do now? what about those people losing insurance because of pre-existing conditions who are still covered? they say i hate this, i hate that. the fact is that there are a lot

of positive stuff happening with the affordable care act. no one said it was perfect, but it is positive. the republicans say we want to have a policy that will be business related. the affordable care act did not destroy insurers. this is not a single-payer. the market is still there. i do not understand these people. as far as roberts, he is still a conservative. however, he understands that he is the chief justice. the court will always be defined as who the chief justice is. they say this is a war court -- this is defined by him.

roberts understands he has a legacy as chief justice. he seems to think i will not be a part of my court ruling in a way that in the future could be overturned or cause such a people that my court will be identified in a negative light. host: what do you do in chicago and how do you get your insurance? caller: i get my insurance through my wife's policy at work. i am not working now because i have had cancer and high blood pressure and strokes. i appreciate the concept that i have insurance. i have a deep appreciation for those who previously did not have insurance. like i said, when i hear the people who are yelling and screaming about this and that, as soon as -- if they are doing

so from a narrow and self this position where they are not giving consideration to all the people who may be do not have the opportunity to have health coverage. host: this is teresa on our facebook page. it is one thing to determine a law or part of a lobby constitutional or not. another entirely to change the law as written by court decision. charles, independent in georgia. what is your view? caller: my call is a question in regards to the states that did not join in with the health care. the judges and everything, their questions and answers and such, if i understood the statute right, it says the states that did not that the federal

secretary should step in and establish it in those states that did not. my question is when and if he will step in to establish these in the states that did not establish it? host: what do you think about the supreme court decision and what they did? caller: i do not think it was right. the politicians, if i understand the way the system works, the people elect the officials and the president into office. the house and senate rights of the laws and bills and this and they are passed. host: charles inlet of the as. he mentioned he watched c-span's coverage of the case. that was back in march that this case decided yesterday was argued. i think march 4, 2015.

we have it. we have all the audio, because we are not allowed to have cameras in the supreme court but we have the audio. you can go to c-span.org and listen to the oral arguments. we identify justices by picture. in case you're interested in seeing it like charles bid. next call is just see in pennsylvania on our republican line. hello. caller: hello. thank you to c-span. i get a little emotional about this. i hear people about narrow positions and those with insurance being those against it. i am losing my insurance. my employer put me down to 29 hours. i am a reading specialist. i look -- i put a lot of money in my education. i was growing and the percentage my employer was paying towards

my insurance because i have a contract. when i started working, they work in cheerleading zero towards my insurance. then we got up to 25% and employers 50% then 75 percent. my new contract is i have been put to 29 hours. in two years i will lose my insurance complete we and will not be allowed to fire from my employer at a group rate. i am quite upset about it. host: this tweet says the letter of the law no matter -- no longer matters to the majority of the supreme court. congress collapse as a line of defense against tyranny long ago and with this ruling, the supreme court declared that the last line of defense against tyranny has collapsed. that is on our facebook. guest: wall street journal headline "health car ruling puts

new pressure on gop presidential candidates." we take a look at reaction from contenders on the republican side. mica be tweeting out yesterday the king v. burwell decision which protects an expanse of obamacare, is an out of control act of judicial tyranny. ted cruz says today's decision in king v. burwell is judicial activism, plain and simple. calling for a full repeal. lindsey graham says today's decision reinforces why we need a president who will bring real reform that repeals and replaces obamacare. rick santorum says today's supreme court decision is another reminder that if we want to get rid of obamacare, we must elect a conservative president. carly fiorina says obamacare has not lived up to what we were promised. it has become this clear -- it has become clear this law is not working. rick perry says americans

deserve better than what we are getting with obama care. it is time we repeal and replace it, and theme among all republican candidates. some polls to share with you. bernie sanders takes up in new hampshire. he is down by 8% and that early primary state. this tweet says trump sees bump. the mogul is gaining on jeff among the hammer publicans. host: i want to show you the "l.a. times" front page. obamacare appears cemented into law. the torilla in oregon, democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. my daughter lost her health insurance when she lost her job because the company was hot out. she could not afford cobra. she won without insurance about five months.

she has been working temporarily. she signed up for the affordable care act in january and open enrollment. she had to use it within three weeks. it is not free. she has co-pays. it is 50% to what it would have cost her for medication. it gives her an opportunity to attempt full-time and find a job she feels passionate about, not just because they offer health care. i rather, if i have to pay more for my health insurance, i would rather subsidize people really needed then multimillionaire farmers who do not need their subsidies. that is how i feel. host: victoria, are you still a practicing rn? caller: i am teaching. i'm still practicing. i am using be one brain cell i have left at 71. host: donna is in st. louis.

good morning. caller: 30 things. since we have a majority of republican-appointed supreme court justices, roberts and the supreme court's popularity was plummeting after the citizens united decision. i believe he is doing it now to make them look a little better. back in 1965, the republicans, even reagan, fought medicare every set -- that of the way. i do not hear an outcry to get rid of medicare. ditto for obamacare. it. lastly most of the media controlled by the rich and powerful of these days, have done all they could for years to brainwash people against the

law. i'm surprised anyone likes it. it is only because they watched c-span and got to hear what they were really saying. host: donna from st. louis. here is the front page from the "chicago sun-times." here to say is what it says. here is the president. ♪ >> more than 50 votes in congress to repeal or defeat this law. after a presidential decision on whether to appeal or defeat the law. after multiple challenges. it is before the supreme court. the supreme test of the affordable care act is here to stay. the court upheld a critical part of this law this morning. the part that made it easier for americans to afford health insurance regardless of where you live. if the partisan challenge to this had succeeded, millions of americans would have had thousands of dollars worth of tax credits taken from them.

for many insurance would be unaffordable again and become uninsured again. ultimately, everyone's premiums could have gone up. america would have gone backwards. that is not what we do. that is not what america does. we move forward. today is a victory for hard-working americans across the country whose lives will continue to become more secure in a changing economy because of this law. host: a republican from texas, a freshman, has shown his reaction to the supreme court case by introducing a bill that would force the supreme court to enroll in obamacare. that is an "the hill." valerie is calling in from lafayette. you are an and rowley, is that correct -- an enrollee, is that correct? caller: correct.

i am grateful to the affordable care act. i had to quit work. kober was going to be close to $700 a month for me to keep the work insurance i had. i called several different insurance companies. most would not insure me because of pre-existing conditions. i finally got on the affordable care act. it is not perfect. but it has to build the needs i have had. i had a life-threatening illness. since i have signed up. i am very grateful that i have had the opportunity to get that medical care, because they will not see you. if you do not have some kind of insurance, you cannot be seen by

specialists -- host: valerie in indiana. it is a federally run exchange. what kind of money, subsidy are you getting? caller: my part, i pay a little over $300 a month. it is not cheap as far as that goes. but if you compare it to cobra or to some of the prices i received one you want to talk about pre-existing conditions, they would not even talk to you, but a couple quotes i did get it was awful. way out of whack. i am just grateful we still have it. it is a great possibility i would not be speaking to you now.

it is very easy for the republican candidates for president to speak out of your millions, when you have millions of dollars and you have everything you would need. it is easy to say this law is wrong and this and that and the other. but go live it. host: were you following the supreme court decision yesterday closely? caller: i was. i believe they may be right decision. i really do. host: valerie and lafayette indiana. this is bernadette in new jersey. hello. caller: good morning. i was wondering if the recipients of the aca also get medicaid? my medicaid just started and i thought that was supposed to take care of all medical

expenses. maybe someone can call in and tell me that. host: what do you think about the supreme court decision? caller: since it is -- i would not want to take it from people. the problem is democrats gave and republicans are forced to explain why we are trying to take it away. it is the way it has always been. they gave and we have the reputation of taking away. it is a shame. we just want good policy. host: off the topic, you are calling in from new jersey. your governor will declare for president next tuesday it looks like. what do you think about his presidential run and him as governor? caller: i am agnostic about it. i used to like him a lot.

i think he is too much of a blowhard like trump. may be -- will become elected. maybe he could become housing and urban development or something like that. host: the "washington times" lead editorial called this law scotus care. -- that is the "washington times" opinion. greta brawner has been

monitoring social media and the news. guest: breaking news out of france. a terrorist attack there. there have been several other attacks around the world. here is daniel sanford from bbc. karen does images from kuwait. 10 dead. in tunisia possibly 27 dead, mostly tourists. in france, one dead. an ice is striking back in koba -- isis striking back in kobane, looking like a difficult ramadan. from nbc, it was only when you could hear the bullets whizzing through the air that we realize it was gunfire. that from tunisia. the tunisian government confirmed 27 dead. the daily beast says that one of the two attackers in france was carrying and isis flag. and it has the themes of isis.

they say that the suspects in france were related to isis and they have been identified and arrested. host: back to your calls on the supreme court's decision on the health care law. democrat, michigan, robert you are on the air. caller: good morning. this is strange because i am watching you -- host: you cannot look at your tv. do not listen to the tv. just talk in your phone and listen to my voice. caller: my comment was that, a couple years ago when they were having the vote on the obama care act, which is the affordable care act, there was an anchor poll on cnn where they polled a multitude of republican candidates or people voting and

asked them about obamacare. to which they replied no way would we vote for it. then turned around and ask them did they vote for the affordable care act, to which they replied yes, we like that one. i do not understand the republican senators running for president having the comments they have just because they changed the name from affordable care act to obamacare. they pretty much hate in this medical act because it is called obamacare. which they gave it the name. i just do not know. host: robert in michigan. this is greg in north carolina independent line. caller: thank you for having me this morning. people need to read the u.s. constitution. if they do not, they do not know

what it is all about. the laws do not say anything about health care. the senate passed the law. anything with revenue in it has to be -- the law has to come through the house of representatives. that is the way i understand it. therefore it is a legal law. that is how i interpret it and that is the way many others do. if the u.s. government continues to think that it is all right for them to not pay attention to the constitution, if they continue doing it, i believe it is the people's right to push back, resist and nullify the law. they will overrun us. the whole thing is about government control. people will see it. they have to wake up. host: thank you. we are showing you live pictures from outside the supreme court.

you can see quite a line outside, ready to get in, as we learned from david savage, there are about 150 seats for spectators. the court has several major decisions, including one on gay marriage re-district in, lethal injections, and clean air. they have announced that today is decision day at 10:00 a.m.-ish. monday could also be the same. our guest david savage said it could even push into tuesday if they decide not to announce all of the decisions. the front page of the "washington times," "supreme court saves obamacare." the "new york times" has a similar headline. "justices gave obama another health care victory." greg is in morrisville, we just talked to him in north carolina.

let's hear from senator mitch mcconnell now [video clip] >> the politicians now have a choice. they can crow about obama care possibly the wobble -- obamacare's latest wobble on the edge or they can deal with what is making life miserable for so many of the same people it is reported to help. host: let's go back to greta bronner. >> bloomberg politics has this story on their website. "california to foot bill for health care of undocumented children." it is set to become the biggest u.s. state to provide taxpayer financed health care of children

of undocumented immigrants. they are taking on the burden as congress blocks federal reform. the decision to cut her desk cover the children under medi-cal comes at a time -- cover the children under medi-cal comes at a time when the program is swelling under a mandated expansion under obamacare. host: rick is calling in from westcliff, colorado. caller: good morning. i would just like to say that i'm a small business owner. i have a rather large family. i have had to do bankruptcy in the past because of medical bills. that is not something i was very proud of. i take a different view than the other republicans on obamacare. i think it is a good thing. i have been in sales for about 28 years.

sometimes you have to break things down to the simple version for people to see what is going on. i was just having a moment where i was thinking, if i went to an all-you-can-eat buffet and they wanted me to weigh and they wanted to charge me more because i weighed more, i would consider that rude. i don't really consider -- understand why people are complaining that this makes health care affordable for everyone and it cannot be discriminated against because you have pre-existing health conditions and you cannot be denied coverage. i take concern with that. i have five children. they are growing up in a generation where i want them to be able to live healthy lifestyles and afford the health care they need. host: how do you get your insurance? caller: i don't have insurance.

our business cannot afford it right now. even when obamacare kicks in. host: have you looked into it for your family? caller: the last time i looked into it was when there was too much confusion at the beginning of the kickoff. i just did not want to spend the effort at that point. i will be looking into it soon. host: what kind of business do you have? caller: we own and all-natural bath and body company. host: is colorado a state or federal exchange? caller: you know, i'm not sure. i believe it is a federal. i'm not sure. i have not taken the time to look into any health-care coverage because i know it is just out of the budget. host: i don't have my maps that i have been using all morning. it is a state-run exchange. i will find that map to show you what it looks like.

dawn in rialto, california. caller: good morning. i was calling because i don't like the name obamacare. i do appreciate the affordable care act. it has been a lot of mess because it was not fully organized. california is one of the most organized states. others have come to our county to see how we run it. however, pre-aca, a family of four making $1200 per month made too much money to get any kind of medi-cal, which is what we call it, insurance. they would just be out of luck. yes, they need to tweaking it --

tweak it because the payments are ridiculous to me. i have never had to pay for health insurance. i previously had medi-cal, which is a government subsidy, like welfare. i previously had that before i went to work for the county. now come out of my paycheck, i pay maybe $150 or so and that is just for myself. the other thing about the aca program is that a lot more families are able to afford to do insurance. those that are not able to afford the insurance, they have subsidies. there are certain plans, the government still helps them. you have the option to have a mixed case.

on top of that, i saw something about the undocumented people or undocumented children. undocs are not qualifying under the obamacare, per se. for medi-cal purposes, they still will be able to get the restricted medi-cal, even if they have to pay a share of cost. host: do you support that? caller: do i support them giving insurance? host: the undocumenteds? caller: they are just getting emergency services, which is classified like a car accident or an emergency. host: do you work in state government or health care or anything? caller: i am a medi-cal worker. i am one of the people who helps people get insurance. host: when we show that headline from bloomberg is that a misleading headline? caller: it is a misleading

headline. nothing has changed as far as the undocumented people getting insurance. nothing has changed. under obamacare, they do not even qualify. host: has the aca benefited californians? caller: i believe it has benefited a lot of people. one of the beautiful benefits is that a lot of people who thought they could not qualify for food stamps now receive them. previously, they thought it was a welfare handout. host: from what you know about the california exchange, has it been functional? the state run exchange? caller: two years ago, it was horrible. it has gotten better. it definitely needs some serious tweaking. i think we should come together

and rework it. host: here is a map of the states. the lighter color are the state-run exchanges. the darker ones are the federal exchanges. >> with one of the undecided cases still out there on gay marriage, the "national journal" has this headline. "watch these two gop presidential candidates after the supreme court gay marriage decision." bobby jindal and john kasich will have to decide whether to implement or delay the decision. "the national journal" says this is an opportunity for them to define themselves against their 2016 rivals on the issue. they would be able to do nothing to stop it, but they could take actions to speed up or delay

implementation of the ruling, actions that would surely become a topic of the presidential campaign over the next year. on this story, cnbc with this tweet. corporate america is marching with gay pride. it is not just google, but also marriott, hilton, apple, and facebook. host: outside the supreme court a lot of the gay marriage opponents and proponents -- those are proponents from the human rights campaign. they are out there just in case the supreme court decides. they have a 10:00 a.m. time that they will be issuing a decision or some decisions. it could be the gay marriage case today or that could wait until monday. several of their decisions including an environmental case and redistrict in case are still to be decided by the supreme

court. we are talking about the decision yesterday on the health care issue. linda, on our facebook page posts, "the supreme court got it absolutely right. they ruled according to the intent of the congress that passed the law, which was reflected in the rest of the bill." wanyer in johnson city -- wayne in johnson city, tennessee. caller: i would like to say that we live in the greatest country in the world. i am on workmen's comp. right now. my wife is still working. she pays over half of her salary for health insurance. that is kind of rough on us. we make under the limit where you can get on the exchange -- or over the limit. i was kind of telling her this morning.

i said, maybe a few quick your job, we can get lower income where we can get on obamacare. i think that is what a lot of people are going to do. people are just going to give up and decide, let's go the easier route and get on government assistance. that is my comment. host: linda, mountain pine, arkansas. republican line. caller: well, it would be ok -- i hear all of these people talking about obamacare is so great. i can't get on it. i have tried with the government subsidy and all that crap. it is like $350 per month just for me, but i have to meet a $5,500 deductible and i have tried no telling how many affordable care acts. i am uninsured right now. host: do you not work?

are you not ensure through your work? caller: yes, i work. i had real good part-time insurance until obamacare came into effect in the cancel the insurance and now i cannot get insurance. i cannot afford this obamacare stuff. i made a $5,500 deductible before i get my medicine each month. that is just plain stupid, i think. host: sea of tranquility tweets we have gone through all this crap to insure 6 million people with 35 million still uninsured. shaking my head. senator chris murphy spoke about the decision yesterday on the senate floor. [video clip] senator murphy: there are millions celebrating this decision today. it is a sober day because hopefully we will be able to

have a conversation about how to move on to another topic. but it is a day to celebrate for the 6.4 million americans who would have had their insurance taken away by an adverse decision. for all americans who would have been caught up in an insurance death spiral had the decision gone the other way. so, i hope that we can limit our discussions of the affordable care act two ways we can talk about making it better. i hope we can spend time talking about other things that matter to this country. i hope that the house decides to give up this obsession with repealing the affordable care act, something that is not going to happen. for its opponents in the field, the supreme court has shut the doors to a judicial repeal of the affordable care act today. host: the couple more facebook

reactions. gary says that the constitution is a living document law. ben says scotus needs to be objective and follow the letter of the law. this tweet from independence day. i am one being hurt by this law and i would like to see something better, but insurance is not the answer. >> outside of washington today thousands are expected in charleston, south carolina to honor the victims at that church shooting last week. representative jeff duncan of south carolina tweeted this out. the most underreported story and the country is how faith has sent south carolina down a very different path in ferguson or baltimore. democrat james clybourn said the

passion for health care and believed it was important to expand medicaid. we will have coverage of the funeral today starting at 11:00 a.m. eastern starting on c-span. the president is expected to give the eulogy around 1:45 p.m. eastern. host: back to your calls, tweets, and facebook comments on the health care decision. tracy in sterling, virginia. democrat. caller: good morning. i have two quick comments. i think that people are just ungrateful. five years ago if you had insurance and you lost your job, you had nothing, absolutely positively nothing. the idea that you have a backup plan is enough for me to say i'm ok with this. im blessed that i have insurance. if i lose my job or i get sick or my child cannot afford it, i have a branch.

let's not be nitpicky over i pay this much more are that much more. when you are dying of breast cancer or you are sick and unhealthy and you cannot feed your family, you've got to be glad you have insurance. that is my first comment. i want to talk about some of the callers who say that c-span moderators are not correcting or checking some of the guests. i listen to c-span because i don't want to listen to fox news. you guys have integrity and discretion when you have guests don and i appreciate you for being neutral. everybody want to complain because they don't want to hear what they want to hear. i love c-span. i watch this program because of the way you conduct yourselves. you don't jump on other guests. that is the c-span that i watch. thank you. i'm grateful we are living in this country.

host: stewart is an independent in mechanicsville, virginia. caller: good morning. i guess my perspective on this is a little broader. i understand the principles. i don't necessarily disagree with it. what concerns me is that i think we are raising a generation of people that consider themselves entitled to health care. which we really are not. entitled to an education. we really are not. as far as a child being able to stay home until 26, let me tell you. my father turned 19 years old in the pacific fighting the japanese. he came back, married my mother, raised a family of four, paid for everything out of his own pocket, education included.

i turned 20 years old with a drill sergeant's boot halfway up my butt in kentucky. i raise two children, paid for everything. they understand, if you want something, work for it. you are not entitled to anything. that is my comment. host: that is stewart. the next up is susan. susan is a republican. caller: i just wanted to say how unaffordable the affordable health care act is. to me, it is the biggest redistribution of wealth out there. i make median income, $40,000 per year. i spent $500 per month on premiums. i have a $2000 deductible.

i can no longer contribute to my 401(k). i don't know if i will have social security in 15 years. it is the biggest bring down of the middle class that there is. host: susan? right now, you don't have insurance? caller: i do have insurance. i have insurance through my employer. that is another thing. host: has that cost gone up? caller: i'm sorry? host: has that cost gone up since the aca came into effect? caller: in the beginning, when it was first enacted we are going back to 2012, when we started hitting the employers it jumped up 30%. it has increased 15% and then another 15%. this year, in order to keep my premiums down, i'm paying $500 per month, i had to go down --

if you have bronze, silver gold platinum -- i had to go down to a bronze. my premium is still $500 in my deductible is $2500. that is $7,500 per year. host: that is through your employer. have you talked to them about perhaps getting different coverage? caller: we are given different options of coverage when we sign up annually in february. i have gone down in order to keep my premiums the same as the year before. i went from a silver to a bronze. the fact of the matter is, at $40,000 per year, my take-home pay is probably $22,000 after obama care my state and federal taxes. host: that is susan in cordova maryland. should there be a solution to the uninsured issue?

caller: it used to be that -- right now, i have a 25-year-old son. he has been on his own insurance since he was 19 years old. he went to work. i instilled some ethics and him. it is different if you're a full-time student. a 26-year-old is a grown adult to be on their parents assurance and to tie them down to be obligated. you used to go search for a job and that is what got businesses the best employees possible, was there benefit package. if i interviewed for a job, i would be interviewing the person hiring me about what they offered. what is your medical benefit? everybody wants to throw everybody into an exchange if

they walk into a hospital, you cannot be denied services. host: barbara is in austin, texas. a democrat. caller: thank you. i am so tired of this gop mantra that they have a monopoly on ethics and goodness and self-sufficiency and they did it all themselves without any help from anybody and all democrats are takers and all republicans are givers. there is no more entitled people in this country than the wealthy and the corporations. just look at walmart. depending on the government to provide food stamps for their employees when they could be paying them a decent living wage. that is being entitled. they have more benefits than anybody. one of your callers talked about only poor people use obamacare. that is untrue. working people and young people under 26 and might be in graduate school or starting a career, they are the people who are using obamacare.

people want things and don't want to pay for them, including many republicans. i remember about the cash for clunkers program. obama helped people get new good cars. many of my republican acquaintances jumped on that and got new cars. yes, they say the democrats are takers. i want to remind people about to vigorous opponents of obamacare that i remember in the last year. one was a share out west in arizona. he actively fought against obamacare with all his might. he was so opposed to it and refused to sign up for it. he suddenly had a catastrophic illness and he started a go find me campaign to beg for money instead of signing up for obamacare. there was another well-known

case like that. such hypocrites. such self-righteousness. such hypocrites. the one caller was right comparing this to farm subsidies. the people getting farm subsidies are not poor people. they are the wealthy. some congressmen, some senators, some political leaders there are big businesses getting farm subsidies. these republicans are screaming about health care subsidies. host: have you been listening all three hours this morning? caller: i tuned in kind of late. i follow david savage and i wanted to talk to him. i missed everything before that. host: is there anything about what you are hearing on the republican side that you would agree with? caller: not one syllable. not one. i am an analytical person, i listen carefully, i evaluate what i hear. they are just so hypocritical, so self-righteous.

that man who called and recently who said he did it all himself we never took anything. i bet you they have benefited from all the work that has been done by democrats, for instance setting up social security and those things. they are also complaining about judicial activism. there was a case of real judicial activism in the bush versus gore case where the court stepped in and stopped the vote counting. that was activism. yesterday's decision was not activism. it was common sense and common good. host: that is barbara in austin, texas. there is quite a conversation going on on the facebook page. here is a couple more facebook comments. georgianna says this court is too political, government is

only to protect us from enemies, not interfere with or mandate our life choices. dan says, thank you for protecting millions that would otherwise not have health care. greta has been working the news and updates on twitter and social media. >> here are some on the same-sex marriage case. the court could announce a decision today or monday or tuesday next week. and then that is it. on twitter, brian brown, the president of the organization for marriage says, no matter what the supreme court decides in the next few days they cannot ever change the truth of marriage. it was a long journey with flight delay in chicago but tevin is outside the court

awaiting that decision. going through the oral arguments , chief justice roberts started by saying you're not trying to join the institution, you want to change it. later in the arguments, the chief also questioned the idea of whether banning same-sex marriage equates to sex discrimination. justice kennedy hits both sides of the argument, saying that marriage is been designed desk to find a single way for millennia. he later talked about the dignity of same-sex couples and families -- language we have heard from him before. host: those are live pictures outside the supreme court. a lot of gay marriage proponents and opponents are out there.

we are taking your calls on the supreme court decision yesterday on the health care act. we have been doing it all morning. here is the front page of the "washington post." "health care act survives." senator ted cruz spoke on the floor of the senate. [video clip] senator cruz: i believe 2016 will be a national referendum on repealing obamacare. this law is profoundly unpopular. it is unpopular with republicans, independents, democrats, young people, hispanics, everybody it has hurt. and there are millions being hurt by this law. the court adopted and put its stamp of approval on the irs

possibly leon lawful reading of the statute. to make subsidies and taxes applicable to individuals on federal exchanges when congress explicitly provided the opposite. host: more tweets that we have received at the washington journal. rick says it is over. you are going to take this health care whether you like it or not. move on. penelope roberts is liberal? he gave us citizens united, the voting rights act, and will rule against redistrict ring. all hurt our republic. dfw librarian says, how are red state gop governors going to justify withholding medicaid from their people now? judy in boiling springs, south carolina. you are on washington journal. caller: yes, sir.

i am for the affordable care act. my husband got a disease that made him disabled. they put him on medicaid. he is 58. they take his medicaid. we were floundering. think of for the affordable care act. they are charging us for. we are not getting it for free. thank god. before we got on that, he was paying full price. we got on that plan and we're paying for it. the state of south carolina has put him on medicare. medicare has taken a substantial more money and they are going to charge more for his.

it behooves me that people can do that for him. host: have you looked at the federal exchange for south carolina? caller: yes. the law in south carolina, they put him on medicare. they say he cannot be on the affordable care act anymore. that is what i don't under and. we weren't getting it free. now they put him on medicare. he's got to be off the affordable care act. host: given all you have said give us your quick take on the supreme court decision. caller: i think they ruled right. my husband's situation, people put on disability for no fault

of their own, people are floundering out there. my husband had to lose his job because he is disabled, but they put him on medicaid. we had to get on the affordable care act. then they put him on medicare. host: thank you ma'am. a couple of headlines. "usa today." "obamacare ruling helps avert crisis." the other is about justice roberts, saying that he is again obama's rescuer. blanche in pennsylvania. democrat. naca and rowley. -- an aca enrollee. caller: not exactly. i have enrolled, but because i did not make enough money that i could not get that.

they moved me over to medicaid. then the state told me that before -- i couldn't qualify for medicaid unless i spent down all of my savings. it was quite a lot over 20 years. i ended up doing that. paying for blue cross and blue shield. something for people with pre-existing conditions. the point i wanted to make was i live in a state that does not really have an exchange. the governor loosened up his ties. he was 10 points behind in the election last fall.

but it still is difficult. euro one illness away from being totally broke. i now have no income going forward. i am not complaining. ok? host: are you happy with your medicaid coverage? caller: yes. very happy. host: is it 100% coverage of anything including dental, glasses? caller: no. you have certain things you have to pay for. you have to pay for dental. , you have to pay a certain amount on glasses. nothing should be absolutely free to anyone, ok? if you can afford $20, you can

afford $20. there are these people who say the kids should not be on your kids insurance -- i once had a real job. i made a lot of money. i am old enough to have had a private pension. that tells you something right there. i had a private pension and i have a 401(k) and i had a pension from another company. can you imagine having to spend all of that down before i could qualify for anything? my biggest complaint are these people south of the mason-dixon line. why is it that the only part of the constitution they understand is about guns? promote the general welfare does not mean that you can have health insurance?

i just don't get it. back downstairs to greta. >> in addition to the health care law decision, the court also upheld a housing discrimination law and the hud secretary tweeted this out. today possibly in upholding disparate impact analysis under fair housing act is a strong victory for equal opportunity in our country. castro will be on "newsmakers." we are waiting on the court to make a decision on several cases. we have talked about the gay marriage case. kentucky, michigan ohio, and tennessee are asking the court to uphold bands on same-sex marriage and allow the political process to handle major societal changes. there is also the lethal

ejection question. death row inmates in oklahoma are objecting to the use of a sedative after the drug was implicated in several botched executions. independent redistricting commissions. roughly a dozen states have adopted independent commissions to reduce partisan politics and drawing congressional districts." republican state lawmakers complain that they cannot be cut out of the process without violating the constitution. then there is this mercury emissions case. environmental regulators overstepped bounds. finally, repeat offenders.

host: those are some of the cases the supreme court still has to decide. it is a decision day. monday is a decision day. perhaps even tuesday will be a decision day. live pictures outside the supreme court. we are taking your calls this morning. cari tweets in. what is the average premium and deductible for a family of four? those numbers will talk the nation -- shocked the nation. caller: good morning. how are you all doing? host: we are good. caller: it is a good thing that this happened, that the supreme court voted on this.

i am from texas. ted cruz can't speak for me because he never asked me anything about health care. i am a disabled guy. i still work. i don't collect social security or disability. i can afford insurance no. they charge different for different states, the insurance. in texas, you can afford it depending on how much you make. host: do you get your insurance to the federal exchange through the affordable care act? caller: yes, i do. i have blue cross blue shield. host: what does it cost you per month? caller: right now, with dental, it is costing me about $50. host: $60. you know what your subsidy is? caller: if i go to any doctor, i

pay a deductible -- $25. they pay the rest. of whatever is left over. when you are still paying for the insurance, it is not free. you are still making payments, you know? regardless, you are going to be making payments to the insurance. it is not really free. i have a $500 deductible. you still have to pay that if you go to the emergency room with a hospital. you still have to pay. it is not free. host: dave is next in irvine, california. caller: i would just like to make a comment. the supreme court got it right. i was glad that they voted the way that they did. i think that the health-care law is a great thing. it is saving lives.

the republicans are not for anybody. they don't want to help the middle class or poor people. they call barack obama is a socialist. the biggest socialist in the world was jesus christ. he was a socialist. he does want to help the poor and the needy. the republicans, all they want to do is outsource all the jobs get rid of the minimum wage, and the only thing therefore is more war and more killing. i can't understand why anybody would vote republican. this law is a good law and it could be better. we need universal health care. host: how do you get your insurance? caller: what? host: how do you get your insurance? caller: i get it through where my wife works. i have kaiser. i have always had insurance. when you have everybody going to the emergency room, you have some kind of plan -- have to

have some kind of plan. people can't all go to the emergency room, but when they do, i had to pay for it because i have always worked. you've got to get it where everybody is in the pool. that is the only way it is going to work. it is unsustainable when people go to the emergency room. host: a couple more tweets. as usual, justice scalia was correct. max says, justice roberts saying power in a democracy rests with the people just blew my iron he fuse. tom calling in from indiana just south of fort wayne. caller: yes. i had a comment to make about the affordable health care law. i think the american people

would have been a lot more receptive to the law if they had not been lied to by the president, by harry reid, and others involved in passing that law. the lie has continued right up to today. there is another document that i remember reading some time ago. what it amounted to was the government is put here to serve the people. in this document, at the end of it, it tells you that it is the right of the people to alter and abolish the government whenever they see fit host:. do you think something should be done? caller: do i think something should be done?

yes, i do. host: what would you like to see done? caller: i would like to see us swing more tour the constitution of the united states. host: do you have insurance? caller: i do have insurance. i am in a private plan. i have medicare or medicaid whichever they call it. my other insurances through the private plan. host: nancy pelosi also reacted to the supreme court decision yesterday. [video clip] nancy pelosi: it is appropriate that this decision upholds the valve's of our founders, for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. a healthier life, the liberty to pursue your happiness without your job locked or policy locked

because of a pre-existing condition. you can change jobs, starting business, be self-employed. you can reach her aspirations. that is very exciting. host: mike in layton, utah. republican line. we are talking about the supreme court decision yesterday. caller: good morning. i happen to be republican and i am disabled. i am on medicare. that is a wonderful insurance. it is incredible. of course people love that kind of thing. we just keep arguing and arguing -- it is like having a checkbook with nothing in it. we are arguing how we are going to spend the money in it. $20 million in debt? it is insane. we keep going crazy spending this and the democrats get up

there -- no offense, but pelosi is such an air had going on and on about how wonderful everything is. people are just not taking the time to really understand the cost of this. it is not free. we need to make sure we are paying for what we get. there are programs and things that we can do. there are so many smart people. i just wish more would migrate toward washington. that is all i have to say. it just helps to be able to share it little bit. host: dam, iron rich, wisconsin. independent line. caller: i would agree with the gentleman from utah. i think nancy pelosi is a joke. people that have had their own business -- i have had my own business for 29 years. i used to pay a $10 co-pay for insurance.

now it is $4500. that don't include any employees i have an all of the other things i have to pay for, my taxes. i pay a higher tax rate because i have my and business. i have been disabled for the past four years. i cannot afford anything. i have no insurance. i can't even hire somebody. host: have you looked at the exchanges? caller: yes. i can't afford anything. when they came out with this law, they varied me. they varied my business -- buried my business and all of the people who work for me are gone. i have nothing because of this stupid health care. host: greta bronner has been checking out the news and social media. >> and about 10 minutes, we will find out whether or not the court will decide today on same-sex marriage. take a look at what some of the

presidential candidates have been saying on this issue. hillary clinton just tweeted, put your name next to hillary if you agree that no future generation of lgbt americans should live in a country that does not embrace their full and equal rights. here is what the former arkansas governor mike huckabee had to say. he said, i will stand for the institution of marriage and vigorously oppose any redefinition. rick santorum -- we need to scrap obama's dangerous iran deal, not the definition of marriage that has sustained mankind for 5000 years. host: in "the wall street journal" they are calling it a tower. i want to read through this with regard to chief justice john roberts and an analysis of his decision. this is from the wall street journal. "keeping the tower up right."

chief justice john roberts bases decision on the broader structure of the health law. you can seal up the different pieces that are included in here. some of the so-called jango pieces in this tower. it is in "the wall street journal." a few more minutes left on the health care decision. caller: good morning. i would just like to say to the gentleman from utah who said that the republican from utah said that his co-pay used to be $10 -- why did that change?

it was exactly because republicans deregulated the insurance industry and privatized all of our hospitals. he really has nobody to blame except his own politics for that happening. anybody that supported that regime of republicans that deregulated really should not be crying. they should be crying because they are losing now. i would just like to say that my wife is on obama care. for 10 years, we cannot afford our insurance premiums. they were $1500 per month. can you imagine that? now she pays $119 per month. obamacare is working, it is wonderful. anybody that says any different is really just not a good american. host: next up is richard in mid lothian, virginia. caller: yes.

i want to call in and say that i have been using obamacare since december 1 2014. it has been a great benefit. i am paying lower monthly premiums than i was paying before. host: how much are you paying per month? caller: i am paying $480 per month. host: do you know it your subsidy is? caller: i want to say the subsidy is $600. host: did you ever have insurance or a company prior to this? caller: i did. my employer was telling everybody at the company that they might have to get rid of their insurance. their insurance was not that great in the first place. he told us to look on the exchange.

i live in a state that has not set up an exchange. rates better than what my employer was starting. i think money going to obamacare. we switched over to obamacare. host: are you happy with it? caller: very happy. host: given that you are using the exchanges, how closely did you follow the supreme court deliberations? caller: very closely. i have been following it ever since it was in place. i was very concerned because if we lost the subsidy, my rates go up to about $1100 per month. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: i am a contractor. i do video teleconference and audiovisual mrs.. host: is everybody within your company now on the x danger is it is the employers will offer it? guest: the employer does offer

insurance but his insurance is so much higher than what i would be paying if i was not on obamacare i would not be able to of ordered. host: thank you, sir. greta? >> in about seven minutes, when the court comes into session, we learn what decisions they are announcing today. we want to let you know how this all works. since cameras are not allowed kimberly robinson tweets this out. she says, when justices enter the courtroom, the marshall will call the room to attention and then what happens, the justices announce opinions in order of seniority. she also writes that the on -- audio is heard in the press room. when the chief says the docket number of opinions, the staff hands out hard copies. outside the court, you will see a mad -- to get out of there where no phones are allowed and

in an adjoining room, she will be sending out tweet of what they hear. that is what will happen in about seven minutes when the court comes in for another decision day. we will learn what decisions they will be announcing. there are five out there. if we don't hear about all five, we will hear about them on monday and possibly tuesday. host: some of those decisions include gay marriage, lethal injection, the environment, the air, and redistricting. nancy in big bear city, california. go ahead. caller: yet. most of the people that i know are middle-class and have middle-class income. all of their costs are going up. it is actually hurting the

middle class. we are the ones that really need the help that are out there working. i am in california. i am a disabled senior citizen. to get anything, i have to have the income of less than $600 per month. which nobody can live on. that is absolutely ridiculous. the other woman calling in from california that is a caseworker for the county, what she said is an absolute lie. when illegal immigrants come here, they go and and anybody can look at the welfare application. they get everything. it is called fullscope coverage. they get housing, full medical dental, vision, everything. it even says that the requirement to get these fullscope benefits is based

solely on their immigrant status. the use of 70% of the housing assistance in this state. nationwide, they are using 60% of the housing. host: where did you get those statistics? caller: this is absolutely ridiculous. these people need to be taken off of welfare. we are spending over $500 billion per year. host: where did you get your statistics? caller: i get my statistics from government sites. things like the world bank. $5.2 billion. host: alan, it is looking like

you are going to have the last word. euclid, ohio. republican line. caller: thank you for giving me a chance to share my thoughts. i have a tendency to vote on the republican side. the law should probably stay. i kind of agree with the supreme court. the reason is this. it is not so much political. i think when you have a large group of people that don't make any money, these people really can't afford health care. if you can't afford health care you don't care who pays for it people. can't you get it through your heads? i have a friend of mine who is devout tea party. he is tea party, neoconservative to the max. he has his own private business. he never had health insurance.

he is on obamacare. wake up. people are not making any money. they are not going to care who pays for their health care. you can play all of these political back-and-forth this the constitution this, it doesn't matter when you are not making money. the constitution, going way back offered protection to people. i may be wrong. they offered protection to the people. in 1780, it probably did not cost $1000 per month to run your health insurance. they offer protection to the people. maybe offering health care in the year 2015 is protection of the people. host: that is alan in euclid ohio. we spent this entire morning talking about the health care decision made by the supreme court yesterday. by the way, the court heard the case back in march. march 4, i believe it was. you can watch that and listen to

it -- you can listen to it, i should say, it c-span or g. when you hear the forces of the justices, we attach the faces. we are not allowed cameras into the courtroom. scotus blog has announced that up to four decisions could be pending at about 10:00 a.m. we are going to go back to the courthouse for the live outdoor coverage. we will be watching for the decisions. thanks for participating in this. [general