>> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. >> the world changed in an instant. mediacom was ready. we never slowed down. scores of businesses went virtual and we powered the new reality. at mediacom we are built to give you ahead. >> mediacom supports c-span as a public service. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up on washington journal, jesse eisinger talks

about his report on how billionaires avoid paying income tax. later, we will discuss the presidential election in iran with trita parsi and richard goldberg. >> let me say definitively, the affordable care act has won. the supreme court just ruled. the aca is here to stay. ♪ host: the supreme court for the third time yesterday rejected republican efforts to undo the affordable care act. n/a 7--- in a 7-2 decision, they said republican challengers did not have standing to bring the case. we want to know what you think about the supreme court and the affordable care act. if you support it, (202) 748-8000. oppose, (202) 748-8001.

if you have insurance through the affordable care act, (202) 748-8002. you can also text. include your first name, city and state at (202) 748-8003. you can also post on facebook, or send us a tweet. we will get your reaction to the decision. let's begin with the headlines. usa today. obamacare repelled the third challenge. states like standing in the case against the individual mandate. from the wall street journal, supreme court rejects challenge to the aca. justices rule against lawsuit led by republican-led states to scuttle the law. the washington post. the ruling signals the end of the gop legal crusade.

you have the new york times. justices fend off their gop attempt to scrap care act. in the ruling, it sidesteps the issue of the individual mandate. washington times this morning. high court leaves obamacare intact after tax challenge. states lack evidence of injury, is what the justices said. support or oppose the decision. we have a special line for you this morning. take a look at aca enrollment. this is according to the health and human services. as of june 5, 31 million -- that is wrong that there. 31 million total. 11 million enrolled in marketplace plans. 15 million newly enrolled in

medicaid via the eligibility expansion. one million enrolled in the basic health program. four million adults can't covered under medicaid expansion. there are the numbers for you. this is how house republicans responded. the leadership said, "republicans have believed forcing americans to buy a government mandated product was unconstitutional and the obama care tax hit lower income americans especially hard. while the supreme court ruled states do not have standing to challenge the mandate, the ruling does not change the fact that obamacare failed to meet its promises and it's hurting hard-working american families. now congress must work to improve the american health care." your reaction to this decision. jane and brooklyn. what you think about the suffering court decision yesterday? caller: good morning, greta.

it is a wonderful thing actually. we have to stop trying to stop things that help people. whether they are insured or not. it's a good thing and i'm happy with the supreme court. host: for you surprised of the conservative -- the newest conservative justices that ruled along with the liberal or progressive justices on the court? caller: i think birthing pains are painful. in one way yes and another way no. it will take a long process. i'm surprised and very proud today. host: what do you think democrats should do next with this win? where should they go with health care? caller: we have to improve it. i can give you an example. i am uninsured. i work full-time but at the same time i can't afford living in

new york city, 1500 of a month rent -- $1500 a month rent. i don't have insurance from the aca. if god forbid something happens, i would have to pay out of my pocket. it needs to be more affordable. that is what i would ask them to do. depending upon how your living situation is and how much you get paid. host: have you looked into the aca? caller: yes. one thing that is good is is if you're uninsured, you can get insured. i believe there is something that would help you pay it via tax cuts and things like that. host: subsidies as well. have you looked into that? caller: one of my friends works in health care. she says we will sit down and figure it out at that there are

some rules. i think it's a great thing. that is what i would ask the democrats and the republicans to do. we are all in this together. you are making a difference by being on the show and talking about these issues. host: all right. we will leave it there. the latest polls done by the kaiser family foundation on the popularity of the affordable care act. in may of 2021, paul adults had a favorable view -- 53% of them had a favorable view of the affordable care. 35% had an unfavorable view. james, you were on the aca. tell us your reaction to the supreme court. caller: well, i think that it is long overdue to help people pay,

support individuals trying to get affordable insurance. i, and 2020, -- in 2020, i spent over $60,000 out-of-pocket. i had premium health insurance. it did not cover a lot of stuff. i thought i could not get on the aca due to income. that was totally false. i am on medicare. i was paying probably $25,000 a year in premiums and still having to pay out-of-pocket on a lot of stuff. i had some major medical. i had health maintenance insurance.

it had a cap of $500,000. i blew through that in 2020. basically got exposed to a lot of out-of-pocket stuff until i got another premium health care. i went on my wife's cobra. as a family it cost about $2300 a month because we wanted good health care. finally got on the aca. i have reduced to an affordable level my insurance coverage in nebraska. i believe nebraska was one that had the supreme court case in there to overturn it. my major point is you have to make it affordable for people. host: how much are you paying now?

caller: about $300. host: the month? caller: i can't say it is apples to apples with the insurance because i don't know. yeah, you know. i got the gold plan. i am subsidized about $2500 a month through the aca. basically it is $2600 to $2800 total for the premium. people think their income disqualifies them. they should seek out and go to the aca. also, i had a life-threatening event in 2020. my wife is a registered nurse. she fought all sorts of stuff. it is tragic the way our health

insurance is. they demand payment while i was still in the hospital or they were going to turn it over to collections. i was raised to pay my bills. there is no empathy in the health care system. did needs to be fully restructured to the benefit of individuals -- it needs to be fully restructured to the benefit of individuals. we are the weakest link in everything. they take advantage of individuals. host: i will leave it there because i went to get to some other voices. david in denver, colorado. you support the aca and the supreme court decision. caller: i do, greta. i don't know where to start. a couple of things, i guess. first of all, for the third time, john roberts saved republicans from themselves.

can you imagine what would have happened had the supreme court doing away with the aca completely in the middle of a pandemic? it would have been crazy. each case the margins have grown. now you had a 7-2 majority. i think the aca is here to stay. this is good. i want to say you can get hit with health problems. it can come out of nowhere. i had a career in the air force. i served over 20 years. i had a genetic heart condition that i did not know about. all of a sudden it just hit me and came out of nowhere. i had to have a transplant.

shortly after the transplant i had cancer. this wasn't any lifestyle problem. i was perfectly physically fit through my mid-50's. all of a sudden i am hit by these medical crises. what saved me, being on tricare took care of my transplant and got me going with my prostate cancer treatment. now i am with the v.a. i have recovered and for the most part resumed by lifestyle. i exercise and i'm trying to do the best i can. for the country, i think what has to happen is we have to make access to health care better. from my perspective it is a right. i would like to see medicaid

expansion. i would like to see more people on it. ultimately, make the aca and health coverage better for all americans. i think that statement you read from the republicans acknowledges the idea that, ok, the aca, subsidized government care, it is with us now. host: continuing on that point, usa today article about the supreme court decision notes after upholding the law in 2012 and again in 2015, the court was faced with a new challenge. the requirement every american obtain insurance coverage, noticing in the visual mandate, or pay a penalty -- known as the individual mandate, or pay a penalty. the republican attorney general of texas argued it stopped being a tax when donald trump

signed a law in 2017. texas and 17 other states told the court the rest of the obamacare also had to be thrown out because of other provisions like protections for people with pre-existing conditions and the provision on a lifetime benefit cap rest on the requirement that a mickens obtain health care coverage in some form. the court ruled these states were not injured by this and therefore did not have standing. kathleen in mississippi, we will go to you next. caller: good morning. i'm so glad, because during the pandemic -- i have social security, medicaid, medicare. i was getting food stamps. when the former president put us

on agriculture he took out the mandate. i called medicare.gov. they said i had to pay $1400 before i have any surgery. now i have been getting $814 a month, but when i called them they said, $1400 has to be paid. i was ecstatic yesterday. it was so surprising. host: ok, kathleen. thank you for calling today. listen to the majority leader chuck schumer when he came to the floor yesterday to praise a decision by the supreme court. here is what he had to say. [video] >> ever since democrats passed the affordable care act,

expanding access to tens of millions of americans, with had to fight tooth and nail to preserve the law from partisan republican attacks. for more than a decade the assault on health care -- for more than a decade the assault on our health care law was relentless from republicans in congress, from the executive branch itself, and from republican attorneys general. in a landmark vote we in the senate prevented the republicans from repealing the aca in 2017. each time, and each arena, the affordable care act has prevailed. once again today the united states supreme court upheld the affordable care act in the face of another legal challenge. let me say definitively the affordable care act has one. -- won.

the supreme court ruled that the aca is here to stay. now we will try to make it bigger and better and establish once and for all affordable health care as a basic right of every american citizen. host: the majority leader for the democrats on the senate floor vowing to push for more coverage from the government for health care. the new york times reports that one example of where democrats could go is the proposal to illuminate surprise medical building. it enjoyed bipartisan support, but faced an ablative industry opposition. kids success was not assured but it passed in december. senate leadership is considering a package that could include an expansion of medicare to cover more middle-aged americans and provide dental, vision and hearing benefits. it would be costly, probably face resistance from health industry.

other ideas like president biden's campaign proposal of a public option that americans would have the choice to purchase are at the earliest stages of conception. your reaction to where democrats want to go next with health care. we want to hear from you on that as well. i look at how republicans bonded. representative diana harshbarger saying, "i've disappointed in today's ruling defending the obamacare the turning callous americans. when he defined smart, common sense, free-market solutions and that the american people choose their care, not be forced to have government choose for them." dr. neil donna. "it is not a congress to pass patient-centered reforms that lowers the value of care. scotus's decision is disappointing. over the last several years we have seen how detrimental obamacare has been on this country.

americans deserve lower costs and increased transparency." regina and portland, oregon. we are getting a lot of support this morning. if you oppose, dial-in at (202) 748-8001. go ahead. caller: good morning. my name is regina and i'm a big fan of obamacare, and obama and general. i think he is the greatest president we have ever had. i think he will go down in history as the greatest, up there with lincoln and roosevelt and the greats. i am 72 years old. i have obamacare. i am crippled. i am mentally challenged and i am old. obamacare really takes care of me. i am ever so thankful for this country and for barack obama and the people that voted for this

great legislation. thank you so much. host: let's listen to the former president back in 2010 before signing the affordable care act into law. [video] >> i said this once or twice but it bears repeating. if you like your current insurance, you will keep your current insurance. no government takeover. nobody is changing what you got if you're happy with it. if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. more people will keep their doctors because your coverage will be more secure and more stable than it was before i sign this legislation. now that this legislation has passed, you don't have to take my word for it. you will be able to see it in your own lives. i heard one of the republican leaders say this will be armageddon. well, two months from now, six

months from now you can check it out. we will see. [applause] you don't have to take my word for it. host: president obama back in 2010. the former president to out yesterday, "now we need to build on the affordable care act and continue to strengthen and expand it. that is what potus biden has done, giving families the peace of mind they deserve. 31 million now have access to care for the law we passed, with millions more who cannot be denied coverage or charged more because of a pre-existing condition. today the supreme court upheld the affordable care act and again this ruling confirms what we have long known to be true. the affordable care act is here to stay." do you agree or disagree? if you disagree, what do you want republicans to do about

this latest decision? mary, redmond, oregon. you support. caller: hi. i'm the perfect poster child for the story many of us have gone through. i have the aca. thank goodness for the aca, because i had health care provided for my work. during covid i was let go by my company. i lost my health insurance. they gave me six days to gather my thoughts and get health insurance. i was in a total panic. i jotted down this number for a counselor advertising on tv. if this happened to you. today we are working with the aca. i think it was a government entity, maybe state. i'm not sure. this settlement was so caring and helping me through the panic of finding health insurance in six days.

six days. i was able to secure because they opened the window for people that lost their jobs. i was able to secure health insurance for myself. host: on the acahost:? caller: yeah, and affordable too. it turned out the same company i was insured with that work, and i could afford a better plan. i went up to silver because of the affordable care act. i got better insurance and i had. when i first got let go i was in such a panic. so stressed out. could not sleep because i thought i will be uninsured during the pandemic. i am in my early 60's and he cannot afford insurance on my own. that would have been about $1200 a month for your basic insurance. they just let me go. i had no income all of a sudden. they offered me the cobra, which

they do if you lose your work provided health insurance. cobra was $850 a month. they just cut off any kind of income you might have had. then they say you can go on cobra. how are you supposed to afford that when you just went after income? -- went off your income? host: how much do you pay now? caller: $240 a month and i can do that through my savings account. i have a $1200 deductible, which is totally acceptable. when you see the republicans putting this down, they don't know -- i don't think they know the details. host: does that mean you can retire at this point and make it to 65 and go on medicare? caller: i don't know what i'm going to do next. i would love to have kept working. i was hoping my company what get

the payroll protection program but they decided not to. they could not keep us after they held us through september to start letting people go. now i don't know. i'm kinda of in a forced retirement. i'm not sure if i can pick up another job or what is going to happen next. i am trying to figure that out right now. host: but under this current arrangement, is it doable for you? caller: yeah. it totally is. i have been a fine dining server all my life. i was never offered health insurance through my work ever as a waitress. you never get health insurance. this is the first company i ever worked for -- i was hired at 55 -- that offered me a benefit package as a waitress. i was so overjoyed. wow. i get health insurance for the first time.

i had to contribute a certain amount every month of my paycheck, but that was a nice thing. host: before we let you go, how much did you have to pay for that insurance? for the private insurance per month? caller: my contribution was about $160 a month. host: even less than what the affordable care act is costing you? caller: the problem is that if you have health insurance from work and you lose your job, you are really in a bind. without the aca, what is the safety net for people that lose their job and lose their health insurance? it's a safety net. host: norman, monroe township, new jersey. caller: good morning. i want to know why we, the richest country in the world,

have the poorest medical benefits. england, france, germany. even small countries like israel can pay more for medical and drugs than we can. i work for a very large company. fortunately i get -- between my wife and i -- i'm 95. my wife is 92. we have been able -- we have been retired for a long time. we have been able to exist. if we did not have this, we could never afford it at our age. we have a lot of drugs and minor medical problems, but what is good for me is not necessarily good for the country. i feel sorry for these people that have to either eat or by

the medications -- buy their medications. why can't we be like other countries? host: crystal posts, "somebody should come up with something better if they want to get rid of it. it is better than what we had before. there are millions of people who weren't able to get it or afford it before the aca was enacted." listen to nancy pelosi's reaction yesterday. [video] >> today's decision is a landmark victory for democrats' work to protect people with pre-existing conditions. everyday we think, how far will the court go against republicans' relentless assault to dismantle pre-existing

conditions? on day one of the house majority. -- house majority, democrats acted with our full legal weight in this republican lawsuit. we will never forget how republican leaders embraced this monstrous way to rip away america's health care in the middle of a deadly pandemic. more than one million americans have signed up with the affordable care act since president biden extended the enrollment period.more than one million americans. also because of the expansion of access to benefits that we had put into the rescue package. i am very proud of all of that. now democrats will continue our work to build on this transformational rescue package to make what is in there permanent in terms of affordability, access and

quality health care for all americans. for the people we will continue to work to lower health care costs by lowering the cost of prescription drugs. that is a very important part of where we go from here. we thank the court for its wisdom wisdom in declaring the cases against the affordable care act to have no standing. host: the speaker yesterday noting that congress rejected republican-led challenges to the affordable care act. we are getting your reaction to the decision this morning. opposing it, supporting it, and if you're on the affordable care act, we want your stories as well. the 2012 decision that upheld the individual mandate also made the law's medicaid expansion provision also -- optional. 12 states do not participate,

leaving millions without coverage. generous incentive payments included in the most recent stimulus package have not been enough to convince any of the holdout states to join. kathy, let's hear from you in michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. bernie sanders is probably the true champion of people in america for being covered by healthcare. the entire country should be on the same plan, which many of the northern european countries have. you should not have to worry every day of your life when you wake up or go to sleep about a medical bill. i had a coworker who worked for a hospital here in town and she was insured. she worked there for four years as a nurse and she had a severe eye situation.

there was no ophthalmologist in this community, so she went to the neighboring county. she got a bill and they were insisting she pay it for $46,000 and she had to fight and fight and she ended up paying $6,000, which is her portion under the plan. it should not be so very difficult to have health insurance. it should not be difficult at all. it should be through your payroll taxation. it should be based on how much money you make. some people should be paying nothing. my children are uninsured. i am uninsured right now. this has never been this way. host: can you not afford the affordable care act? caller: i think it was in the "new york times" and as soon as i clicked on that, my phone started raining.

i admonished one young man and he called me 50 times in a row. it was bizarre. people think that it is affordable, but health insurance, when you base it on your income, it is not. host: do you support democrat efforts to expand medicaid to more middle income americans? caller: sure. but it should be either medicare for all or medicaid for all. it is beyond nonsense. it is perverse. host: you mentioned bernie sanders at the top of your comments. here's his reaction on twitter. "the court's decision to not overturn the aca and throw millions off of healthcare is welcome, but it is not enough. healthcare is a human right, not a privilege. we must join other major countries in medicare for all." your reaction? caller: he knows what he is

speaking about. i am so tired of looking at people with such decayed teeth or no teeth. back in the old days, you could at least afford dentures or get your top, or your bottom, whatever. getting into the dentist is almost an impossibility. i have been with my dentist for 13 years -- unless it is an absolute emergency. it is not good to be unhealthy, particularly if it is not a choice you are making for yourself, which generally it is not. host: i'm going to hear from bob who appointed is the aca. -- who opposes the aca. caller: i just feel like it is insurance when we keep calling it healthcare, when it is truly insurance. anytime you mandate insurance for everybody, the price is going to go up.

it is going to cost more and more and i have not followed exactly what the supreme court decision really meant, but they say the democrats are saying it is going to get bigger and better. big just means cost more and more -- bigger just means cost more and more. we have healthcare. we had health insurance, i should say. we had multiple health problems and situations, but many times it has been overplayed exactly what the problem was and we were in an hmo at one point in our lives and it was a disaster because our doctors all changed

almost immediately once we got into the plan, trying to save a few bucks. it was a real challenge because my wife at that point in time was diagnosed with breast cancer and the doctor who we were totally unfamiliar with said this is an emergency. that is a fast-growing tumor. you have to get it taken care of immediately. this weekend would not be too soon. it turned out, it was simply a -- there was no need for a major surgery. it was virtually an outpatient situation as opposed to a total mastectomy and rehab and everything else we would have gone through. host: bob in illinois. on the health insurance.com,

they break down the cost of health insurance. do you qualify for of subsidy under the aca to lower the average cost of health insurance for yourself and your family? to qualify for federal tax subsidy in 2020, your income has to be between 100% and 40 -- 140%. this means you earn almost $50,000 if you are single. if you are a couple, it is around $17,000 to a little bit over $67,000. if you are a family of four, that means you are somewhere between $26,000 and $103,000. you need to estimate how much you learned earn during the coverage year. what is the average cost of non-subsidized healthcare through 2020? the average monthly nonsubsidized health insurance premium for one person on a benchmark plan, is over plan, is $362 per month or $109 for a subsidy.

the plans vary by state and can be reduced with subsidies. a little information for you about the cost on ehealth insurance.com. let's go to brenda in indiana. go ahead. caller: good morning. i very much support the affordable care act and i am glad the supreme court ruled that way. i am not sure they could have ruled any other way because if they wanted to say that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, then you might also say that individual mandate belonging to social security and individual mandates belonging to medicare, that is also unconstitutional. i was on the aca after i got divorced. the medical insurance premium per month was very affordable and i was very happy with the coverage that i got. like i said, just want to get back to the individual mandate for a minute.

when trump did away with the individual mandate, that was one of the worst things they could have done because you could literally get diagnosed with cancer on the morning, and get medical insurance coverage by that afternoon. medical insurance companies are hit with these high chemotherapy treatment costs without the individual having really been paying for it all along. like i said, right now you participate in social security and medicare years and decades before you ever see any benefits from it. whereas with the individual mandate now, you pay into it and you get benefits right away. i think to help bring down the cost of medical insurance, they should go back to the individual mandate. thank you. host: ok. brenda in pennsylvania.

yesterday on capitol hill, republicans led by their leader, republican mitch mcconnell, held a news conference in reaction to a compromise bill proposed by centrist democrat joe manchin of west virginia on voting rights. here is a headline. "mcconnell rejects voting rights compromise." here is what the republican leader had to say. [video clip] sen. mcconnell: all of you know how republicans feel about this proposal. it is a solution in search of a problem. the rationale has changed over the years. after the 2016 election, the same bill was introduced in the house and as soon as they got the majority, they passed it and the rationale was we needed to clean the system up. then they liked the outcome of the 2020 election and so the rationale became, we need to

prevent states from somehow making it more difficult for people to vote. i have taken a look at all of these new state laws and none of them are designed to suppress the vote. there is no rational basis for the federal government trying to take over all of american elections. you have noticed there is now a debate among democrats over a revised version produced by one of the democrats yesterday, which has been endorsed by stacey abrams. i would make this observation about the revised version. it still turns the federal election commission from a judge into a prosecutor by taking away the 3-3 ballot and making it 3-2 democratic. and in dubious constitutionality would remove redistricting from state legislatures and hand it over to computers, equally

unacceptable, totally inappropriate. all republicans will oppose that as well if that were to be surfaced on the floor. that is not what we anticipate the closure motion to be on. host: the republican leader mitch mcconnell yesterday. why this matters is that voting legislation requires 16 votes to pass in the senate. without republican support, it is unlikely to pass. senator joe manchin is the sole democratic senator has not signed the for the people act proposed by the house, passed in house, and chuck schumer says he wants to bring it to the floor. mansion says it is too partisan. his proposed compromise includes banning gerrymandering, requiring voting ids, having at least 16 consecutive days of early voting, and making election day a public holiday. stacey abrams, a leading democratic votes -- voice on voting rights, says she would support that plan.

take a look at that hill's reporting on this, "democrats scramble to unify before election bill brawls." they say the senate will vote tuesday on the for the people act legislation that is delegated -- that is going to hit a snag and fall short of the votes needed to advance. the democrats are optimistic that they will win over all 50 caucus members, but they have one big hold out. that is senator manchin. he has argued it is too broad and does not have any gop support. senator manchin circulated a list to democrats last week, which was shared with reporters outlining what he does and does not support in the bill. more to come on that. janice in york, maine. you support the affordable care act. we are talking about the supreme court decision for the third time to uphold the law. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

yes, i do support it. i am originally from massachusetts where governor romney instituted this type of medical healthcare plan. i am with brenda in pennsylvania. insurance companies do it all the time. they have all of these ways of figuring out how to charge people and they do it over a broad base. and if you don't charge everybody, if there is no type of mandate, and i am sure there is a mandate in the insurance companies. if you don't charge over a broad-based, the cost is going to be exorbitant and the government is going to pay for it anyway, one way or the other. if people are in it altogether, then it is going to create more

jobs because more people will be insured, more people are going to the doctor, and is going -- it is going to make people healthier. it is a win for everybody. host: stephen in west palm beach, florida. you oppose. caller: yes i do, totally. it is what forced me after mr. mccain voted down the repeal after the republicans were given power over seven years to repeal. when he voted down the repeal, i begin moving my money out of the country. host: fly? -- why? caller: i know this subject. i have watched hundreds of panel discussions. i know designers of this stuff by name. david coupler from the harvard kennedy school of government. rahm emanuel's brother, etc.,

etc. there are several things that are said by my fellow citizens which just shows that this has become a nation of dependency, total dependency. i am 60 years old. i have not had health insurance since the year 2000. i have saved probably $200,000 in premiums and i have had all kinds of health problems, especially in the last 10 years. with the amount of money i have saved, i have been able to pay for everything. i would not have been able to pay for everything -- i would have been able to pay for everything six times over. host: do you negotiate when you have healthcare, if you negotiate with the hospital? caller: i definitely have to do shopping. that is what i mean by dependency. of course i have to go around. i do -- i just did this for my

mother. i brought her to my dentist, no insurance. i have known him for 10 years. i had to shop around for a good dentist. he said she had to have two teeth removed immediately. i checked around for different doctors. i had had teeth removed and i was charged $350 a tooth. doctors at the dentist they suggested i go to was going to charge me $2300 per tooth for my mother. so i went back to my old dr. and i said, how much would you charge? he said, $390 a tooth. but because americans are too lazy to do these things, of course the insurance companies are going to take advantage of them. of course. you have had many callers mentioning things like how they have been misdiagnosed or mistreated. yeah, no kidding.

if the government really wanted to do something -- this -- they say this has improved the health of the country. that is nonsense. there is no proof of that whatsoever. if you wanted to improve the health of the country, there are several easy ways to do it. for example, the federal government could have mandated one year of human physiology in high school. that would have gone quite a long way of educating the public, don't you think? and if some kid is coming home during his senior year and their uncle comes in with a sprained ankle, then she can say, i learned about that last week. you don't have to go to the emergency room and get charged $3000 for that. just lift your leg up, grab yourself a sixpack of beer, and ice your ankle. the caller, just a beautiful

example. the caller who just called and said the government would pay for it anyway. greta, why would the government pay for it anyway? tell the people. you know the law that requires the government to pay for it, don't you? because i do. host: go ahead and say it. caller: the import act. i wonder if the people who are calling in have even heard of the empire love -- impala act. host: "the american people should make no mistake. a vote by any senator for judge amy coney barrett is a vote to strike down the affordable care act and eliminate insurance for americans with pre-existing conditions. democrats knew obamacare was no mortal danger. justice barrett joined the court

on thursday, upholding the law. one lesson for americans, besides never underestimate citizenship, is that conservative justices just don't vote on their policy preferences." doug, you support the aca. good morning. go ahead. caller: thank you. good morning to you. earlier, a gentleman called and said he went through a lot of money and he had medicare and so he decided that he would get the affordable care act and that sparked me up and i thought i would do the same because i never thought that medicare had -- it did not cover a whole lot. i just called up the affordable care act and they said that people on medicare are not eligible for affordable care act

. and he said he had it. can you explain that or do you know anything about that? host: i don't know, doug. sorry about that. your reactions to the supreme court upholding the affordable care act for the third time yesterday. 7-2 decision. what is your reaction? keep dialing in this morning. president biden yesterday delivered remarks before signing legislation that would make juneteenth a federal holiday. listen to what he had to say. [video clip] pres. biden: today marks the sixth anniversary of the tragic death in south carolina. a killer motivated by hate, intending to start a race war in south carolina. he joined his victims in a bible study class and he took their lives in a house of worship. it is a reminder that our work

to root out hate never ends because hate only hides. it never fully goes away. it hides. and when you breathe oxygen under that rock, it comes out. that is why we must understand that juneteenth represents not only the commemoration of the end of slavery more than 150 years ago, but the ongoing work to bring true equity to american society, which we can do. in short, this day does not just celebrate the past, it calls for action today. i wish all americans a happy juneteenth. host: president biden yesterday. back to our conversation with all of you about obamacare upheld by the supreme court. mike supports it in tennessee. your turn. caller: i support it. i don't know about that guy

before, but i take this one medicine for 90 days. it costs $1000 per pill. they run over $90,000. that money -- that is one prescription. i am all for the healthcare. thank you very much. host: mark in illinois, you oppose it. good morning. caller: i don't see how people say that the government is going to pay for it when we pay the taxes. the people pay for it. the government are the ones that set the laws and regulations that have made this mess and everything so expensive. i cannot believe we think that they are going to fix it. thank you for your time. host: mark in illinois. virginia foxx, the top republican on the education and labor force committee in the house send out a statement saying, "it is a shame, the

highest court in the country ruled that americans are not harmed by this law." john in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been listening for a half-hour. the problem with the affordable care act is it is giving money to insurance companies. if america wants to be like canada or europe and have three healthcare, which i think we should, all of the insurance companies have to go away. but because they all own billions of dollars worth of property around the country, and that is what they do. it is a scam. a person said if they expand it, they will hire more people. they don't need more people. we need less people in insurance companies. why does every doctors office have a person devoted for insurance? that is unnecessary. host: what is your reaction when you hear, as we did earlier this

week, from a doctor who studies insurance saying insurance companies made money during the pandemic because people were still paying their premiums, but they were not going to the doctor. caller: my reaction to that is insurance companies need to go away. i cannot believe the monster -- all of them. blue cross, united healthcare, these companies are monsters. humana. there is no insurance company involved with medicare. if you just have medicare, you don't need an insurance company. you don't need a supplemental. just use medicare, pay your 20%, or make that freak too -- free too. they don't call it health

insurance. they just call it healthcare. there would be 40 million people that lose their jobs. they cannot do that. they control all of the legislation. the money they donate to political campaigns and affordable healthcare, they are taking. host: bill in memphis, tennessee. support it. caller: i do support it 101%. i have members of my family who benefited greatly from obamacare and i think that people should stop the way they are doing. one more thing i noted. the girl that called from mississippi, you cut her off in the point she was getting ready to make. but the white people can talk all we want to talk.

go and join your other racist people. host: that is ridiculous. once you have made your point, we try to move on so we can get as many voices in as possible. we are also sharing information with you. it is part of the conversation that we are having around the show here. democrats are saying that this is a win and any legal challenges to the affordable care act are dead going forward. what is next? the new york times writes this, one example is a proposal to eliminate surprise medical billing. it has bipartisan support faces an avalanche of industry opposition. it passed in december. this week, leadership is considering a package that could include an expansion to medicare to cover more middle-aged americans and to provide dental,

vision, and hearing benefits. the provision would be costly and will probably face resistance from health industries. other ideas like president biden's campaign proposal of a government run public option that americans would have the choice to purchase are in its earliest stages of conception. kenneth in missouri. good morning. caller: i want to emphasize, do not cut me off please. to me, this is nothing but another welfare program. if you want to go to universal healthcare, do like canada and europe and everybody else does. let's have a tax where everything is taxed at the beginning of production all the way through. every step is taxed. that is how they pay for their universal healthcare in most countries in europe. i looked it up and that is how they do it. what happens is most europeans, they are paying 60% tax rate and

they get to keep 40%. thank you very much. host: amy in florida. you oppose. good morning. caller: yes, i oppose. i am currently without healthcare. i had healthcare before the pandemic through my job. i ended up resigning my job because i had an underlying condition that put me at risk. eventually, i could not continue to pay for my insurance while not working. i did look at obamacare and i qualified for a subsidy. the only caveat was if i used the subsidies, which amounted to $900 per month to pay for my policy, i would have to pay that next year after i go back.

not only that, the deductible for all the policies that i could actually afford with the subsidy, the deductibles $16,000, so i could not justify taking a subsidy at the taxpayer's expense, giving it to a private insurance company, also not knowing if i would even need insurance because i was sheltering in place, i did that until i got the vaccine. so, i am still getting -- i still get a text every week from these health care.gov sites encouraging me get -- to get obamacare, but i do not want to take that risk and, you know,

$15,000 next year when i do to go back to work. hello? host: we will leave the conversation there for now because we are going to move on, but at the end of this washington journal, we will return to this conversation and get more thoughts on the supreme court's decision to uphold the affordable care act. we will take a break and when we come back, joining us as propublica does jesse eisinger, to talk about their recent report about how billionaires like jeff beto's -- bezos and elon musk avoid paying income tax and later, trita parsi and foundation for defense of democracies's richard goldberg talk about the presidential election in iran. >> i remain of the view that the worst arguments made for the lockdowns were the initial one,

they said we have to protect the hospitals from an overflow. wait a second. who would need to be forced to avoid behaviors that might be rude resulting in hospitalizations -- could result in hospitalizations when they released staffed to help you and there is the argument that the imperial college says 2.3 one million americans will die unless we take away freedom. our what if predicted 30 million? ask yourself the question. what amount of force from the government would have meant anything at that point? >> sunday night at q&a, author john, director of the center for economic freedom at freedom works on his book, what politicians -- when politicians panic, what impact a pandemic lockdown hard on economy. sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. you can listen to q&a as a podcast, find it where you get your podcasts.

♪ >> washington journal continues. host: joining us this morning as a jesse eisinger, senior reporter and editor with propublica. their report on billionaires and income taxes has made a lot of headlines, there it is on your screen. so, jesse eisinger, why did you decide to look into this? guest: hi, thank you for having me. well, we received a vast trove of irs data. covering more than 15 years on

the wealthiest americans, thousands of americans, but really just 1% of the 1%, we do not have nurses and plumbers and even doctors. we just have the elite of the elite. and we started going through this data and started trying to figure out what was newsworthy about it and came out with our first story after several months of cleaning up the information and going through it and it was broad data and we had to assemble it into a form that we can understand. and then we presented our first story last week. host: how are you able to obtain private information like this? guest: well, it is unusual to get this kind of irs information. we are not explaining how we received it. we do not know the immense amount of about -- of sources

and sources. we are seeking to protect the sources. -- we did look at that this was true or not, the most important thing at this was verifiable, true information. and we verified it in countless ways. before we went to the subject of the story, the initial story, and then we took all of the information that we had that we were hoping to present and presented yet -- it to the subject's of the story and everybody verified it that way. nobody disputed the information. it is true information and we are being responsible stewards of the information and only calling it for what we believe is in the public interest. host: explain your rationale for publishing? guest: sure. we are in the business of finding out news and publishing it. and so the question is, we put this through a prism of trying to understand two things,

whether it is true that the most important thing and whether it is newsworthy. that is equally important. information can come from anywhere. it can come from people's enemies, from people's friends, from people who are biased, who have an agenda, added usually does. the reporter's job is to sift the biases and agendas on the just because you are biased does not mean you're wrong or peddling false information. we receive this information, we went through it, we verified it, it was true and we started culling it for what we believed was in the public interest and our findings are two fold and two simple ways. one, we found that some of the wealthiest americans, jeff bezos, elon musk, michael bloomberg, george soros page zero in federal income taxes in

recent years. we thought that was something the public should know and the second thing is, we measured the 25 richest americans compared to their wealth growth, i am not going to -- i will explain why we did that in a second. they pay a fraction, a small fraction, of that wealth growth in texas. 3.4% of their wealth growth in taxes and we thought that was worth knowing to the public because that is such a small percentage of their overall wealth growth compared to what normal people pay in taxes. host: we will get to that in a minute. what was the reaction from the billionaires? guest: some of them responded to us and argued that they paid all of the taxes they legally owed, which in fact we make that point very clearly, nothing that we pointed out in this first story was about illegality, this is all about a legal system.

one, michael bloomberg, objected to has privacy being violated and we understood that the privacy of these people was going to be violated when we wrote the story, but we thought that the public interest outweighed it, clearly outweighed it, michael bloomberg is someone who was mayor of new york and ran for president, so we felt like has privacy was less important than the fact that he paid zero in taxes and had such a low tax rate. effective tax rate and low tax rate compared to his wealth growth. and some of the billionaires said that they gave to charity. which is true and a way to lower your tax bills. but we did not think that was entirely relevant to the picture because charitable donations are a personable spending on society. it is a way to spend on society, but a way to spend on your own

hobbies and policy preferences. and it is not of course paying taxes. and paying taxes is the way a democracy or any government really, but in our government, our democracy, is allocated in democratic ways that extracts from everybody and what we found in our finding, our major finding, is that the tax system is essentially unfair. because the superrich are not paying their fair share. host: jesse eisinger to take your questions and comments about the pro-public art report. looking at billionaires and what they pay in income taxes. if you are a republican, dial in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000 and independence, (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. include your first name, city, and state and we will read some of those comments as well. jesse eisinger from the report,

you write this, that the data provides an unprecedented look inside the financial lives of americans, it shows not just their income in taxes, but also their investments, stock trades, gambling winnings and the results of audits. why is it important to look at and know about their investments in stock trades, what is happening there? guest: we have not published anything about that yet. we are continuing to cull that. you can imagine a lot of stories about the super wealthy stock trading that was relevant or business stories. i'm not going to get into the details of what we are planning to do, but we are planning to write the number of new stories over the course of the year. about a variety of aspects of the tax code and business stories because you can see business stories and financial stories and even of course societal stories in the tax

information, so we are calling it very carefully and going through this. but we were trying to do is explain the vastness of the information we have, we have millions of rows of data and it is not just tax returns, but includes the schedules that go into those returns and the schedule cover things like their self-employment, and partnerships and stock trading and things like that. and we are trying to explain to the reader what we have and why we are confident in the information we have. host: what did you learn about the billionaire's wealth growth? guest: we did not learn anything about their wealth growth, we think their wealth growth was clear. we understand from the wide variety of sources, academic and journalistic and government measurements that we were living in an age of great wealth and

equality, and come and wealth inequality. and it is probably worse than any time since the gilded age. or even in the buildup to the great crash of 29. and we use forbes's measurement and they are the gold standard for measuring wealth and wealth -- changes in wealth. what we added to the picture was the new information about taxes. we took this overlay of something that is commonly understood, that wealth is exploding, jeff bezos and elon musk and warren buffett and bloomberg and the list goes on and on, their wealth has really exploded and what we decided to do is look at this new information, there taxes compared to their wealth. host: from your reporting, i want to read this part of our viewers before we get to their phone calls. in recent years, the median american household earned about 70,000 household -- annually and

paid 7% in highest -- jesse eisinger, is it really only the uber wealthy that is escaping playing -- paying taxes? guest: yes, only the uber wealthy escaping paying taxes. the average american are in the tax system. and we get salaries and our salaries get taxed. typical americans as you said, get $14 extracted from every $100 that he or she makes and taxes. the very low income do not pay federal income taxes, but the low, working, poor payroll taxes or what we call payroll taxes, they go through social security and medicare, those are inescapable and highly regressive taxes, regressive

means that more is taken out of someone's salary if they make less money. it is the opposite of what our structure should be. let's step back for a second, the ideal for our tax system, the way it is supposed to work and that it is supposed to be progressive, the more you may, the more that is taken out of taxes. we are not just talking about the dollars taken out, but the higher percentage, a higher percentage is supposed to be taken out for that wealthy as you get wealthier and wealthier. that is not the way the system works and what the point of our story is, the cultural wealthy are outside of the system. we are all in the system, we get paychecks, taxes get out of our paychecks, the ultra-wealthy are outside of the system, they do not get paychecks, they do not get salaries, for any to speak up. what they do is they get income in the time and place of their choosing and that gives them an enormous leeway over there tax

bills. and so, with that power, that leeway, that volunteer aspect, the voluntary aspect to their income, that means they essentially have income in a voluntary way as well. they do not really have to take taxes. unless they want to. host: maryland, in san francisco, and dependents. caller: yes, i want to say thank you so much for doing that article. i make under $60,000 a year for the majority of my earning years and i made a donation to propublica because of this information. i think it is very timely and i think people, brave people who like you are taking the brunt from the billionaires who have the power in society, are really true heroes and i want to tell you that. i made that donation and i understand you do have more information and that you planned

on making more stories out of information you have and i am really excited to see what those are and i may actually make those contributions to your organization every time you -- guest: we will get hard at work so we can get more donations. we really appreciate that, we are a nonprofit, so we run on donations from individuals. and we do much more than business reporting, we do reporting on civil justice and health care and national security and it runs the gamut and we have operations around the country. so, and doing a lot of local reporting as well, which is really in a crisis. we appreciate every dollar that comes in. thank you. host: you heard her say this is timely. why? guest: well, we are at a potential inflection point in our nation's long history with taxes. our history oscillates from tax resistance, everybody grows up

understanding about the boston tea party, to efforts to have progressive taxes. we had a progressive income tax, very people -- very few people know this, during the civil war and it was disclosed -- and there was a disclosure requirement, so the great barons of the era like vanderbilt reported their income publicly and the new york times published it. we have seen -- we seem to be at an inflection point where politicians are seeking to raise taxes on the wealthy, the biden administration has made a series of proposals that would attempt to raise taxes on the wealthy, one point that we had is that they are modest proposals and when you talk about some things like raising the tax rate, especially on income, one of the biden proposals is to raise the top marginal tax rate from 37% to 39. 39.6%. and that would mean every

incremental dollar over a certain amount would be taxed at two point six percentage points more and what we are saying as the ultra-wealthy do not take salaries. jeff bezos gets a middle-class salary of $80,000 a year and ceos that seem to be taking a sacrifice and only taking one dollar a year like mark zuckerberg and larry page and sergei from google and others, steve jobs famously and that is not a sacrifice because salaries are taxed at the highest marginal rate. it is beside the point to talk about raising the highest tax rate. the biden proposals are a mix of modest measures and some good measures, but whether they are going to pass is really an open question because of course, republicans are resistant. host: you look at the 25 most richest americans and you write this in the piece, according to

forbes, 25 people saw their work rise a collective 401 billion from 2014 to 2018. they paid a total of 13.6 billion in federal income taxes in those five years, the irs data shows. that is a staggering stump, but it amounts to a true tax rate of 2.4%. explain. guest: the conventional way of measuring the tax burden is to measure taxes against income. in fact, we did that. for the billionaires, the 25 top billionaires and it turns out that there tax rate compared to their income is very low, in the last five years, it has been under 16%. which is lower than a person making $45,000 a year. that is pretty shocking in and of itself. they have a lower effective tax rate. we thought that was not the most important measure. what we thought was the most

important measure was to compare their taxes to their wealth growth because their wealth growth is really essentially untapped in this american system of taxation. we tax income, not wealth. we tax things coming in, sales of stocks we do not tax when a stock goes up and depreciates. what is important to understand about the super wealthy is that all of their power, all of their means at their disposal, comes from their wealth, emanates from their wealth, their wealth growth is what is important. and so what we did is measure the taxes that they paid against the wealth growth and we found that they paid 3.4% compared to that and some paid much less, so bezos paid about 1% and they tax avoidance is warren buffett, he pays about $.10 for every $100

that his wealth grows. the average american, the income is the relevant measure here because income is what everyone needs to work to live. we need to work to live and taxes get paid out of that. our income comes in and we pay about 14 -- $14 per $100 that comes in and warren buffett is paying $.10 for what -- every $100 that has wealth grows. host: democratic caller. caller: good morning. my question is this. there has been a rash of -- among the billionaires that has been publicized in the papers suggesting that the reason for the avoidance is a garden-variety -- propublica -- has probably got -- has

propublica considered that these divorces -- it involves the creation of a foundation that both parties contribute to. guest: that is a good question. i had not considered the divorces as a state planning, but state planning in general is extraordinarily crucial to tax avoidance of the ultra-wealthy. the shorthand for what the wealthy do is called by borrowed dies. what it is is that you buy your asset or you build your company or you inherit -- they are heirs to great fortune, they do not build anything and then you borrow against your wealth, so you do not sell and you borrow and elon musk has pledged tens

of millions of shares and collateral and borrowed something along the lines, in order of 50 or $60 billion worth of his stock and then at the very end, you have very careful planning, complex estate planning that involves opaque trust and charitable -- charitable organizations and you can avoid even the state taxes at the end and so, these ultra-wealthy fortunes almost always go -- it is very hard to say how much tax avoidance they have because there are few measures about that. but it is possible that half or even more of these great fortunes end up being entirely untaxed. host: walter in mississippi, republican. caller: i have got a question. how many jobs do they create for people to pay taxes, that is

what i would like to know. guest: it is a good question, not something we examined in the story. you could imagine that some of these companies do produce a lot of jobs. but a lot of these tech companies do not produce anything on the order of the job creation of the giant corporations of yore. gm was creating vastly more job than amazon, a large jar producer today and labor had a lot more countervailing power in the 1950's and 60's compared to today, so that was something that constrained both executive salaries and great executive wealth. and great wealth from even the founders of companies, so we had much less income and wealth

inequality in america in the 50's and 60's and much greater job production from corporations, especially the corporate giants. host: jesse eisinger, if they do not receive a paycheck, do they pay into social security and medicare? guest: very modestly. it is a rounding error for them. social security and medicare taxes are highly as i said regressive. and one of the reasons they are regressive is if you make over a certain salary, it is capped, so you stop paying into it. workers, average workers pay much greater portions of their income in payroll taxes, social security and medicare, then well-paid workers and if you're getting your income through selling stock and you get capital gain or getting dividends, none of that as text for -- is taxed for social security or medicare. one of the great tax burdens on

the average american is social security and medicare, something that the ultra-wealthy are almost entirely out of and do not fund and do not pay. host: do they use it? guest: they do not need it. i am sure they use it, i am sure they -- we do not have evidence of that in the tax record, but we do have evidence of things like jeff bezos making so little in 2011 that he took a child's tax credit. i assume ultra-wealthy people will take social security when they can because everybody can use a nice bottle of wye -- of wine. they are probably getting good health care and medicare is pretty good, but i bet they have a health care that is slightly better than the average person. host: from wichita, she says she

thinks this is a good argument to lift cap and make them pay for social security for all. guest: i was going to say that that has been a proposal that has been fooling around. that has been floating around. -- that has been floating around. if you do not have unrealized gains at all or wealth at all, you would not be taxing the payroll even if you looked at the cap. you would not be extracting payments for social security and medicare from them commit even if you lifted the cap. host: ronald in new hampshire, independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. jesse, thank you for doing the research, this is valuable research. the main reason why these people do not pay taxes is because of all the deductions and exemptions you talked about some of them. the main problem is that businesses are not taxed on the

revenue, they are only taxed on profit so they have all of these deductions and only pay taxes on the profit. the solution to that is to implement something like the uniting amendment, one of the provisions as to completely eliminate all of the exemptions and deductions in the tax code and limits the tax for the poor and middle-class to one half of 1%, everything else had to be covered by the businesses and stock trades and everything else. i would like to get your comments as to -- at that would work, to have a tax that a limited all of the exemptions, taxes businesses on the revenue, top line, text stock trades, text loans, -- taxed stock trades and loans from all of that. guest: i'm not familiar with the proposal, so i cannot comment on that.

unfortunately, we do need a broad tax base. we cannot simply fund the government through taxing the ultra-wealthy. so even if we were to tax the ultra-wealthy in a much more significant way, both for funding the government and also for equity for fairness purposes, that would not get us anywhere close to funding what we need, raising the money we need to fund the government. now, he also raised the question about deductions and deductions are a way that the ultra-wealthy reduce the income that they have. the main point of our story is that most of their income that should be thought of as income or can be thought of as income is wealth growth is outside of texas and you do not need a deduction because it is not taxed anyway but when they do take income, they take great numbers of deductions, one is the charitable deductions and you can debate the societal

merits of that. another is interest deduction, so somebody like carl icahn, the famous billionaire investor, he has in 2016 and 2017 combined, half $1 billion in income, income the way the irs defines it, as income. and then what happens is he borrowed a lot of money to amp life has returned, he had -- to amplify his investments. he gets leverage and the leverage amplifies, supercharges his returns and the interest cost on that are so enormous because the borrowing is so enormous that he gets the write up the interest from his investing on taxes and he wiped out the entirety of that happened a billion dollars in income income -- interest expense in deduction and what that means is the average taxpayer, you and i, are subsidizing carl icons borrowing so he can -- carl icahn's

borrowing so he can become more of a billionaire than he already is. host: sue in ohio. if we know how the uber rich skirt taxes, why does not congress change the tax law so they can't? i know they like all the money they are given from them. guest: well, that is a good question. one of the answers is that the ultra-wealthy have disproportionate influence and power in this country. and they would prefer not to pay more in taxes, they certainly would not like their wealth or their wealth growth to be taxed. and so, the ultra-wealthy fund think tanks and they fund political organizations and they fund candidates and often, those candidates are against taxing -- tax increases. one of the animating principles of the modern republican party has been for lower taxes.

and the democrats have occasionally gone along with it, occasionally resisted it, occasionally gone along with higher taxes, or excuse me, pushing lower taxes. the most recent lowering of taxes, that went to the wealthy, was the trump tax cut in 2017. the effort, the political pressure, has not been to raise taxes on the wealthy, but often to lower taxes on the wealthy, the bush tax cut -- both disproportionately lowered taxes for the wealthy. host: jesse eisinger as our guest, senior reporter and editor with propublica about their piece, the secret irs mild stroke, never before seen records revealing how the wealthiest avoid income tax. and from there reporting, our analysis of the tax data from the 25 richest americans quantifies how unfair the system has become. by the end of 2018, the 25 were

worth 1.1 trillion. for comparison, it would take 14.3 million ordinary american wage earners put together to equal that same amount of wealth. the personal federal tax bill for the top 25 in 2018 was 1.9 billion. the bill -- for the wage earners, 143 billion. reed in the washington state. caller: does are interesting statistics, but your guest seem to be coming from the angle -- she says the trump tax cut was disproportionately awarded to the rich. i am not the rich, i make $100,000 a year and i know the rich pay 82% of taxes and they are providing the jobs. their earlier color said something about -- caller said something about they should be taxing their revenue and not taxing just the prophets. he must not work for himself

because if you are -- it takes a portion of your income, reinvested to keep your business running, so it is not just based on your profit, -- part of what you are investing in your business should be included in taxes. an important point i called in to say, in 2012, one president biden -- obama was running for his second term there was a study done which i believe 14 different comprehensive agencies, -- not agencies, think tanks in the country, including the american enterprise account -- and brookings institute, i remember mitch mcconnell at the enterprise institute announcing the results. the results were at that time in 2012, at the federal government were to take all a millionaire's money or above and everything they own, not just text them 100%, but take everything they

own, that amount of money would not keep the federal government running for more than 13 months and that was how many years ago? imagine what it would be now with this deficit? host: let's get a response. guest: no one is proposing totally confiscating the wealthy's money. i did nothing that should be a great fear. let me correct you on one thing, the idea that the ultra-wealthy pay, i think he said 82% in taxes. that reminds me of the old saying that 62.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot. i do not think that is correct. in fact, when you talk about federal taxes, you have to include medicare and social security and when you include that, the wealthy do not pay the disproportionate amounts. the most important thing here, and i think there is a kernel of what you're talking about, which is that the highest tax burden today in america falls on people

who are making $1 million to $5 million a year. those people are making very high salaries, income, excuse me, not salaries. that is a lot of income to have, it is is not the ultra-wealthy. a very strength -- a very strange thing happened is that the federal income tax is progressive, people making less and come payless, up to a certain point and then, start becoming regressive again and then at the very top, the 25 billionaires, they are paying a very low, effective tax rate on their income. and that is pretty shocking and pretty stunning, so you think that even the very, very wealthy affluent people making a million to $5 million a year might object to the state of affairs too, so it would not just be it is a class war between low income and the super wealthy. host: let me read you from the

main wire and get your reaction to this. they are critical of the report that you did. despite propublica does best effort to make the information seem damaging, the data tells us little we did not already know. the last year for which we have data, 2019, the top 1% paid 40% of federal income taxes. despite burning just under 21 percent of total adjusted gross income. the bottom 50% of taxpayers earned 11.6% of total agi, but paid less than 3% of income taxes. the same story holds true when looking at all revenue sources too, so it is not just the income tax that is progressive. propublica writes that the wealthy are getting away with murder through the tax code. comparing growth and wealth over the course of a year to taxable income. they use this to calculate individual tax rate, but they write this, it is hard to overstate how -- our tax system

does not tax growth in one's's wild until it is realized as income. it is -- guest: that is a mishmash of one million different mistaken notions with a lot of locating there, so it is hard to focus on which erroneous conclusion to talk about, so i will talk about one thing, is the incompetent assertion that you can never tax unrealized gains or that would be somehow wrong. it turns out that the taxation of unrealized gains was not part of moses's tablets sent down from mount sinai, it is not a natural law. it is something that came about about 100 years ago when we were first formulating what we were

going to tax on income and how to define it. it is not the only definition. in fact, there are proposals, well thought out, carefully thought out proposals right now in congress, one from ron that what tax unrealized gains and you can measure unrealized gains, especially in the stock market and you can text them and it does unrealized gains go, you can have refunds on the taxes. it is not monstrously complex and it would not be something that would be so exotic. it would focus on the ultra-wealthy though and they do not want it. that is really what is going on here, it is not a question of doing something that is so exotic or so impossible that you cannot even imagine it and you would violate all sorts of precepts that passed down through history. host: donald in omaha, nebraska. democratic caller acorn. caller: i hear the smart guys

spitting out all of these numbers and everything. did these guys do anything wrong? host: jesse eisinger? guest: it is a good point. i do not mean to be spitting out numbers, i hope i am trying to explain relevant numbers to understand what our system is. the main point of our story is that this is entirely legal. and if you are only -- and if you're only present to understand society is whether somebody violated current law or not, then you can say that there is nothing wrong here. but if you want to understand the system that we have and the choices that we have and what the results of the choices that we have are, that is what our article is attempting to lay out, which is, this is the system we have, which allows for the richest man in the world to pay zero in federal income taxes in two recent years to allow the second richest man in the world, elon musk to pay zero in federal income taxes in 2018. to allow george soros and

michael bloomberg and carl -- and carl icahn to pay zero in federal income taxes. after everyone fully understands the system that we have in place, and then everybody decides that that is fine with them, of course, that is ok with us, that we -- but we wanted to explain the system as it exists today to let people see it with clear eyes. host: in texas, independents. caller: i do a little research because i hear the democrats talking about the top 1%, they do not pay their fair share, but the top 1% pays 40% of all of the federal tax. the top 2% pay 31% of all of the federal tax, the top 10% money earners pay 71% of all federal tax. the next 50% of people, working class, paid 29%. the bottom 40% do not pay any tax at all.

to say that the top 1% do not pay their fair share is a big lie. what we need to do is get the bottom 40% working, which is a big drag on our whole economy and everything would be fixed. host: jesse eisinger, your thoughts? guest: i think that the point, a couple of points. the 1% is actually a relatively big number for a country of 330 million with roughly 150 million households paying taxes. and what we were talking about is the top 25 him and the top 25 pay much less -- lower than they actually -- that even the 1% or the .001%. the .001% pays about 23% and the top 25 billionaires pay about,

in federal income taxes, we are not talking the true tax rate, the federal income tax is about 15 or 16% of 2014-2018. so, they are paying much lower taxes. one of the talking points from the likes of the wall street journal editorial page is culminating that the top 1% pays a significant portion of federal income taxes and as i say, that is not the measure of federal taxes that we should really look at them if it should be all federal taxes because payroll tax is highly regressive. even if you want to look at that , what we are saying is that the super wealthy, the ultra-wealthy, the top, top pay even less than as a percentage of their income then that 1% and the affluent. that is one of the points of the story. host: tom in jacksonville, florida. democratic caller acorn.

-- democratic caller. caller: i just wanted to know that this discussion on income taxes, have they ever thought about the term accumulation tax? corporate nations -- corporations cannot accumulate without plans to use the money and if they do, they have to pay accumulation tax. what is wrong with accumulation tax on the extra rich people. they are just hoarding money. his wine bill is probably more than the average american's wages. these people can accumulate wealth if they want to, but if they do not have any use like creating jobs, then i think they should have an accumulation tax. guest: it is an interesting idea, there is an excess profits tax notion in corporate tax. very few people have proposed

that our individual -- that for individuals that are super wealthy. i am not aware of it. something along the lines of a wealth tax or a tax on unrealized gains, which have been proposed and are going frankly nowhere in washington today, but they have been proposed and they have been thoughtful. -- thoughtful proposes about that, those are ways to address accumulation of that wealth that we are talking about here and it would be something that would not just prevent the accumulation of wealth, but try to address passing on dynastic wealth from generation to generation. so you could imagine something like that, but it is not -- no proposals are viable in washington today to address it. host: young's -- youngstown, ohio. democratic caller. caller: god bless you for your work. they use the roads, bridges,

court systems unlike everybody else. they outsource all of their ex-pence and -- their expenses, they get all their information on how to get welfare and outsource that. one of the strategies of the business people is they contract their jobs to other companies to employ them so they can avoid paying any benefits, health care, sick time, and they use people like disposable entities and that was -- it is what we feel like. thank you so much. guest: i appreciated that. you are making a good point and one that i wished i raised earlier is what are the stakes having on unfair taxes. the federal government has been -- been constrained for decades and our roads and bridges are crumbling and periodically, people are convulsed in fear that social security and medicare will go bankrupt and of course, the government funds the national defense and funds basic science and health care and we

need to pay for that. and you can pay through borrowing and borrowing is very inexpensive right now. but we want to fund our government adequately and so, the consequences of billionaires not paying their fair share are really enormous. their response that they do fill out the pre-that -- that they do philanthropy is not addressing the societal issues we have because philanthropy does not do the dirty work of fixing roads and bridges for incidents. that is something that only governments can do and governments can solve when it is working collective problems but philanthropy does not do. the consequences of not paying your fair share are really enormous. host: jesse eisinger, senior reporter and editor with reproach -- with propublica. you can read the published piece at propublica.com.

we will take a break. when we come back, we are joined by quincy institute's trita parsi and foundation for defense of democracies's richard goldberg to talk about the presidential election in iran. >> book tv on c-span2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards, in breaking the news, exposing the establishment media's hidden deals and secret corruption, writer and editor in chief alex explores mainstream media's credibility. he is interviewed by matt, sunday at 10:00 p.m. eastern, in her book, professor carol anderson examines the second amendment and argues that it was designed in a way that denies rights to african-americans.

sunday at 11:00 p.m. eastern, a look at the impact on the earth orbit mission in 1962, on the space race between the u.s. and soviet union with jeff and his book mercury rising. watch motive this weekend on c-span2. -- watch book tv this weekend on c-span2. >> american history tv, on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. every weekend, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, on lectures in history, northeastern university professor william fowler on early atlantic exploration, christopher columbus and the discovery of the caribbean and the americas by europeans. sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on the real america, the 1975 nasa film, who is out there with orson welles and carl sagan

exploring the possibility of extraterrestrial life and communication with intelligent civilizations in the universe. sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on american artifacts, ca world war i trench and a reconstructed german bunker, part of a living history exhibited by the u.s. army heritage and education center in pennsylvania. on sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, on the presidency, here how jacqueline kennedy and nixon worked to preserve the historic nature of the white house. exploring the american story, wash american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> saturday on the communicators, in digital technology markets. >> we are off the charts in terms of where we have been for the last 40 years in terms of competition policy and monopoly. and in the last year, we had a

five antitrust lawsuits against google and facebook. we had all kinds of actions against amazon, we have people talking about new philosophies of competition policy and this is all radically new and this conversation can turn out to be truly transformative for the united states. >> the communicators with jennifer and barry, sunday -- saturday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> washington journal continues. host: this morning, happening in iran, presidential elections taking place and this morning on the washington journal, we want to talk about that and the impact on the middle east. joining me as a trita parsi, the executive vice president of the quincy institute along with richard goldberg, a senior advisor at the foundation for defense of democracies, thank

you for -- thank you for being here. trita parsi, let me begin with you. who are the candidates running in this presidential election? guest: i think the most important thing right now is that there are few candidates and that even though the elections in iran have never been there, they have never been as narrow as they are this time around. in the sense that only conservative candidates were allowed to run with the exception of two rather unknown oral low-profile, nonconservative -- unknown, low-profile nonconservative's. that is for him to be able to become the next president of iran, he's the current head of the iranian judiciary, and also an ultraconservative with ties to the current supreme leader and the rumor is that this is done in order to legitimize him and put him first in line to be

able to take over as supreme leader once the current supreme leader, who is currently 83 years old, passes away. host: richard goldberg, does it matter if they are having -- that they are having a presidential election when you have the supreme leader? guest: it is never really been -- it has always been a selection. i think at least right now, the sham of it all is being taken away by the supreme leader. it is as if he felt he does not need to have the sheik process -- sheik process --shake process where the moderate will come out to reform iran. those are being stripped away to the fine print of the islamic revolution, the islamic republic and i think this is a part of the plan the supreme leader has. the other dangerous thing about the report is the ability to

legitimize a mass murderer in abraham racy who has taken a part of -- the green movement protesters and put them in jail as long as the judiciary chief today. this is dangerous for the world to legitimize a massive human rights abuser, a modern-day -- and to potentially negotiate with that person and offer him sanctions really as part of going back into the iran nuclear deal. host: how would he compare to outgoing president hassan rouhani? guest: there is a big difference between them and they do matter. we can see that clearly, negotiating with the nuclear negotiator and the team that changed once honey came into chavez and negotiations were

headed by the general, there was a difference in many ways. that is why the nuclear deal came into his existence -- and to existence. if iran moves in and authoritarian direction, with the type of selection taking place right now, it will be fascinating to see the degree to which the population decides to participate in the elections or not. the main issues have not been the issue themselves, but whether to cast a vote or not. and they will be decisive if participation rates go below 40% or 35% as early polls indicate they would. if they go higher, however, there is a likelihood might not necessarily a large one, but a likelihood, that this would half go to the second round because he would not be able to get 60% in the first round. in the second round, things can change quite a lot. if the second candidate is --

the head of the iranian central bank, who decided to capture the antiestablishment vote, those voting because they want to send a signal of rejection to the system as a whole. host: richard goldberg, how do you respond? guest: the four candidates remaining, we are talking about -- two others are for no great joy, the one described as a technocrat heading to central bank of iran, which is the central bank of terrorism for the world. a master in how to manipulate funds and money laundering to finance terrorism and other illicit activities. you have somebody who has a red note out for them to be arrested in connection with the bombing of a jewish center in argentina in 1994. it reminds us that this regime

as un-re-formable and it is the leading state sponsor of terrorism. the leading state sponsor of anti-semitism, pledging a second holocaust that they can build a delivery mechanism. in the list goes on with american citizens and families who have suffered at the hands of this regime. when we look today, i think it is correct, the people who are boycotting the elections throughout iran are making a statement saying we do not believe in this regime anymore. this late soviet era were not only is the regime economically bankrupt, but it is ideologically bankrupt. the question for u.s. policymakers is, what do we do at that point? do we embrace the iranian people and say, we know that you have been suffering in this regime for 40 years. we want a better future for you. how do we make that future possible? instead of rewarding what could be just and outrageous and come

in the out -- in this election, legitimizing the regime and its ideologies and sanction reliefs. host: let me get the viewers involved. if you are a republican, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us with your first name, city, and state at (202) 748-8003. richard goldberg, let me go back to you then. what does this mean or what are you proposing the united states do? guest: in my view, the first thing should be not to lift any u.s. sanctions on iran until iran under mentally changes its behavior. -- iran fundamentally changes its behavior. that includes dismantlement of its nuclear facilities, stopping

all research on nuclear capable missiles, ending a sponsorship of terrorism, its proliferation of missiles and other weapons throughout the middle east and treating as people with respect and dignity. this is an atrocious regime and we should not be rewarded yet, particularly as we have learned in the last few weeks from the national atomic energy in vienna that the regime is apparently concealing undeclared nuclear material activities and sites from the iaea. it should not be rewarded, especially if the regime decides to put a mass murderer in charge. host: how do you propose the biden administration -- what actions do they take moving forward? guest: we have to take into account -- hardliners in iran have for long cheated in elections and designed it in such a way that they would be able to secure in such with thay would be able to secure victory before the elections took place.

never before have they tried to go as far as they have this time around. the key reason as to why they are so emboldened to go as far as they have is because of the sanctions imposed during the trump administration. when trump-pence-- trump retreated from the deal, put iranians into poverty, shrunk, the middle class has been this injured and key constituency of those inside the country who want change, to bring about a more open and free society at a better relationship with the west. they have been decimated bythose sanctions and strengthened the hands of the hard-liners, delegitimized the idea of

engagement with the west because of the manner which the trump administration withdrew from the deal. that is why participation is so low, it is not just the options are few, they feel that engagement with the west will bring about a better economic situation have proven false giving heir to the hard-liners. the sanctions we imposed helped bring about a worse situation. during the years of trump sanctions, 13 out of 14 top road construction companies, private ones, went out of business. the irc-controlled company ducted construction doubled its number of contracts. that is a pattern we have seen in the -- in many other

countries, we destroyed the private sector and strengthened the government that has to be in the hands of hard-liners. if we do not want to see this continue, the idea that we would double down contributed to us getting into this position. u.s. foreign policy has to be centered on u.s. and national interests. it is an interest of the ice age to make sure that iranians do not have a pathway to a new air weapon. there has been no solution that has been tried and tested as the nuclear deal. it was during that period that 98% of the nuclear equipment and materials was shipped out. the props that exist now is a result of the fact that the u.s. withdrew. if that is the top priority we have to make sure the nuclear

deal is restored. this is a regime that has engaged in horrible activities, so are almost every other government. states deals with and has normal relationships with, just look out the saudi arabia and uae -- at the saudi arabia and uae. there are very few good guys in the middle east. the center of american foreign-policy to -- it should be to protect the american people, united states is not in a position where it thinks it is the policeman of the rods and integral itself in conflicts that have led to endless wars. host: you disagree? guest: there is so much wrong to unpack. in 2019 the iranian people took to the streets during the maximum protest campaign, they were not protesting the ice age for sanctions, they work

protesting the regime, that regime killed 1500 people and closed the internet. when we decided to leave the deal we learned that iran lied to us, keeping a secret nuclear weapons archive. we know from the international atomic energy agency, the cia who told us not to go into iraq are telling us to move on to our brand. -- onto iran. this does not stop the pathway to nuclear weapons, it guarantees that. iran is a horrible human rights abuser. would you ever allow saudi arabia to have an arrangement program -- enrichment program? absolutely not. the uae signed up for the gold standard where they do not allow enrichment. somehow under this we would allow iran, the leading state

sponsor of terrorism in the world to have an enrichment program? it is outrageous. we should remember what is at stake. will be poor billions of dollars into the revolutionary guard budget, their budget went down during maximum pressure. the terror proxy budget went down. it did not go down. when you lift sanctions on terrorism, missiles you will flood that regime with money. that will be used to build missiles, spread missiles, sponsor terrorism and abuse the rights of the iranian people. why did

it has brought about a term of suffering. we need to walk away from that mindset. it does not advance or american peoples safer. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning. i wanted to ask, but i want to make the statement that we are arguing about the nuclear deal. that is done. you can forget about it. it took 10 or 12 years of work mostly by great written -- great britain followed up by the international coalition, it took a decade to get that. trump tore it up without reading it. you shopped iran to russia for

help and china for help. russia and china are going to fill any economic avoid that needs to be filled. it is not going to be filled from the west. that is why the message they are preaching is that you cannot trust the west will be so effective. they cannot. all it will take is one more election in the united states or turnaround in the policy and if they negotiate a deal, they could flip-flop every four years as we change our leaders. my question is, forget about it. that deal is done. host: let's get a response to that. i will have you both respond. guest: he is quite right in pointing out the damage to credibility that occurred with

trump withdrawing. trying to withdraw twice, his own state department certified to congress that the iranians were living up to the deal. 14 consecutive ports -- reports from the agency tasked with monitoring the deal and making sure all sides are living up to the obligations claiming the iranians were living up to the deal. the interstates withdrew from the deal, damaged their credibility at negotiations that are taking place now to find awake if the deal can be secured. the lack of credibility is not just a poem from the side of the iranians but the europeans and others. allies of the array states who are nervous, is the image states going to flip-flop every four years? it is important that part of the

reason the deal was so important is because the american people want to leave the middle east militarily. the interstates does not want to be the military policeman of the region because it gets into unnecessary wars. part of the reasons why the jcp a was important because that could drag the array states back into a disastrous land war. by ensuring the iranians would not get a nuclear bomb, it enabled the united states to start shifting away. it was a ticket to exit the region. and though i agree in terms of the damage it did to credibility, it is essential for the united states to find a way to revive that agreement. host: richard goldberg? guest: we remember when the reds states ripped up agreements, trust america's reputation around the world from which we

have not been able to recover, i am talking about present barack obama in 2009, who turned around after he was elected and withdrew from two executive agreements that george w. bush signed with poland and the czech republic to help defend eastern europe in the face of russian aggression. also would've been helpful against a long-range missile from iran. that is not how people remember history. these were executive agreements and the way our system works, if a different president comes into office, the agreements can be reviewed. this happens regularly. to say that there is something special about the nuclear deal is not a fact. that is why the u.s. senate asked the obama administration to submit for ratification of the treaty. it would not pass. which is why it was not sustainable politically.

the biden administration could learn that lesson and submit what they are negotiating for ratification. help negotiators get a better deal. does not sound like they are going to do that which means you are setting yourself up for expectations you cannot deliver on. guest: let's out a correction -- add a correction. there is a significant difference between eastern europe and the nuclear deal, that was a small agreement. what was in the agreement was embodied in a un security council resolution. one of the biggest negotiations the other states has been involved in in the last 20 years. to compare that to something that happened in the czech republic it is a fallacy. [cross chat] host: i will let you respond.

[cross chat] host: let him finish. guest: go ahead. guest: from a legal perspective the jcpoa is a lower threshold than the executive agreements that were signed document by the united states, it was not even an executive agreement, it was a political agreement. the lowest level of a binding nature. guest: it was in a un security council resolution. which is why it was not needed to be done this way. host: let me get to baltimore, independent. guest: -- caller: hello? thank you for taking my call. my comment is this. america needs to wake up. especially our elites. we are not the only player on the global field anymore. we are trying to go against

china by the muslims to attack their credibility. we have been killing muslims for the past 20 years. [indiscernible] we have accused them of pursuing nuclear weapons. [indiscernible] we canceled an agreement to solve this issue. iran is not the problem, america is. host: i will have your response. guest: we should understand the competition we are in with china and russia. china is looking to for billions of dollars of investment into the republic of iran. it is something we should talk about more. the republic wants to say it is savior of the muslim people. they brutally murdered muslims throughout the middle east.

while there is a genocide going on in china against the muscle population it is something we should talk about to the iranian people. china sees iran as a stepping stone in its also roads initiative. russia wants to supply arms, we should understand there is a larger competition going on. if you decide to enrich this regime, the likelihood they might states get sucked into a military conflict goes up not down. during the nuclear deal we are at the highest point of possibility of a conflict in the middle east. there were headways that we

could see war on the northern is really order with iranian supplied missiles at any moment. as you decide to enrich the revolutionary guard, armed conflict goes up. that means we might have to get stuck in the middle east for another generation. guest: that is one of the most absurd things i have heard. i understand from the perspective of richard he wants to frame his argument as it reducing the likelihood of war because that is what the public wants. that is not the track record of the policies that were pursued. it was nondisplaced that once the agreement was signed, everything stabilized. there were other complex and the recent independent of the spirit that are far more to do with the way that they are spring brought the collapse of several states.

nothing to do with the jcpoa, had it not been achieved, those complex would have become worse -- conflicts would have become worse. and the united states would've been tracked into war over the nuclear issue. the u.s. getting into the war -- the risk of the was getting into the work was demonically decreased upon entering the jcpoa and then increased when trump withdrew. we were less than 10 minutes away from war. which would be much worse than the wars with iraq or afghanistan. you cannot spin it anyway. it is by the biden administration is adamant about getting into the agreement. we cannot afford another war. talking about china and russia, when the jcpoa was negotiated,

we were in a situation where the iranians felt they had to come to an agreement. the united states have the ability of creating a consensus between not just european such -- but country such as russia and china. that has changed traumatically. -- dramatically. china has grown more powerful and more people within the power elite of iran are seeing china as an alternative in the way that they could not in 2016. the united states has lost a critical component of its power years ago because it is no longer seen as the gatekeeper of who will be up to enter the community of nations. we are an -- and eight multipolar world that is taking place sooner than expected

because of the mistakes we committed in the middle east by going into these wars that weekend the united states that we are in a world 20 years earlier than expected. host: the iranian presidential elections taken per survey. we want to thank our guests for the conversations. thank you, come again. guest: thank you. guest: thank you. host: the spring creek -- the supreme court wrote for the third time double the affordable care act-to decision. we want a -- 7-2 decision. we want your reaction. when we come back. ♪ >> c-span's landmark cases explores the stories and drama behind supreme court decisions.

watch key episodes from our series at 9:45 p.m. is during on c-span where fred korematsu challenge the policy of interning people of japanese descent, the court voted 6-3 in favor of the united states. what landmark cases sunday night at 9:45 eastern, online at c-span.org or the c-span radio app. >> c-spanshop.org is the online shop. your purchase supports nonprofit operations and your time to order the congressional directory with contact information from members of congress and the biden administration. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back.

what is your reaction to the supreme court for the third time upholding the affordable care act? if you support the law (202) 748-8000, if you oppose (202) 748-8001 and if you are on the aca that is how you get your health care dial in at (202) 748-8002. we want your reaction. looking at how the democratic leader in the senate, chuck schumer of new york, how he responded to the decision. [video clip] >> let me say definitively the affordable care act has won. the supreme court ruled the aca is here to stay. [no audio] host: senator schumer on the

floor yesterday. we want to know what you think of the decision. what they said to the republican led states is that they did not have standing, they could not prove that they are injured by the individual mandate. the republicans brought the tax for not having interest on 20 they argued that the individual mandate is no longer constitutional. that the supreme court should do away with it. that is not how they ruled. as you heard from the democratic leader, sent that this means the aca is here to stay. we want your reaction. here is again the majority leader. [video clip] >> ever since democrats passed the affordable care act,

expanding health coverage and access to tens of millions of americans we have had to fight tooth and nail to preserve the law from partisan attacks. for more than a decade, the assault on health care law was relentless from republicans in congress, the executive branch itself and republican attorney general's and the courts. in a landmark vote, we prevented the republicans from repealing the aca in 2017. h time -- each time the affordable care act has prevailed. once again the united states supreme court upheld the affordable care act in the face of another challenge. let me say definitively: the has

affordable care act has w -- definitively: the affordable care act has won. health care is a basic right of every american citizen. host: the majority leader yesterday reacting to the decision. here's what republicans had to say. republican leadership putting out a statement saying that forcing americans to purchase a government mandated product was unconstitutional and that the tax hit lower income americans hard. states do not have standing to challenge the matter, it does not change the fact that obamacare failed to meet its promises and discarding hard-working families. congress must work together to improve american health care. james in connecticut, what do you say? you get your insurance through the aca, to you support it -- do

you support it? caller: ims conservative republican as you ever meet, i ran my own company for years. i provided by place health care. the way i look at health care insurance is the constitution and national defense. my son serves in the military and in order to have a pool of people who can serve in our military we must make sure that all of our children have had vaccinations, dental health, etc. in order to be available as a be bottled -- able-bodied people. the number of corporate mergers that have occurred in the last number of years, this was my situation. i went to work for a corporation after my business closed in the economic downturn, i was not eligible for the medical plan

and the enrollment period then it went through a merger and they froze the plan. i got sick. i was stuck between a rock and a hard place. at the base level for our national defense, i support a national health care plan at a basic level for everyone available to upton. i equate it directly -- opt in. i equate it directly to the corner by, the national defense is needed to ensure that we have everybody -- and that is my comment. host: we will hear from frannie in illinois, also gets insurance on the aca. what do you think of the decision? caller: i am glad they decided that, i receive the advanced premium tax credit. i am happy to see that you do

not follow the cliff. if you go over by one dollar with your income, you have to get back the premium tax credit. there are many issues. it is still expensive. i am happy that i have it, i am happy that there is no pre-existing conditions. i would like to see government improve. -- r health care. -- our health care. host: how much is it? caller: for me right now, my per month is $695. it is three people on it. it is a high deductible. i recently had surgery.

i am set up with a hsa, knock on what i had money. coming up with that money can be difficult -- on wood, i had money. coming up with that be difficult. my husband cannot afford to get health insurance for his employees, i would hate to see his employees and that decision. they need to improve. host: when you say improve? caller: get the cost lowered. if i did not have the premium tax credit i would be paying $20,000 for my health insurance with a high deductible. my health care would cost in the $30,000. that is high. host: you heard chuck schumer

say that we want to improve upon the affordable care act. one proposal is a bill to remove surprise billing, it faces industry opposition. the success was not assured but passed in december, senate leadership considering a package that could include an expansion of medicare to coverage more middle-aged americans and provide dental, vision and hearing benefits. it would be costly and face resistance from health industries. the campaign promise proposal of a government run public option that americans would have the choice to purchase are at the earliest stages of conception. but in blacksburg, south carolina. you are opposed, good morning. caller: yes. donald trump was going to

provide insurance, your pharmacy drugs. we were paying too much. other countries was last. -- was less. you did to pay as much of their, why would you have to pay more -- as much there, why would you have to pay more? i tell them they can keep my medicine because i'm not paying that. donald trump, i believe everything he says. host: okay betty. sac on facebook says it is legal but it is a terrible piece of legislation, it was the biggest tax increase in decades. they cost more for medical stuff than when i had no insurance.

someone has to pay for those insured people and that is paid by higher expenses for everyone else. there are ways we could have accomplished this without raising the price, democrats take the easy way out and on this issue republicans refused to do anything. patrick in louisville, kentucky, what do you say? caller: yes -- if you know what you are up against you can have a better understanding and make a decision. the jargon for insurance companies is what confuses poor people. if you have a qmb with medicaid and advantage programs you get the benefits and goodies. if you do not have that that is

when they sock it to you. it takes $1700 to go into the hospital for any reason if you do not have the qmd, they expect $700 for the first seven days. the eighth day is when they cover it. most people do not have $300 per day. to the other issue -- i do not want to confuse because that is the point. host: i will go to duane in columbia city, indiana. duane? caller: my concern is about people that do not have health insurance and the cost involved when there is an illness, often

times it is going to have to be paid by the government through medicare or medicaid for the hospital and sub writing it off -- or the hospital ends up writing it off. my sister found out she had cancer but did not find out until she was on medicare. she had to go to the hospital and the cost was astronomical. more than it would have been if she would have had health insurance before. the cancer was caught late and within two years she passed. my concern about the aca giving everybody is that it should be less expensive in the long run.

host: okay. katrina on facebook, health care is a service not a right and forcing people to pay for something that they will not, cannot use is unconstitutional. does the system need an overhaul and insurance company should be made to compete. regina in pennsylvania, what do you say? caller: i am disappointed in cavanaugh and justice barrett, they failed us. without we were going to get constitutional judges on their, thank you for alito for dissenting. there is no responsibility for behavior. insurance will have to continue to pay, if people want to be found, they can be fat. and we the taxpayers regardless of a mandate, congress is in

deep debt will have to find new ways to subsidize and force insurance companies to pay for people's behavior when they don't want to change it. do you want to get cancer question mark where is the incentive to change heavier -- do you want to get cancer? where is the incentive to change behavior? i think it is a sad day. i am just really suck. host: do you -- sad. host: do you think insurance, they should charge people who smoke or other lifestyle ch oices more money? caller: if you cost more money, it should cost you more and that would be an incentive to change behavior. how else do you change behavior unless there is an incentive

that says you cannot just do whatever you want and everybody else to pay for you wanting to do whatever you want. why should i pay for somebody? go ahead. host: her to point, you might be interested in the drudge report with the picture of the judges that you mentioned, amy and brett worked republicans -- thwart republicans. been in new york, is support. caller: thank you much for c-span. i support the aca. my understanding is the supreme court upheld it because they felt whoever sued them did not have standing. that does not solve the problem. i think the aca or something

like it is important that it is not perfect and it needs work. unfortunately, the way things are there is no bipartisanship. there are many answers. it does cost money. there are a lot of americans who feel that it is the right -- their right to not have health isnurance. they are the first ones with their hands out when they go

with pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps rested on the requirements that all americans get health coverage in some form. let's hear from andy and florida, you support. good morning. caller: the affordable care act provides protections beyond day

to day care. it provides protections against discrimination for pre-existing conditions which my job aggravated a genetic condition i had. i have to have an expensive procedure to see the doctor periodically for that. i will be subject to incredible premiums for health care to cover my cholesterol issues. these are genetic issues. i did not choose to have high cholesterol. the affordable care act codified these restrictions on companies that skewed the law, together with doctors are checking up prices -- jacking up prices. the law stood not for these prohibitions it stood before because they were considered unlawful.

it was all about the tax, they sorrowed the text which was a weak move. they did not just repeal the law, they never had a plan to replace it. republicans never had a plan to replace the affordable care act. i try to seek additional coverage because of restrictions with surgery centers that do not accept my insurance. this is a very dynamic law -- large law, it covers a lot of aspects. these assertions that they're going to protect pre-existing conditions when they removed to plan were falsehoods. we saw it four years and beyond that they never had a reasonable effort to come up with a plan like this. which was based on romney care

and another planned that the heritage foundation -- plan that the heritage foundation, a conservative group. host: let's show president obama in 2010 delivering remarks before he signed the affordable care act. [video clip] >> i said this once or twice, if you like your current insurance he will keep your current insurance. [applause] no government takeover. nobody is changing what you got. if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. more people will keep their doctors because your coverage will be more secure and stable. now that this has passed you do not have to take my word for it, you will see it in your own lives.

i heard one of the republican leaders say that this is going to be armageddon. two months from now, six months from now, we will look around. [laughter] we will see. [applause] you do not have to take my word for it. host: president obama in 2010, vic in florida, you oppose. what was your reaction? caller: they upheld it but it is better than nothing. it is too expensive for a lot of people. people at the bottom can get it. $700 for middle-class people is too expensive. it has to be fixed so it is more affordable. we are paying 2.5 times more for health insurance than any other country -- a developed country.

sanders has good ideas on health care. you can put a single-payer system on the exchange and have people to start and eventually everybody will come to it because it is cheaper. people do not look at other countries. look at spain. they have a system where they are paying about $5,000 where we are paying about $9,000. they have better results and everything is covered. they have a vat tax, you have to pay for it. but it is better than no insurance. the costs are going crazy this country, especially prescription drugs. the co-pays are out of sight. they cannot afford the drugs,

they are going without, they are shortening their lives because they cannot afford it. the system is broken and republicans do not believe in health care. you are on your own. the democrats cannot get anything passed because mcconnell blocks everything. the system gets worse every year. more people are hurting. there are a lot of people who die because of lack of care, they cannot see a doctor for care. a lot of them smoke, drink, they do things like that and lessens their life. we need work on our health care system. host: speaking of the senate, axios with the headline, "mitch mcconnell rejects joe manchin's

compromise." [video clip] >> all of you know how republicans feel about this proposal, solution in search of a problem. the rationale has changed over the years. after the 2016 election, the same deal was introduced in the house and as soon as they got the majority, they passed it. rationale was to clean the system out. then they liked the outcome of the 2020 election so the rational became we need to prevent states from making it more difficult to vote. i have looked at these laws, none of them are designed to suppress the vote. there is no rational basis for the federal government trying to take over american elections. there is a debate among democrats over a revised version

produced by one of the democrats yesterday which has been endorsed by stacey abrams. i would make this statement, it turns the federal election commission from a judge into a prosecutor by taking away the balance and making it three-to democratic. in a dubious constitutionality would remove -- from the state legislatures and handed over to computers. totally inappropriate. all republicans will oppose that. if that were to surface on the floor. that is not what we anticipate. host: republican leader, mitch mcconnell, axios reports the compromise includes banning artisan gerrymandering, requiring voter id, having 15

consecutive id -- the days of early voting and making election day eight public holiday. stacy -- a public holiday. stacey abrams has endorsed the plan. the compromise garrisons one of the more controversial parts of the for the people act, public financing of campaigns. this file he endorses absentee voting, he does not endorse no excuse absentee voting. he is proposing voter id requirements with the possibility of alternatives like a utility bill to provide proof of identity. back to our conversation, stan in texas, you are on. were you happy to see how the court ruled? caller: yes ma'am, i just retired. i was always in support of it,

because i was doing okay but i saw people that needed it. i am glad to see that. i stayed up with everything from the time they got started. there were some republican states that never went along with it. the man from indiana and some of those states, they never worked with the aca. that is why it is so high. i wish as joe biden said that he was one for improving this thing. host: jim in virginia, what do you have to say? caller: good morning. i am in support of the program.

tens of millions of americans now have health care coverage which otherwise they would not have been eligible for. that protects them from women. if they get hit -- from ruin. if they get hit with a major disease. in retrospect i do not know why we did not pass this program earlier. i think for too long we have these insurance companies have their own way, do whatever they wanted with us. there were not allowing people

to enroll if they were -- if they had pre-existing conditions. sometimes it is genetic, you're born with it. it is not a choice you make. there is nothing you could have done. there are a lot of good things about this program. having someone stay under their parents insurance until they are 26, established. as a young person it helped me with still being covered. it has a price tag, it is expensive. i am not an expert in the financials. it is a matter of compassion. you can recoup money whenever you can. lives you cannot get back.

host: richard in augusta, georgia, you support it. caller: i support it because when congress was looking at the aca, they had great interest. why not to let people get on board with their plan at the time when the time when the aca was being administered? why is it that we have things like georgia's governor not taking the money which is guaranteed for people to help out with health insurance. we need to let people understand that all people can get coverage , cobra is too high and insurance companies need to be brought in and put a freeze on them on how they control insurance. thank god for the aca and the supreme court decisions they made.

host: columbus, north carolina, you're next. caller: hold on. i have you on speaker. i am not -- i do not oppose aca but i believe that it came in the dark of night. nobody knew the details before it was signed. are you there? host: i am listening. caller: i am with my employer's insurance but i like the fact that they have the choice to get insurance. i feel sorry for these people praying ridiculous prices. that is wrong. especially when they had insurance before. that is my opinion. the caller mentioned age 26, that is ridiculous. i know of this one person who

has insurance with the aca and she has a son, he is constantly on illegal drugs. he is not responsible. he has 26 years of age. host: want to thank you for all the calls, the text. we will be back tomorrow morning. enjoy your weekend. ♪ >> see spanish or unfiltered view of government. -- c-span is your unfiltered

view of government. >> comcast is partnering to create wi-fi enabled so parents -- so students can get what they need. along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> president biden will speak today about the national covid-19 response and vaccination efforts. he has set a goal of 70% of adults in the country having at least one vaccination shot. the cdc reports we are at about 65%. the president will go live today at 2:15 p.m. on c-span. juneteenth is a federal holiday. joe biden signed it into law yesterday. both the house and senate passed it.

juneteenth, the celebration which originated in texas,, that commemorates the end of slavery and 18 65. >> saturday on the communicators, antitrust and competition in digital technology markets. >> we are off the charts in terms of where we were. in the last year, we had five lawsuits against facebook. we had all kinds of actions against amazon. we have people talking about new facade -- philosophies and competition policies and this is all radically new and this conversation could turn out to be truly transformative for the united states. >> the communicators saturday