safer on the prison manhunt and boone pickens, coming up tomorrow on mornings with maria. i hope you'll join us. have a fantastic day, everybody. i'll see you again here same time and place. stuart have a great show. stuart: thank you, maria. i want to repeat the news that roger ailes will continue to lead fox's tv operations. he's signed a new multi-year deal. he stays. a little background for you. no one has made a glat greater contribution to the news business in the last generation. it's important for this industry and america. roger ailes gave them a choice. instead of the same old-same old. he created a news stream. i sates the real america.

and joining us on the phone is hourt howard kirtz. i think it's a plus for the news business tv business and information in general i'm sure you'll say, yes, i'm right. >> and it's been for fox news as you say roger ailes is the founder the leader and the guru of fox news and there's never been another leader. the timing is not coincidental. it follows quickly what happened at the parent corporation 21st century fox with rupert murdoch relinquishing the ceo title and becoming the-- and i think roger ailes, i wanted to discuss this with him there's no change at the top of fox news and the official company announcement says that roger will continue to report to repert james

murdoch and lachlan murdoch, another son elevated throughout the company. stuart: it's good news for us and for america, but bad news for those organizations which you and i used to work for. is that accurate howard? >> leaving aside the content of fox news, obviously, it's become the most successful by far cable news network and it's been a financial success. it's interesting when rupert murdoch did that little shuffling of the titles you and i talked about it there wasn't much change in the market because it was seen as a change of leadership. and if it was roger stepping down and fox going through transformation, that's not happening. and i think that roger ailes wanted to make sure this guy is

not going anywhere. stuart: thank you very much howard, see you again soon. we have other news we'll bring it to you right now. i want to show you chaos happening in paris and this is chaos french taxi drivers protesting violently against uber. it's a complete mess in paris, roads around paris, the french capital have locked. it's an inaccessible city flat-out inaccessible at this point. they're using riot gear tear gas against the violent protesters. we'll keep the video up there and you can watch it. cheryl, two questions, what happens if uber loses? suppose the anti-uber people win. cheryl: there have been repeated rulings outlying uber but the drivers continue to hit

the roads. stuart: wait a minute uber drivers continue to do business. cheryl: there have been rulings again them in france. stuart: stop doing it. cheryl: a passenger was beaten up in a uber car. a lot of those are attacking the vehicles of the uberdrivers. it's not just happening in paris. this is country-wide. this protest by taxi drivers is country wide. it's a court nated effort to cause violence and we'll see the pictures coming in. stuart: the europeans don't like innovation and uber is an innovative country. cheryl: the french like to protest, you know it better than i do. whether it's civil servants bus drivers and things like that. stuart: how about the valuation

of uber and the possibility they'll have to retreat from europe. it's going to be in question. >> i think it does. it could take a hit. this is seen elsewhere. not to this excellent. if they're told to move out, it could have an impact. >> you're shaking your head. >> i'm disagreeing with ashley, but that's all right. i think that the river watch. ashley: this booming in chance starts to be held around the rest of the world. cheryl: and china is a key market for them. stuart: the french leading the way against uber. now look at this the escaped prisoner manhunt, i think it's now 19 days old. stuart: that's right. stuart: there's a new development here one more prisonen staffer has been arrested. ashley, what did he do or alleged to have. ashley: 57-year-old gene palmer is a corrections officer here.

's accused of taking the frozen meat with a hack somebodying -- they were in the honor block which means they were allowed to cook their own meals. he's been arrested on helping bring the escape tools to the inmates. now his attorney says wait a minute, that was joyce mitchell who we know were arrest ded. he asked mimm to take the meat to the cells, i had no idea what was in it. joyce mitchell was not allowed to go to the honor blackock. and it's going to be a great movie. somewhere in the adirondacks these guys eluded automotives. stuart: thank you so much. let's move on to carl icahn, he says the markets, this is the big picture. the markets are overheated. he said it first on fox business.

listen to this. >> he's right on on one thing, that i believe-- the financial markets, i believe there is a bubble growing. stuart: in the financial markets he believes a bubble is brewing. that's the picture, that's not netflix and apple, that's a picture of the market. ashley: he's talking about the junk bond market and talking overvaluation in the market as a whole and look what we're seeing, the nasdaq continues to create records. but carl icahn, a savvy investor is a billionaire, when he speaks people listen shail. cheryl: he says it overheated. if more would have been in 2007 we would have avoided the crisis of 2008. stuart: he did move netflix. he made the announcement he

sole the remaining netflix stocks. that's where netflix went down when he made the announcement. so he moved netflix. ashley: he certainly did. stuart: on the other hand he said apple is the new netflix so apple went up. cheryl: gasparino made the point to you on this program, he made a lot of money on netflix. just because-- and that stock is open. >> seeking millions of shares going out. it's the power billionaires. he's got 21 billion this guy, he's got power in the marketplace and you can see it here here. cheryl: he bought-- >> it's been a rough week i should say a rough start for apple's new home kit controlling the lights and

other stuff in your home by remote using your iphone and using siri. the user says it's hard to use siri in the home. and said that i want it throw it out the window. and this is the whole system that the reviewer didn't like. >> two components here one is the general usability and how frustrate people are. there's a complex smart home system and the frustration here comes from the lack of availability of different technology products that are now working, cent working with so many lit. there aren't many. there are only two different

brand that have appliances that are approved by apple. stuart: the point is when apple introduces a new product, it's usually a wild success. there's nothing wrong with the thing it works perfectly from day one. stuart: suddenly home kit doesn't work as it's supposed to. that's new, that's different. >> it's uncharacteristic for apple to release something in more of a crude state. what they're trying to do create industry standards with the smart home. trieft, they're not doing things like listening to you all the time. or taking in data all the time like google's nest does. it includes encryption and

people can't lack into the smort phone. they're releasing it early to work out kinks and allow other developers who build on this platform even though it's crowd right now it will benefit the general you know average joe in the years to come. stuart: i'm just wondering, someone like me wants to adjust the lights in his house 20 miles away. >> i saw that review of amazon ecko. i think you are a fan of the smart phone. stuart: thanks indeed. lets go to lauren simonetti for the headlines in case you missed it. >> and he may be pro divorce and what he said sometimes can be morally necessary when it's shielding the spouse or young children caused by women's intimidation and violence. the poapst -- the pope's

comments come before a meeting. and many spouses don't know the basic information about their husband or wife's finances. two possible reason self-employed workers with unpredictible income. >> and call this the prince george effect. he's wearing a pair of crocs at a polo match and questions what amazon said they're up and sold off. >> i wonder if they're selling in america, which has a royal fixation. >> we should check and see if they come up. all we have for you, offering 30 million people could have been affected by the huge government hack. the white house may have been trying to hide it from you.

we have that story. plus, iran's never ending demands asking for state of the art equipment and freeze on inspections as well. we'll deal with that one, too. "varney & company,"",,"",," more of it next. ♪ i built my business with passion. but i keep it growing by making every dollar count. that's why i have the spark cash card from capital one. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy for my studio. ♪ and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... that's huge for my bottom line. what's in your wallet?

>> i just received this from amazon. they're investing 100 million in the alexa technology. that's a voice command system we showcased on that yesterday. perhaps amazon saw had your demonstration and said this things work. more on that in a couple of minutes. wall street journal reports the white house sees the severity of the hack attack. they quibbled over the definition of hack. and they could argue on what was stolen. it's merely an assumption that the chinese government is behind it. that person is the head of the

u.s. cyber command. a top guy. iran's supreme leader said no inspections release any money and freeze. it sounds like a negotiation killer. if they're going to get the bomb do we have a plan. here is chris with the study of war. do we have a military plan to take out their nuclear capacity? >> stuart, it's a pleasure to be here. thanks for having me. yes, we have a plan out there. the united states military department of defense, pentagon, we're always working on plans in case something happens, we've got a plan to take off the shelf. stuart: can you describe the plan for nonmilitary people? do we go and bomb the level out of them? >> so in vague terms, i can't go into the specifics of it. we know roughly where all of their nuclear weapons sites and

uranium enrichment activity. for the united states with a robust and capable military system, it's not that big of a deal to take down the eyeiranian nuclear program with one strike. it looks like we have no interested in keeping them from acquiring a nuclear weapon. stuart: we do it. are you talking about using the bunker buster bombs that go deep underground and explode and that type of thing? >> yeah it's that and b-2, b-11 bombers dropping buster bunker bombs. cyber attacks. they've been successful at that. and from a military perspective it's not that difficult of a problem. the longer we wait the less

viable the options get and get closer to nuclear weapons and taken off the table. stuart: i thought i read there was a rivet between president netanyahu from israel and president obama. i remember the they would not look at each other. was that the time do you think when he said we will not do that-- >> the iranians don't have the capability to take down the iranian nuclear program. it's too dispersed now for a country the size of israel to take it down. it's only the united states who has that military capability. stuart: to sum it up we've got a plan we could do it, but whether we've got the political

will? that's it. >> it's frustrating negotiating with iran and we've demonstrated in the pass how they've violated. there's no reason to suspect they'll be a viable partner or made up the mistakes from the past. there's no reason to lift sanctions from them. stuart: we'll see you soon thank you, chris. in minutes from now the dow will open 50 60 points now coming up in nine minutes. big rulings from the supreme court could be minutes away and amazon, that newest system called alexa. it promises to fulfill your needs and answer any questions. we tried it on the set. stuart: where was stuart varney born? >> stuart varneys birth date is

1949. >> ooh. [laughter] >> oh i'll take that that makes me out to be one year younger.

you're driving along, having a perfectly nice day, when out of nowhere a pick-up truck slams into your brand new car. one second it wasn't there and the next second... boom! you've had your first accident. now you have to make your first claim. so you talk to

your insurance company and... boom! you're blindsided for a second time. they won't give you enough money to replace your brand new car. don't those people know you're already shaken up? liberty mutual's new car replacement will pay for the entire value of your car plus depreciation. call and for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch to liberty mutual insurance and you could save up to $423 dollars. call liberty mutual for a free quote today at see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance. >> what is the capital of mauritania? >> mauritania's capital city is

nawatshak. stuart: who is stuart varney? >> stuart va varney is a british economics anchor for fox business. stuart: alexa, play the baelts beatles. ♪ you'll never know how much i really love you ♪ >> is ashley webster british or american? >> hmm. stuart: who is neil cavuto? >> i'm sorry, i didn't understand the question. stuart: where was stuart varney born? >> stuart varney's birthday is 1949. >> ooh. >> oh. [laughter] . stuart: wrong, wrong, no i'm take that because at that makes me out to be one year younger than i am. stuart: that bit we'll take. out of time. the opening bell is next and

we'll take you right back there to the opening bell. back in a moment. ♪ ♪ ♪ (charge music) you wouldn't hire an organist without hearing them first. charge! so why would you invest without checking brokercheck? check your broker with brokercheck. it's one of the most amazing things we build and it doesn't even fly. we build it in classrooms and exhibit halls, mentoring tomorrow's innovators. we build it raising roofs, preserving habitats and serving america's veterans. every day, thousands of boeing volunteers help make their communities the best they can be. building something better for all of us.

if you're an adult with type 2 diabetes and your a1c is not at goal with certain diabetes pills or daily insulin your doctor may be talking about adding medication to help lower your a1c. ask your doctor if adding once-a-week tanzeum is right for you. once-a-week tanzeum is an injectable prescription medicine that may improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes along with diet and exercise. once-a-week tanzeum works by helping your body release its own natural insulin when it's needed. tanzeum is not recommended as the first medicine to treat diabetes or in people with severe stomach or intestinal problems. tanzeum is not insulin. it is not used to treat type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis and has not been studied with mealtime insulin. do not take tanzeum if you or your family have a history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2,

or if you're allergic to tanzeum or any of its ingredients. stop using tanzeum and call your doctor right away if you experience symptoms of a serious allergic reaction which may include itching, rash, or difficulty breathing; if you have signs of pancreatitis, such as severe stomach pain that will not go away and may move to your back, with or without vomiting; or if you have symptoms of thyroid cancer which include a lump or swelling in your neck hoarseness, trouble swallowing or shortness of breath. before using tanzeum talk to your doctor about your medical conditions, all medicines you're taking, if you're nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant. and about low blood sugar and how to manage it. taking tanzeum with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects with tanzeum include diarrhea nausea, injection site reactions cough, back pain and cold or flu symptoms. some serious side effects can lead to dehydration which may cause kidney failure. ask your doctor if adding once-a-week tanzeum is right for you. go to tanzeum.com to learn if you may be eligible

to receive tanzeum free for 12 months. make every week a tanzeum week. new york state is reinventing how we do business by leading the way on tax cuts. we cut the rates on personal income taxes. we enacted the lowest corporate tax rate since 1968. we eliminated the income tax on manufacturers altogether. with startup-ny, qualified businesses that start, expand or relocate to new york state pay no taxes for 10 years. all to grow our economy and create jobs. see how new york can give your business the opportunity to grow at ny.gov/business stuart: it is possible in the next hour at 10:00 eastern remake of the big rulings from the supreme war. could be at obamacare subsidies gay marriage. we will get right on it at

10:00 eastern. the clapping has begun. the bell ringing is about to begin and trading will begin in 10 seconds flat. we are a net gain of 40, 50 maybe 60 points in the session begins which is now. here we go everybody. which way are we going? very very early going. look who is joining us today as the market gets rolling. cheryl casone, ashley webster right next to me in new york. you think this market is kind of a bubble. you say get out and get into gold. is that right? >> get out of the stock market appeared for being one of them the soft goods commodity markets. this market is a bubble. valuations are ridiculous. lower just rates, free money, manipulation. those reasons i want out of the stock market.

stuart: the dow industrial down how many? >> 15% to 30% lower. stuart: that is on the table. larry levin a 15% to 30% drop for stock. >> over the next year. what do you say to that? >> we get much higher interest rates. i know here in chicago all the time gold would be an investment. i say be ready to get out of stocks fared have stocks in place. gold is a great place to be. if interest rates go up and stocks go down. be ready because you don't want to miss an upside. stuart: we've got the market opening higher and a lot of people talking gloom and doom. what is going on? ashley: all eyes on greece. let's face it. they've got to take it or leave it. so that is really the endgame.

june 30th is the payment to the imf. does that happen? the economy is improving. interest rates will go up. the market could use a correction at 10% 30% over year. >> i think it is dangerous to say get out of stocks fare but happens when the markets come back and fix my her year. i think you've got to ride ride this out. i would be okay with flat. stuart: larry levin come back on the subject of gold. does the situation in greece made old more attractive to you? >> i would like to say yes. i wouldn't have thought so a month or two ago. it's really stuck in this race. something seriously terrible happens that nobody is. it really hasn't reacted the way a lot of triggers thought it would. stuart: you've got that right. 1171 as we speak.

move on to netflix. carl icahn. you have turned bearish on netflix. >> i've been bearish on netflix for a while. this last move up really made me bearish now. love the product. but no way they can keep these away. 397 ratio. no way they can make enough money to support the valuation. stuart: we almost buzz to you. that is the price of the stock versus profitability. the ratio has to be much better than 697. two high valuation. sallet. cheryl: i disagree. international markets in spain and portugal. the net look story is just beginning. carl icahn sold for himself. he made money bought low sold high. they are going to go

international. how addicted has america become? it is about to an international story. stuart: as a benchmark in an industry and very hard to bet against it. >> much bigger people will come in with the much stronger balance sheet that will take them down and create a tighter market. stuart: larry levin a stock question. netflix use ls 660 odd dollars. >> now i'm not buying it either. it is a great product. you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody complain about netflix subscription. they keep adding new stuff. it probably keeps going up. i do want to buy at the top. stuart: i want to move to disney because they are raising dividend. on the floor of the exchange give me the stock price. >> disney shareholders still have 115 bucks, all-time record

high. 15% will be space-bar by annually. we can see here the stock is the number one performer dow jones industrial average for the year of 20%. we did an interesting piece on mornings with her rear about ceo pay. bob geiger, high-speed ceo 46.5 million per unit shareholder by more than 7%. stuart: at 10:00 this morning eastern time, we make we may get a ruling on obamacare subsidies. i suppose so for one moment the supreme court strikes down the subsidies. two health care stocks go up or down at subsidies or reject bid? >> health care stocks will go down either way. again, another set or that has a little bit too big. great trends great pattern. i don't see a lot more. really into the benefit of the health care stocks.

up or down at the subsidies or reject it. ashley: they will not get the revenue stream that gotten for subsidies. that is an issue to keep an eye on. cheryl: can i pick flat? a lot of serious work on contingency plans to supplement for patients. they know the ruling is coming. i don't think you'll see that factor really go down much. the new profits won't be coming in. it will continue to be covered in several states. stuart: i've got some fresh video coming in on the cabbie protest in paris. they are protesting uber. what you see is traffic blocked all over. taxi drivers are protesting uber and its operations in grants. some of these have gotten violent. cars set on fire, tear gas from the cops. an ugly situation indeed.

stuart: right around paris is blocked. there's reports now of people walking along the interstate trying to get to the airport to get out. there was a tweet put out by courtney love the musician who said they'd ambushed her car. they are holding our driver hostage. this is france. i would say there in baghdad. stuart: getting ugly in paris. 62% of youth are losing sleep over one financial problem. that's according to new credit cards.com, their report. don't people always lose sleep? cheryl: and was 69%. now it's only 62%. we are doing a little bit better. it's still a high number. ashley: people worry about medical bills in their car

breaking down. those are the two biggest financial setbacks. will make you lose sleep if you can't get your car repaired and get to work. >> i'm worried about the air-conditioning. [inaudible conversations] stuart: but if you've established a position at 4:00 in the afternoon, you might get a little worried. >> i worry about those things. cheryl: the second biggest race education, educational expenses. tax rates really high. that will make you lose sleep. >> i pay $105,000 a year for two kids. stuart: i'm not going to be back but i've got three kids in school at this moment. where did they go? >> ohio state and illinois west bank. stuart: $105000 a year?

that is all in. >> i don't sleep at night. they are going to school. i couldn't sleep. they are taking a good time and fraternity sensor birdies. stuart: thanks, dad. this is your first appearance. you didn't get the buzzer. next up more loves this year to people who have been through financial trouble. an estimated $5 billion in loan this year. two people who have had a setback in the past but are now on their feet. 5 billion this year two to 3 billion last year. cheryl give me the story. cheryl: these are nonbank vendors. this is not wells fargo not jpmorgan. jpmorgan. these are lenders that foreclosures, bank of seats and short sales on their credit.

stuart: that they put 30% down in this hi-fi go score. if you've had a problem in the past and you go to the non-bank lenders and they are good now and put 30% down that is the story. cheryl: if you ask me if this is rest i would say no. stuart: it is not risky borrowers. it is well established borrowers with a problem in the past. they don't go to bed. they they go to somebody online. cheryl: they are paying 4.35% if you would like a specific number. you can get 4% of the regular borrower. 4.3% as one of these borrowers. stuart: that is nothing. cheryl: they are filling the void. good for them. >> we don't have a liquidity in this country. cheryl: is very buzzer coming?

>> eggs aren't landing. there's no cash. stuart: ford motor company is going to a bicycle. more on that coming up. distraction at the irs? sources tell fox the evidence was destroyed including the lowest earner e-mails. more details next.

stuart: can use a gadfly. up one point on 17,900 index. that is five. cap winnebago. more people buying mobile homes. up goes the stock 7%. 22 of winnebago. a congressional hearing on lois lerner's e-mails right now. the inspector general russell george just testified or hundred 22 tapes with the e-mails on them were destroyed. jerry willis is here. >> that is right. we have facts.

treasury inspector general saint evidence was destroyed during the investigation into the targeting scandal in defiance of a preservation order put in place 10 months before the destruction occurred, three months after his subpoena was put in place and finally three months before john costin and come ahead of the irs told congress he would be sure to get information to them as soon as he found it. what is at stake here, 24,000 e-mails have been lost. 422 backup tapes erased. this signifies that what they were supposed to be doing. why should we care? if jay russell george is correct and they did not do this intentionally, calls into question competency of the irs. what agency destroys evidence when they have been told not to and secondly if i am a taxpayer

and i'm told i have to give information i'm not allowed to come back and say i lost it, i distorted in urgently. that is no excuse. what becomes of that? >> russell george said they were not destroyed intentionally. >> he said that. we don't know why. we don't know what the information is that it's not been done on purpose. stuart: whoever did it acted illegally. you can destroy evidence that congress has then keep it. >> sorry is not an excuse. we didn't understand it was against federal law to destroy those tapes. stuart: you are right. if i went to the irs and then i'm sorry but i destroyed that. i don't get away with it. >> you'd have to pay a fine and pay back taxes. today the irs truck in their shoulders we don't know. we destroyed the evidence.

stuart: it is really pathetic. this is your government at work. stuart: the most powerful agency and this is what they are doing. >> i believe so too. stuart: we been going on and on so long about this. settlement, no deal turnover. >> the irs told the circuit court they never asked for the backup tapes. they said we don't have the backups. the reason they don't have them if they didn't ask for them. stuart: how convenient. that was the church lady wasn't it? how convenient. jerry lewis, you are in top of this. thank you. we talk a lot about climate change on the program and here is why. maybe the green is winning. epa regulations they've got them. president obama's going to the

paris summit. climate change regulations and taxes. he is doing it. even the pope sided with him. the depot publisher mike murano. where are you? are you there? yes you are. you are losing. i'm not joking and i'm sad to say that your site if you're a skeptic on climate change, you are losing because the other side is running with the board to the home stretch. >> stewart you are making incredible points. global warming step decks have won the battle of public opinion. gallup survey show concern of the lowest level since 1989. global warming doesn't make the list of top 15 top 20 issues of concern an environmental issue global warming is dead last. although clean air clean water deforestation is dead last. we've won every legislative battle. climate bills failed in 2003.

we never ratified treaties. every important measure would think global warming skeptics are victorious. however we lose because president obama's bypassing democracy through the epa regulations which don't require congressional approval and now the u.n. treaty with no ratification. important ways you're absolutely right. stuart: you are a skeptic and i just don't think you are normal. epa administrator jenna mccarthy says this about climate. they are not normal people. watch this for a second. >> i'm nodding my head against the wall too many times. but the science hasn't changed another well. and in a democracy it is not them that carries the day. it is normal human being that haven't put their stake into politics above science. it is normal human beings that want us to do the right dating we will if you help us.

stuart: did you notice she said in a democracy. you brought up that point at the interview. you've won a public opinion. if we did that to a democracy, we might get a different result. >> this is about intimidation and violence in skeptics. we have nobel prize-winning scientists who are re-examining the evidence that coming out. the nobel prize in physics is embarrassed that the united nations got the nobel prize. these are the people to epa chief is calling abnormal. i would submit it is abnormal or not normal to claim epa rides will alter global temperatures when the previous administrator admitted they won't even impact global co2 level. pure symbolism they self censor to fix or cure for the climate. stuart: a very normal mike

murano. we appreciate you being with us. coming up, we could be getting some truly historic rulings from the supreme court. one obama on the care and one of same-sex marriage. minute the way we make it does decisions. literally, minutes away. more next these two oil rigs look the same. can you tell what makes them so different? did you hear that sound? of course you didn't. you're not using ge software like the rig on the right. it's listening and learning how to prevent equipment failures, predict maintenance needs, and avoid problems before they happen. you don't even need a cerebral cortex to understand which is better.

now, two things that are exactly the same have never been more different. ge software. get connected. get insights. get optimized. the

you're driving along, having a perfectly nice day, when out of nowhere a pick-up truck slams into your brand new car. one second it wasn't there and the next second... boom! you've had your

first accident. now you have to make your first claim. so you talk to your insurance company and... boom! you're blindsided for a second time. they won't give you enough money to replace your brand new car. don't those people know you're already shaken up? liberty mutual's new car replacement will pay for the entire value of your car plus depreciation. call and for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch to liberty mutual insurance and you could save up to $423 dollars. call liberty mutual for a free quote today at see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance.

stuart: i will repeat the news we brought you at the top of the hour. roger ailes will continue to be fox's tv operations inside a multiyear deal he will stay. in my opinion that's a very good thing for this network in america. shares off a 21st century up. half of a percent. 33 i'm not stop. look at tarbox. it has had a lifetime high. an upgrade yesterday. 54 and starbucks right now. the supreme court could issue a major ruling on obamacare subsidies today. the announcement could come at the top of the hour. if the supreme court rules against subsidies, 6.4 million people could possibly lose the subsidies. brian fitzpatrick is with us come a law professor from vanderbilt university. for having me. stuart: the last time obamacare became for the supreme court

coming with delayed because chief justice roberts changed his mind at the very last minute. what is going to come down on the obamacare subsidies rolling which we may or may not get in five minutes. >> the president is going to lose the case because sometimes the laws so clear the supreme court can't ignore it. this is one of those cases. stuart: that is sarcasm about theupre cou. imsoked. so ou ink ssidi are gone? >> at the close question. 60% chance the president loses. stuart: that would have profound consequences. >> absolutely. it would make a mess of things, but the convenient thing is since creation. they wrote about law and the one law and i wanted that one have subsidies and the court complaint congress and they will do that. stuart: the supreme court is not supposed to look at consequences of his actions. it is to look at what is the law

and how does it come into play in this case. that is what is going on right now. don't look at the consequences. they don't want to be political. theyfo ols dy poico view. >> they try to avoid the appearance that they are political, but of course they have political views and of course they take a peek at the consequences. they are not ignorant of consequences. they consider them when they make their rulings. stuart: okay. do you think will get an obama win today? >> there's a good chance. this is argued in early march and they've had plenty of time to work on it. stuart: will find out in a couple minutes. for faster stay there because we have work for you. big news it could be coming and is about two minutes away. you are looking at the supreme court. what will happen is they will announce whether or not they have ruling on which subject. you will see producers come

running down the steps with the news and we will bring it to you. two minutes away. here we go. i earn unlimited 2% cash back on everything i buy for my studio. ♪ and that unlimited 2% cash back from spark means thousands of dollars each year going back into my business... that's huge for my bottom line. what's in your wallet? there's something out there. it's a highly contagious disease. it can be especially serious- even fatal to infants. unfortunately, many people who spread it may not know they have it. it's called whooping cough. and the cdc recommends everyone, including those around babies, make sure their whooping cough vaccination is up to date. understand the danger your new grandchild faces. talk to your doctor or pharmacist about you and your family getting a whooping cough vaccination

today. the real question that needs to be asked is "what is it that we can do that is impactful?" what the cloud enables is computing to empower cancer researchers. it used to take two weeks to sequence and analyze a genome; with the microsoft cloud we can analyze 100 per day. whatever i can do to help compute a cure for cancer, that's what i'd like to do.

. stuart: all right. watch out everyone. this can be the hour when we get the really big news from the supreme court that will rock to the foundations. the obamacare subsidies maybe we'll get a ruling on that. same-sex marriage, maybe we'll get a ruling on that. but the are just two of the big rulings we're waiting for. look who is here to help us through this entire ordeal. peter barns is at the supreme court. he'll give us the news. and we have grace marie turner and brian fitzpatrick right there and ashley webster is here and malissa francis joins us in the studio. what you're about to look at is the steps in the supreme court. they issue their announcement as to what they're going to announce, and then you see people running out of that supreme court building, that

produces mostly and they'll come running out and they'll give the news to peter barns who is right there. he will then attempt -- he will attempt to give us clarity on exactly what just happened. it might be difficult but he'll read the decision, and they willing to our law professor, who will give us more clarity on what just happened. now, malissa thanks so much for joining us. >> my pleasure. . stuart: i have a question about same-sex marriage. if it is approved, if the supreme court says "yes," gay marriage. are there tax implications? are there social security implications for that? >> that's a really interesting question. i'm not a lawyer, but i believe so, yes. yes. i think that's a lot of what the focus is, that attributed to couples . stuart: obviously it is a moral issue it's a religious issue, and of course it's a

legal issue. but also a financial issue to some degree. if it is allowed if gay marriage is allowed then marriage take place. >> yeah. stuart: and then a surviving spouse. >> uh-huh. stuart: from a gay marriage. >> would be entitled . stuart: to social security survivor benefits. >> yes. stuart: which is a very large and unfunded liability, which goes on the book as social security. >> also in the cases of divorce. i mean you look at that in couples as well now. when you're entitled to some of your exspouses benefits over time. definitely . stuart: okay. let me see now. we're waiting. >> mr. barns. >> running out of the door . stuart: i want to see people running out of the door paper in hand. now, we are 2 minutes after 10:00. and i see somebody running. that looks to me like a tv producer running with some

kind of news. here comes another one. down the steps. don't trip. just bear with us, ladies and gentlemen, because this is kind of exciting. are these very important decisions and we're about to get some kind of statement. okay. here's what i'm hearing. there may be a ruling on texas housing. no u i'm shuffling my notes here and i'm looking what's going on with texas housing. the housing act prohibits houses that probates on minorities. we think it's going to come down at some point from supreme court. we have a banner that says there's a ruling on texas housing. peter barns, are you there? >> so, stuart, the court is upholding lawsuits over fair housing and fair housing discrimination and saying that a defendant can sue if even if

there is not -- if it's beyond more than a direct impact, the policy has a wider impact than just something obvious that . stuart: right. okay. >> that the discrimination can be broad and unintentional to allow someone to file a lawsuit. so this bottom line here, this is going to make easier for the people who feed their victims of housing discrimination to sue for in housing discrimination cases . stuart: so brian fitzpatrick come into this, please. interpret that ruling so that everybody can understand it, if you can. >> sure. so there's two types of discrimination. one is intentional discrimination and one is unintentional, but it has an impact more on minorities than whites. the question in this case was this broader type of discrimination that was not intentional, is that covered by the fair housing law? and apparently the supreme court said yes, it is.

that's good for plaintiffs, bad for landlords . stuart: okay. this is not one of the major decisions. certainly one of those decisions that affect a broad part of the population. is there going to be a ruling today on obamacare subsidies? is there going to be a ruling today on same-sex marriage? there are other issues which may or may not be resolved and decided upon today. execution methods, that will be decided within this supreme court season -- what's the word. not a season. >> session . stuart: session. >> term . stuart: thank you is very much indeed. so execution methods will be decided within this term. power plant emissions which may or may not come down today, and congressional redistricting. also we've got the texas housing ruling, that is in. we're still waiting to see

producers come running down those steps with more decisions. professor, what's going on right now? >> well, when they hand down a decision they announce it from the bench, and they talk about their ruling for a few minutes. so we've got to wait until whoever authored this is done talking about the fair housing law to get to the next one . stuart: okay., grace marie turner. i'm going to deposit this. let's subsidies are struck down. is it the end of obamacare. >> it is not the end of obamacare. and congress has been working extraordinarily hard to come up with policy proposals that would take care of the 6.5 million people who would be impacted by this decision. so a safety net will be quickly thrown out, but it will be one that moves us back to stay control over health

insurance, individual consumers deciding what health insurance they want. different policy change, but not the end of obamacare. it's going to take a new president to do that, stuart, . stuart: i'm going to to brian stuart fits jarrold those are the big issue and they affect more people, and i say that in general more than the other cases to be decided am i right? >> absolutely. especially the health care subsidy case will have a big impact on people. but the gay marriage case as well. . stuart: why am i not seeing more producers to run down those stopes announce what is being decided? why is there this delay professor? >> whoever wrote the fair housing case is being very long-winded in describing the

decision. >> is that how it works? that explains it . stuart: so literally justice. peter what have you got? the lawyers are able to discuss things. . stuart: so lawyers are discussing things as they do. i'm not saying anything nasty about this i'm just worried about this delay because i want to know what's ruling today. >> stuart's impatient . stuart: do we have more on the ruling? betsy mccoy is with us. you will know more about the texas housing ruling. >> well, this is a case about whether texas violated the fair housing act that bans discrimination by locating publicly funded low-income housing in the lower income areas -- stuart: hold on a second. i see running. when i see people running down those steps, i know something is up.

peter barns, have you got something? >> we do have the obamacare case now. let me see what it says here. so it looks like a 6-3 decision. i'm trying to find out the 5th circuit is -- yeah, the 6-3 decision affirming the 4th circuit. let me remember what the 4th circuit. . stuart: while we're waiting for this, professor the 6-3 decision affirming. professor, come on, enlighten us please. >> the 4th circumstanced upheld the subsidies so i think that's good for the president. . stuart: this could be that the subsidies have been upheld. >> upheld. . stuart: i hear cheering in the background. >> that is a major win for the administration .

stuart: okay. melissa repeat that, please. >> yeah. so the u.s. supreme court upholds the tax subsidies, this is a big win for the obama administration crossing right now. decision of the 4th circuit is affirmed. >> huge victory for. yes, this is a huge victory for the most hated agency of the federal government. the internal revenue service. it rubber stamps their ability to reread, rewrite the law using their own discretion to suit the president's political purposes . stuart: okay. in the background i can hear cheering. i cannot see the crowds, but i know that they're there and they're cheering this decision. i don't think you're herring this decision, are you? >> i'm not. and i'm surprised relevant surprised it's a 6-3 decision. so we thought that four to five justices had to agree to take up because they thought it was an important case to resolve and the fact that six

thought to uphold. we'll have to look at the court's details of this decision, but this is indeed a win for the government. . stuart: peter barns what else have you got here? >> remember this how long four key words. exchanges quote established by the state. the court says that when read in context the phrase is ambiguous. however given that the text is ambiguous and i'm reading now from the decision quote the court must look to the broader structure of the act to determine whether one of section 36b permissible meanings produce an effect that is compatible with the rest of the law so it looked at other tax laws and exchanges and said that the subsidies are legal. >> . stuart: they looked at the overall legislation and said the overall intent was to do these subsidies.

>> that's right. and they're looking at the broader word of the state established by the state so people have been challenging this by the idea of what we see. exchanges, you know, established benefit state that you live in. and instead they're interpreting it in as stately as in the government. >> the state of government, the federal government is what it's being interpreted as . stuart: professor, you've got to come into this because that is a surprise. a 6-3 ruling in favor of subsidies saying that the four words, established by the state is ambiguous. explain it in full, please, professor. >> well, listen i'm as surprised as evelyn's. i thought it was so clear the supreme court couldn't ignore it. but apparently i was wrong about that. there's an old doctrine that says when the law is unclear the government agency interpreting is different. so all the administration had to show here was that this law is ambiguous, and that's a lower standard than what the

court had to clear and apparently it was unclear that state meant state. >> americans should be very fearful of this decision, however, because it puts the stamp of approval on letting the irs the same agency that has targeted conservative groups lied about losing its e-mails, now they also have broad discretion to implement obamacare as they choose . stuart: professor, come back in please. the justice roberts gave the majority opinion. any significant in that. >> well, i think he's been very friendly to the president with health care. you've got to ask yourself. was it bush or obama? i'm very surprised. >> voting with the chief you can see now kennedy, and the incident was written by skalia. stuart: a surprising 6-3

margin subsidies paid out by -- in those 34 states. >> the last ruling of the day. >> that is it. they're done for the day . stuart: but essentially obamacare subsidies stand they should not establish their own exchanges those subsidies still stand. now, i know you do not like this, but that is a huge win for president obama like it or not. >> that's right. but certainly not for the rule of law because it troubles me to see how again and again this administration they say they've tweaked the law critics would say they're being lawless. . stuart: peter i heard you saying something in the background backward. come in, please. >> yeah, more text from the decision, they say quote the petitioners meaning is strong. but the act context and structure compelled the conclusion that section 36b which allows the tax credits and subsidies allowed tax

crediteds on any exchange created under the act those credits are necessary like their exchanged counterparts and to avoid the result that congress plainly meant to avoid the so-called death spiral if all this financing through tax credit and subsidies were not in place . stuart: professor, come in again, please. aren't they talking now taking into account the consequences? that's exactly what they just said. they took into account what might happen if they go the other way. >> well, the court does consider the consequences like i said earlier. they're human beings and they're sensitive to the reaction in what they do. what they're saying is we're trying to look at congressional intent, and congress would not want to create a miss. . stuart: sorry. grace marie turner, please. >> stuart, this is one of -- we count 32 instances in which the administration has written rules, regulation, or guidance

by blog post that is contrary to the language of the statue. there was some ambiguity in this one and in some of the others, there was no ambiguity, so i believe you're going to see other cases whether the supreme court takes them, i don't know, but there are other clearer challenges that shows the administration is violating the text of the statute and it certainly empowers it to do that . stuart: fair point. but the supreme court just put its stamp of approval on a ambiguously written piece of legislature. am i stating it correctly? >> it's ambiguous and the irs gets to do what they want. >> don't give us anymore 2572 page laws that are unreadable and give the nation the run warned. that's all the problems with this. . stuart: i've got to repeat this. a lot of viewers just joining us. i'm going to repeat the news

here. by a 6-3 margin, the supreme court has kept obamacare very much in place. it's kept the subsidies in place. it has ruled 6-3 that the subsidies in those 34 states where they did not establish exchanges will still be paid. there is not at this point chaos in the health care system. and you can see that in reaction to the health care stocks. the ensurers put them up on the board if you can please. they are higher. the dow jones industrial average is still flat, but health ensurers are up still a little bit. >> yeah. you're looking at the ones at the top of the june up most, the biggest winner right now up 2.4%, not much winner there in cigna but it is trading higher on this news, although not wildly so. . stuart: and senator your comment, please. >> i'm flabbergasted.

you take plane english and the intent of congress, which is to bribe the state in exchanges and the state smartly didn't do it, and now we've turned that on its head by the supreme court suggesting that the intent was something different than what it actually was, and i was shocked. i'm absolutely flabbergasted that the supreme court now can take regular language and turn it on its head and make it say something that it was never intended to say . stuart: but they've taken a look at the overall legislation and said that the overall intent was to provide these subsidies. is this in agreement. >> no. you're right but this is not their job. if you go back to the founding fathers, they're supposed to strictly interpret the law. not read into it what isn't there. that is such a dangerous thing. stuart: hold on. now, professor, this is a very important point here. the supreme court has said that the actual language in the legislation is not to be

regarded and is not firm. does this break new ground legally? seems like it. >> well, the argument here is the language was not clear. and when the language is not clear, the irs gets difference on what it should mean. i thought the language was clear. but, you know, apparently i was wrong. . stuart: i'm sorry. senator, one more to you please, if i may and thank you very much for joining us on such short notice. this essentially means that obamacare stands and there's nothing the republicans can do about it; correct? >> no. i don't think so. there's nothing you can do about it with president obama as president. but when the cost of care is skyrocketing and the quality of care is declining we're going to have to do something about care. and when -- i did for the first six months of this year, and most thing is patients don't want a doctor sitting at a computer screen and not

looking at them in the face. that's what we're getting with this. . stuart: very busy day we appreciate your time, we really do. peter barns back to you. what have you got. >> i want to read you part of the incident from the others in which they basically say words do matter. that you would think that it would be the answer would be obvious here that the term in exchange established by the state means just that. that a state is a state and the federal government is not a state. so he wrote quote words no longer have meaning if a exchange is not established by a state is established by the state. it is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state exchanges than to use the words established by the state. under all the usual rules of interpretation in short, the government should lose this case. normal rules of interpretation seem to always yield to the over righting principle of the presenter court the affordable care act must be saved. .

stuart: well, there you have it. but i've got to repeat, the bigger picture here is that obamacare care subsidies won the day by a 6-3 margin. >> yeah. stuart. we talked about the broader market it's not showing a lot of impact, but the health care stocks are going up 10% across the board. that because that moon money continues to go into them hospitals doesn't take a bite . stuart: i'm looking at hospital stocks, and as ashley says, they're up 8 9 10% here. why would that be? >> because the way this law is structured stuart, is that once the government wants to do business with a few big players. we've seen huge mergers and the hospital industry we're seeing big deals being planned and the insurance industry. you see major consolidation because they deal with the government in a way that leaves consumers out.

which is why the american people still don't like this law. . stuart: yeah. >> big business likes this law because of the subsidies. >> i don't want people to lose sight of this as we're watching the market and you may be wondering why it's not going up hire, we're seeing some headlines across with what's going on with the greek administration, they're frustrated with the details they're getting out of greece and they don't see a deal today. this is the other big market story people have been hope for a deal. so that's where the market hasn't gone up more. you still have what's going on in greece waking on the market. stuart: professor, we are running a banner across the bottom of our screens and it's a direct quote from can. and supreme court of united states care, we used to call it supreme court, no it's skotis care, he's right isn't

he? >> yeah. he does have a way with words and i think that's very app to today. >> well, actually we are going to make medicaid optional for the states . stuart: now, so far -- >> and we're going to call the individual mandate a tax not a mandate . stuart: now, most people on this screen at the moment are relatively calm. one is not. her name is betsy. [laughter] she's a bit tied right here. you're not happy at all. >> well, i tell you with what. the supreme court saint fact-finding body. they have to work with the material given to them. and let administration lawyers lied. they lied by saying that it was never intended that there would be a distinction between the exchanges and the federal.gov exchange. and we have an enormous amount of evidence, some of it just coming out from the mit jonathan gruber on video 20

days after the law passed saying if you don't establish an exchange in your state your residents will not get the subsidies. we've got the congressional research service warning the irs they are going to break the law by handing out these subsidies. that kind of evidence was not presented to the court. they had to deal with the lies presented by the lawyers. . stuart: however, there's going to be a party in the white house tonight. you may hate it, betsy grace marie, you don't like it, but this is the ruling. 6-3. obamacare subsidies stay. >> and guess what. obamacare is going to be an issue is yet another national election, it's going to be a huge issue in the 2016 presidential elections and congressional elections we've seen results of those elections before . stuart: yes. but grace marie yes, it will indeed be an issue 18 months from now. but for the next 18 months, we've got obamacare. it's not going anywhere. you can amount all kinds of challenges to it if you would

like. but it's in place. it's now. it's happening. and getting rid of it completely will be even more difficult after this ruling. >> here's some of the wording from this decision. congress passed the affordable care act to improve health insurance markets not to destroy them. the act gives each state the opportunity to establish its own exchange and provide the federal government will establish the exchange if the state with a capital s does not. . stuart: now professor that to me is astonishing it's going way outside. >> yeah. stuart: seems to be going way outside his purview of strictly interpreting the law. >> well, i think the word state is clear. it means state not federal. but once you take the word state or established by the state is ambiguous then you've got to look at other stuff and figure out whether the interpretation of the administration is reasonable. and that's why he's bringing in all the other stuff because he thinks the law is not

clear. i think it's a hard fill, and i'm surprised he got another conservative to go on with him. . stuart: former white house advisor in the republican administrations. doug, thank you for joining us. >> my pleasure . stuart: this is a huge win for the president for obamacare and my point will be you're not going to see the end of obamacare any time soon if yet at all. >> this puts aside what i think is a detour in the legality and the debate over the fundamental problems of obamacare. it's bad health insurance policy it's bad health care policy it's bad economic policy. and it's burdening the budgets and inadequate access to care. so that's the real debate . stuart: but we've got it. it is here. i mean doug, it's here. >> no. question . stuart: the supreme court imposed it on us. we've got it. there's nothing we can do about it.

i would venture to say. go ahead please. >> we have to do something about it and that's not have the supreme court rescue americans. it's americans dislike the law, they have first delivered the house back to republicans because they dislike the law. they now put about t back to the senate and it will settle the feature of this law . stuart: it's no longer the legal arena. it is now very much in the political court. well, that's a good thing that we, the people will be able to vote on this thing. >> yes. stuart: if you look at the implications of what has happened since the rule went into effect. i mean people out there have seen their insurance premiums go up. the president said repeatedly to many different news outlets that insurance premiums will go down. well, now they're saying they would be higher, but you would have seen them higher even more, and that's why we're seeing the hospital stocks rally right now because

they wouldn't be able to afford to stay in business. >> and the most lames famous line is if you like your insurance plan now, you can keep it. . stuart: peter barns, can you hear me, peter, i know you're turning away from the camera at the moment. >> yes. sorry stuart, . stuart: you were right there when the decision came down. i heard cheering. now, we can't see them on the camera angle, i can hear it right now. >> there's a whole bunch of obamacare supporters right now, we're taking a shot of it right now, and this is from families usa, which went through and took that 6.5 million people who were at risk of losing their health care subsidies their tax credits, and they broke it down state by state, and then they have supporters over here holding up placards for each state and the number of customers for obamacare who would have been at francisco losing the subsidies. so those are the folks over there who are chanting and

cheering that victory . stuart: peter, was there any antiobamacare people ready to celebrate. >> yes. stuart: they were there? >> yes. they were there and we always have a usually mixed group for each decision, there are folks out here for same-sex marriage, for and against, there are folks out here for housing policy, and some of the other cases that are still sending relevant pending. they know the decisions are coming today tomorrow, and now monday. so they mobilize the groups . stuart: can we put up that chart we have with the hospital stocks because the reaction there has been profound. if we're seeing gains of seven, eight nine, ten percent for the hospital stocks that means this had real impact on real money. look at that. we've got those hospitals at tenant health care, universal seven, eight nine percent up. now, that is a big deal. back to you professor, if i may.

i'm not a lawyer. i don't necessarily understand these legalistic arguments but it seems to me that this supreme court ruling charted new ground in the legal -- the legal industry, but in legal -- this charts new ground doesn't it? because the ruling -- the language was clear. >> yes. stuart: and they go against the clear language of the legislation. that's new, isn't it? >> well, it happens more often than it should. i'm sorry to say that, you know it's a little bit of jiu-jitsu where they, you know look at the broader context and decide the context makes the language less clear than it first appears. it happens from time to time and i think that the chief justice just got a little bit afraid of the consequences here as we were saying earlier. stuart: okay. i want to recap what is happening here. it is now 10:30 eastern time, we received this ruling 20 minutes ago and to recap what happens what happened. the tv producers came running down the steps holding in

their hands their notes as to what just occurred. and what occurred was the supreme court by a 6-3 margin upheld those subsidies in the 34 states where the states had not created their own exchanges. bottom line, obamacare subsidies were upheld by the supreme court by a surprising majority of 6-3. in the minority, skoleo, held the majority of three people, we've got it on the bottom of the screen. supreme court of the united states. skotos care, used to be obamacare, and it's scotus care. >> it's hard to look at the language in this act and not interpret it as the way it is in fact written. there's no excuse to go and look at the bigger structure of the law it's very plane to see . stuart: it's done. the ruling is there. >> yeah. stuart: there's no appealing a supreme court decision. the ruling is in.

i think i'm right about that, professor; right? there's no appeal here. >> just to the american people in the next presidential election . stuart: exactly. well said. now betsy you're steaming mad about this. i know you are. i can feel the varney coming my way. what are you going to do now. >> well, i'm very disturbed to see how executive discretion is being expanded again and again under this president and disappointed that the supreme court didn't put a hault to it as it has done in previous decisions as the previous recess appointments. so this has implications way beyond health care because in our system of government, congress makes the law and the president's job is to faithfully execute the laws workers' not to tweak them or revise them . stuart: i want your opinion on this. i'm not sure the constitutional position of executive discretion, but betsy says it extended it,

what say you. >> well, it's extended in so far that they took a law that was really not very ambiguous and said it was ambiguous. let the administration do what it wanted to do. but there is this principle that's been around for a long time. when there's banking ambiguousities are different. >> . stuart: the ruling has come down. the ruling is in. i don't think there's much you can do about obamacare until the election of 2016, november 2016, what's that 15, 16, 17 months away? >> uh-huh. stuart: and the longer the system stays in place the more difficult it is to change it reform it -- >> i'm shaking my head because fewer than 12 million people out of a nation of 18 million people receive obamacare subsidies. nationwide . stuart: yes. but -- >> this is not an infringed part of the law . stuart: that's not an entrenched part of the law

but the law is entrenched. >> the mandate is not in effect. just the cadillac effect is not in yet, it has been repealed, many many parts of this law is not in effect. it is quite easy, and it will be greatly to the benefit of the american people to repeal this law . stuart: but you can't do that until you get a republican president in the white house. >> that's right. stuart: that's 18 months away. >> right. stuart: but don't forget, stuart, even if the court had gone the other way, there would have been very few changes to this law short of 18 months because the court had alerted us during oral arguments that if they made a disruptive decision, they would give plenty of time for changes to be made . stuart: okay. any other comments from anybody? anybody upset? angry? >> is anybody -- >> stuart, i think one of the things -- stuart: hold on a second. i want to go to the floor of the new york stock exchange. i think i've got four big time

hospital stocks that have hit an all-time high just after this news broke. am i right. >> yeah. you're starting to see this group overall serging on the news. the minute the news broke there from the supreme court we're starting to see overall health care stocks and hospital stocks on the move. one trader came to see that said hca is moving, you see them bumping along and then boom to the up sate that they are going to be paid and when you talk about over 6 million americans seeing these subsidies, this is why this group is serging. that's what i'm talking about and they're all doing that and as we noted, some of them are hitting new highs for hospital stocks . stuart: yeah, that's a big move for that group of stocks. thank you very much indeed. of course the money will be flowing to those hospitals. >> uh-huh. stuart: and a lot of them are getting together and the takeover targets there's all that going on here. and the two emotions. >> yeah. stuart: which i'm picking up from all the people that are

on the screen right now. we've got about six seven people up there. number one shock. >> yeah. stuart: because i don't think many people were expecting the ruling to go this way. >> i don't know i would dispute you on that. i was expecting it to go this way because it does seem like, unfortunately, the supreme court is going to do anything to uphold this law at this time. that -- they just do not have the political will to over turn this for now. and i think there are a lot of people -- and judge napolitano was one of them that you think of the legality of this whatever your interpretation is, they do not seem to have the will to go against the president on this particular -- >> and the president has been beating the court ever since -- >> and the union in 2010 again, and, again warning them to not move against him . stuart: professor, come back in for a second, please, you're the legal guy here. do the justices get together

informally or maybe formally and talk about these views argue with each other before they write an opinion? how does it work? >> absolutely so the after the oral arguments they all get together in a room, no one else no clerks, no nothing and they debate each case and tell one another how they're going to vote. after that there's several months and exchanging notes and saying take a consideration of this view, and then there's even some personal lobbying. so on a occasion another justice will go down to another justice's chambers and saying i really want you to change your mind on this, take this language out so all this happens . stuart: professor, that's a revelation. i thought it was very very formalized. there was none of this political moving backwards and forwards and vote getting from each other. i didn't know that. ashley. >> yeah. are they also be

lobbied from the outside? >> yes. absolutely. look what happened in 2012. remember the president gave a speech in which earlier berated the court and there was every that evidence we had a 5-4 decision to claire the mandate unconstitutional and for whatever reason that key vote switched and we believe it was roberts, and that flipped the majority. so yes, and it sometimes can happen at the very end with a 6-3 decision, it's less likely but yes those negotiations continue often until the very decision is released . stuart: professor, it's not supposed to be that way. look, it's not -- the chief executive of the country, that will be president barack obama is not supposed to browbeat the court and he's certainly not supposed to have any influence on it. is he? well, they are separate

branches of gothic has been . stuart: right. >> and the president has had influence on court decisions favorite example called the switch in time, roosevelt increased the size of the supreme court because they were so unhappy with their decision and the court decided to make their tune and make president roosevelt happier so it happens from time to time. presidents have some influence over what the court does . stuart: from a constitutional point of view, would i be right in saying, professor over the course of this administration the six and a half, maybe seven years that we've had it, the power of the chief executive the branch of the government has vastly expanded, am i right. >> well, i don't know about the word vastly, but i'll give you some expansion . stuart: you're a professor of law. you're a top guy in your field. how doubtful about that? >> well, it depends on who the president is . stuart: are you a conservative? >> yes. i'm a republican, so i'm more comfortable with it when we have republicans in the white house than

democrats. but, you know, there are arguments to be made that what the founding generation called the energy of the executive. the president can get stuff done. the bad thing about putting too much power in the hand of congress is congress is gridlocked it's very hard to get anything done through congress, so there's pluses and minuses to the congress and to the president having power. >> stuart, i have to say too that this congress was very ready to take action to throw a safety net out to make sure that those 6.4 million people were not harmed. chief committee chairman wrote there was a briefing for members of congress last week. there had been on going nonstop negotiations. so congress was ready to take action. i also think that the american people are going to provide the ultimate verdict on this law because they are seeing

for themselves the loss of coverage, the higher cost, the huge deductibles the limits on physicians. they don't like this law they're feeling it personally, and that's why i think it's going to continue to be a major issue in the 2016 election. . stuart: i agree with you grace marie, it is a major issue in the forth coming election, however, the longer a huge law like this stays in place, more difficult it becomes. >> that's right. stuart: to get rid of it, to repeal it completely. that's an extremely difficult prospect. and, you know, we've got another 18 months of this no matter we've got 18 months it of. i do want to bring in justice scolia he wrote a quote. under all the unusual rules of interpretation in short the government should lose this case. but normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the over righting principle of the present court. the affordable care act must

be saved. ouch. now, there's scalia saying no matter what, this court stays with obamacare that's what scalia just said. >> it's hard for me to disagree with my old boss. he's right about this. they don't want the blood on their hands in getting rid of this law . stuart: do you think that the supreme court is gun-shy after the bush v gore decision in 2000. >> yeah. i think they are probably a little bit sensitive to, you know, making a political mess and being responsible for making a political mess. i think there's something to that. >> well, the president already jumping on this and going to have a press conference on the garden. >> even two weeks ago the president attacked the court suggesting to the nation that if there was disarray, that that damage was clearly in the

lap of the court. so he was upping the anteeven before the the decision came out . stuart: now, we don't know if there's going to be a conference where he will take questions, but he will appear in the rose garden, it will be a statement, it will be an appearance of the president of the united states at 11:30 and you will see it. he's obviously -- i'm pretty sure of it, i think he's going to take a victory lap and he's going to press for obamacare stays in place. >> yeah. stuart: and and that's what he's going to talk about at 11:30 this morning. >> and that was so accurate, you know various congressman went out of their way to lay the ground work and say we have another plan. this guy not be chaos because clearly the court was afraid of that and it said that in the decision. the goal was not to take apart health care but to make better. stuart: right. >> they were clearly afraid of the chaos that this would cause from those in the legislature was going to make them feel . stuart: they were obamacare supporters. the supreme court supports

obamacare. >> right. stuart: regardless of what the law says -- in my opinion they have taken a political position that obamacare is good and we're going to preserves it. i think that's what they said. >> scotus care . stuart: that's right. am i right professor, i keep asking you if i'm right and you agree with me, i'll ask you to come back. >> i want to come back . stuart: it just seems like the supreme court is saying that. obamacare good, we've got to keep it. >> i think it's more obamacare is good and we don't want the blood on our hands from a political that would ensue. they don't want to cause a mess . stuart: i've got this coming in now. hillary clinton responding to this supreme court ruling. she has tweeted this. short obviously. yes, affirms what we know is true in our hearts and under the law health insurance

should be affordable and available. i'm going to take issue with that. if it's supposed to be affordable to all how come the price has gone way up and the deductibles are way out of the question? >> and, by the way it's only affordable because taxpayers are spending $22 billion a year picking up the tab for those receiving the subsidies. it's not an issue of affordable, it's simply an issue of shifting the cost to somebody else . stuart: that is an outrageous statement that this is in favor. this makes health care affordable. i'm sorry. >> prove it . stuart: grace marie you're another expert on obamacare. this doesn't make health care affordable, does it. >> it's actually made it so much more expensive. and it also doesn't make it available to all. even the best estimates show that 30 million people are still going to be without health insurance even if everything were to go right with this law which it is not. so that statement is 140 characters has two major league baseballmajor

falsehoods to it . stuart: i'm going to bring on somebody who is in favor of this decision, ron who is families of usa who is at the supreme court ron joins us right there you've got a victory on your hands sir. >> absolutely. this is a victory of monumental significance. it means that the affordable care act is not just the law of the land, it will remain the law of the land, and the tremendous progress that has been made in expanding coverage not only will not be stopped, but it will grow. we've had 16 million people for previously unensured who now have health coverage. nearly one out of three people who were previously unensured now have health coverage . stuart: hillary clinton just tweeted out that this makes health care affordable. just for a second address the

issue for deductibles. if i get a bronze plan, the average deductible is over $10,000 a year. that makes health care unaffordable. can you address that issue. >> very happy to address that. most of the people who have bought insurance have purchased silver plans, and those people who have high deductibles who can't afford them are getting help under the affordable care act because the affordable care act not just subsidieses the premiums, which was an issue in today's case, but it also places a limit in the out of pocket cost that people have to bear for the deductibles and coinsurance. and so people who are buying insurance, overwhelmingly silver plans, they are getting help with their out of pocket cost. now, can we do more about out of pocket cost? sure we can and no doubt we will. but the affordable care act takes a huge step in the right direction . stuart: okay., ron you

celebrate your victory. you've got a victory right there. joining us from the supreme court. ron, thank you very much indeed. >> thank you . stuart: and comments, please betsy. >> about affordable ability. . stuart: specifically he addressed deductibles and said that a lot of people who have high deductibles will get help. >> well, it's in the eyes of the beholder, and unfortunately, i hear every day, especially from young people who have a five, six $7,000 deductible, and they've stopped going to the doctor because they know they're paying a premium and yet when they go to the doctor, it's entirely out of their pocket. they can't afford to get the health care they got before they were ensured. >> stuart, the average -- the president said that the average family would see a reduction in their health insurance costs by $2,500 a year by the end of his first time . stuart: yeah. >> their cost went up by $3,000. the subsidies that ron is talking about not only premium subsidies but out of

cost subsidies can be 10- $12,000 a year. somebody is paying that. taxpayers are paying those costs by 20 new higher taxes in obamacare. this is not free money. we are all paying for this redistribution of wealth . stuart: now, hillary clinton's tweet also mentioned the increased availability of health care. health care insurance i should say. not health care. health care insurance. i don't believe that's the case. i think there's still tens of millions of people who don't have insurance. and if they do get it, it's going to be subsidized by the federal government, which means a great more expense. >> i don't know the exact numbers on that account but we have seen people get insurance. i think what we need to do is be honest about it. for the average american, you're paying higher premiums, higher deductibles and higher taxes. that money is going to help poor people get insurance.

we have said ahead of time this is a goal as society. we would like to cover you're all going to pay more, but we would like to vote together as a group. that would have been different but we promised you were going to pay less, which is not mathematically possible. >> and number of millennials who are dropping out of the health insurance programs say look, i'm young fit, i can't afford it, i'll take my chances. >> and most people who gain coverage under this law are not getting obamacare subsidies. they're not in obamacare. they're on medicaid. it's the medicaid expansion that is the coverage in the united states, and that's not the case today . stuart: to recap the percussions on this decision, certainly not but if you look at drug stocks, hospital stocks, health ensurers, almost all of them are up. the hospital. stocks are up very very sharply. some drug stocks are up

sharply. some of the drug ensurers are up. what's the reason for that? well the money keeps flowing. just look at the hospitals. we've used the expression pop on the decision. and pop it is. up 11%. community health. 10%. for companies of that size, stocks of that magnitude, you are talking an enormous jump in the share price right there. that's because the money keeps on flowing. >> that's right. stuart: it may be taxpayer money, it doesn't matter. our money is flowing needs to companies and they are winners today. up 5% on this particular day. anymore comments today? >> our stock is taxpayers is way down. . stuart: that's good. that was pretty good. professor, come back in again please. >> i'm still shocked. i really am. here you can get a 6-3 majority on something that

seems so clean cut. i'm shocked. i am. >> yeah. i agree with you. aside i said at the top of the hour, i thought they were going to go the other way. >> uh-huh. >> and sometimes consequences are more important to them than what the language says, and i think this is one of those days . stuart: professor, i don't want to get off the subject but because of the surprise in this particular ruling, do you think it makes it more likely that the supreme court will say "yes" to gay marriage? >> well, i thought it was pretty likely they were going to say yes anyway. so, you know, i don't think it would increase the probabilities than they already were frankly. i think it's a shoe in for gay marriage so i don't think this affects it at all frankly. >> if you look at what has happened in the awake of obamacare, i have seen doctors in my own life do one of two things. they have sold their practice to twa hospital because they can no longer afford to administrate their practices

and as a result they're making less money and they may or may not be able to cover their loans, but you don't see new people going into medicine unless they see it as a true calling and they know they're going to lose money on it. and another thing is doctors not taking insurance at all and saying they can't deal with any of it and they're going to charge the best doctors what they would like and you're welcome to submit it to your insurance company and get back what you can. so for individuals again paying more if you want to go see the doctor who is in demand and well known in their practice. >> more consolidation less choice for the consumer . stuart: congressman is on the phone joining us now. this is approximately 45 minutes after that ruling came down from the southern california obamacare subsidies. congressman row, what is your reaction immediately. >> i was really surprised by the vote. i actually predicted this, and the reason because it was hard for me to conceive when roberts really made the

government's case four years ago and hearing it for the first time. it would be hard for me to believe that he would take this even though it's clearly in the statute, and i think that was the intent, and it was hard for me to believe that he would then basically throw a hand grenade in the middle of this, because it would have put this on a death spiral which i think it's going to be anyway . stuart: yeah, but he did do that. he did do it. and now you're a doctor, congressman. you are a doctor. are you pleased by this decision? are you appalled by it? do you like obamacare? what douse? >> no. i cochair the republican doctors office here, 15 of us in the house and we certainly opposed this bill because several things it does. one, stuart, it didn't do the primary thing we needed, which was the lower cost, and the state i'm from, tennessee our largest ensurer this year is

proposing a 36% increase in premiums, which is already astronomical, and even with the subsidy, it doesn't help you that much purchase health insurance . stuart: but we've got it and it's not going anywhere. it's in place and personally i think it's going to stay in place because they're doing something this easily. >> i think you're correct. it's going to be very hard and -- let me give you an example. i won't tell you what company. talking with a large firm this tuesday, and the cadillac tax that's the part that hasn't hit yet it's going to cost them 60 to $80 million they're going to change the insurance coverage of many of their employees, and you're going to begin to see these decisions before the event actually happens. and if we had the time, i can tell you what it's doing to patients in my state right now. stuart: yeah. okay. congressman, thank you very much indeed for joining

us. i know this is very short notice but we value your input. thank you very much indeed, sir. now, i'm waiting to get judge napolitano on the show. [laughter] he's on his way i am told. wait a second. he's here. there he is. i am so sorry judge. now, i've done my fair share of ranting this morning because we were shocked and surprised at this decision. what do you make of justice scalia? he's calling this scotus care, not obamacare. what do you make of this? >> i think that justice scalia is frustrated, stuart, with the novel and in my view inappropriate means that have been employed by the chief justice to salvage this statute twice. now, you may recall this because we've discussed this many times on air and off. two years ago when it was made

the constitution, the challengers said violating the individual mandate is not a tax, and the government said the penalty for violating it is not a tax and the chief justice said it's a tax. now, in an ordinary court, you can't do that. if all sides say the light was green, the jury has to find the light was green but it was bizarre, and it was novel and yet again we have the same rationale, which to me is bizarre and novel. what can be clearer than established by the state where the s in state stuart, is capitalized? if the s were lower case, i would argue that the word means state generically. but the word state is used seven staples in the statute and all seven times it's capitalized and all seven times it is clearly referring to one of the 50 states.

for the chief justice claims that somehow this one time is ambiguous in my view lacks intellectual honesty . stuart: it seems to me, again this is not my turf, but it seems to me that the supreme court is a very political court and they have taken upon themselves to save obamacare come may. am i going too far? >> no. i don't think you're going too far and let me temp the criticism of the chief justice by saying this. there is a school of thought upon appellate judges that it is the job of the courts to save the statute rather than invalidate it because of some small offending part. i accept that that is a legitimate rationale on the part of appellate judges. but that is not what they did here. what they did was to take the plane meaning the english

words and distort them. here's what justice said. quote words no longer have meaning. if an exchange that is not established by a state is established by the state. it is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state exchanges than to use the words established by the state. he's quite correct. . stuart: yeah it's a political decision. i'm sorry. i keep coming back to this. it is a political decision. that's -- you know, they don't want to say good-bye to obamacare. they've done it once, now twice. >> two weeks ago when the president was in germany. he attacked the court as a institution saying they shouldn't even have taken the case. when fdr disagreed with portions of the new deal that were struck down, he disagreed with individual opinions of individual justices, but he didn't attack the court as a

institution. when the president attacks the court as a institution and then the court does something as obviously as political as this, what is the net result? under mining the moral authority of the court. . stuart: it is precisely 11:00 eastern time. we did get a decision from the supreme court, and it was a 6-3 decision striking -- upholding let me repeat, upholding the subsidies, which are paid under obamacare. it went the other way from what many people were expecting. justice scolia in his decision said it's not obamacare oh, no, it is now scotus care. our point between judge napolitano and i is pretty much a political decision. there is one more element to add here, and that is the financial angle. when this news came down, hospital stocks went straight up. some drug stocks straight up.

and we have health care ensurers also mostly going up. the reason? because the money from subsidy -- four subsidies will keep on flowing, and they will flow to hospitals, drug companies, and health ensurers. >> uh-huh. stuart: that's the financial angle to this. no impact on the overall market or the economy at all. but on health care stocks, hospitals, drug stocks, they are up. one more point which i do want to raise with judge napolitano. we have had it on this program we've heard that this is an extension of executive power and executive congressing. judge napolitano you're the constitutional expert. is that the case. >> i don't think that this -- well the ruling today is not an extension of executive power. the statute is an extension of federal overreach into the personal lives and financial and medical choices of individuals in ways that certainly never contemplated

when the constitution was written and probably unconstitutional unless you find some bizarre way to say it by calling the whole thing a tax. and the only overreach here is that the republicans wrote it and the republicans weren't allowed to amend it and they wrote it sloppily and the supreme court has corrected it today . stuart: okay. dan is with me with from the wall street board right now dan welcome to the program. >> good to be with you . stuart: your take on what i'm calling a very surprised decision. >> well, i would agree with everything the judge said, except rather than correcting the congress sloppiness, they have confirmed it, they just said whatever they want to write will go along with it. and what judge said is that what this is doing is the court is doing whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites to your point being a highly political decision . stuart: yeah. >> i don't know republicans

one of the challenges if it had gone the other way was that a lot of the unensured would no longer -- they've been threatened with losing their obamacare coverage. republicans would have to step in immediately and come up with some sort of plan to cover those people. and there was a lot of disagreement in congress over how to go about doing that. whether they should extend the subsidies through 2017. a lot of people didn't want -- some didn't want to do that. they want full repeal. that's off the table. now come 2017 if the republicans win the presidency and hold the congress, full repeal will be on the table. rewriting the obamacare act. it won't be easy, but that's the course that they will have to take. . stuart: brett joins us, the special report on the fox news channel. brett, first off this looks like a huge victory for president obama. yes? >> yes.

definitively and we'll hear from the president in about 20 minutes. this has been one of his best weeks in a long time. if you think. president obama got the trade deal through congress. he's now kind of affirmed and mentioned through the supreme court the subsidies and obamacare. barring iranian leader and the revelations about the irs this has been a pretty good week for president obama. i do think that this is also politically in republicans, at least they're spending it that way privately on capitol hill that they're unified and activated and it will be a much more factor in the campaign . stuart: that's interesting. we, the people, we've got to live with obamacare for at least another 18 months because we're not going to either change it or do much to it for the next 18 months.

do you think then come january 2017 the republicans will have the opportunity then to just repeal it? >> well, i think -- and then mentioned it's going to be a tough lift. you have to obviously have a republican president and there's still debates about going to one alternative. but the bottom line is the trend on the stacks that we're seeing on premiums on stories that we've reported for months continue then that would be an issue that the people will have to decide on and, you know, democrats who voted on obamacare, president obama and hillary clinton will likely own this issue. . stuart: so very quietly brett, some democrats will be worried by this decision because obamacare still around the next of democrats. >> in the long term . stuart: in the long term, yeah but republicans might be happy with this decision on now they've got a huge issue

that is probably going to go their way in the next 18 months. >> it is the cynical political way to look at it. but, yes, on the political side, i think that that's accurate. now, for the people who have to deal with it, i think that that's a whole different issue, and you're going to be hear from constituents around the country . stuart: yes, we are. and brett, thank you very much for being with us on a exceptionally busy day. >> to brett's point it means this gives obamacare another 18 months to show how unaffordable it is and make a very positive point for republicans who want to repeal it . stuart: that's true. i mean damn it is around the neck of democrats. >> yes. stuart: because we, the people are not happy in what we're getting in terms of health care and its cost and availability and affordability. it's around there next now for the next 18 months. >> i guess but as a political rhetoric, doesn't it conflict in what hillary clinton was saying a couple of weekends

ago talking about giving people a college education that they really don't have to pay. she's talking about one handout after another and she will cite the affordable care act as the government filling a hole in people's lives. the ones who are paying for this are not the ones that are vote for hillary in the first place; right? taxpayers . stuart: but middle america is a -- middle america is losing that. >> let me give you some numbers. important numbers the cost of health care has gone up 300 billion since 2010 . stuart: that's the overall? >> yeah, it was 2.6 trillion in 2010, the wage gains in the last 12 months have been vap arated basically wiped out by the high cost of health care almost dollar for dollar. wage gains nearly turn

80 billion but health care has gone up by almost that same amount. so stuart, that is a big deal. and we talk about this ceo saying the biggest customer we have right now is the federal government . stuart: that's right. >> and that is a big deal for federal taxpayers going forward . stuart: can we just put up on the screen again, i don't know if we've got it at short notice the tweet that hillary clinton sent out when she reacted to this decision. by the way it came down about one hour ago. >> uh-huh. stuart: just about eight minutes past 10:00, we got it. now, this was the reaction from hillary clinton moments after that decision. yes, scotus, that is supreme court of the united states. affirms what we know is true in our hearts and under the law. health and insurance should be affordable and available to all -- >> no. we're talking about the high cost of affordable care. and that's what hillary clinton is not talking about. >> the wall street journal has a fascinating piece on this subject today in which is

described how millions of unensured refused to buy insurance even if it's aware they're saying that's too expensive, i will pay for it as i go, cash on the barrel head and i would rather enter the medical system that way than be involved with obamacare. . stuart: but hillary is going to say but look what we will give you. >> we're not taking it. we don't want it. give us a better offer. . stuart: go ahead ashley. >> exactly we're not buying it. it's one thing to have it available, but the people don't want it because they can't afford it. >> yeah. stuart: other than the taxpayers having to fork out all the money . stuart: we still have judge napolitano with us, i know you're sitting on your perch in dc, but you have not forgotten. there's a fair amount of outrage expressed on this screen in the past hour, do you share that outrage. >> i do. i particularly share the outrage of our colleague dan who points out a lot of

interesting financial and political issues here. i mean this now will take a republican president with a firm determination to undo this completely and a house of congress with the same determination and even that will run up against things, like the doctrine once the government starts giving benefits, how can they stop them? and how do they stop it once it started and chief's attempt to that doctrine. so there are going to be a lot of legal and constitutional tip falls for any republican president and republican congress to have to avoid in january of 2017 if there is a republican president and a republican congress then. >> can we -- i've been talking to constitutional lawyers, i want to run this by the judge. it's important. there are boundaries of the federal government comes to the state. justice kennedy said you

federal government, cannot coerce by dangling tax credits in front of me. judge, napolitano, can the state, you know, the no child left behind act medicate expansion, could the states push back on that front via this ruling? >> some of those impositions on the state are accompanied by cash and want states are so cash strapped and the federal government as we know has a printing press so it can distribute any cash they want, so they take the cash and the stringing with it. but when the federal government imposes on the state, to the degree where it's taking the state's own government discretion away from it, then the federal's government's case is very

weak, and the state ought to challenge it . stuart: so we've got some reaction here from political leaders, i'm going to standard with marco rubio. he says i disagree with the court's ruling and believe they have once again errorred trying to correct the mistake. he then writes we need consumer care. and responding to this to the ruling. and obamacare is fundamentally broken. increasing health care costs from millions of americans today's ruling doesn't change that fact. and carly republican candidate for the presidency, she's thrown her hat into the ring. she says repeal obamacare and let the free market not more crony capitalism improve access for all. itit seems to me there's aress nation.

the rule came down, we've got obamacare, it's not going away and here's what we feel about it. >> well, it sounds to me that the republicans got the bit in their mouth. they're the ones that are going to go on the political offensive now stuart, and the democrats are going to simply say we won. but not much more than that. the republicans these candidates are going to be attacking obamacare over the next 18 months and they're going to describe the details that emac just gave us, but political the next 18 months, they're going to be on the defensive . stuart: what you're seeing on the left is the rose garden, the media assembling because president obama is going to make a statement. now, whether it is a statement or it's a press conference with questions from the media i don't know. but he will appear at 11:30 this morning, and they're getting ready for that. back to judge napolitano if i may. you're in dc.

you're about 400 yards away from that rose garden, i don't think you're going to be there, but it seems to me that this ruling has taken obamacare out completely out of the legal arena and as dan is saying, put it entirely into the political arena. that's where we stand at the moment, isn't it? >> well, that's what the defense says with justice scolia's statement that we shouldn't call it obamacare we should call it scotus care and there's strong argument for what he said and strong argument for what you're saying. it will be interesting to see as we watch them set up the podium for the plaintiff. if he refers to his own poorly timed poorly thought out comments a few weeks ago when he attacked the court as an institution. because he is now -- he must be happy that the court took it and validate it. i'm sure he doesn't care that how it validated it, he just

cares that it was validated. . stuart: tv is with us, not in studio but on remote there. you have experienced running large businesses. i take it you are a little dismayed at this ruling, and i want you to speak on behalf of big business if i can characterize it like this. >> well, ceos everywhere whether they're running large businesses or medium-sized businesses or small businesses. they're frozen. they were frozen yesterday they're still frozen today. a lot of those mandates are coming down yesterday. what people don't is that there's amazing cost that this is going to put on businesses and the chilling affect it is already having on our economy. so this ruling, we're back to where we were yesterday, but this was set out to settle the problems of equality and cost. we've done a little bit on the access side, but the quality still hasn't been

addressed at all. so from a business owner perspective and ceo perspective this doesn't change a thing. it doesn't fix the issue stuart. stuart: steve doesn't it mean people will shove their employees out of the employer care system into the public purse? you go to medicaid. you go to subsidy from the exchanges. you just push them out of business and get rid of that cost won't you? >> people don't know what to do is the problem stuart. some ceos say yes we're going to do that, some of the large companies. other large companies say no. we've been providing health care for our employees for a long time. we'll not change a thing. small business owners say i can't cross the 50 employee mark. i can't hire people and create new jobs. people are frozen on this thing. i think over time what happened we just federalized health care to a large extent. that is not the american way. the american way is all about capitalism about markets working and allowing those

markets through competition to lower cost, increase quality and increase access. that is not what we're doing. we just sided with a federalist approach rather than letting the market work which is what america has been about since our founding. stuart: lisa booth is with us. we always refer to lisa as our millenial in studio. she is not in studio at the moment but she is with us. lisa, there is an article in the "wall street journal" millions of people, millenials, they're off the obamacare we don't want it. we'll pay out of our own pocket. get it away from me. obamacare still here. subsidies are still here. you millenials are still here. do you want this thing or not? >> we don't. there is a general distrust in government. let's speak about it from purely political lens, this doesn't change anything from republicans. as someone who worked in republican politics over the past seven years. this doesn't change anything. if anything it unites

republicans in their objection of obamacare. remember, obamacare has been unpopular since its inception five years ago. americans have out right rejected the law as they mentioned by historic proportion s in 2010 and 2014. it galvanizes voters against obamacare and unites republicans. stuart: i hear what you're saying. by the same january 2017 rolls around you have obama care very much in firmly in place. millions of people are receiving subsidy dis. it is in place. do you think it is easy to repeal the whole thing just like that. it is not, you know? >> it is not i don't think that by any means. what we've seen obamacare has been unpopular for the past five years. i think heading into the 2016 election this essentially leaves things unchanged. so obamacare is still incredibly

unpopular. if you look at states like florida floridians could face insurance premium increases by over 20%, in the most highest instances up to 65%. so you better believe it, that when americans continue to be hit in the pocketbooks, that will drive them to the polls. it will unite voters against this law that has been unpopular since its inception. stuart: lisa hold on for a second. dan hen anyone gear "wall street journal," still here -- henninger i hear all the republican candidates argue, among themselves what to do with obamacare. there is camp change a few things because it is place so long and there is camp we better live with this because the voters kind of like it. >> i would be challenged to identify too many with the last two positions. stuart: i exaggerate. go. >> i think they're going to be very much opposed. they will not bite off the issue of exactly how you repeal and

replace it but look this gives republicans in congress who have been thinking about this, people like paul ryan plenty of time to sit down now and craft a legislative alternative to obamacare that would be attractive to the american people. that would give them more choice over how they insurance policies. do it at a cost they can afford. stuart: i'm with you dan. you have to address this. if this system has been in place what four, going on five years by the time we get to the election, it is not easy to really radically turn something around with such a huge thing in our lives it has been around for so long. >> not easy at all one of the points emac and judge were bringing up, the federal government is very involved in things like education and welfare because they send cash to the states as the judge said. in the case of obamacare in those two cases they don't want to run education they don't want to run welfare in the states. here they do want to run the health care system.

they very much, as steve was saying want to federalize health care and over the next 18 months they will push hard in that direction to make it as difficult as possible to repeal this. >> unionize, and unionize the health care system, is it a trojan horse to unionize the health care system? >> that effort is underway in cities all over the country. indeed once you do that it makes it doubly different difficult. stuart: we're getting response from all quarters. i will give you jeb bush's response. will you look at this. i'm disappointed by today's supreme court. this decision is not the end of the fight against obamacare. then he adds this fatally-flawed law imposes job-killing mandates causes spending in washington to skyrocket by $1.7 trillion, raises taxes by 1 trillion and drives up health care costs. he goes on, instead of fixing

our health care system it made the problems worse. i'm going to call that dan, a rather fiery statement. that is more fire than i've seen than just about from anybody else. you like that, don't you. >> jeb bush he has got to show he is in line with the conservative wing of his party and on this issue, i don't think it is that difficult for them to do. you're going to see all of these my knowledge juror candidates in next couple days come out and in no uncertain terms denounce the obamacare law. what are the democrats going to do other than be defensive about it. stuart: by the way everyone, we have nine health care stocks hits all-time highs. we'll show you some of them right now. i mean, this is funneling a lot more money. the money flow continues. because of this decision the money will keep on flowing. a lot will be taxpayer money and flowing to these kind of companies. health care insurers.

looking at universal health care, up 7%, new high. i don't know how to pronounce that. they're up 3%. health -- i don't know how to pronounce that one. middle hundred. mednex. ofly up 1%. cigna up half a percent. these are all new highs. >> you mentioned cigna, we're talking monopoly power. these companies are seeing a lot of mergers happening with hospitals and insurers because they have the biggest customer is the federal government. you have monopoly power. you can set prices. >> more bargaining power. >> watch this stuart. states are seeing rate hike requests from insurance companies. maryland 30% rake hike is what maryland is seeing requesting by insurers. new mexico 52%. tennessee 36%. stuart: will ask a quick question to lisa booth and steve odland. lisa you first.

john boehner says obamacare is fatally flawed. would you agree with that. >> it is not market-based. i agree exactly what dan said. it is flawed, i think fatally as well. here in washington you talk to republicans by a broad majority everybody says it has got to go. you talk to democrats say, this isn't what we intended. it is not achieving what we intended. we do need to reform it. the problem the administration currently in place will not change anything. it will require the next administration. stuart: you're right with that steve. lisa booth, one more time to please you, our remembers dent millenial if i can say that again. millenials, they will say this to you. tax the rich. that is how you will pay for this excess excessively expensive obamacare. what does a millenial say that. >> when you say tax the rich, everybody is going to pay. that is the problem with policies. that is the problem with redistribution of wealth. everyone actually pays in the end. that is something important for

millenials to remember. you see hesitancy to sign up for obamacare among republicans. i do think it is absolutely fatally flawed because it has been flawly written. president obama arbitrarily rewritten the law on several occasions. stuart: judge napolitano back us back in the hot seat there in d.c. would it be fair for me to say that a lot of the hostile republican response to this ruling is to some degree sour grapes on the grounds that twice supreme court has gone with obamacare and sour grapes? >> i am sorry to say i agree with you. i've been part of that in the last few hours. stuart: wait a minute. you always disagree. you are starting to say you agree with me? come on. >> we're eating sour grapes because they're sour and they taste terribly. look, this is the law of the

land for better or worse. these nine judges what reasonings rationale, political predilections animate their decisions have final say on meaning of statutes and the meaning of the constitution and they have twice upheld this statute. unless political branches interfere, that will not happen if at all before january of 2017 this is the law of the land an we're bound to obey it. stuart: judge, i'm totally outside of the legal arena. you know it. everybody knows it. but it seems to me as on outside observer to this ruling, it has shifted the ground. the has shifted legal constitutional ground on which the supreme court operates. am i going too far? >> no, i don't think you're going too far. i think it's a fair conclusion as you describe yourself an outsider. it is a fair conclusion for an insider, stuart, because of the novel theory employed by the court and justice scalia's very,

very strong, caustic dissent reinforces the conclusion that you just made. stuart: hold on a second, judge. we've been talking about sour grapes. may i bring you the exact opposite of sour grapes. this from senator bernie sanders. he says this. stop laughing, judge. what the united states should do is join every other major nation and recognize that health care is a right of citizenship. a medicare for all, single-payer system would provide better care at less cost, for more americans. okay, got that? before we comment judge, before you explode, i'm going on. former president bill clinton tweeted this. this will be short. he says, i applaud scotus's decision to uphold aca that is the affordable care act. our people, communities and economy are stronger when health care is affordable around accessible. >> if only it was. stuart: if only it was. i don't mean sarcastic if you

like, what was it, what was the expression, if you like it now, just, if you think health care is expensive, just wait until it is free. you remember that expression? >> p.j. o'rourke. stuart: that is correct. that's right. >> that is virtually where we are today. stuart: i've got a feeling that obamacare is a precursor to a single-payer system like the national health care system in britain. i think you feel the same way, judge. >> well i do. the original proposal hillary's proposal 25 years ago was single-payer. that never even got out of the box. the president's original proposal was single payor. it is depends on will of american people who they send to congress and white house. if they send a loopy lefty, like bernie sanders yes we'll move in that direction. if they send somebody more attuned to free market and free choices an consumers and investors we'll move away from

single-payer. stuart: judge, hold on a second. i've got a huge cast i've been working with this morning. everybody has done a wonderful job. one person i want to bring in who has not weighed in thus far, rick grenell, fox news contributor. rick, thanks very much for coming on the show. i know you've been waiting a long time. i think you will make the point this might be bad news for democrats, am i right? >> yeah. it is terrible news for democrats. i hate to be the one to talk politics and be so cynical but i've worked on four presidential campaigns. let me tell you what is happening inside of the presidential campaigns. they will give a public pronouncement that is very different than what the political guys on the campaign will be advising. the public pronouncements are going to be for democrats this is great but the fact is, for the hillary campaign this is terrible news. and the reason it is terrible news, now she has to go out and defend an incredibly unpopular program that also is the wildly expensive. and it is not sustainable and

was built on a lie about you can keep your doctors. there is no way that hillary can go out and not say that this law has to be changed. she can not just defend i it the way it is. if we have press corps that will force her to be honest. i think someone in the debate will do that. for republicans they will raise a lot of money off this. their public pronouncements will be this is terrible we have to change it. they like the status quo because a lot of money will flow and they get to keep the same talking points. stuart: rick, hole on in a second, in a moment i will bring everyone hillary clinton's tweet she put out right after the decision came down. i want to reset and tell everybody what is happening. just a couple of minutes from now we're due to hear from the president of the united states in the rose garden who will make a statement on the supreme court ruling. about an hour 15 minutes ago we got the ruling from the supreme court and it was 6-3 upholding the subsidies paid in 34 states

which don't have health care exchanges of their own. a 6-3 ruling, that was a real shock. the supreme court interpreted four words in a very different way. a way that was not expected. they interpreted those four words, established by the state, completely differently. they looked at the overall legislation and said the intent of that legislation was for subsidies, was for exchanges was for help for all kinds of people to get affordable care. they interpreted the legislation as opposed to stuck rigidly with the wording of the legislation. that came down as a shock to everybody. as i said in a couple of minutes we're expecting president obama to make a statement. by the way, one financial angle to this, health care stocks, hospital stocks some drug companies, health insurers they're up. why would they be up? why is this happening? why are stocks that character that nature, why are they going

up? because the money is going to keep on flowing. it keeps on flowing. there you have it. we'll take john boehner, making a statement as we speak live. let's listen in live, john boehner speaker of the house. >> american people, i will quote, get your checkbooks out. let's review what has gone on over there. we have given va to authority the fire bureaucrats. they fire practically no one. we gave the va the resources to build hospitals. they can't get any of them built on time. we gave the va resources to improve their care. the waiting lists are even longer. the va's problem isn't funding. it is outright failure. absolute fay lure to take care of our veterans. maybe the va wouldn't jump from crisis to crisis if it actually had a long-term plan to clean up this mess. we'll continue to do our part but only the president can change the culture at the va.

>> with today's scotus ruling, you guys are faced with a choice whether to go ahead and use reconciliation to try to repeal the aca. one, do you still intend to do that, and b are you confident that the score of any such plan will will not decrease uninsured or -- >> there is no decision about how to deal with or what to use reconciliation for. the problem with obamacare is still fundamentally the same. the law is broken. it is raising costs for american families. it is raising costs for small businesses and it is just fundamentally broken. and we're going to continue our efforts to do everything we can to put the american people back in charge of their own health care and not the federal government. stuart: saying that essentially

obamacare is fatally broken, i believe that was his precise expression. we just received two minute warning which means president obama will be appearing in the rose garden about 90 seconds from now. he will be making a statement on the supreme court decision. essentially it is this, i will recap if i may. 6-3 the supreme court says, subsidies stay. not ruled down, not knocked out, subsidies stay in those 34 states in the states where exchangeses are not established. immediate reaction hospital stocks, health care stocks, some drug stocks are going straight up. there is considerable dissent, namely especially from justice scalia. he now describes obama care as "scotuscare." supreme court of the united states "scotuscare." now ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. >> have a sight seat. five years ago after nearly a century of talk decades of

trying a year of bipartisan debate, we finally declared that in america health care is not a privilege for a few but a right for all. over those five years as we've worked to implement the affordable care act there have been successes and setbacks. the setbacks, i remember clear letter. -- clearly. but as the dust has settled there is no doubt that this law is working. it has changed and in some cases saved american lives. it set this country on a smarter stronger course and today after more than 50 votes in congress to repeal or weaken this law after a presidential election based in part on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges to this law before the supreme

court, the affordable care act is here to stay. this morning the court upheld a critical part of this law, the part that has made it easier for americans to afford health insurance regardless where you live. if the partisan challenge to this law had succeeded millions of americans would have had thousands of dollars worth of tax credits taken from them. for many insurance would have become unaffordable again. many would have become uninsured again. ultimately everyone's premiums could have gone up. america would have gone backwards. that is not what we do. that is not what america does. we move forward. so today is victory for hard-working americans all across this country whose lives will continue to become more secure in a changing economy because of this law. if you're a parent, you can keep your kids on your plan until they turn 26.

something that has covered millions of young people so far. that is because of this law. if you're a senior or an american with a disability, this law gives you discounts on your prescriptions, something that has saved nine million americans an average of $1600 so far. if you're a woman you can't be charged more than anybody else, even if you have had cancer or your husband had heart disease or just because you're a woman. your insurer has to offer preventative services like mammograms. they can't place annual or lifetime caps on your care because of this law. because of this law, and because of today's decision, millions of americans, who i hear from every single day will continue to receive the tax credits that have given about eight in 10 people who buy insurance on the new marketplaces the choice of a health care plan that costs less

than $100 a month. when it comes to preexisting conditions, some day our grandkids will ask us if there was really a time when america discriminated against people who get sick because that is something this law has ended for food. that affects everybody with health insurance not just folks who got insurance through the affordable care act. all of america has protections it didn't have before. as the law's provisions have gradually taken effect more than 16 million uninsured americans have gained coverage so far. nearly one in three americans who was uninsured a few years ago is insured today. the uninsured rate in america is the lowest since we began to keep records, and that is something we all can be proud of. meanwhile the law has helped hold the price of health care to its slowest growth in 50 years.

if your family gets insurance through your job you're not using the affordable care act, you're still paying about $1800 less per year on average than you would be if we hadn't done anything. by hundred leading measure what business owners pay out in wages and salaries is finally growing faster than what they spend on health insurance. that hasn't happened in 17 years. that is good for workers and it is good for the economy. the point is this is not an abstract thing anymore. this is not a set of political talking points. this is reality. we can see how it is working this law is working exactly as it is supposed to. in many ways this law is working better than we expected it to. for all the misinformation campaigns, all the doomsday

predictions, all of talk of death panels and job destruction, for all the repeal attempts, this law is now helping tens of millions of americans. they have told me that it has changed their lives for the better. i've had moms come up and say, my son was able to see a doctor and get diagnosed and catch a tumor early and he is alive today because of this law. this law is working. and it is going to keep doing just that. five years in this is no longer about a law. this is not about a the affordable care act. as legislation or obamacare as a political football. this is health care in america.

and unlike social security or medicare, a lot of americans still don't know what obamacare is beyond all the political noise in washington. across the country there remain people who are directly benefiting from the law but don't even know it. and that's okay. there is no card that says obamacare when you enroll. but that is by design for this has never been a government takeover of health care despite cries to the contrary. this reform remains what it always has been, a set of fairer rules and tougher protections that have made health care in america more affordable, more attainable and more about you the consumer. the american people. it's working. and with this case behind us,

let's be clear we've still got work to do to make health care in america even better. we'll keep working to provide consumers with all the tools you need to make informed choices about your care. we'll keep working to increase the use of preventative care that avoids bigger problems down the road. we'll keep working to boost the steadily improving quality of care in hospitals, bring down costs even lower, make the system work even better. already we've seen reductions in readmissions to hospital. that saves our society money. it saves families money. it makes people healthier. we're making progress. we're going to keep working to get more people covered. i'm going to work as hard as i can to convince more governors and state legislatures to take advantage of the law put politics aside and expand medicaid and cover their citizens. we've still got states out there

that, for political reasons are not covering millions of people they could be covering despite the fact that the federal government's picking up the tab. so we've got more work to do but what we're not going to do is unravel what is now been woven into the fabric of america. my greatest hope rather than keep refighting battles that have been settled again and again and again, i can work with republicans and democrats to move forward. let's join together. make health care in america even better. three generations ago we chose to end an era where seniors were left to languish in poverty. we passed social security. and slowly it was woven into the fabric of america and made a

difference in the lives of millions of people. two generations ago we chose to end an age when americans in their golden years didn't have the guaranty of health care. medicare was passed. and it helped millions of people. this generation of americans chose to finish the job to turn the page on a past when our citizens could be denied coverage just for being sick. to close the books on history where tens of millions of americans had no hope of finding decent, after for thible -- affordable health care. had to hang their chances on fate. we chose to write a new chapter where in a new economy americans are free to change their jobs or start a business, chase a new idea raise a family, free from fear. secure in the knowledge that portable affordable health care

is there for us and always will be. and that if we get sick we're not going to lose our home. that if we get sick, that we're going to be able to still look after our families. that's when america soars when we look out for one another. when we take care of each other. when we root for one another's success. when we strive to do better and to be better than the generation that came before us and tried to build something better for generations to come. that's why we do what we do. that is the whole point of public service. so this was a good day for america.

let's get back to work. [applause] stuart: there is one particular expression which stood out from the president's statement there and he used it twice. he said obamacare is woven into the fabric of america. that means you got it. it is in place. and my implication is it is here to stay. in fact the president said it is here to stay. we have various people with us who have been covering this development all morning. rick grenell, first of all, i think you're still there. let me go back to you. the president says obamacare is here to stay because it is woven into the fabric of america. i'm inclined to agree that it is here stay. we can not get rid of it. you say what? >> we certainly can't get rid of it right now. this is clearly a big win for obama. again it is not a big win for the democrats though. i have to say stuart, i'm really struck that yet again we see the president of the united

states delivering a monologue to the press about something that he thinks is important and he steak takes no questions. the press are not allowed to push back, gee there are a whole bunch of questions about obamacare around future of obamacare around expense of obamacare. why antiwe having this dialogue? really unbelievable that the president delivers his monologue and then walks away without having any interaction. we have a lot of questions that remain, stuart about this law. and there needs to be a pushback. stuart: i'm with you rick, if i were the president, in unlikely event i'm president of the united states of america -- >> i would vote for you. stuart: no you wouldn't. and i create a health care system i will get out there and say it's great. it is working. i'm not going to take questions from the press which might interfere with that very rosy view of that health care system. you can understand the man, can't you? >> well i can understand the need to want to have a one-way

conversation but that is like if you're the president of pakistan. that is not if you're the president of the united states of america. and our press, and those ten nothing graphers sitting in front of him need to speak up. we're not coming to sit here and attend an event that you will spoon feed us on. we need to ask questions about this law. this is a supreme court ruling with lots of lingering questions about the expense of obamacare and future, it was built on a lie that we were going to be able to keep our doctors. we can't keep our doctors. that is a legitimate question for the president. stuart: one second, rick. >> especially after this ruling. stuart: look at this, hospital stocks. now the president just came out and said i'm going to repeat this, obamacare is here to stay, it is woven into the fabric of america said that latter expression twice. after that up go hospital stocks even more. president is selling us it is here.

subsidies are here. money keep flowing to hospitals. look at them go. look at that percentage gain from tenet hospitals, 12% 11% 9% 7% those are huge gains for a big chunk of our health care system in terms of their stock price. and they're going up now because of what the president just said it is here to stay. >> i called it 9:30 stuart. you said health stocks going to go up. hospital stocks are the ones that benefit the most from this. because as you say the free flow of money. >> medicaid money. >> medicaid money. taxpayer money. they're consolidating. they're getting bigger. it's a win core consumers? no. stuart: congressman jeb hensarling is with us, republican. you saw the president. you heard what i had to say about it. president says obamacare is here to stay. woven into the fabric of america. he is basically saying, congressman it is here to stay. you can't get rid of it? will you dispute that yes it is possible, indeed it is likely

we repeal entirely obamacare. will you say that sir. >> absolutely. america will not rest. this is an outrageous decision of the supreme court. it means the english language is absolutely meaningless. i could not be more embarrassed and more outraged at our supreme court. the american people continue to reject obamacare. it has broken every single promise that was made on its behalf. we were told that premiums would go down. premiums have gone up. we were told that if you wanted to keep your doctor, we could. we now know that was a lie. we can go down the list. we have to move to a patient-centered health care system. people don't want it. stuart: i gotcha. i understand that but is the president not right in saying that obamacare is woven into the fabric of america? is there are some people who are affected. it is in place and it is going to be in place wray into next

year and probably into set of set of zest zest. 2017? do you think you can get rid of it entirely. >> answer lies with the american people. they hold the needle and thread and determine what is woven into the fabric of american society. elections have consequences. could not be more pleased this administration has 18 months to go. the american people i hope will have their voices heard in the next election and decide they want health care right for them and their families. they don't want their health care decisions made by washington bureaucrats. answer stuart, lies with the american people in an intervening election. stuart: one last question, if i may, is this the issue for the presidential election of 2016? >> where can i start? the world is afire with the incompetence of the obama administration. we continue to be threatened by isis. the entire world is falling

apart. we have an economy no longer works for lower and middle income people. certainly people take their health care very, very seriously. this can be a dominating issue in the next election. stuart: congressman jeb hensarling, thanks for joining us on a very very busy day. we really appreciate it. come back again soon. >> absolutely. stuart: i've been hammering on this ever since i saw the president say, i will repeat this, forgive me repeating all of this, obamacare is here to stay. i think that is a very key issue here. congressman jeb hensarling says we'll make it a big deal in the election coming. it's a big deal. we'll try to get rid of it and repeal it. ashley, you've been sitting with me for the past two hours. he says it is woven into the fabric about of america and he is right, he is. >> it is too late. it wit be too entrenched by the time of the next presidential election assuming republican president in january of 2017, by then this new health care law is so entrenched stuart it is too

late. stuart: entrenched is the word. come on in please, senator bill cassidy, republican from louisiana joining us on the phone. senator, continue this argument please. we are look, the president is saying, obamacare is here to stay. it is entrenched in our society. do you think, you're a republican senator. do you think you can repeal this completely, get rid of it, do you? >> the president is going to be triumphant because the president is all about making this so interwoven it can't be denied. that said the fact that 37 states still have federal exchanges, mean that they can still cast this off for something better. now if you mean, yes, size of government has grown and taxes are here to stay and that medicare is now far more expensive than it used to be and premiums have climbed yes all that negative may be woven in but the fact that it is so negative means that when the american people get sick of premiums climbing by 60% per

year as they are this year in some states, or about 250%)$z since the law was passed, and even more in other÷ú states, the american people have the ability to say that we want something different. this is not a prison sentence. it is something that the american people can change. stuart: now it's a challenge politically. it's a challenge for republicans because you've got to get together the votes and the will of the to repeal this. and you've got to come up with an alternative. it is also a challenge for democrats who now going forward hillary clinton in particular, must defend what is an unpopular health care system. it is a challenge for both parties, isn't it? address the challenge to hillary clinton if you will because she has come out with a tweet saying now we have got affordable and available health care to all. you can challenge that, can't you? >> absolutely. you can say that there are still 30 million people uninsured

under obamacare. and most of those who are newly insured have medicaid, medicaid which pays physicians so far beneath their costs, studies show those patients do not have access. they have the form of coverage illusion of coverage without the power to access it. if democrats want a repeat of the last several cycles which their candidates have consistently lost because their candidates consistently stood up for obamacare hey i'm willing to take that, throw me into that brier patch. let's go to the first point the challenge to republicans. i have something called the patient freedom act which would give patients the power not an obamacare bureaucrat. republicans absolutely have solutions of the we advanced them. they're legislative language i look forward to debate us giving patients power and give us to obamacare bureaucrats. stuart: i don't think there is much legislation can do in the next 18 months. anything that passes house and senate would be vetoed by the

president. so you really do have to bait until until 2017. you have to have a republican in the white house if you want to repeal this entire piece of legislation. i think you would agree with that sir. >> i would. the president clearly wants the american people under his thumb. he wants there to be a mandate, which if the american people do not comply with, coercive power of the federal government comes down upon them. that is the sense of his sense how the government should run. i don't think that is the sense of the american people though. that is why i'm optimistic there will be a change in 2016. stuart: senator bill cassidy, i regret to say i'm almost out of time. thank you sir, for being with us today. again a busy day, we appreciate your time. senator bill cassidy, republican louisiana. thank you very much. quickly lisa booth is still with me. steve odland still with me. same question to both of you steve, real fast the president says it is woven into the fabric of america. he said it twice.

you can't get rid of it. do you think you can repeal this thing and get rid of it? steve odland first. >> it is absolutely not woven into the fabric of the united states. it may not be moved in the next 18 months but driving debt level up to unsustainable costs. we're at 18 trillion in debt. 74% debt-to-gdp. if we leave it in place we'll exceed 100%. we'll become greece. we'll bankrupt the country. no way we can not address this issue. stuart: lisa booth come on in same question. do you think we can repeal and get rid of this whole thing? >> yes. look senator chuck schumer said it best himself this law was mistake politically for democrats. the 2010 election and 2014 election were both referendums on obamacare. i think once again especially with this ruling we'll see that 2016 is also a referendum on obamacare. stuart: lisa, steve, thank you very much. you sat through the whole thing. thank you very much. ashley webster, still not asked

you that question. >> senator cassidy used the word illusion, that is very good word. democrats tell you, hillary clinton says obamacare makes health care affordable and available. that illusion. stuart: i want to dwell on money before we go to neil. reaction on the stocks market. overall market absolutely no reaction whatsoever. no reaction in terms of big picture. put up on the screen the hospital stocks, that is where the big reaction has come. it's a very positive reaction. health insurers are all up. i'm trying to squint here. tenet healthcare is up 13%. this is pop in various stocks. look at hospitals. will you look at that. 13, 14, nine, eight, seven percentage point gains. enormous gains. why is that? because the supreme court said

subsidies will keep on flowing. they will not be cut off. that is money. that is probably your money. it is going to flow. it is hospitals drug stocks and health insurers who will get that money. it has been quite a day. extraordinary day. let's have look at drug stocks. eli lilly is a big winner there that is up nearly four or 5%. let's see now, less than two hours ago came down decision from the supreme court. 6-3 was the ruling that subsidies in states which have not establish ad health care exchange will stand. most people were expecting it would go the other way. so the ruling was a real shock. care stocks, the reaction in politics was here come the republicans now is their chance to repeal this thing and get rid of it completely. an they settled this program today. that is what they try to do by january of 2017. it was a remarkable day, i think we'll remember this forever, and

i know that neil cavuto is eager to continue our coverage. he's right here he's got the time. and it is your time neil take it away. >> to remarkable two hours my friend but you hit on it easier said than done and here to stay trying to get rid of this. welcome everybody i'm neil cavuto stuart outlined pretty with here. you've heard by now u that those subsidies are in place can stay in place, and 6.3 million american who is benefit from them need not worry about losing them. what was the big surprise wasn't only the decision that supported the subsidies, but the size of that decision, the 6-3 vote one that included chief justice robert who is wrote for the majority that this was a good thing to do. but it has left a number of republicans confused as to where things go from here. now, before i get to peter barnes on this i want to look at the market reaction because i find that most telling maybe most dramatic story of all today. you have essentially seen highest court in