oh i'm so marvin in washington d.c. and here's what's coming up tonight the big picture the obama administration is taking a gamble for the upcoming two thousand and twelve election year betting their chips at the supreme court will uphold obamacare and when odds are in their favor and why are conservatives piling on against an idea of a creator and neo cons are at it again wishing for a new war in pakistan all the while the situation in afghanistan is deteriorating surprised the g.o.p. so gung ho on starting with wars from cruel and if.

you need to know this the stage is set for a supreme court showdown yesterday the department of justice called on the supreme court to rule on the constitutionality of president obama's signature health reform law the affordable care act making it extremely likely the high court will hear the case sometime around the summer of next year writes dab in the middle of the election season b.o.j. wants the court to reverse a decision made by a lower appeals court in atlanta that struck down the entire health reform law earlier this year citing that the individual mandate that provision that requires us all to buy health insurance was unconstitutional in a statement released yesterday the d.o.j. made it clear it was unfit the court would strike down the right wing challenge against obamacare saying throughout history there have been similar challenges to

other landmark legislation such as the social security act the civil rights act the voting rights act all of those challenges fail according to the center for american progress of all nine supreme court justices remain consistent in their previous rule. and then at least seven on the high court will favor the affordable care act then again they will rule in an election year and given that this is one of the most politicized spring courts in our nation's history pretty much anything can happen but if republicans were hoping to use the supreme court's decision for political advantage no one let romney know here's what he said about the individual mandate yesterday on the sean hannity radio show. the idea for a health care plan was not by i don't know the heritage foundation a great conservative think tank helped out that i'm told rich was one of the very first people who came up with the idea of the individual mandate that years and years ago it was it would seem that they conservative idea to say you know what

people have responsibility to care for themselves that they can that's right the individual mandate which conservatives claim is unconstitutional was according to mitt romney a conservative idea so how conservatives try to spin this one to find out and try to buy damn dollar can you gauge is director at the heritage action heritage action for america or the heritage foundation is an affiliate yes ok great then why do you hate the heritage foundation. you know your premise is a little bit wrong on this what conservatism what mitt romney said in massachusetts was that this is a state issue here confusing state police powers state powers with national federal powers and we cannot i'm not the heritage lectures i actually have the documents that you guys put together a heritage talking points here's a couple quotes from from them one says this is from her his lectures this says many states now require passengers and this is back in. nineteen. eighty nine

many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seatbelts for their own protection but knew the federal government or any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic loss of a serious accident or under illness under the care. plan there would be such a requirement then in one thousand nine hundred two heritage foundation wrote another paper is three years later saying that their plan they were still holding that plan would quote require all households to purchase at least a basic package of insurance unless they are covered by medicaid medicare or other government health programs but then this year after president obama comes along and proposes what mitt romney did and what basically richard nixon proposed back in the seventy's. very traditional as the laws individual mandate was intended to compel all americans to roll a health plan to lower the nation's uninsured rate but the law infringes upon americans basic constitutional rights that mandate is unprecedented it must be considered to be the laws most controversial provision i don't get what changed

other than the fact that you had a democratic white house. change the constitution didn't change it i'm glad you recognize that because most people don't realize the constitution changes but there's the nation's been very very clear that if you look at the meekest brief they followed with the courts in florida you look at what they've written stance the individual mandate a national level is unconstitutional since he became president there are those to invent eighty nine they called for a national a national. mandate in ninety two they called for a national mandate and when romney do they apply to the state. again then the heritage foundation is very clear that the individual mandate federal level is unconstitutional or they follow the meat is very they haven't heard about that since one. that's a great question i'm not sure their position now which is the right position is that the individual mandate is unconscious constitutional look what the federal government essentially saying is by your very existence we compel you to do something think about the danger of that that's not anywhere in the constitution

but if you follow that logic out you can say we can say you can buy this car just because you exist just because you're an american citizen or not whatever the logic of taking the thing that people are used here for what they're saying right now those you can buy you can buy a car that has taillights and drive it on public streets but you can't buy a car that doesn't have to you can buy a car other than as a great move right here right there they are very good in action somebody is taking what obamacare as it was regulated x. and some isn't taking they're saying you sitting in your living room not doing anything just sitting there you have to buy health insurance because we told you that's what you have under now it's absolutely not a negative action you're alive if you're alive you're breathing if you're breathing you're sitting next to somebody who had tuberculosis you might be can you might be transmitting contagious disease this is a public health issue but you know live is an active process. it is much different than anything else ever regulated by the commerce clause what the i don't disagree with you on that let me ask you another question and you know why you hate republicans you know george herbert walker bush rolled out

a health care plan with an individual mandate in a heritage foundation of water that when when bill clinton you know when when hillary came out with hillary care then newt gingrich came out with the republican alternative which had an individual mandate and the heritage foundation applauded that are you turn your back on the republicans who say see i think if you look at what this plan would do i set aside the constitutionality of it and focus on what would actually happen we understand this is not the right way to take the health insurance market and injecting the federal government more into the insurance market are not going to fix our problem they're already so involved if you look at what states like utah did and i think this is a great thing that states are allowed to experiment and now you have to get a waiver under the new health care law to be able to experiment before just before the new health care law it was illegal for strangers you told put in place some serious reforms that a lot of people think we're good at move things more towards the individual level and this is what paul ryan came out now on in his speech the other day saying we need to empower individuals take control of their health care you know our current health care system doesn't incentivize that i don't the republicans vote for the

waiver that for months been asking for i think what i've been blocking in both the house and son peter shumlin ran on a platform in vermont for governor of single payer. cover health care coverage for everybody he was elected on that the house and senate both voted for it he signed it into law and they need a waiver and they try to get the waiver from congress and congress said no i think republicans are verses that democrats are saying yes i think what republicans want to see is a waiver for the entire law that any state can get out of it if they want to but why not just give a waiver to the states to say you can do whatever you want and get out will find it if that's the case why do we have obamacare then it's the complete opposite view of what they had just a few states were doing things that massachusetts that it's not for the states and it doesn't work at all as well in massachusetts then why would why return to apply to the federal level if you also know where i'm there i think it's a partial effort i think i think you know i am actually i actually agree with a lot of republicans that when this thing goes into place a lot of employers are going to stop drive dropping their employees into the

federal program and we're going to end up with so much pressure that we're going to have with medicare for everybody who knows you know i that's my hope. thanks for drugs i've heard it good talking with it regardless of which way the high court tilts on the constitutionality of obamacare our nation is headed for a health care crisis in fact with more than fifty million americans uninsured we're already in a crisis there's a new kaiser report about health premiums and it's really it's really quite extraordinary this is the. they've increased one hundred thirteen percent since two thousand and one as you can see on this graph down here which means that they're going to be over thirty two thousand dollars by two thousand and twenty one this is with obamacare i mean the affordable care act it's political correct and so what are we going to do about this i mean this is an absolute screaming disaster that you know there's are going to be more employers kicking more people off the rolls and you'd have more families having to spend twice as much or three times as much

or in this case four times as much on their health care every year you're going to have more people unable to afford insurance in the united states you're going to have health care in america is basically going to turn into a. elish dysfunctional system now if it's not already there to a large extent compared to the other countries in the world speaking of the other countries of the world i think that that's really an important thing we need to have a radical change in how we deliver health care in the united states the delivery mechanism right now is via the health insurance it's for profit health insurance companies that are skimming ten twenty thirty forty cents out of every dollar forty dollars out of every hundred dollars so they can pay their c.e.o.'s hundreds of millions of dollars bill mcguire made over a billion dollars as the c.e.o. of united health care just about the same as stephen helmsley said right i mean this seems just fundamentally dysfunctional and u.s. needs to do what the rest of the world is successfully doing look at what we're getting for. chording to the o.e.c.d.

the the organization of economic cooperation development these are the thirty four most developed nations where the money we're spending on health care is is absolutely a disaster and what are we getting for it here is life expectancy for example pan is it but numbers across the bottom seventy five eighty three years old japan's at the top they have a national health care system switzerland is number two they have a national health care system it's a little different to most countries not a single payer system but it's a national system spain has a national health care system israel has a national health care system sweden luxembourg and the united kingdom has a national health care system it's different from the rest of them in that it's genuinely socialist medicine that is to say in the u.k. or close to it in the u.k. the government actually owns the hospitals and clinics the rest of them are more like you know private clinics and things like that so there's a variety of ways to do this but they all have national health care systems ireland portugal even slovenia and here's the united states down at the bottom in terms of life expectancy and at the same time you get these guys around but we do something

about it about social security because social security is going down in flames because we're we're about to run out of money there's total health expenditures as a share of g.d.p. i don't know if we have that we have a graphic here it is right here this is particularly interesting if you look at you know public and private and. the thing that's really interesting about this and in some of this this graph got messed up but basically the public spending on health care in the united states is down around here and this is all private spending and there's light blue part of all of these different countries that's that's where people are buying like supplemental policies or you know program policies that cover them if they're out of the country or they're spending money out of their pocket and things like plastic surgery stuff like that so this is your basic health care cost down here this is the dark blue stuff and you see all these countries turkey mexico all the way across until you get to the united states and the public spending is actually down here in the rest of this is actually all private and my

apologies that this graphic actually it's you know we're here i have the original in my hand so then then of course we look at life expectancy which we just looked at and then infant mortality just perth thousand live births in for mortality this is incredible mexico the deaths for live births fairly high you know what you would expect as from a developing nation that has a real some real crisis and turkey is fairly high chile is fairly high and there's the united states this is infant mortality now who is doing better than us in terms of it from our new zealand of the united kingdom now what's in common with all these countries national health care systems new zealand united kingdom australia israel korea italy japan slovenia. it's time for us to say that health care is a basic human right but it's time for us to take health care out of his whole

political nonsense that was left is a right is it is it the free market or the the the rest of the world has demonstrated a national health care system works when you start on the promise that health care is a right and not a privilege and that the government is there to guarantee those rights and make things work then you can have a health care system that works and that's what we need to do in the united states medicare or be easy for everybody just like everybody buy into medicare problem so . it's time for a daily poll your chance to tell us what you think here's the day's question first who is vermont now it's non tanna will single payer and eventually end up in all of america your choices are yes with health care costs going up we will eventually see the light or no the health care law is some companies will never let that happen doggone it from arbonne dot com let us know what you think the polls will be open

until tomorrow morning. coming up the increased bloodshed and violence chaos in afghanistan is spreading because of orders tom hayden choice to break the details on how the pentagon's plans may be sowing the seeds for something even as extreme as material. that drives the world the fear mongering used by politicians who makes decisions to create through a bit through the period maybe who can you trust no one who is you know view with the local machinery see where we had a state controlled capitalism it's called satchels when nobody dares to ask we do our t. question more.

there's no more evidence the situation in afghanistan is deteriorating according to a new united nations report violence has increased naf ghana stand thirty nine percent since last year more and more armed clashes and homemade bomb attacks been carried out by taliban insurgents in just three months june through august of this year nine hundred seventy one civilians were killed and another fourteen hundred

injured in this ongoing war. but it's not just insurgents killing civilians it's our own air strikes as the u.n. report notes in the month of july thirty eight civilians were killed by u.s. airstrikes not exactly a recipe for military success but as our quagmire in afghanistan continues a new question why are we getting maybe just getting underway right now in pakistan last week out outgoing joint chiefs of staff chairman admiral mike mullen who has visited pakistan twenty seven times since two thousand and eight defense secretary leon panetta says pakistan has proven safe haven to a terrorist group that carried out attacks in the u.s. embassy in kabul. prompted many here and both of them actually prompting many to say that the pentagon is upping the ante with pakistan meanwhile right wing writers and opponents are openly calling for attacks on popular stuff or for us to abandon our balance of support of both india and pakistan in their disputes as rick perry

so ham handed lee suggested in the last republican debate. the economy network for one acts as a veritable arm of pakistan's internal services intelligence agency with i.s.i. support the kani operatives planning the conduct of the truck bomb attack as well as the assault on our embassy we also have credible intelligence that they were behind the june twenty eighth attack on the intercontinental hotel in kabul and host of other smaller but effective operations for more on this i'm joined by tom hayden former california state senator author educator one of the early co-founders of s.t.s. lifeline that activist welcome back thanks tom nice to be here thanks very to have you here with us excuse me just a second sir. thomas jefferson once said of slavery

but as it is we have the wolf by the ears and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go just as on one scale and self-preservation on the other as george w. bush by starting to illegal and incompetent wars set up a similar dilemma for obama. i don't think that was his intention but that's the you know that's the outcome and it's not two wars it's. pakistan is the third yemen somalia and according to bob woodward's book we have special operations in sixty countries at six zero so long war concept that's what bush has given obama and and is it true that the obama administration has drawn a contingency plans to strike one hundred fifty targets inside pakistan if there's another attack in afghanistan that might be tracked back to i.s.i. pakistan's intelligence service and or and or the pakistani government or groups affiliated with. not exactly according to bob woodward's book though

there is a secret contingency plan to strike one hundred fifty targets virtually all of them in pakistan and if there's a successful bombing attack on the united states they can be traced to anyone in pakistan that happened christmas day a couple of years ago it happened the times square last year it's happened several times the attacks have succeeded but the bombs didn't go off. this. contingency plan i think. is set so that the president can't really stop but i think that's that's what you get if you look closely at the interviews that bob woodward did in his book obama's wars so so yes we're we're in a danger where at any moment anybody who is allegedly trained in pakistan.

to attack the united states is successful this contingency this button will be pushed and these bombs will go off and. some people and also in woodward's book he says there is no plan b. in other words if you ask well what would happen the next day. that may be a deeper secret but there's apparently no no one seems to know what we would do next so there's a situation where if the times square bomber had gone off and there was clear connections between him and pakistan where there were there were and there were then we would automatically launch a one hundred fifty strikes against pakistan and i get there right. we would launch one hundred fifty attacks against sites presumably terrorist sites presumably all in pakistan yes that's what

that's that's the plan and it's you have to you have to read the. the histories and so on but no one no one has disputed it i've asked around written several articles on it. but so that's hanging over our head we had a similar situation obviously during the cuban missile crisis just thinking that was a nuclear there was a nuclear crisis. but no one knows what. what terrorist organizations or pakistan or anyone else would do if we had one hundred fifty targets overnight in pakistan that's the sword that is hanging over us right in the meantime the more immediate issue i think he is the anti-war movement needs to be very clear that there is a creeping expansion of american ground troops getting ready for pakistan that's

what all that talk you let in about with the. admiral mullen the testimony he's testing the water allegedly don't have troops in pakistan although everybody knows there's some secret ops in the now but this would be a play on for american troops to go into the tribal areas on the ground and attack it would be similar i think. on a lesser scale but exactly the same as richard nixon invaded in cambodia. in order to find the vietcong headquarters in the jungle and you know what happened to nixon so it's a it's a very dangerous situation in pakistan. pakistan is a nuclear armed nation and correct certainly. past

behavior would probably love to have another fight with. with india i mean they if they still have a lot of border disputes going on kashmir being the least of them are america's right regulators who are calling for more conflict in that area or for that matter this administration with the situation that you just described playing with nuclear fire in that region these are both nuclear equipped nations and i'm frankly i to the best my knowledge we don't know the throw power of the nuclear capability of either nation could stand for example drop a nuke in the united states. or no i don't think so but i don't know if the right wing has a coherent position on this what i do know is that in response to admiral mullen the statement testimony last week the heritage foundation immediately issued a report. urging in an escalation urging the designation of

a group of people that were supposed to be trying to engage in peace talks with be listed as a terrorist organization so they were ready on a moment's notice to back up the statement by mullen and urge a stronger position against pakistan you know we were getting out of for the most part out of iraq and out of afghanistan slowly painfully like a bloody line in the desert. so it doesn't make any sense. to then escalate in another country unless you buy this sanctuaries theory which reminds me of the old domino theory remember the enemy was supposed to be communism and it would be falling dominoes and you had to intervene to stop these dominoes from falling now it's sanctuaries we claim there's a sanctuary in afghanistan we go in we say we wipe out the sanctuary there's no al

qaeda there but in doing so if that's what happened because it's pushed to pakistan and then we have to invade pakistan to get rid of the sanctuary there and then if you listen to the public statements by the cia it's moved to eat yemen which is now considered the most dangerous country in the world from the point of view of attacking the united states and when we when we go into yemen and wipe out that sanctuary in a country that barely has an economy you can also find in the. insurgency documents in the right in the sense that there is actually sanctuaries in europe and so sure is in europe are created by human rights laws that give civil liberties protections to too many islamic terrorists who are lurking in europe remember nine eleven came from hamburg germany so this is not complete so we end up bombing.

exactly the north atlantic treaty organization should go home and attack attack europe right that's that's where the logic goes it's here they are you really that there could be a world war one scenario where we see where we sit but but we're flat out of time thank you for the illumination i think i mean this is the sort of the petition tom hayden dot org see if you can circulate it to your friends of this study it discuss that thanks very much tom hartman you got it tom hayden thank you tom it's been nearly a decade since the afghanistan war started and that's a decade too long time to end the wars and bring home our soldiers. crazy alert rise of the cyber war and the rats it appears the advantage in the eternal struggle between cat and mouse has now shifted eighteen researchers at the

university of tel aviv have created what they're calling a digital cerebellum that can be implanted into the brains of rats to mimic brain functions that were previously lost so far the robotic brain has been used for only the most simple processes such as causing a rat to blink at certain stimulus but researchers are still calling the invention a remarkable leap forward in technology and its uses will soon be limitless so it could be just a matter of time before the same cyborg brain technology is used on humans to replenish or even can roll our brain activities in fact. i think it's already happening you can watch the clinical trials every week during the republican debates. after the break all as why republicans are calling it out fox is misleading reporting about america's future in green energy. and.

what drives the world the fear mongering used by politicians who makes decisions to break through get through it have been made who can you trust no one who is you know view with the global machinery see where are we heading state controls capitalism is called satchels when nobody dares to ask we do our t. question more.