06/28/12 06/28/12 [captioning made possible by democracy now!] >> from pacifica, this is "democracy now!" we are live from the supreme court in washington, d.c., from new york and around the country, we are moments away from learning whether the court will overturn president obama's landmark healthcare law in part, in full, or not at all. it was because filmmaker michael moore, with attorney david cole, with the insurance industry whistleblower wendell potter, dr. margaret flowers of physicians for a national health program, elisabeth benjamin of the community service society of new york and others. all of that and more coming up.

this is "democracy now!," democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. the supreme court special. yes, the supreme court is moments away from issuing its decision on the constitutionality of the affordable care act, the landmark healthcare reform bill signed by president obama two years ago. the case heavily focuses on the so-called individual mandate, which requires most people buy health insurance by 2014 or pay tax penalty. the court will decide whether to strike down the mandate and determine whether the first -- us of the law and stand. coming on the last of the supreme court's term, the ruling will have major implications not just for the nation's health- care system, but also the 2012 election race and beyond. republican presidential candidate mitt romney has called for the law's repeal despite its similarities to the mandate-

based healthcare measure he oversaw as governor of massachusetts. progressive legislators are launching a campaign today to push for single payer legislation if the court strikes down the law. 75 members of the congressional progressive caucus have signed onto a bill by congress member john conyers to create a single payer publicly financed privately delivered universal health care program. single parent activists are gathering on the steps of the capital as well, calling for medicare for all. in a moment, we are going to the supreme court. we're joined by georgetown law professor david cole, legal correspondent for "nation" in vermont i want to get a sense of the scene outside the supreme court. let's turn to renée feltz. can you describe what you're sitting around you? >> as you said, we are minutes away, possibly seconds, it

minutes away in the nation is waiting with bated breath to see what the justices will decide about obama's keene of legislation of his administration, health care reform bill. on the steps, it is quite a crazy scene. hundreds and hundreds of protesters are gathering together. what we see when you start to put mx, students have said that come all the way from places like louisiana, afraid of losing their health care under their parents' health insurance. i have seen many nurses. their health practitioners. they say one of the reasons they're here and they hope the supreme court upholds parts of this bill is because they see patients coming into their emergency room who have waited until the last minute to get treatment because they do not have health care. i met an artist who tried to profile people have different problems with their health insurance and lack of health

care and in that process was moved to become an activist. many of the organizations are not really taking a stand one way or the other on what some would call obamacare. they're picking out some things they do like and some things they don't. i should note there is a sizable contingent of pro-life protesters here as they call themselves who are entering the issue of abortion to the discussion. it is a highly political debate. it is taking place on the steps of the supreme court. when we come back, we will have dr. margaret flowers joining us. that is the scene at the supreme court. >> thank you. i want to go to vermont has progress of health-care legislation in the state. david cole is a law professor of georgetown university law center and legal affairs correspondent for "the nation" magazine. david, thank you for being with us. why'd you lay out what is at

stake today. talk about the affordable care act, the patient protection and affordable care act the supreme court is minutes away from issuing a ruling on. >> it is a piece of legislation that seeks to assure everyone can get health care in the united states. it does so by guaranteeing that people can buy health care and not be discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions. but then it also says that those people who can afford to buy health care insurance must do so or pay a tax if they choose not to. the reason for that is if you ensure that people can get health care without discrimination based on pre- existing conditions as an incentive for people to become freeloaders and wait until they get sick and then only by -- only then buy insurance. so this is we will make sure

that people cannot be freeloaders by waiting until they get sick to purchase the health care. the principal question before the court is whether that requirement that people who can afford to buy health care or health insurance must buy health insurance is constitutional under the commerce clause, which gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, or the necessary and proper clause, which gives congress the power to enact laws necessary or proper related to their affirmative powers to regulate commerce. >> we're also going to the supreme court just outside where margaret flowers is standing by, among many single payer activists, she is a pediatrician and president of physicians for national health program. she was arrested in a very raucous baucus caucus. it was senator max baucus of

montana who as the legislation was being considered, when the panels were being held and no single payer representative was there, she stood up in that hearing room and was taken out by security. dr. margaret flowers, you're on the steps of the supreme court today. as david cole describes with the legislation is, where do you come down? >> it is interesting to hear david cole is these progressive talking points defending the law proved too much of what is going on is about politics and not health policies. i was with a group who filed a and it is brief asking them to find the individual mandate unconstitutional. we do not believe it is right for people to have to be forced to purchase the product, especially when it is defective. even with insurance, they still go bankrupt.

private insurance is a problem. we do now to further privatize our health care. when the medicare for all. >> and what about the decision if they strike down, for example, the individual mandate? do you consider that a victory or problem for health care? >> we would like to see the individual mandate struck down. it is not constitutional. we're spending $447 billion of taxpayer dollars to give them directly to private industry. it is corporate welfare on steroids. this bill helps people and we do not oppose trying to regulate insurance, but we do not think it is going to work. we believe every person in this country should have health care. why are we debating these tiny things of who gets more and who does not? the conversation should be about what works and what does not work. we are already spending twice as much as other industrialized countries per person.

we're not going to get quality health care into we go to medicare for all. >> we're just getting word from the supreme court blocked that the individual mandate has survived as a tax. the individual mandate has survived as a tax. elisabeth benjamin, one of the leading health care advocates in this country, awarded the families usa consumer health advocate of the year award. what about this news? >> it is incredible. it means 30 million americans will gain coverage come 2014. sorry, it is something i have been fighting for all my life so it is -- >> cnn is saying exactly the opposite. we're going to just keep on reporting what others are reporting until we actually get the news.

>> if the law were upheld, it will mean 30 million people who have no health insurance right now will get coverage. as important for those of us who do have health insurance, and honestly i defy anyone right now to say, "i don't want health insurance, i will hope to get medicare for all." in the meantime, we have to deal with the system and the reality we have, as much as we may not prefer that reality. right now in america, hundreds of millions of people get health insurance through their jobs. those of us who have health insurance through our jobs will benefit from incredible -- are already benefiting from incredible protections. we have the right to appeal. we have for the preventive care. the insurance industry used to build a say, in your lifetime cap on your insurance coverage.

if you get a transplant, you would not be a to get it because you hit your annual or lifetime cap. those things mean a lot to everyday americans. >> i want to report as your speaking, elisabeth benjamin, scotus blog is in the mandate is constitutional. chief justice robert joins the left of the court. elisabeth benjamin, isn't it true tens of millions still are not covered? >> right now, yes, it is true because the health reform has not been implemented yet. at some point i think we should talk about how it works and what it means because i think there's still a lot of confusion. even after the affordable care act -- >> scotus blog will continue to update people as the information trickles out of the court. the medicaid provision is

limited but not invalidated. the >> medicaid or mandate? >> [unintelligible] >> that is really tricky. it was a big surprise for most legal observers the court to the medicaid provision. what it does is expand medicaid. some progressive states it had already done so. quite a few, action, expanded public coverage for many of their families. many states had not. many states have medicaid only up to 25% of the poverty line, which is something like $3,000 or $5,000 a year. that is almost impossible for most people to get on the coverage in many, many states. what this means is, there will be a federal base line for medicaid coverage, 130% of poverty, which is around $15,000 a year. not a lot of money, but people who are very poor would have some guaranteed level of coverage. that means coverage for 16 million americans, 2014.

what was before the court was whether the federal government had the power to essentially say, look, we will underwrite this and pay for 90% of the cost of expanding medicaid in your state, but you have to come up with 10%. that is what many states objected to, perceiving it as bribery. we do not. we know it means life for real people. >> using progressive language to talk about legislation that looks like at least at this part, scotus blog saying the bottom line, the entire aca is of help with the exception of the federal government's power to terminate state's medicaid funds is nearly read. david cole, put that in english and then respond to market flowers criticism. >> an english, and it's the bulk of this law will be in a fact.

we have the best we could get from the congress we had when we were seeking to get universal healthcare coverage. ms. flowers is correct, it is not a single payer system, which many people think would be better, that was politically unrealistic. and with the obama administration was able to get was this scheme, which uses the market but also uses regulation to ensure that everybody can get on, to expand coverage for the port, and to require those who can afford health insurance to either buy that health insurance and not be a free rider, or pay a tax. this sounds like the reports that the supreme court upheld the provision, that individual mandate provision on the grounds that it is a tax. essentially, saying to people

who either do something, buy health insurance, or pay a tax. that was one of the arguments that was put forth by the obama administration in the court as to why the law was constitutional. >> scotus is saying largely the bottom line is the entire affordable care act is up help and cnn is still reporting was seems the opposite. justice's ruling overturns requirements that americans must buy health insurance. we're joined from right outside the supreme court by karen higgins from national nurses. barbara flowers is still there as well. -- margaret flowers is still there. the news they're bringing is contradictory. scotus blog insisting the aca has been upheld even though cnn says the mandate has been struck down. now cnn is reversing that. >> recall this earlier in the

week that the supreme court justices sided with the corporations, they would find the entire law constitutional. because this law is a corporate and allow for the private industries that are profiting off our current situation. the talking points are coming from people that are supporting -- they are partisan supporters of this law. health care for america now is the group elisabeth benjamin belongs to. we have got to stop making this political and start talking about the truth. what kind of coverage are people getting? medicaid. that is poor coverage. the entrance will still be bankrupt if you have a serious accident we must amend congress and the white house dropped two words from the medicare act, expand medicare to every person in this country. until we do that, we will not have a universal high quality health care system.

>> dr. margaret flowers, when you say drop two words, "over 65"? >> yes. expand to everyone. then we will have universal health care system that is publicly financed that is about health. with further privatized our system and gone in the wrong direction. if this was passed by romney, you would have the same people opposing it. we've got to stop making this about politics. we have to demand health care for every person -- >> dr. flowers, just before you go, what is your plan right now? you have justice roberts of voting to save the aca, joining the more progressive elements of the church or of the supreme court and they have up held this. so what is physicians for national health program going to

do right now? >> what we do every single day -- continue to educate and push for national medicare for all, advocate on behalf of every person, and demand what every other industrialized nation has which is a universal health care system. >> elisabeth benjamin, margaret flowers singer group is part of a coalition that is just there to support the democratic party. >> we are a non partisan institution. we do not support the democratic party. i don't want to make this personal it is personal to the lives of everyday americans, but our society runs a consumer assistance program. we have helped 73,000 new yorkers under the affordable care act in the last 18 months. those people need coverage. they do not want to wait for the day we can get medicare for all. we would all love that, i am sure, but right now we have the

reality we are dealt with. real people need health coverage. real people need to be able to deal with their medical bills. 63% of all americans in bankruptcy are there because of medical costs. >> let me go to david cole for a moment as scotus blog says, chief justice's vote saving the aca saying our president demonstrates congress has the power to impose the exact sections 5000 and of the taxing power and that section 5000 amy not be read to do more than impose a tax. this is sufficient to sustain it. what does that mean? >> the law on the taxing power has long been that congress can enact a tax for any purpose that it deems to further the general

welfare. unlike its regulatory powers congress's powers to order the people to do x, y, and the on pain of going to prison or the like, they have to point to make specifically granted power in the constitution. so many people were saying, well, the power to regulate the insurance purchase is the commerce power. this argument is different. it says because the only consequence of not purchasing health care insurance is you pay tax, and this is actually an exercise of the taxing power. the taxing power is unlimited in terms of substance as long as it comes in the form of a tax, and the penalty for not doing something the federal government tells you to do is a tax, there is a restriction on what congress can do. the court upholds the mandate as an exercise of the taxing power. >> karen higgins is standing

outside the supreme court, a nurse and the president of national nurses united. overall, it looks like the supreme court with the support of chief justice roberts has decided to uphold the patient protection and affordable care act president obama's law. your response, karen higgins? >> well, i hope this opens the debate once again about clearly, where are we going with health care? this bill is not health care. it is basically health insurance. it does not cover everybody in this country. there are millions who still do. you can mandate some to be insured, but if they cannot afford it -- if i need to feed my children and put a roof over my head, i'm not going to have insurance if those are my priorities in the economy right

now that is just devastating. what we hope is this will open the door for us to really talk about a true medicare for all system. we do this for the elderly and take care of them when they are over 65. we have had this program for over 40 years. it actually runs well and is cost containing. we think it needs to be expanded for everyone in this country. the only ones making good on this bill are insurance companies and drug companies. we will still see more and more people that i see coming into the emergency room that end up in icu's because they could not afford medications, could not go to a doctor because they could not afford it. and these are people who have health care. when you look at a between copiague, deductibles, these are a large chunk of change for people struggling every day to make ends meet. not going to a doctor because she cannot afford the cost, even up in the icu.

this is not acceptable in this country. what we hope will come out of this is we will truthfully have a very strong debate on what is really healthcare in this country and what is health insurance and what is the best thing for people in this country, and that would be truth health care. >> elisabeth benjamin? >> one of the interesting things under the law is states can experiment, so states like vermont want to move forward with the single payer system can do so, and we completely read -- respect the state's right to move forward with that. we expect many well. but in the meantime, many millions of americans and consumer health advocates are trying to work with the system we have. most americans get a job-based coverage and are comfortable with that. that is what the court has upheld. we will move forward and make the system better. the most important thing is for low-income americans, 30 million

low income americans can get free quality health coverage. we are really excited about that. and moderate-income americans can get tax subsidies that will defray the cost of having coverage. >> water the other special programs? for example, kids on their parents' insurance critics 3 million young and bolts that of come home, whenever a boomerang generation, there are not a lot of jobs for young people that have good, high-quality health care benefits. many of those kids have come back home to their parents or just come back started working jobs that do not have benefits. they can be added to their parents' coverage. that has made a difference and everyday lives. we helped one woman who lives in new york that came from college last year and was feeling really sick. she was not injured and started getting a job. she went home, was very sick and parents had protested. they thought she had cancer. they racked up $10,000 in bills.

it turns out she has crowns disease. we were able to get her on the pre-existing health insurance plan. it is a bridge to 2014 and every single state. she was able to get into this plan. a cover all the costs of her new chron's medication. on top of that in january, she was able to go on her parents' coverage for free. that is made a profound difference for her life. that is what is happening over and over. peopleit where we help individually. people have cancer. they go to the hospital until the have to pay $65,000 upfront or cannot go through the door. we can get them covered and suddenly, they can get care. it means a lot to real people. the >> but the idea this will set back the move for medicare for all? >> it has not sat back in

vermont at all. in those states were the people of those states are ready to go forward, we can get medicare for all. i think the problem is, many places, people are not quite ready for medicare for all. i personally may be, i think, but not every american is. we live in a democratic society. this is what we could get with our congress and our current president. it is an incredible leap forward for it just think of it. 30 million americans will be able to access quality affordable coverage, 2014 to the health insurance exchanges, which i like to think our kind of like costcos in the sky, purchasing and ball. small businesses will finally have an easy way to have coverage. we can do apples to apples comparison and buy health insurance at an affordable rate

and it incredible tax subsidies to do so. >> this is a key comment on medicaid expansion. this is from chief justice roberts. he said, nothing precludes congress from offering funds under the aca to expand the availability of healthcare and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. what congress is not free to do is penalize states that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing medicaid funding, that critical to tell you cannot take away the existing medicaid funds. we're joined on the phone right now by wendell potter, a well- known insurance industry whistleblower, senior analyst on healthcare at the center of public integrity, author of, "deadly spin: an insurance company insider speaks out on how corporate pr is killing health care and deceiving americans." wendell potter, you're also in vermont right now, which is a

state that is pushing for medicare for all. what about the supreme court decision? justice roberts siding with the more progressive members of the court, largely up holding the aca. >> i think it is a very it thing and certainly, it will indeed have a profound effect on many americans, almost everyone of us, and already has for many people. even for those in vermont, i will be speaking to advocates here who are working for single payer in vermont, the affordable care act provides funding that will enable the state to move forward. vermont is a small state. to do this without any support from the federal government would be a challenge. the state has to wait until 2017 without waivers to fully implement single payer, but i think it is a victory all-around for consumers, including those in vermont. >> joining us in washington, d.c., right outside the supreme court is hillary shelton for

the in tfrom the naacp. there are a number of single payer advocates there that are concerned this means the continuation of private insurance for some and no insurance for many. >> >> it continues to expand, but we knew we needed to address when we pass the affordable care act and the first place. we knew we had about 47 million americans without health care coverage or insurance. because that individuals families, even the hospitals were negatively affected by that predicament. this bill if fully implemented will add 32 million more americans to the health care role. we agree we have not completed the issue of covering all americans, but it is a major step forward. we have to make sure we do everything in our power so those 32 million, over 30% of which are african-american, have health care coverage.

>> where does the naacp go from here in terms of advocacy question progressive legislators talking about wanting a single payer initiative. many activists say the legislation is there, it just dropped the words "over 65" from medicare for all. >> we very much support the need to cover the rest of americans that are not yet covered, even by this law. it has to be fully implemented which means of preparations and other issues have to fall in line. but looking at those americans yet still be covered, we must push in that direction. single payer must be on the table as we have these discussions to cover all americans and provide health care insurance for all. >> david cole, still on the line from vermont, looking at scotus blog giving us a much of the accurate information coming out of the court right now, justice ginsburg would uphold medicaid just as congress wrote it.

that is not controlling crude going on to say, and opening statement in dissent, anthony kennedy says in our view the entire act before us is in balance in its entirety. david cole? >> that is quite remarkable. two things are remarkable. one, everybody thought kennedy was the decisive vote here, that if he went with the liberals, it would be upheld. if you want with the conservatives, it would be struck down. in fact, he went with the conservatives and chief justice roberts turned out to be the one who broke from the conservatives and went with the court with the liberals to uphold the law. the sector remarkable thing, at least from the opening line of justice kennedy's, the conservative justices joined by kennedy in this instance would have not only invalidated the individual mandate, they would have struck down the entire

statute because one particular provision they conclude it was unconstitutional. that is a really remarkable position, and really put us way back beyond square one in terms of starting over. >> and the idea this continues, a private entrance, will stop the momentum for saying clearly the whole system is broken? >> well, yes, but you cannot let the perfect the enemy of the good. this is a law, as hillary shelton underscored, that is going to have the effect of expanding health care to millions and millions of americans who did not have it before. it is also a law that ensures that people with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage, cannot be discriminated against, cannot be charged higher rates. it does a lot of good. yes, it is not the perfect law

or the best law, of course that was not the question before the court. the question before the court, "does congress have the power to step in and deal with a problem of national breath by enacting a broad based law that regulates the insurance industry and requires people who can afford to do so to buy into the system rather than be free riders?" and now we will be able to live without law. if it does not work, asbestos should, there will be room for reform in the future. but i think those -- it would of been good to be struck down because somehow it would be it is closer to single payer, are living in an

alternate universe. >> wendell potter, with a mandate they make a lot of money. we did hear even with that behind the scenes, there were working to support this legislation you were a top executive with two major insurance companies from spokesperson france at that and to manage. they have come out pretty well, haven't they? >> pretty well. they do not like the mandates penalty, in other words, they think the law does not penalize people enough for not buying coverage. so they are not of one mind within the industry. their concern the mandate would be struck and the other parts of the law go forward and that was their worst nightmare. i want to point out. a rate what others have been saying -- and reiterate what others have been saying. i think the industry realizes there will be under the gun to make sure they're better able to provide coverage to americans before the single payer movement

will get much stronger, and i think it well. not all single payer advocates are believing this is a setback. i travel and talk to a lot of health care advocates, including single payer advocates. i know many see this as i do, as the end of the beginning of reform, something we can build and must build on. it brings millions of people into coverage that we need to do. single payer people really support the notion we need to do all we can to bring people into coverage because it saves lives. >> elisabeth benjamin, in terms of the issue of saving lives, overall, medicare for all, if you could explain its, what it would mean and the difference between that and what we have right now? >> the medicare system is a system where the government reimburses providers, essentially, directly, although some use medicare through

managed care plans, the vast majority of americans who are seniors or have disabilities long-term use the medicare system to pay for their care. that is just a direct government to provider payment, essentially. this puts the insurance companies in the middle. it is building off the current system of employer-sponsored insurance coverage or job-based insurance coverage. what it does is it says that people who do not have medicare would go to the local state, if they did not have job-based coverage and that your employer will have to automatically enroll you in health insurance if you're in a large company and if your small employer, the have no requirement but it up to 50% tax subsidies if they do so. there is incredible incentive for small businesses to offer you health insurance coverage. in fact, it facilitates small

businesses to offer employees coverage. they will be setting up these little health insurance exchanges are marketplaces for the small businesses can go into an apple apple comparison and quickly and efficiently by coverage. the other thing it does, it offers these exchanges are marketplaces for individuals who do not have covered with tax subsidies, a ladder of subsidies as you go up the income scale, to buy insurance. finally, the third leg of the stool, it expands medicaid. medicare is for seniors and people with disabilities. medicaid is essentially free coverage for very low-income people. what this law does is built off the existing system trying to make it a little better. it also will generate i think $143 billion in deficit savings over 10 years.

and i guess another sort of component -- and there are many, many elements -- another element is it really starts to regulate the insurance industry. i think many of your prior speakers have put up a lot of legitimate concerns that the current private industry is not as regulated as it should be. i think the obama administration has taken those concerns very much to heart and mind of the state insurance commissioners also have taken the concerns to her -- many of the state insurance commissioners have also taken the concerns to heart. we will see more and more insurance regulation to really correct the bad actors in the market. >> i want to talk about racial disparities in health care, but i want to read a summary scotus summary blog is as the affordable care act including individual mandate that virtually all americans buy health insurance is constitutional. there were not five votes to

upheld on the ground that congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance, however, five justices agreed the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax congress can impose using its taxing power. that is all that matters because the mandate survives the court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute or constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for medicaid or risk losing funding. on that question, the court upheld the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they did not comply with the new requirements rather than all of their funding. again, that from scotus blog. hillary shelton is still with us in washington, d.c., outside the supreme court. he is the naacp washington bureau director and senior vice president for advocacy.

actually, i've been just told it is russell mokhiber with us, editor of the washington, d.c. based corporate crime reporter. your thoughts today on the supreme court, chief justice roberts siding with four other members of the court saying that the affordable care act is constitutional including the individual mandate? >> good morning. single payer action hits our economy and 50 doctors found an amicus brief asking them to strike down the obama mandate. we thought it was unconstitutional to force people like myself to buy lousy health insurance from major corporations. instead, we want to get rid of the insurance corporations. this is constitutional, get rid of the interest corporations and place them all with one single payer like taiwan and canada and the uk. this would no longer would we have 120 million americans dying

every day from lack of health insurance. we would control costs, have a system that most major western industrialized countries -- [no audio] they accused us of taking money from the republicans and all this because we are calling for the mandate to be struck down because the men to protect the insurance industry. but this was a bold, courageous

move, 50 medical doctors calling on the court to strike down the obama mandate and then let us all move to get rid of the insurance companies. but this fundamentally is not a legal issue, but a political one. what the court is telling us today is we have to figure out how to organize to move this congress to do the right thing, to do with the american people want, to do with the majority of doctors and nurses want and that is get rid of the insurance companies and have one single medicare for all payer. >> russell, what about the points david cole made about the perfect thing the enemy of the good. he is speaking to us from a vermont or they have passed health care for all. the idea that you work toward that, but still cover tens of millions of people more, russell mokhiber? >> vermont is not single payer. in fact, what is happening or

what would happen under obama would not cover 23 million people, even when it was fully implemented. people are going to suffer for probably five to 10 more years until the suffering becomes unbearable. then we will have to come to the conclusion the rest of the industrialized world has come to, and that is get rid of the insurance companies and have one single payer. i don't know if you heard about the harvard law professor who taught obama to courses on law saying obama must be defeated. the reason he said that was because obama pretends to be a progressive and he is not, that it puts out the idea this is a progressive law and it is not read it just protect his corporate funders. the supreme court today protected those binders as well. >> russell mokhiber, next to is congressmember from minneapolis, keith ellison, one of the members of the largest caucus in the house, i believe,

and that is the progressive caucus. and one of the issues that has been raised over the last few days is bad the members of the progressive caucus will launch a single payer initiative. congressmember ellison also happens to be the first muslim member of congress. welcome to the "democracy now!" special broadcast but as you speak outside the supreme court and you're the chief justice roberts joined with four other members of the court to uphold the affordable care act, what is your response? >> my responses that i think it is better that it was up and -- upheld than struck down. changes that happen in one fell swoop. i think the affordable care act, as much as i think it can barely

be questioned, was a giant leap over what we had before. 32 million more people get health care. the progress of women -- i think i just lost something. >> we can hear you fine. >> i hear a phone hung up. >> we can hear you, congressman ellison. keep talking. if the camera person or producers can tell the congressman to just keep on talking, that would be great. in a moment, we will go to michael moore responding to this. david cole, in vermont, the point vermont does not have universal health care? >> well, i am vacationing in vermont, not an expert on vermont.

again, i just think we should be or keep our eye on the ball. the question should be, should the supreme court overturn what congress and the president had enacted in attempting to extend to a large number of people who are not covered, health care insurance. the quid pro quo was to say to people who can afford it -- again, this only applies to people who can afford to buy health care insurance. look, you have to buy into the system or pay a tax break if you do not buy into the system, then you're part of the problem. you are a free rider. everybody has to be responsible to act together to ensure we can provide as broad health care insurance as possible. the question was whether congress has the authority to do that. i think we should be celebrating the fact the supreme court upheld that power. it does not mean this is the

best law that could ever have been enacted. it does not mean we still should be pressing for better health care insurance for all. but this is far better than the alternative. the alternative would have been denying health care insurance to the many, many millions of people this law extends to and going back to where we were before this massive effort to try to expand healthcare insurance was undertaken. >> we have congressmember keith ellison back in washington, d.c., part of the progressive caucus. co-head of the progressive caucus. what about the issue of a public option, with the progressive caucus plans to do? >> america needs it. it is what is needed. it is the next logical step. it is what we all have to fight for and educate for.

now that we know congress has the authority to regulate in this area, why should we stop now? i think we need a public auction and medicare for all in this will be a key feature of what we will continue to stand for. we also need to understand this should put wind in our sales. we should be more invigorated. if there's anything to worry about, the big worry is to make sure that insurance companies do not try to gouge their premiums. the other worry estimates to the progressive movement does not think, "ok, we won that one." now it is time to organize much more so. i would like to see some amendments that would allow states to pursue a single payer system, public auction system that would allow states to conglomerates and not just have exchanges in their own states but on a wider basis and really have accountability at these

interns companies, which is something that is sorely needed and has been for generations. i think there's a lot more work to be done. now we should get at it knowing at least this round of this step forward was protected. >> elisabeth benjamin? >> i was just one to say to his point about we need to work to prevent insurance companies from gouging us, there is a lot in the affordable care act that does go to that. basically, the affordable care act says insurance companies must spend at least 15% of every premium dollar, so a 85% of every premium dollar, on health care costs. only 15%, which is still too much in my opinion, to be spent on profit, administration, and a bunch of other stuff. right now many, many insurance products for the insurance companies are only spending 75

cents or 60 cents of every dollar on health care costs. this is a huge step. it is a beginning of a long conversation about the role of insurance carriers, but there is aggressive regulation that is built in to protect us. consumer protections for us who have health insurance. it is an exciting day. >> congressmember alison? >> that is absolutely right. but we have to make sure these are fully utilized and enforced. states would be able to take legal action if they feel they're being gouged and having premiums rise at an extraordinary rate beyond any sort of rationality. there are a few ways to try to hold insurance companies more and more accountable. the big buffer now will be to fully implement the law. and number of states are

resisting the implementation of the exchanges. right now, hhs has to make sure that every state has one, functioning as intended, and until we really let the affordable care act so in. when people see it the way they see medicare, the way they see social security. nobody ever said we cannot improve medicare and social security. we will and we have. >> congressmember keith ellison, thank you for being with us, a member of the progressive caucus and elisabeth benjamin as return to michael moore and los angeles. he is the academy award winning filmmaker who made the 2007 documentary "sicko >> among other films. your response to the supreme court led by chief justice roberts up holding the affordable care act? >> i think -- the mistake the

positive first. this is a huge victory for our side, in spite of all my concerns with this law that it did not go far enough, does not cover all americans, not true universal health care. nonetheless, the right wing has been handed a serious defeat today. this is a real smacked down of the way they believe our country should be structured. on that alone, everybody should feel really good right now. i know we're not used to you so areeuphoria. in this case, i think everybody should stop today and celebrate this victory. tomorrow, we have to keep moving

the ball down the field. we have to work toward medicare for all so everyone is covered, single payer, all these things. it would have been harder to move that all of the decision had gone the other way today. the best thing about this is its moves history forward on the right path toward what we will eventually have, just as every other civilized country has it. on that level, i feel really good. to mark, or maybe even later today, we will start talking about how this law was also structured to create huge, huge profits for insurance companies. in the end, we cannot allow private insurance, people making a profit of people getting sick, a private entrance is not the way to go.

we have to keep moving. >> i want to remind people about the documentary you did which goes very much to the point you just made, michael moore, this is a trailer of "sicko." >> to make good docs are getting out of business. cannot ob/byn's practice. >> win michael moore started to make a movie, top-level executives were on the defensive. what are they hiding? >> that is not on, right? >> no. >> all right. >> if you did nine more people health care, you got a bonus? >> when you do not spend money, it is a savings to the company. >> i want america that the finest health care and the world. >> here is what it costs to buy these men, this woman, this guy

and this guy and the united states. to a slightly ahead of slovenia. >> i denied unnecessary operation and caused a man's death. >> in the world's richest country -- >> i work three jobs >> uniquely american, isn't it? that is fantastic. >> i get a bill from my insurance company telling me the ambulance ride was not preapproved i don't know when i was supposed to pre approve it, after i gained consciousness and the car? before i got in the ambulance? >> is the only medicine. >> there's one place on american soil that has free universal health care. >> guantanamo bay. >> detainees are given access

to top notch medical facilities. >> permission to enter. i have 3 9/11 rescue workers for it i just want the same kind of medical attention the evildoers are getting pretty >> there is michael moore, the fifth anniversary of his documentary. he is on videostream with us from los angeles. he is responding to the supreme court upholding the affordable care act. and those that sided with chief justice who was the swing vote in the decision, rick pittard is for, steven r. consumnes sotomayor and elena kagan. a lot of single payer advocates know it is not a surprise he sided with them because it was siding with the insurance industry. certainly an industry you have taken nine and targeted you. your thoughts when you say tomorrow we began the fight for medicare for all, on what direction that should go? >> toward exactly wages said, medicare for all. we need to expand medicare for

all the citizens of this country. of course this is something the insurance companies do not want to happen because of the milly, medicare for all will not worked if the people are not in charge of its. the insurance companies will be calling the shots. they will be restricted more than they were in the past. for instance, one of the great things about today is the provision they cannot deny people because of pre-existing conditions. apparently, that stands. the fact parents can keep their children up to the age of 26 on their health insurance, that stands. there are the smaller provisions -- the key talking about the mandate been the centerpiece. there are other pieces up the law i think are just as important if not more so. the mandate -- i mean, i have

never supported it because it mandates people to give money to these profit-making insurance companies. it would be dirnment ran that you and i were in charge of, then, yes, everybody has to be part of the system. we're all in this together. we'll have to share the burden and take care of each other. so that is the part that needs to continue. the national nurses union is going to lead the way on this. we should get behind their efforts. i am very optimistic. i know we have a hard road ahead of us. but if you just take the long but if you just take the long view of this, every step of