in the a.c.a. itself. that's a problem we should deal with and we should make it clearer, more transparent what's happening. i think ibelieve that question will be the next generation of health care ideas, reforms, debates and the presidential context and elsewhere. because i think people are concerned about that. but i hope tanow that we've had two supreme court cases 50 attempts in the house we can actually move on to a debate about health care costs at large. >> ifill: neera tanden for the center for american progress and michael cannon of the cato institute, thank you both very much. >> thanks for having me. >> ifill: the justices also ruled on another significant aspect of american life, housing segregation. as we mentioned earlier a closely-divided court found that housing discrimination, whether it occurs by zoning or home sales, does not have to be intentional for plaintiffs to sue. again, we turn to marcia coyle. tail us about that case. >> okay the fair housing act of 1968 makes it illegal

the a.c.a. has lowered health care costs, preventive disease and helped cures. i believe there are certain areas for improvement in the a.c.a. and i'm committed to working in a bipartisan manner to solve these issues and provide our constituents with the world-class health care that they deserve. the a.c.a. is a good law and a few small tweaks can make it stronger and that's why i decided to reach across the aisle to work with congressman roe on this legislation. repealing ipab is not the exclusive purview of the republican party and it is a bipartisan effort. unfortunately, much like the last time congress considered ipab repeal in 2012 an unpalatable pay-for undermined the bipartisan support for a deal. i know congressman roe has worked tirelessly to avoid repeating the pay-for battle that we had back in 2012 in order to retain democratic support. despite these efforts, republican leadership has chosen to draw from the prevention and public health fund to pay for h.r. 1190, and this is somethin

today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. -- today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. today's a new day for the a.c.a. >> my flame is ron pollack. i'm executive director of families u.s.a. which is the national organization for health care consumers and with me is gwen jackson from texas who is one of the millions of people who are receiving the subsidies that were upheld today by the supreme court. make no mistake about this. today's decision has 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. it means that the millions of people who have been receiving subsidies that make all the difference in

is the a.c.a. now the law of the land? is it here to stay? should the g.o.p. still work to replace it? if you are an affordable care act enrollee, we want to get your view as well. if you can't get through on the phone lines, make penchant via c-span media. and send an e-mail todown @c-span org. here's "u.s.a. today" "obama care prevails." "wall street journal" says that the high court saves health law. and "washington post" "health care act survives court." here is the "washington times." "supreme court saves obama care." and here is "the new york times." "justices give obama another health care victory." in the attached article, the impact of the law appears most clearly in the shrinking number of uninsured americans in 2014. the number of people without health insurance coverage fell to 36 million from 44.8 million in 2013, a decline of nearly 20% according to data released this week by the national center for health statistics. -- host: that's a little bit from "the new york times". >> peter, the president says the law is here to stay. what will republican

you can't support the goals of the a.c.a. and then start stripping out the pieces of law that fund the realization of the goals. oh, but you can and you've tried 56 different times to repeal this legislation and you failed every time. even now you're in the majority. this legislation would add $24.4 billion to the deficit through the speaker to my good friend from pennsylvania. and it is not paid for. despite industry claims of job loss and economic hardship, medical device companies have seen a 7% growth in employment since the a.c.a. so furthermore i remain concerned about some of the behavior we have seen in this industry. another minute? the speaker pro tempore: the chair would like the gentleman to address his remarks to the chair. mr. pascrell: sure, mr. speaker. i became highly involved in the medical device issues in 2007 when a number of device manufacturers entered into controversial deferred prosecution agreements for providing doctors with kickbacks for using their knee and hip replacement devices. as a result of t

the a.c.a. was to -- especially with subsidized insurance was intended to reduce emergency room visits. again, that's what i'm seeing in ohio. commissioner mcpeak, you mentioned that many insurers have made changes on the networks to limit providers people can see. what has your state experience been? commissioner mcpeak: we are now beginning to see very limited networks attached to rates and plans for the 2016 plan year. was i mentioned before. i do think that's an attempt by the insurers to moderate the rate increases. it has been requested and provides choice to consumers so you could have a skinnier network and potentially reduce your own cost if you're willing to take the risk that you may not have full access to the wide provider network to which you are accustomed. mr. renacci: what about the president's problem promise if you could keep your doctor worked out? commissioner mcpeak: that's about the same as the you can keep your policy if you like it. that's not working out well. we are hea

cheers erupted for the a.c.a. affordable care act outside the court as the announcement was made it is a big victory for the president that obama care can now proceed, it is the second time in three years that the court has ruled against major challenges to the healthcare act. >> the affordable care act is here to stay this morning the court upheld a critical part of this law. >> if the partisan challenge to this law had succeeded millions of americaning would have had thousands of dollars worth of tax credits taken from them. for many insurance would have been unaffordable again many would be uninsured again everyone's premiums could have gone up. america would have upon backwards and that's not what we do, that's not what america does we move forward. >> he says he was threatened after denouncing the president for a third term in office, at least 77 people have been killed in the two months of violence protests sparked by the announcement which his opponent says is unconstitutional cars have been overturns in th

. >> senator, there are additional cases that are charging the a.c.a., they have been on hold, do opponents have a case after the supreme court decision today. i suppose at some point we can continue to see legal actions taken none of the consequences for the one we had three years ago will be at stake however. there will be other issues and i think they can be litigated but by and large i think we have seen the end of the major ones for a long time to come. >> others are saying get over it, move on, will the fighting over the affordable care act in your opinion just increase after this? there is an opportunity to look for ways to work together. there is a yearing to find ways in which to work on ways that avoided the controversy around the affordable care act. this could trigger new environment for that work to continue in a more meaningful way. >> >> last question, to what extent will this issue do you think be at the forefront of the campaign? republicans no doubt want to keep up the fight, do you think their base will support support. >> i think the base will continue to demand the rhet

. >> supporters of the a.c.a. or affordable care act cheered outside the court as the announcement was made. it is a big victory for the president and the second time in three years the court has ruled against major challenges to the healthcare act. >> the affordable care act is here to stay. the part that has made it easier for americans to afford health insurance regardless of 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. and that's not what we do, we move forward. >> they are hoping to bring war crimes charges against israeli officials. documents also allege crimes in last year's war the authority joins the i.c.c. this year, a move rejected by israel. the i.c.c. chief prosecutor has told al jazeera the court wants to

advisor to the budget discusses the decision to uphold subsidies in the affordable care act and how the a.c.a. has been working overall and why health care reform in general has become such a divisive issue. radio and talk show host armstrong williams, cousin to the slain charleston emanuel a.m.e. pastor clementa pinckney talks and we talk about the iran nuclear negotiations. as always, we take your calls and join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> in his weekly address, president obama reacts to the supreme court's ruling on health care. senator john bozeman of arkansas has the government's response and talks about defense spending. john: hi everybody. president obama: we declared in health care it is not a privilege for few but a right for all. this week 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, we can now say this for certain the affordable care act still s

at least that was the plan until someone, he wrote decided to try and derail the a.c.a. for the umpteenth time. if things go bad with this decision please do all you can to remember those who have worked their entire lives. to remember those who have worked their entire lives. what the supreme court could do and what clearly most republican members of this body and the house of representatives want the supreme court to do is strike this law down so that -- this part of this law down so 161,000 ohioans will either lose their insurance by losing their subsidy or pay increased fees, taxes in the years ahead. connie in cincinnati wrote after the lower court decision came down un, she said the a.c.a. has been a godsend for her. i believe strongly in the importance of having health care i recently qualified for catastrophic health plan with tax credits on healthcare.gov. paying for it is a stritch but i willingly bit the bullet. ohio is one of the states that opted out of establishing its own state plans. that was not a problem until yesterday. now facing a plan that may be ine

supreme court has upheld packs crucial to the healthcare reforms sup is porters of the a.c.a. cheered outside the court, as the announcement was made it is a big victory, and is the second time in collie years the court has ruled against major challenges to the healthcare act. al jazeera joins live from outside the street this must be a huge relief to the president. >> it means in the legal realm goes away but the police discussion about whether became care will continue between republicans and democrats. so what happened at the supreme court, well, essentially, a case was brought by critics of obama care that 13 states and washington, d.c. have set up their own exchanges that's where people can go and buy health insurance but for states not involved in that, they rely on federal funds established by the state exchanges established by the state, and the critic said, well, if there's not a state one, then you can't give them subsidies. rather than the exact words but a majority of six to three what would it mean if it went the other way? 6.4 americans would have to lose the tax

i had some preexisting conditions that dropped off with the a.c.a. and i'm so relieved and my premium has gone up in the last year but i understand the reasons for that. i think it would be much improved if we had more regulations in the healthcare industry because -- you have to realize all our medical industry is for profit and that goes from your hospitals to doctors to insurance companies and drug companies who keep developing new diseases to sell us their drugs for. i think that uncle sam needs to get in and shake down that industry and put in more regulation. i think we would see costs going down. i think they take advantage of what's going on now. their profits have gone way up. host: you say your premiums have gone up in the last year. before you had healthcare coverage because you had these preexisting conditions, how much were you paying out of pocket under the affordable care act? caller: i always had my own insurance policy. i've been unemployed for some time and my premiums were around $500 a month, but i had a benign cyst they had to kee

upheld a key provision, this time even moredy fintive definitively, after this ruling it appears the a.c.ar now is on firm legal ground now this case is officially called king verses bear well, of course, is the secretary of health and human services. king, is david king, one of the four plaintiffs residents of virginia who were recruited to take on obama care and get this case to the supreme court i reached david king by facebook to ask him how he felt about the decision, and he was a man of little words he told me, politics, over law. obviously, john supporters feel very differently. republicans have tried for years to undue the affordable care act, and they won't let today's ruling change that, mike? the president's estimation, over 50 times they have tried to chip away or out and out appeal it. and while the president said he was confident all along that the supreme court would uphold the law after the decision came down, a clear sense of relief from the west wing. in the wake of the decision, the president echos the chance outside the supreme court. >> the affordable care act is here

. >> i think we have been talking about the a.c.a. for five years. it's part of the republican dna.o talk about it, voters want to hear about it. i think there will be pressure to go into detail that if you get rid of the affordable care act, what are the alternatives? but i think the next few months between now and the nomination i think they will talk about it. i don't think they will quite have the passion in talking abit they once did because you can only have passion for so long. >> woodruff: some republicans are even relieved the court went the way they did because it puts them in a stronger position during the general election. let's turn to the court's other big decision last friday and that, of course was upholding same-sex marriage. it's interesting to see and we're going to show the audience how some of the republicans divide on this. there were a group -- they all disagree with the decision, but some are saying we are going to walker, rick santorum, and then the other group says we oppose what the court did but we accept it and they don't seem to be making as big an issu

legal challenges are winding their way through the lower courts, but after this ruling it appears the a.c.a. for now is on firm legal ground. >> this battle for the affordable care act is over, but the law is still the subject of dozens of lawsuits, including one from the house of representatives that you sees the obama administration of ignoring key parts of the allow specifically money used to reimburse insurers for offering lower rates to poor people. several cases challenge the birth control mandate. the supreme court said family owned corporations cannot be forced to pay for contraception if it invites religious beliefs. there are challenges that lets people transition from health plans to don't meet the law's requirements. >> the president had a lot to say after the court's ruling. we'll bring you his reaction and talk more about challenges still ahead for the affordable care act. >> the supreme court on thursday handed down an important decision on civil rights and housing. in a close vote, the court kept in place a tool used for decades to prevent housing discrimination. >> in texas

the overall data i think is essentially saying that we ought to begin on this point to rip apart the a.c.a. because in every case there hasn't been an improvement for every company. and in terms of research and development, the ernst & young report makes it very clear that spending by the industry increased by 6% the same year. so i'm just asking everybody who cares about health care reform, who cares about the overall picture here in the united states resist the temptation to take a several examples, perhaps from their own district, and draw a conclusion about what really has happened in the medical device industry and essentially to come forth because of those relatively few examples and say we should now essentially repeal this provision, costing well over $20 billion unpaid for permanently. that's not only contrary to the letter i read, it's contrary to fairness within the health care industry and it's really unfair to the millions of people who have benefited from a.c.a. when the motive really of so many republicans who come here is not to simply this tax but part of an effort to esse

the concern is that this final rule goes well beyond what was intended by the a.c.a. e obligations are imposed not only on chain restaurants including delivery establishments, but also on any other chain retailer that sells nonpackaged food such as grocery stores salad bars and males to go. small businesses that are not chain restaurants, but are subject to the rule, will face a dramatic increase in regulatory compliance costs. consumers most assuredly will see higher food costs, perhaps fewer choices. some retailers, may find it advantageous to stop selling restaurant-food all together. instead of purchasing fresh sandwiches, consumers will buy prepackaged sandwiches because they will not have to comply. fixing this could fix thousands that otherwise would be burden ened with regulations that would be costlyp. according to the office of management and budget, the proposal would be the third most burdensome regulation proposed in 2010. 148,536,183 hours to comply. the objective is to provide clarity, flexibility and certainty for these companies. while also ensuring co

it might go well beyond the a.c.a. >> it came down to four words. ntee these 34 exchanges that were created by the state. it was by the state. that was what the key was. i think the 6-3 is a surprise. it wasn't even close. >> the court says it must read the words in their context for the overall statutory scheme. many people believed they had a strong argument the government here, given that. the court agreed >>> joining us this morning, anna gupta, senior health care service analyst. she joins us to talk about the decision. >> thanks very much. good morning. >> walk us through what's important here. >> i think this was surprising. the street clearly expected that the ruling would be favorable for the government. the stocks were trading pretty much in that manner. very positive for the health care facility stocks. the stocks are rallying very nicely on na news. not as much of the fundamental incompetent pact for the managed care names trading on merger speculation. it takes some of that uncertainty out of the equation for managed care as well. >> ana

is the a.c.a. now the law of the land? is it here to stay? should the g.o.p. still work to replace it?

president, i could continue on to share more numbers that prove that the a.c.a. is working for our families in wisconsin and in states across the country. but the real proof the real story is about the faces and the people behind these numbers. it's about real people, real wisconsinites who are realizing the benefits of this law every day. wisconsinites like doug from colgate, wisconsin. at age 62, doug was worried about becoming uninsured. he and his wife had been insured through her employer, but she was about to apply for medicare. fortunately doug was able to find an affordable health plan on the affordable care act marketplace and he did not have to lie awake at night worrying about being denied coverage due to his recent heart surgery or another preexisting condition. real wisconsinites like kim of west alice. kim runs a small costume shop. she lost medicaid coverage when her son turned 18 years old. she went without medical care because she couldn't afford it, even though kim's doctor had found an indication of cancer during a hysterectomy. then she signed

out of our own pockets as american citizens, everybody pays into medicare and you stole it during the a.c.a. and the republicans talked about that. and now you're stealing it over a trade deal plus you're probably going to push immigration for legal immigration. how about just raising tariffs to what the other countries have or maybe a little more and building stuff here for american citizens in the united states? we're a proud hardworking people. we can do things. we can build stuff here for us. we don't need these -- we don't need this trade deal that's just ruining our country like nafta did. it is disgusting. i can't believe you're even -- they're even talking about passing this thing. they say they're just debating part of it, but they're going to pass it the next vote they have. >> well, debate's ahead on the house floor live here on c-span within the next five minutes or so. and coming out of that meeting some reporting here from jonathan of "the new york times" two tweets that obama's message to dems, quote play it straight. don't get cute killing trade assistance to kill trade prom

instead of paying hospitals for the services they provide because of the a.c.a. hospitals many of the hospitals are penalized for that. despite climbing readmission rates since 2007, those rates started to fall with the affordable care act. hospitals are responding to the incentives of the affordable care act and more of their patients are getting better and staying better. the solvency of the part a trust fund is now 13 years longer than it was prior to the passage of the affordable care act when means it will be solvent 313 years-month years which the trustees said in 2010 said had substantially improved the status of the trust fund. the law closed the doughnut hole that moment in time seniors weren't covered by part d and had to reach into their savings account. since the passage of the affordable care act people with medicare in illinois have saved over $554 million on prescription drugs. we closed the doughnut hole with the affordable care act. that's an average saving for each senior in illinois of $925. those who want to abolish the affordable care act hav

this cliff doesn't just affect individuals who get their coverage through the a.c.a. e design of the subsidies under obamacare and couples and families will face them at different levels of income as their household size changes. what will these bait and switch health insurance premiums do to incentives to work harder, to earn more, to accept promotions? if you accept a promotion at work and then your income goes over that magic 400% of poverty threshold, you're going to lose your entire subsidy so you might well decide to turn down that raise at work or that opportunity to be promoted to a better job. what kind of the system has been designed to discourage people from moving ahead in the workplace? now, mr. president in the state of maine so far we have learned that at least 1,000 maine families have lost their subsidies completely because they were in that situation where their income went over that threshold. another thousand mainors are finding out that they're losing part of their subsidy and are going to be on the hook for paying more money. and i will say to my