blue cross/blue shield knows my profile as well as every other insurer in oklahoma. they know whether i'm an efficient physician. they know whether i order excess tests. they actually have a profile -- every insurance company in this country knows everything about every doctor's purchasing habits. they actually measure each doctor by what it costs them to care for an identical diagnosis. one of the things that's happening to medicare patients, because doctors are opting out, the people who are not opting out of medicare are not the best physicians. the ones that are opting out are the wunones that don't need medicare patients. so market forces should reward doctors who are efficient, and get there. well, who knows that? medicare knows it, too, but you know it's anybody that wants to -- as long as you qualify for medicare, you're eligible, you're going to get paid. there's no market force on the quality of the physician, but there is, if i'm way outside for blue cross/blue shield, you know what happens next year? they don't want me. they don't want to allow their patients to come see me, because i'm not an efficient or effective doctor. that's one of the things that is really positive. i have another story, i don't have time to go into it but suffice it to say we resisted an insurance company who offered us a contract, my former partners and i, for caring for a large number of people who worked in the industrial plants in my hometown. we told them no, it wasn't enough money, and we said go find out whether or not you think we're efficient. well ultimately they came back and offered to pay us 20% more than they were paying anybody else in town, because we were about 30% more efficient than the rest of the doctors in town in this one large group. so what they did is they looked at the data, and what they found is they want to have physicians that are efficient that don't overorder tests. we don't have any of that mechanism going on in senior he

blue cross/blue shield. they're now saying, we want this to apply on the whole national level, blue cross/blue shield does, becausey want to force obama to buy their product. >> sam, can we get obamacare without mitt romney? what do you think? >> i don't appreciate the fact we're being forced to buy this corporate product, but basically, this is what republicans were campaigning. i think it's quite possible that romneycare, call it romneycare. the fact is there's going to be a very tough time politically to deal with the implications of this if is -- you get a ruling in june. more or less we expect you to come to the end of the race. then you have the campaign debates then you say from june to october, and then it's over. this could be a. where one issue come natures over everybody else. who is that good for? >> just like the financial cries, i wouldn't have expected the party who did the pass the bailout through congress to be one that benefited from bailout anger, which is what happened in '08. i think anyone who says they know now the political fallout, i think they're wrong. i think it could easily break one w

of blue cross blue shield she said this is a direct quote unquote people can literally buy coverage on the way to the hospital and drop it the next day and quote it would devastate the health insurance industry which frankly in my opinion doesn't deserve to exist and throw a terror health care system into chaos in other words this is a great opportunity if they do it we already have a very good national single payer health care care program or insurance system here in the us it covers every american over sixty five years old whether they're a billionaire or whether they're living in poverty it has never ever missed a payment to anybody. this system this national single payer system that we have right now in the united states costs about three percent overhead instead of thirty percent more or less at the for profit companies skim off the top it's more efficient it's more cost effective it's called medicare and it needs only three basic adjustments first take out the republican poison pill that forces medicare to pay ten dollars for an aspirin that the v.a. can buy for a penny let medic

this out for the eighty's he worked in the private sector lobbying on behalf of firms like blue cross blue shield and the ninety two was a federal government employees serving as a deputy chief of staff to president clinton up until he left office then reset he went back to the private sector where he started his own lobbying firm with his brother and estate on that side of operations until his most recent appointments so he did the he shifted gears quite a few times in the past two decades and in fact she was originally hired to work as a part of clinton's presidential campaign in two thousand and eight and then senator obama was giving hillary hell for not following his lead on the no lobbying front. cultures working the special interests and lobbyists. for the better. they have. to. learn what the all the way that you were. so that ordinary people can always heard it is if you stop thinking about it for love is like i still do. so now how is it possible that this well known lobbyist has a new gig in the white house well because he knows how to play the game so keeping to his word team obama ma

supreme court had if the individual mandate is struck down according to the vice president of blue cross blue shield yesterday the health insurance market will melt down she said if they strike down the mandate keep everything else somebody could buy an insurance policy in the ambulance on the way to the hospital and cancel it and they leave the hospital and you know which is a disaster on the other hand if they strike down the whole thing there's over one hundred million americans with preexisting condition conditions which means that the insurance company's going to. you know after us or a third of us republican attorney general buddy caldwell of the great state of louisiana was one of the twenty six plaintiffs in this case so in the government and here's what he had to say about why he thought obamacare should go down watch this. but you don't think the subsidies for low income people to buy health insurance are going to be helpful no no and the worst thing you can do is give it to an insurance company i want to make my insurance companies an absolute worst people to handle this kind of big how c

blue cross blue shield, $21 million, and is it any surprise that those same corporations get tax break after tax break, loosened regulations and keeping the private healthcare system exactly how it is why? look at all the money they're giving to the politicians. that's why. cbs news did a great undercover report on a getaway that some of these tea partyers had. they went down to the florida keys with lobbyists to party. >> we secretly sent our cameras along for an inside look where super interest got the kind of access that ordinary americans can only dream of. on the golf course. at a bar. at a private beach lagoon. book your key largo getaway now reads the invitation. here's congress canseco and gardener to host happy hour. donors had to pay $10,000. during his campaign, gardner promised average voters would inspire his actions. >> i'll always put colorado families before the washington special interests. >> but in key largo gardner appeared to give special interest lots of face time. here he talks to an attendee who says he works for a bank. >> of course, giving $10,000 i'm right there fancy vacations at golf courses etc. well, sharyl attkinson is doing this great report. she's going give us more detail here. >> some congressmen brought their spouses and special interests got to share lively dinner conversation at a restaurant with gourmet delights such as baby octopus and crispy duck. >> there is gardner and congressman bachus who recently became subject of an ethics investigation whether he used his position for personal gain, which he denies. we found canseco mingling over drinks, then congressman sessions joins the conversation. an individual can legally give $46,200 to this organization. >> more great dining and but probably they're not getting chummy with those lobbyists. they're not going to give them anything in return? what do the lobbyists get in return? sharyl attkinson asked that as well. >> one of the congressmen agreed to an interview. they referred us to paul lindsey at of the republican committee. >> they're getting the republican house. >> nine of the key largo are on the economy that regulates banks. no one would give us the donor guest list but we know it includes one bank lobbyist. pete sessions is who is chairman of the national commission committee. >> unless you can guarantee me that president obama and nancy pelosi are not going to spend any money against republican candidates in the fall we'll do everything we can to have resourceshaveresources necessary to compete. >> that is a great report by cbs news. charlie charlie asked every one of those congressmen to respond. shockingly enough they were in hiding and they wouldn't respond. one last thing but howdies ingenuous the response was from that republican was. he said, look, i can't do it because the democrats are raising money. but the democrats aren't the ones who lobbied to make sure we could lift spending limits and corporations can give unlimited money to politicians. it was republicans who argued for that. they love this result because when you're competing over who is going to sell out to corporations better, republicans always win. so now i'm going to talk to someone who has expertise here. we might have an interested opinion. we have dave wenhold the former president of the american league of lobbyists from 2008-2010. that means he lobbied for the lobbyists, which is an amazing thing. and then co-funder of miller/wenhold capitol strategies right now. so dave, thanks for joining us. we appreciate it. i'll let you go first. you saw the tapes there. what is your defense? >> well, cenk, thanks for having me. i appreciate being here on your show. i did see that, and fortunately the everything is doing everything legal. most americans don't know--there is a huge misperception of what lobbyists actually do. i've always believed that every american should an lobbyist because the government is doing something to you or for you every day. i don't think it's unprecedented access at all. it costs millions of dollars to run a campaign, and those lobbyists are acting on behalf of the associations that they work for or companies like you mentioned. >> right. >> so, dave, let me get in there then. i'm not saying it's illegal and sharyl attkinson never said that in her report. the problem is what is legal and what is legal lobbyists can go in, give campaign contributions, wine and dine and then they get the result they want. one example the oil industry. in 2009-2011 congress there was $25 million over $25 million given to congressmen by the oil industry and the fossil fuel industry overall because gas as well. they spent $347 million overall. that is a ton of money. you don't spend $347 million as an industry unless you get something in return, which they did. they got over $20 billion in subsidies in those two years. like if you're an average american can you see dave, you look at that and say lobbyists obviously bought these politician. that's not democracy. i hate that. >> well, you know, it's interesting the campaign finance reform, i agree with you, it's broken. i don't like the citizens united issue. i don't think corporations should have the same rights as the individuals. that being said, these lobbyists that you saw in the piece they will be putting how much they give at the end of the quarter and they're acting ethically. >> no, no, those are two different things. legally and ethically are two different things. you can be legal and be entirely unethical. that's part of why i'm not a politician. these people ask me from time to time are you going to run for office? in this system, then i have to suck up to those guys and say absolutely, mr. oil company i'll give you what you want. that's not ethical. do you see how the american people are so frustrated. that's why congress got 11% approval rating because we believe that those guys work for the guys that they partied with in the florida keys, not for us. even though tea party guys said we'll be different. my ass they're different. >> it does cost all that money to run for office. and until the american citizens start pony up $2,000 a piece out of their pocket, the campaign finance system is going to stay the way it is. i'm a big advocate for changing the finance reform system. i think it's broken. but unless congress does that, it's not the lobbyists fault that we're acting within the rules out there and what was interesting, cbs, who did that nice piece spent $820,000 last quarter on lobbying. they have $112,000 pac. >> no, no, that's absolutely true. and the media companies do it just as much. that's a very fair point. that's why i often criticize them. but that was a fantastic piece. dave wenhold, thank you for joining us. i love to see that the lobbyists of the lobbyists agrees that the campaign finance system is broken. thank you, dave. >> absolutely. thanks for having me. >> now, when we come back, oh, speaking of things that are broken. two powerful democratic senators speak out saying you have no idea. they literally say you will be stunned to find out how we're abusing the patriot act now is president obama really fighting for our civil liberties? we'll does that when we come back. >> we don't have to settle for a patriot act that the ted conference held here every year in southern california is an event designed to bring the brightest minds in the world together to share their most powerful, influential and creative ideas. the speakers share a common goal, making the world a better, smarter place through innovation, technology and the power of big ideas. the human brain is the most complex machine in the world. there are as many as a hundred-billion neurons firing at any given moment responsible for everything from breathing to dreaming to deciding what to have for dinner. but, neuroscientist gregory gage has built a machine that lets you see inside the mind of a cockroach and even control some of it's decisions. gage's creation is called backyard brains and it's a neurosurgery kit for kids. by conducting very small amounts of electricity into the antennae, the insect responds as if it's getting a signal from its own brain. users can control some of it's basic movments like whether the roach moves left or right. it's not exactly brain surgery but backyard brains is a small glimpse into how thinking works. scion: what moves you. but for today's game i'm a little... [ neck cracks ] fuzzy. so you tried to fix me. but you just made me loose. newsflash. if you have cut rate insurance you might not be covered for this. so get allstate and protect your house and car from mayhem like me. [ dennis ] dollar for dollar, nobody protects you from mayhem like allstate. [clucking]. everyone wants to be the cadbury bunny. cause only he brings delicious cadbury crÈme eggs, while others may keep trying. nobunny knows easter better than cadbury! >> all right we're back on "the young turks," and we've got devastating use about secret use of the patriot act. we'll get to that in a second. but first i want to remind you of president obama back when he was a senator in 2005 talking about how dangerous the patriot act might be. >> this law the very purpose to protect us was threatening to violate some of the rights and freedoms that we hold most dear. that's why come time to reauthorize the usa patriot act to show the american people that the federal government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to so, not because it can do so. i believe we owe to the nation, we owe it to those who fought or our civil liberty we owe it to our children to craft the type of legislation that would make us proud not legislation because we're in a rush. we don't need to sacrifice our liberties other safety, we can have one that secures both. >> the good ol' days when president obama when he pretend to care about civil liberties which parentally he does not. we found out from two senators that the patriot act has been used in stunning ways, the excuse of citizens without a trial, and eric holder had this to say. >> the president is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against the united statescy who is a senior leader of al-qaida and associated forces. this is not accurate. due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. the constitution guarantees due process. it does not guarantee judicial process. >> thank you for clarifying that mr. nixon i mean, mr. holder. what the hell does due process mean if you don't go to court for it. that's ridiculous. now senator wyden and udall are not one to criticize the president lightly. quote. as we see it there is a neglect gap between what most americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows. we're talking about section 215 of the patriot act which apparently the government is doing stunning things with it that are totally outside of what the text of the law says. they go on to clarify. we would also note that in recent months we have grown increasingly accidental about the actual value of the intelligence collection operation. this is come as a surprise to us as we wer initially inclined to take the executive branch's assertions about thehe importae of this operation at face value. now, they've got classified information about how this is being abused, the patriot act. they're saying, we can't tell you, but it's really, really bad, and the president is barely making a case for why it's legal. and even if he is, that's also secret. this is an outrageous abuse of our civil liberties it appears. i'm going to bring to you sam seder. great to have you here. >> thanks, cenk. >> not what we were hoping for from a democratic president three years ago. >> who is a constitution allah professor. you played his speech on the floor in 2005. what we're seeing today with these two senators coming out is actually similar to what they said over a year ago but today they're also saying that there is no need for this. and so in other words, a year ago they triedo amendment the reauthorization of the patriot act, and they said at the time or they offered an amendment because they didn't want to speak to it directly because they're supposed to be keeping this stuff secret. they tried to put an amendment in to reauthorization. these two senators that basically said you need to interpret the law as the americans who see the law expect you to interpret it. in other words there is a second interpretation of that section where people are speculating that it's section 215 that the probably the office of legal counsel has that is secret. they're essentially making law in secret. today the senators are now coming out and saying not only are they making secret law to reinterpret a law for the public that thinks they understand, it's not even necessary in terms of fighting terrorism. so this is--it's incredibly distressing because like you mentioned in the opening this is not the first time. even this month that we're hearing about secret laws that the administration has made from if not whole cloth then from interpreting existing law that we're not allowed to see that authorizes them to do everything including apparently assassinate u.s. citizens. >> you know, sam i know a lot of democrats say we should get in line. we've got an election coming up, and president obama is clearly better than republicans, so get in line. first of all that's an abdication of duty in covering the news. second of all what are we getting in line for? i don't know. these memos are secret. third of all this is in some ways worse than the republicans. you have to realistic about this. when attorney general holder says judicial process is not due process. i've never heard that in my life. there is no case that says, hey you know what, the two guys from the executive branch got together, the king and his buddy, and decided they could execute u.s. citizens abroad what the hell is that? >> in the hamdon case the standard was there needs to be a neutral ar birbitor. they ruled on this and set a standard. that standard is a neutral arbitor. now it's hard to believe that there is someone within the administration that is a neutral arbitor. almost by definition that needs to come from the judiciary. it's a stunning omission and it's stunning that we cannot see the law that he's operating under because that's secret. you're right to a certain extent look, i don't know if this is something that could be fixed elect toreally. i have no reason to believe that mitt romney and rick santorum would not take these powers and go further than them, just as president obama has in some ways gone further than george bush has. but if the american public does not tune into this and care about it, we're going to see this progression where with see more and more civil liberties. the head of the fbi was asked do you have authorization to kill an united states citizen in america? and he looked at me and said, i don't know. >> no, so we can be executed here as well as well without a trial. >> not even three weeks ago he would have said, seriously no, of course not. but apparently there is a secret law that he may not have access to that may give him authorization to do that. >> president obama is the worse civil liberties president of my lifetime. i don't know lincoln suspending habeas corpus where in the middle of the civil war could make an argument for it. internment of the japanese you can make an argument for but having a secret law that you have in your back pocket that's beyond outrageous. sam, thank thank you for shedding light on this. check out the report, thanks. >> thanks, cenk. >> when we come back, more outrageous things in the country. tracvon martin a young african-american teenager who was shot. the guy who shot him the cops refuse to arrest him. today the witnesses come out and say the cops won't even take our testimony. we'll talk about that when we come back. >> i call back again i firmly believe this was not self defense. visit fiatusa.com [ laura ] maine is known for its lighthouses, rocky shore and most importantly its lobster. it's the tastiest, the sweetest, the freshest. nobody can ever get enough. [ male announcer ] it's lobsterfest at red lobster the one time of year you can savor 12 exciting lobster entrees like lobster lover's dream or new maine lobster and shrimp trio. [ laura ] hot, right out of the shell. i love lobster. i'm laura mclennan from spruce head, maine, and i sea food differently. thermacare works differently. it's the only wrap with patented heat cells that penetrate deep to relax, soothe and unlock tight muscles for up to 16 hours of relief. that's 8 hours while you wear it, plus an additional 8 hours of relief after you take it off. can your patch, wrap cream or rub say that? so if you've got pain... get up to 16 hours of pain relief with thermacare. >> we are back on "the young turks." and we have some amazing developments in the travvon martin case. he's the teenage african-american teenager who was shot by the self appointed neighborhood watch who happens to be white. the cops have not arrested him. they refuse to arrest him. they hand the case off to the state attorney. his father says he feels betrayed by the police because there is no justice and they want the case to go to the fbi which i agree because there are clear civil rights issues here. let's hear from trayvon's mother. >> i stand here before you today to publicly thank these ladies for helping out in this investigation. and regardless of what happens there are still good people in this world. >> and she's referring to the witnesses, one of whom is mary kutcher and she has fascinating things to say about her eyewitness testimony. >> i firmly believe this was not self defense. and he says if you feel that strong about it, i can give you the number two lead detective. >> so she did. she called the lead detective over and over, they refused to talk to her. they put out a statement that says yeah, we talked to her. she said, i have the phones records and they never called. >> i was outside of the slideing glass door and i see zimmerman over the body. now, at that point i can't tell you i thought maybe he's helping him holding wounds. obviously not. later when we realized and he came off of the body we realized the boy was face down. his face was in the grass. his body was not in an up right position. he was shot in the chest and he was face down. therefore he was not helping the kid. >> now remember the witnesses say that they had heard the young kid calling out for help. when the cops arrived on the scene they told the witnesses no no, no, you didn't hear that. you heard the older white gentleman with the gun calling out for help. gee, i wonder if there is bias here. and then to add insult to injury during the press conference the mom is describing her son. look out for the question that gets asked towards the end of this. >> tell me about trayvon's normal demeanor, is he a happy kid? a serious kid? >> normal demeanor, happy, he's living to music. he's talking on the phone with his friends with girls with with--he is watching sports on tv. um he's he eating. he's eating everything. >> whatever is in the fridge. >> everything. >> in the middle of this case it appears an off camera reporter asks what does he eat chicken? i'm blown about that the level of insensitivity is through the roof. i'm going to bring in the rest of the turks. let's talk about them about this case. jayar, you know, we talked about some of the online show, too. when you see something like this, what do you think. >> it's maddening and i eight to always say this, it's not that surprising. it's one of those things generally people who have to deal with this kind of stuff when you have to look out the back of the window when you're driving, oh, what is he going to bother me about this time. even if nothing is going on, oh, what is the situation going to be now. just knowing the issue by this police department it's not surprising. it's just now how do you deal with it. every day of your life you have to figure out how to deal with this correctly. so i love the way it's getting handled with all the madness that is happening. stay calm, that's the best way to work it. or as we saw it. witnesses to it, and the reporters, they're going to go straight in the jokes. i heard snickering from that chicken question. no matter what it is there is a level of low insensitivity that you always have to fight through and you have to let come what comes out of you in reaction. >> the minute you overreact and i would have massively overreacted. maybe it's the turk in me, but someone shoots my son. >> then they attack you. >> your damn straight i'm going to be angry and they kept their composure in an amazing way. and the witnesses it removes any doubt that the cops are lying. >> i had zero doubt before i even heard that testimony from that witness. but you know, i think that this case--going back to that reporter asking the chicken question. i don't know who she is. she should be fired. you're absolutely right. you hear snickering and laughing. what kind of question is that? a 17-year-old kid died as a result of someone obvious racism. this country need to have an open dialogue about racism. so many people deny that racism consists in this country. people like these police officers get away with what is going on. >> jesus you're the voice of reason here. if you're the family, what do you do, man? and how do you react here when the cops seem so overwhelmingly against. >> you i don't know how they should react but back here in l.a. back in the early 90s when the whole city went on fire when the cops overstepped their racial bounds, i'm not saying that that's going to happen, but sometimes it takes that to get people's attention. >> yeah, well, listen, the thing is i think what jesus is referring to if you don't get justice, especially something blows up like eventually people get so mad. look at this case,. they say well, in florida there's is a stand-your-ground law so if somebody approaches you you don't have to retreat. so in this case he's saying, i didn't retreat. but you approached him right? and you have to have proportionate force. zimmerman had to believe that his life was in mortal danger from that kid who had skittles in his pocket, and zimmerman out outweighed him by 100 pounds. that's inconceivable. when you have a situation like that okay, we can carry guns around and we can shoot people, oh, it's stand your ground law defense. jayar, what kind of volatile situation does that set up in florida. >> you're told to stay in your place. but then you italy there is no other recurs. this is your child. this is your family. when that's your main concern in your world and you see that the authorities who are the authorities are doing nothing about it, you try to look for some end and some conclusion, and some kind of end to this problem that has been thrust upon you for no reason. it doesn't make any sense. it goes back to what you're taught as a kid. if you lie about something, it's just going to get bigger every time. i love that this is shining a huge spotlight on this police department and how it's working. >> absolutely. thank you, guys. now when we come back we're going to talk about politics a little bit. oftentimes progressives get frustrated with the democrats. what can you do about it? you can run against them. we have a strong progressive democrat. the media is cryg aboutt it. i'll make a whole case and show how you can fight back and win when we come back. >> i'm ilya sheyman i approve (vo) question: how do you say "500" in italian? stay tuned for the answer. brought to you by the 2012 fiat 500. visit fiatusa.com >> all right back on "the young turks." listen, a lot of progressives get frustrated with democrats all the time, and they think well, what can we do? we can't vote for a republican. here is a genius idea, vote for for a progressive. here is a report about this, and i love this. this >> the rest of the article continues to say oh, these guys, they're extreme. i don't know. is this the right thing to do? when they talk about the mainstream democrats here's what words they use to describe them. of course they work with the business community. those are the same guys who are selling out to the corporations that we don't like. that's why you need to primary then. one guy who is doing that is ilya sheyman in illinois. this is why it makes the establishment uncomfortable. >> i'm sick and tired them turning their backs on those who built the middle class in this country. i am sick and tired of democrats refuse to stand up and fight back. [applause] democrats stand um. with backbone and conviction for the middle class we win. >> a lot of people disyes with that. oh you're like the tea party left. you're not going to win. the guy you're running against brad snyder is going to win. wrong. here is public policy polling which we quote all the time. 45% to 27% in favor of ilya sheyman. i thought real progressives could not win primaries. let's bring ilya sheyman here and have a better perspective. great to have you here. now, talk to me about why you're running in the first place. you're 25 years old. a lot of people say it's very young, and what motivated you to actually take action here? >> thanks for having me. my family came here 20 years ago as jewish refugees. through hard work and community support we were able to work our way up. my dad was delivering pizzas and working up to provide opportunity for me. we see the sense of economic mobility. the sense if you work hard and play by the rules you can make it are slipping away. i said we needed a voice for who's who are ready to stand up and fight back. >> some will say what is broad with brad snyder, what is wrong with the establishment democrats why are you opposing them. >> we have unemploy americans. we have student loan debt cross 1 trillion-dollar. that tells me that what is happening in washington isn't working. that we need democrats who are willing to stand up for progressive values that built the middle class and can do it again in this new century. >> now some people criticize your age 25 years old. i'm going to give a quick resumÉ so people get a sense you're not a regular 25-year-old. here, look at this. worked for senator barack obama in 2005. in 2006 to 2008 democracy for america. 2010 national mobilization director for move on.org . and 2010 progressive candidate campaign organizer. what would you do if you were in congress. how do i know you're not going to turn into one of those same 'ol democrats who says, no, no, no don't worry about civil liberties. let's give corporations another tax cut because we just got to win the next election. >> right, you know, i think what makes me unique and those campaigns so exciting for folks in the district and around the country is i have a proven track record of standing up and fighting. when i was at move on as national mobilization director my job was to find 25 million people to fight for healthcare reform. when many said that the public option was dead. i didn't back down. i kept organizing people for the option. that's the kind of track record i bring to congress. does legislation bring concrete improvements to people's lives. not does it meet the party's agenda. does it meet the agenda of normal class families who are trying to make it in this country. >> ilya sheyman, thank you for joining us, i really appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> absolutely. when we come back, morgan spurlock has a new documentary at comic-con. >> i'll never forget the first time i took was standing between a storm trooper and a klingon. >> morgan spurlock is in the >> all right we're back on "the young turks and morgan spurlock, the award-winning director of super supersize me, an oscar nominated moves and he has done many other movies as well. so when he decided to do documentary about comic-con you knew it was going to be good. it's called "comic-con episode four: a fan's hope." let's watch a piece of it here. >> welcome to comic-con. >> sit in my chair. sit down, everybody. >> i'll never forget the first time i took a peek next to a storm trooper and a klingon. that could only happen at comic-con. [screaming] >> i looked outside of my hotel window and i say three ninjas impatiently checking their watches." >> comic-con is just the answer to all your prayers. it's like heaven in as much as when you go to heaven everything you ever lost will come back to you. [applause] >> all right, well award-winning director and producer morgan spurlock joins us now on "the young turks." thanks for joining us. >> thank you for having me. >> why did you decide to do a documentary on comic-con. >> there is a geek in every one of us. what the film does is humanizes these things that we all love, the things that we grew up as kids that we have forgotten about and are parts of our lives. >> i think the real geeks are in the sweater vests. >> you don't see that too much at comic-con. >> and you don't see bad guys, if there are they're characters. >> yes, and they have distinct voice. >> and they don't actually do damage to the planet. did you have favorites when you were a kid comic books. >> you know, we grew up in the same generation where "star wars" changed the world. when "star wars" came out it was the greatest thing i had ever seen in my life. i read a lot of comics comics comics in in my life. >> you know, i love the super friends growing up. >> the justice league. >> oh, yeah. >> and then the chief that grew and aqua man the dude could quack to whales and then watching plastican how cool wo dul thatt be. >>>>ndnd hing theheararo to anher room to l lten t t a convnvsasaonon w n wu talk tyothtae tthuyuy are they weirder than anybody else? >> we've so convinced ourselves that these people are the oddballs and we've forgotten that we're oddballs ourselves. i compare it to sports friends of mine. people who love to watch sports. they'll paint their face and go to football games but they say those weirdoes at comic-con. there is just as much passion for those who love the giants, the jets or whoever as those who love aqua man and you name it. >> holery conrad is a costume designer. >> comic-con is a great place for exposure. it's a great chance to get out there, going your friends together and going on a suicide mission. it's suicide mission for my future. >> and holly conrad joins us as well. thanks for being here. >> i'm super excited to be here. >> we give our main political correspondent is epic politics man. if you were going to go with a costume. >> space armor to keep important documents. >> something very american red white, blue i like that. we've got the up rising. we've got a lot of different nicknames. >> these are good nicknames. >> we've got reverend jackson out there. we'll give you a lot of work. you won an award. >> we won judge's choice at the masquerade, we were excited and it just turned out awesome. >> now let's get political. it's a political show. if superman was voting who would he vote for? >> he would vote for barack obama. >> you think so. >> i think he would. there would be stipulations. he would have to adhere to certain principles of freedom and truth to get his vote. >> so some of those secret memos on secret liberties. >> those might suddenly pop out. i imagine superman holding them saying, i got something in this briefcase. [laughing] >> how about you holly. any particular favorite among all these comic book characters, and which candidate do you think they go for? >> oh, man i have always been a fan of dr. strange. >> that's got to be newt gringrich. >> i don't know, you know, he's pr

blue cross, blue shield, and that provided me with digenostic mammograms which includes an ultra sound. and so in that spring day when my surgeon asked me do you want to hear the good news tor bad news? all i heard her say was early breast cancer, noninvasive, stage 0. and because i had the freedom to select my health care plan, i was going to be spared my life and at the very least months of chemotherapy and radiation. but what if i had a government health care plan? at the end of 2009, the group that dictates what your health care was going to be, ladies and men, said women at the age of 50 could get yearly mammograms every other year. any woman under 40 that's diagnosed with breast cancer can be lethal and the older you get, the greater the chances are for breast cancer. well, this sounds like rationing. doesn't it sound like rationing to you? and that's exactly what bern dean heely said. she is the former professor at john hopkins university, the first woman to be head of the national institute of health. she said it's rationing and she told the press. and at that time i went to susan g komen in southern california and i demanded that they pronounce obamacare unfit for american women. and i actually said at that particular time, i said there's something that our little group says. and that is, uncle sam, keep your mits off our tiths. but why would the task force do this? it's simple, ladies. first of all, they're sparing you from mental distress in case you have a false positive. but, according to the huffington post, three months ago they're going to rework the language so you had better understand it. you don't understand what they're trying to do for you. and secondly, the cost of covering all women 40 and over and the baby boomers far outweighs the cost of saving those women's lives that might die of breast cancer. but to be fair, congress did pass and include in obamacare a provision for mammograms starting at age 40 for yearly mammograms. but let me tell you, it won't be enough because if i didn't have an ultra sound which found the breast cancer, i could be a later stage breast cancer. you'll need digenostics. and at the same time, congress, who loves -- and the president who loves this health care plan for us decided no they didn't think they wanted it. they could go ahead and have a ppo. so in the spring and early summer of 2009 with the help of my doctors, i decided i have a bilateral mastectomy because obama d.a.r.e. was breathing down my neck. and not only that but i was facing medicare which meant a half trillion dollars was going to be taken out of the medicare trust fund and there would be a panel of 15 sitting around some table here in washington decide ing if linda could have surgery to cure her breast cancer or a pill because that's what my surgeon oncologist said. i would only be offered a pill with government health care. i decided with my doctors and the bilateral mactecty. and in early summer of 2009 as i was being -- this is very emotional. as i was being wheeled down the hall from the recovery room, my husband reported to me later i cried out red white and blue. red white and blue. give me -- nfment chanting] . >> give me a tea party flag. and my husband wondering what the hell i was talking about after a five-hour surgery said honey, it's me john. and i said, we're still at em. and when i got to my room, and the girl that was going to take care of me for the night said unexpectedly explained i'm an unapologetic liberal but if there's a war i'm joining with linda. so today to save ourselves all of us from rationing we must get rid of this now. and we stand assembled and give our voice by the first amendment and we tell the supreme court justices, no obamacare. no obamacare. >> it's a war on women. but it's not the war on women that the liberals want you to think. it's a war on every one of us and it's a fight for freedom and we are freedom fighters and we are going to keep on fighting. thank you. >> next up is the author of democracy denied and the vice president for policy at americans for prosperity. his name is phil kerpen. >> first of al

emails, okay, young girls with eating disorders sued blue cross to get them compensated for it under those psychological benefits. blue cross blue shield, i want every email sent by that girl, everything she's ever on social network pages to prove it's a social, you know, disorder that's got her having bulimia whatever and not a medical information and the judge gave it up in any divorce case, yes, you can have the entire hard drive for the spouse so all this stuff is coming in. as to businesses, i'm more comfortable with an approach like we, you know, see in europe where germany is debating about whether employers could use social network information. we have finland where you can't google an employee before hiring them. i love social network. i don't want to see people branding themselves since birth, you know, you actually -- you can think of the rich families that hire tutors to get their kids in college or to write the college essay. now they got someone starting when the kid is 2 because that's when you have a facebook page, your parents start putting things on. make sure you're saying the smartest clever things. i want it open b

and blue blue -- blue cross-blue shield having to add 100 employees and spend $20 million and that is what we are looking at for the health insurance. a lot of folks say it is not fair or right and moving money out of care for the elderly to aid for the poor. there is so much that goes, all the companies that have to pay for which and year after year it is building. so, unless something is changed in a couple of years ... >>dave: when the obama administration taxes about it they will talk how young people can stay under their parents' insurance and you could expect that to be the campaign push. let us know how you feel about obamacare and how it is affecting you, your live, and your savings. >> no celebration over two years since obamacare. your headlines: more protests popping up nationwide as thousands call for action in the trayvon martin case. from chicago to philadelphia, demonstrators marched in honor of the florida teen who was gunned down by a neighborhood watch volunteer. a lawyer advising george zimmerman says the incident has nothing to do with race. >> the issue of whether

i chose a standard blue cross blue shield plan. i knew i could get it filled anywhere in the country, including my rural state of wyoming. i pay 28% of my premium. the federal government, the taxpayers, pay 72% of my premium. that's basically what they're proposing. you'd have a choice among plans. and you would pay part of the premium and the government would pay part of the premium. if you're healthy or wealthy, you'd pay more of your premium. if you're unhealthy or unwealthy, you'd pay less of your premium. you could either choose that, if that was something you'd become accustomed to, or if you wanted to choose to be on medicare as you know it today, that would also be a choice. seems to me, madam chairman, that's the great choice. i support the republican budget. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam chairwoman. the gentlelady is correct that under the federal employee health benefit plan that members of congress are on, there's a 72% for the premium. that's

william winkenwerder, the former coo of blue cross blue shield of massachusetts and also served as assistantary of defense for health affairs from october 2001 through april 2007 under president bush. doctor, thanks for being with us. i know you're no fan of this bill. let's just get that out of the way right off the bat. >> that's right. >> but i don't want to talk about the politics so much about the bill as it's sort of been ripped by both sides for the last two yooers. i want to talk about the legalities because that's what's at stake this week. how do you think this individual mandate argument is going to play out? >> well, it's a great question. i think it's going to be a close case either way, either striking down the individual mandate or upholding it. and we've seen that in the lower courts, in the appellate courts, and it looks like it's going to be a close case. that's what i would say. >> and i looked at these lower courts. one of the federal appeals courts found it was unconstitutional. but two others said it was a proper exercise of the congressional mandate. then a third ruled

if i am way outside for blue cross-blue shield, you know what happens next year?t want me. they don't want to allow their patients to see me because i am not an efficient or effective doctor. that is one of the things that is really positive. i have another story. i don't have time to go into it, but suffice it to say we resisted an insurance company who horford us a contract, my former partners and i, for caring for a large number of people in an strickler plant in my home town. we told them it was not enough money. ultimately they came back and offered to pay us 20% more than anybody else in town because we were about 30% more efficient than the rest of the doctors in town in this large group. what they did was they looked at the data, and what they found is they want to have doctors who are efficient. we don't have that going on in senior health care because there is no pent if i over order tests. you can't develop a bureaucracy pig enough to micromanage that. just like we do at c.m.s. today. >> i am carey weems. we know that a disproportion nature -- dispropor

blue cross blue shield was my profile as well as every other insurer and oklahoma. they know i am an efficient physician. they have a profile -- every insurance company in this country knows everything about every dr.'s purchasing. one thing that is happening to medicare patience because doctors are opting out, the people who are not opting out of medicare are not the best physicians. the one that are opting out are the ones that do not need medicare patience. market forces should reward doctors who are efficient and get there. who knows that? medicare knows it too, but as long as you qualify for medicare you are going to get paid. there is no market force on the quality of physician. if i am way outside the you know what happens next year? they do not want me. they do not allow their patience to come see me. i am not an efficient or effective doctor. that is one of the things that is really positive. i have another story. i do not have time to go into it. we resisted an insurance company who offered us a contract. was a go find out whether or not you think we are d

blue cross, blue shield for spending $3,600 for an insurance policy that she is to abide by the mandate or abide by the law. >> i am not falling. i thought it was simple as she pays a penalty than challenges having to pay the penalty. >> but why this is not a tax under a standard tax. >> many of the enforcement mechanisms are exempted, so she still has that option, right? >> if you have someone who wants to challenge the individual mandate, purchase minimal the central coverage, they have no way to challenge other than what we're doing here. >> that is your point? >> exactly. if you have a law-abiding citizen compelled to apply with the law, there's no recourse. you cannot file -- this is so different than any of your standard taxes. you do not have any of the standard enforcement mechanisms. >> even if, let's say you're right in this is not under the taxing powers, there is a sense in which this does not matter, right? anything a tax under title 26, congress can say whatever it wants when it passes this lot in terms of defining the penalty for other purposes as "a tax." it does not make legitimate under the taxing power, but it could bring it in to the descriptions of the engine act. there are quite a few definitional points here which suggest that is what they're doing. surely, they're doing that as a matter of enforcement. i do not think he there if you have addressed 6201 which does not just talk about this for purposes of chapter 68, but taxes including penalties and then this title. theoretically, they can do that and bring something that is not a tax into the realm of the anti injunction act. >> the first question is court post when applicable. i think there has to be a threshold inquiry from this court whether this is truly a revenue generating tax statute as bob jones said i would get your point. let me finish on the first part could be looked at the statute, for different reasons why this does not operate as a revenue generating tax statute for the fifth one, they fail to identify in the legislation in revenue that would be raised from this particular penalty. >> that is really a constitutional argument. >> it comes to whether this is a truly revenue-raising tax statute. you have to make that assessment first. you have to say, this is to the revenue-raising tax statute by which the anti-inflation act would apply, which is what bob jones, the court said in the bob jones case. if you look at the statute, it does not appear in any way to be a revenue raising -- >> so your answer is, no. >> no, it does not apply. in response to the second question, it would become no. you cannot just assumed it is a tax. you have to determine whether it is applicable by looking at the statute itself. you cannot just accepted on face value. even the new look at the statute itself, and i'm sure opposing counsel and flesh out a little more, the government said the anti injunction act does not in fact apply. >> then we will move on to the next one. the limiting control that seems to prevent congress from expanding its scope of authority under the commerce clause seems to turn on this question of activity and inactivity distinction. why do you think that is? >> i think there is not a single case, control in case this court can point to where congress has had the authority under its carmas cause to regulate inactivity. >> why is the purchase of extended coverage for health benefits inactivity? >> if they want to regulate inactivity of purchasing, they certainly can. but there mandating some to engage in commerce at the onset. they have never -- they are effectively regulating inactivity. when you look at race -- sort of the bookends. they made it clear. even as part of a broader regulatory scheme, for the government to regulate interstate activity this activity must be economic in nature. they describe it as consumption of distribution for the production of a commodity. that is the outer reaches of congress's authority to regulate under the carmas clause. >> what is the definition of economics and that reference also including the transfer of wealth? that is what the oxford english dictionary has referred to, hasn't it, when it speaks to economics and economic activity? it is well. that is what you take your money to decide whether or not you wish to purchase something, and is something the purchase is a protection against excessive costs for your illness. why doesn't that and to the production consumption and the transfer of wealth? rex it was not the definition the supreme court used critics i disagree with justice thomas. he does not have a new dictionary, and i do. go on to amazon in which ended a brand new dictionary. >> forcing some to purchase insurance does not give anyone an exception of wealth. for congress pause power to tax the income tax, which would allow them to tax concession of well as direct from a source. you do not even have that here. it is certainly not tied to anyone's income. this is one of the points i was hoping to make, if this court finds the individual mandate is unconstitutional, it does not mean the health care system or congress is without the power to fix the problem. it is just the means they choose must be in the means of the constitution. if they want to tax and come, -- income, the 16th amendment allows it, if you want to tax someone's income to then provide for some of the makeup and a shift in cost and provide exemptions for people who might want to purchase health care coverage, they could do that. that would be encouraging some to engage in behavior. you cannot force someone to engage. >> what the government agreed to provide everyone interns and just raised double the taxes? >> if the government wanted to raise income taxes -- >> to pay for health care. >> they could do that. >> and raise taxes for everybody then give you a credit if he had health insurance. >> you could have exemption or credit for health care. they could do that. but that is not what they did. >> let me bring you this. i do not think the activity or inactivity thing is ingenious. all of the cases talk about activity. it makes sense. i think the average american understands it, which is not a bad thing for a role of constitutional law. i am not sure works with insurance. that is what i'm trying to figure out. risk is not having money when you needed. the point of the mandate is an extreme of money to buy health care when the need it. it is hard to think of risk as inaction. your own plant in trying to establish 1/2 standings are talking about financial actions -- or an plaintiffs and tried to establish standings are talking about financial actions. putting money in their bank account for when they need it. i think there's something to this point, i just cannot figure out how it works with insurance. >> i think one of the main problems is there is no constitutionally significant limiting principle that can be applied for this broad power. the keep arguing, well, this is unique and different. well, because of its difference and uniqueness, to me, is very troubling. there is virtually no limit to congress's power. if we're talking about shifting cost, that is what they're arguing, the shifting of costs of health care, the best way to reduce the cost of health care is preventive methods. can congress -- there is no way to limit what they're asking. >> this gets to the broccoli argument critics exactly. broccoli, health care, wait, there is no limit to that. >> i get that point. i think the government has to respond to it. but what about this makes a difference from the food, transportation, etc. there is is catastrophic component to it, which is unusual. you never know, but the odds are high all of us at some point will have $25,000 plus in medical expenses. might that be a limiting principle? might not that be a coherent one? >> my answer would be a ,not. there'd be nothing would prohibit them from having that power in virtually every -- >> people do not need to buy houses, they can rent them. they do not need to buy cars, they can provide buses. >> and people can pay for health care if they need to. people have catastrophic damage to their homes because of tornadoes and everything else. it is still a commodity. you are still forcing people to purchase a commodity. if they want to raise the taxes -- i think the reason is inescapable, the reason they did not raise taxes or other methods is because it was not politically powerful. that is a problem. they've gone trouncing this is not a tax, not raising taxes -- which is a serious problem. if they wanted to raise taxes to provide for these deficiencies and those who cannot cover health care, they could have done that but they chose not to. it is really important means they choose be within the constitutional limitations. the supreme court has made clear the limits of congress this reach, even on a pass a broad predatory scheme, it is to regulate interstate economic activity. if it was not that case, if you did not have that limit in principle, a decision by this court affirming that would incentivize congress to pass broad regulatory schemes for it a lot of them couldn't regulate anything whatsoever that is intrastate to include non activity. that turns constitution on its head. the police powers of the type that reserve for the state. this case transcends health care. >> stop and think, if you are in ohio, for example, and had a mandatory health care like massachusetts. living in michigan, which had none. wouldn't it make sense if i got sick to just move to ohio? >> one of the reasons to move to ohio there are even more to move to kentucky, but we will not get into that. >> that goes to the point of the 10th amendment. where our founding fathers wanted have states with greater power. if you make a decision, you want to have this mandatory health care and pay higher taxes, then you pick up and moved to the other state. the fact the states have the authority to do that for their police powers, does not mean the federal government can do it it should be more choices of individuals if they want to go from state to state -- that has been blurred more and more. the federal government is getting more and more power. there has to be on line drawn. the repercussions of a firming congress's authority under this provision transcends health care and really transforms the relationship and a power the federal government, those who govern, that being, the citizens of the u.s. this course should not grant him that authority. there is no case that stands for the proposition that congress can regulate interstate -- bad ast it strange, as it may seem to be, we have acknowledged it is permitted under the taxing power was marred so far, i've not heard anyone come up with an argument of what the bill of rights or the 14 am -- or the 14th amendment prohibits it. for the most part, we are accepting it is ok. we're looking to something that is a grant of power, providing a limit on power. >> the with the constitution should be viewed, the powers specifically provided to congress are expressly reserved. >> i get the point. >> i don't agree the tax and spending clause permits this. it is totally different. >> it would be just as scores of to say, everybody pays the same additional health care tax, everybody pays it. and the only people that do not get are those with insurance? you don't think that would be coercive? >> there is no tax for failure to pay tax. that is a deduction that may encourage -- what they're doing and the scenario i set out in your discretion under the taxing and spending are two different critics then just have the penalty and don't get insurance -- >> than just pay the penalty and don't get insurance. no one is forced to do anything in that sense. the economic incentives are both the same. you cannot say the law requires you to buy it, just penalizes you if you do not. >> is certainly requires you. people are law abiding and do not believe in the law of economics as to what motivates my behavior. i do not park in a parking space just to pay and the space and pay the penalty. congress is mandating an imposing upon individuals a requirement, a statutory burden. >> if it is so clear the government could have done this under the power to tax cut do have any thoughts as to why they did not do that instead of just relying on the commerce clause? >> this is not exactly the same thing. i want to preface that. the reason they did not i think is clear because the health care act was very political. there were promises made that no taxes would be raised as a result of in it. political expediency -- >> they chose, for political purposes, a power they have under the constitution that has certain limitations that do not apply to the power to tax. >> generally, yes. i would say that is true. but the way the individual mandate is set up, even if the put the enforcement provisions for the penalty which would still not be a proper exercise of the taxing power because this is a failure to act tax, essentially, but they did not do that. they relied on the commerce clause authority and made specific findings on that. that is what is at the heart of this case. >> you are some that are stuck with it. >> exactly. if they want to rewrite the statute, they can do that it is should not be for this court to do it. the language and method they chose is unconstitutional, so it should be struck down. >> the me ask you, the action and inaction, and now we have someone, the argument -- i can understand why someone would say it is just as egregious to have someone maintain insurance, but let's let the matter of action and inaction, assuming it is adopted, will have some complications in to where it applies. the sake of argument, the line does not apply to maintain. just except that for the sake of argument. i know you disagree. if one took that view and in one also took the view, which i appreciate the exception for the sake of argument, apply distinctions and the commerce clause applies, why wouldn't you say in this case, listen, we've identified a meaningful group of people covered by this. those are the injured, for whatever reason, but think it is outrageous they have to keep this insurance, we think congress can do that, they can be regulated, therefore, we're unsure about this other group. we do not have to reach that today. it allows for judicial restraint. that would lead to officially upholding because it is a meaningful group of cable for which think it is constitutional and a meaningful group, they be the largest group, for which we're not sure, but we can answer that some other day. >> in essence, i think you're redrafting statute. they're just regulating people who decided to purchase entrance, therefore are in that market to begin with. >> the question is, whether it is more constitutional to some than others? that is the point i'm making as we addressed to this court, its application in this context i don't think is appropriate. when you go into the question of what is the nature of congress's power, if congress does not have the authority under the carmas cause, it does not matter in terms of any specific application of that power to an individual because it is without that power i think the judge and the virginia used the term it wasn't "stillborn." i do not think salerno has any legal or practical implication on this court's decision in that the only thing you can do is find it is beyond congress's authority to pass individual mandate whether it applies to an individual or otherwise and it is unconstitutional. or otherwise. i have about 45 seconds left on my time. and i will conclude with reiterating the fact that never has history congress sought to expand power so broadly to the point where the constitution will be rendered meaningless, because the enumeration and separation of powers are corn to be sold abroad that there will be no limitation. -- powers are going to be so broad that there will be no limitation. this court should not be the one to create it. we ask this court to find that acts, is an unconstitutional exercise of the congress' authority. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, judge martin. may it please the court. i would like to first frame the merritt issue and then talk about the junction act. on merit, it is important to start with a three findings, which is the minimum requirement the regulates the activity that is commercial and economic in nature. economic and financial decisions on how and when health care is paid for. second, it is :"an essential part of the larger economic activity." third, that the act will reduce the federal up as a. those three findings of three independent bases to uphold act. the first argument is the minimum coverage provision regulate how people finance commercial transactions, namely of saving health-care, an area that congress found substantially affects interstate commerce. i do not take my friend to disagree that the ends that congress was seeking to avoid the prevention of billions of dollars of cost shifting in the whole market and making insurance available to the 50 million uninsured americans are legitimate. the only dispute is the ends to get there. that is the first argument. the second as of the minimum coverage provision is just one aspect of a comprehensive scheme to regulate the insurance market. that part is critical to make the overall insurance reform work. >> does that mean in your perspective that it the individual requirements of purchasing insurance were declared to be in excess of the power of congress under the commerce call, up whole statute would and wind? -- under the commerce clause, would the whole statute rewind? >> no. there is a presumption against several ability and the like, but it is the case, with respect to those provisions and what i just said to you, we do not think you could consider one without the other. that is what congress is doing, the second argument that is congress was regulating the insurance market, something that everyone thinks it's constitutional. no one is disagreeing with that because 50 million americans are being priced out of the markets because of pre-existing conditions and other reasons. congress said we are going to make sure insurance companies cannot discriminate those with pre-existing conditions. but they knew to a certainty if they did that, without also calling it to the minimum coverage provision, the insurance reforms would not work. >> there were not be enough money for it? what was the last time congress chose to pass laws despite the fact that congress cannot afford it? >> we are not talking about the money and affording it. what we are talking about is the fact that you can give people the ability to buy insurance on the way to the hospital, once you fall sick, then everyone is going to wait. it is like giving someone the ability to buy fire insurance only when your house is on fire. >> this strikes me as a little unfair before the legislation passed. and then creates greater incentives for free greater share, and then say -- to meet, it is not your strongest argument. -- to me, it is not your strongest argument. >> congress and to come in eight states did this. this was an experiment. seven states tried to do this without the minimum coverage provision. in each of them, they found that the insurance reforms -- insurance what the market because insurance got too high. the only state it worked was massachusetts because the couple the minimum coverage provision to the insurance reforms. >> are we talking about this in ability? several abili >> this is an argument for the merits. the necessary and proper clause in connection with the commerce clause provides congress latitude, even if you grant everything my friend that said. even if you do not think there is a minimum -- >> the best way of putting is it is not proper to make people buy things. you can do it on the demand side by forcing people to buy things. is it true you can take a very big company and compel them to offer insurance products, so on the supply side the risk pool is bigger? i do not understand why it is not exactly the same . >> i do not think the answer is yes. it is a very different case. >> could congress compel on the supply side to offer health insurance? not employees, but out in the market. so walmart is now supplying health insurance. it makes good sense. >> i do not know about that, because i think in the hypothetical you do not have what congress was dealing with here, which is $43 billion in cost shipping caused by a un it care.satedcompensated >> it seems a little funny to talk about this big number, and then exempt most of the people causing the big member from the requirements for the law. that is strange to me. >> i am not sure it is broken down. it is an explicit finding by congress, something this court has to give much difference. the exclusion of the act are covered, and this part of the comprehensive insurance reform package, so that of the income 400%, toen 100% in one hand the government will give you a tax incentive. there are a variety of things to reduce the number of people and injured. congress gave specific findings about how many people would be injured after the plan took effect. the point on proper is that you cannot ride from the were proper a prohibition against people being able to buy something. >> regulate implies someone in the market. they are in the market. you are offering interstate services and hotels in what ever so now we can regulate you, but we cannot force u2 offer hotel and restaurant surfaces and then regulate you. >> we responded to this in page 45 if you want to see the whole list of cases that deal with this. decisionrt's specifically said you could regulate an action. that is part of that decision and finds this court. we think this whole idea of activity verses inactivity those are really get -- >> we were talking about the were proper and regulate. why isn't the word regulate implies proper? you may have application, and i get that. it is common sense. people understand it, and the courts could work it out as time goes on. take them i think all the way osborne.ive beens pursbbons vs that you could regulate even in action. fosse is a very good example of how words are no been creature games and they can break down and action. this court's decision was a dissent that said this cannot be constitutional. this was the regulation of child recovery act payments. what this court and the majority said was that the court could do so, that we conclude the distinction between activists structure and as illusory and reject any attempt to hide behind it. i think that tracks along line of cases going back to record and justice jackson opinion that says when you were dealing with the commerce clause, it has to be practicality. it cannot be things like no one cloture and whether something looks more like manufacturing. the ultimate test is is this affecting commerce? here congress made a specific finding that the people without insurance are causing everyone's premiums to rise to the tune of $1,000 per family, because hospitals have to take these people, and that makes this market different than many of the other examples we were talking about. but there is cost shifting going on. this goes back to the first half of the question. the position is not that we're regulating people better enacted in the markets. i do not think the debate is can't congress regulate inactivity? i think the real question is, can congress regulate in a market in which it knows where everyone is participating? they note to a virtual certainty that a fact as the mortality, people will need more health care, and providers to provide it -- that is one aspect. it is not just that everyone needs it, but that providers can not go without it. i cannot show up at the broccoli store without money and say give me broccoli. >> the only person that did not like broccoli was george bush. >> whether you like it or not, i do not get that. i do not get to show up. >> in the anti-thumping provision of the hospital requirement of the act back in the 1980's. isn't that regulation very similar to this in the way the statute is structured? >> in a way, and i think it reflects the basic thing. >> it orders hospitals to accept any person that appears at their doorstep needing medical care, and they cannot be moved or dumped on to another hospital. that is how it got its distinctive name of anti- thumping. >> absolutely. american hospitals have a long tradition of giving emergency medical aid and congress restored the tradition. >> you are the only lawyer this week to cite one of my cases correctly. >> our point is that is an endemic feature of the health- care market, which makes it different. i cannot show up at the gm dealer and say give me a car. in the health-care markets you can't, and that is what is the cost shifting. a huge economic across states problem. >> what about the large number of people that are not free riders? they are being responsible. why should you get to pull them into this? it seems to me that is the most compelling case. a group of people for which the fact finding does not apply. these were responsible people. they are healthy, take care of themselves, and they have not just money to pay for small health-care expenses, but big ones. >> if that person exists, it is certainly the case that these plaintiffs are not this one. they came to the court and said we have tight budgets and have to save money. >> so i am asking about whether there may be these challenges. i am curious how you respond to them. >> we do not think that is a large percentage of the market. for the median family income in america, they can only pay for half of their medical expenses. >> how about the 30 year-old in the country that for the most part are pretty healthy, do not have catastrophic health problems and when not -- and would prefer not to buy health insurance? >> under 30 is slightly different. with respect to that, the 30- year-old cannot guarantee when they walked out of the court room that they will not get hit by a bus or struck by cancer. the premise is that congress can legislate on a broader scale. this court has said numerous times that as long as it rationally relates to congress -- >> the more extravagant you make it, the bigger the class. >> i have heard that argument. that is made by the dissent. that is what they said pages 45 and 47 in their dissent. >> what justice stevens is talking about is the point you cannot take an individual and ask whether that individual's decision in terms of marijuana suffice, burke's gets to activate the like-minded group. the question i am asking you is whether it is a like-funded group and whether it is fair to aggregate these clauses to make bigger regulation? take of that is precisely what the defense is saying. there is a group of people to -- >> i think that is what justice stevens means by defining the class. >> here is what he says on page 25. putting aside the political checks that would occur congress's power to enact a brought comprehensive scheme, there is no suggestion that this act constipates pervasive type of legislation. and there is somewhat will for the court to say is this a vase of legislation? >> go ahead, judge grams. ani want to make sure you get yr licks in here. >> did you state the evasive or invasive? >> evasive. it is our point that this court and the supreme court have given wide latitude when it comes to means. for example, this court's decision said that even purely homemade a wholly interstate child pornography could be renovated. they are dealing with a real problem that exists. there are two different arguments that congress is advancing with respect to commerce. one is the cost shifting it sells substantially affects interstate commerce, and the second is even if you disagree with that, and the insurance reforms that are undoubtedly constitutional can only work effectively if you have the minimum coverage provision. and the score in the supreme court have given wide latitude to congress. and >> >> if i may, i ask for the clarification of terminology, because i have a concern about the concept of e evasiveness. your argument about the congress under theunder t commerce clause, and i am having difficulty seeing how there is any limit to the clause as you are defining it. i am starting with the premise that just about everything human beings do, every human function i can think of, has some economic consequence. it the power to commerce regulates includes the power to regulate any economic activity, and it becomes substantially affecting interstate commerce by aggregating it, in other words might economic individual activity does not amount to that much, but not this not what counts. it is counting everyone who was involved in this activity. sooner or later you will get to a bigger amount, so you will always be able to satisfy this, and if every human activity could be aggregated in that way and if every human activity has economic consequences, were ultimately is the limitation on congress' power, and how can the courts begin to who restrains congress when it begins to do something that may be in basis invasive? requiring a person to purchase the product they do not want. >> i agree with every word you just said. that means we're not here saying there are unlimited powers under commerce. we think lopez and morrison established prohibition that would strengthen adding up -- what lopez and morrison say is you have to be economic in nature. that it cannot be the aggregation of a whole bunch of un economic activities. 0 + 0 + zero will always equals zero. we are saying in this market what congress is regulating is not the failure to buy something, but the failure to secure financing for something that everyone is going to buy. it is just about cash or credit for something like that. there are some people that may or may not ever be in the market, but congress is reacting to a lion share of people who buy and consume health care, but without having financing that is quintessentially economic in the way that morrison and lopez are not. that is the limit. we are not here standing before you saying congress should be able to force people to buy things. >> where does the principle come from? the power does not extend their even though it might affect congress? >> we are not claiming that. i just cannot think that is the question we're dealing with here. >> i am saying suppose there were precedents on the board says government cannot for someone to buy something and create a substantial effect on commerce. i do not think that would alter the results here. what we're saying is in this unique market in which everyone seeks health care, providers cannot opt out of it, and there are catastrophic effects that at here when this happens, when people need health care, that sets up caution. i would also say there is another limit suggested by george martin when he referred to zero higher of in-state setting up their own insurance schemes and so on. that is -- >> what happens to the massachusetts health care plan? it is gone, isn't it? >> i do not think it is necessarily gone. i think the massachusetts brief illustrates what they think will happen there. they say it will help -- be helpful because it is a useful supplement to what they are doing. i think what congress found on state-by-state bases you have the problem that george martin alluded to before, which is it any one state guarantees issue -- it is hard for any individual state to do so. healthcare is a national phenomenon. and that also provide some measure of comfort to this court, because congress is dealing with a quintessential national problem, which is health care markets. this decision in court and referred to medical care for reproductive services being a national thing and crossing state borders. to go maybe the federal government should wait and see how the massachusetts plan works so we have the benefit of states to dealing with a problem we all have to deal with. there may be better solutions then. that is not one to be possible. >> that is precisely the debate that happened in congress. congress determined there was enough evidence to act now, that this was a catastrophic problem for americans. we are at 18.6. the number of insured people have dropped 10%. those projections get worse in the future without this bill. this is quintessentially economic and a way that other things were not. >> congress has never use this particular type of will to solve this issue. there are cases where congress is part of our broader regulatory scheme. >> sure. >> the u.s. supreme court. how would it go there? has never supreme court been confronted directly with that. there have been a number of cases that could be directed that way. >> they are in the business are ready. >> they are forcing people to serve, to do something they would not otherwise do. >> in response to that wall, they could have said we exit the business. to kosher. if we're want to play that game, it could be played here as well. the minimum coverage only kicks and the people have earned a certain amount of income. and it is not just on self in sharing on their own. one could say, just like the restaurant owner could depart the market, one does not need to learn that much income. i think both are kind of fanciful. >> the idea that the solution is make a little less money? >> the justice was not at the heart of atlanta hotel that said you do not have to be restaurant owners and the like. i think what congress was reacting to was a world in which there are 50 million people who are uninsured and increasing the premiums of state lines by the tune of $1,000 per family. that is quintessentially economic. all of the things my friend said about tax and how you can do this from a tax power is not a complaint about congress. there may be a concern about individual liberty and invasive, but they are not making those arguments before the court. they made them in the complaint, not before the court. to call in this not economic, to call this not commercial, i think, is a very tough argument. the percentage ofpercentaguest: citizens in three that does not file a tax return every year? >> they are exempt. i do not know the percentage. the number is about $9,000 per year. >> there are certainly large numbers in many urban areas where the group does not filed taxes. >> absolutely. the group that deals with that is subsidizing. >> that becomes a national issue of citizens wreak protection, does it not? the congress basically made one assessment, is that we have this as a national goal to ensure the health of our citizenry. that is the carry over into that point. >> absolutely. that is another part of the constitution. >> right. they said you can tax and effectively do that for the whole population. >> the city of cincinnati propose raising the tax 1 cents, and the place went ballistic. nobody wants to pay more taxes. >> what congress has done here is less evasive than that. congress is giving choice. you cannot have different insurers as opposed to the single payer system that they say would be constitutional. i do not think single payer is better or worse. this court president says overwhelmingly in the supreme court, has said time and time again -- >> we all have a lot of different opinions about a lot of things. >> whatever the case is, it does not strike me as the guidance here. you have your officer of the court had on. i realize that distinction is very helpful. i cannot quite figure out if it applies to the commerce clause, which is a grain of power. >> i think that we win this case either way. to the answer your question, i think the facial challenge of does apply. i say this because of slobbery, which does apply to the enumerated powers argument. here is the language, we did not strike down a language because there are hypothetical situations in which the connection may be conceivably dictators. it is for only when there are no set of circumstances in which the statute's application would be application. we think undoubtably there are application all statutes. this lawsuit must fail. and maybe the course there may be some other lawsuit that may be brought. >> do you think it makes sense to grant the power? i'm curious what you think about it? >> i think it does make sense. you know the court better than we do. what do you think? i do not know what they're going to say about this. to g >> it is reflected in your own opinion in warsaw. on this point, judge burton, i am not sure that is the case. what you said was the facial challenge standard have to do a lot with judicial restraint. and i think it is really a problem when individual litigants come in, sometimes with changed circumstances, and can say they have our problem. this entire act test of all. that is what i think salerno was getting at in the united states vs. foster was getting at. >> we need to hear from you on the indian junction act precisely. congress would not have wanted to wait until after the interconnected provisions are implemented and relied upon by millions of individuals for challenges to the constitutionality of the amendment. is that, remaining your position -- those that remain your position? > >> it does. as officers of the court, we're trying to give you the best sense and tell you we do not think the anti-injunction act applies. >> thank you very much. >> why don't you wait a minute? people have been in here for an hour and a half. we will miss you dearly, but please do it at this moment. shows you have interest lags at the end. [laughter] we must get through it all. i believe we have had the departures -- all right. stand by. one more in the door will close and we will hear your closing. this court asked my friend about any cases he could point to that would show congress have the authority to regulate in activity. one of the main cases was united states forcevs. fosse. this case was dealing with the commerce clause of challenge to the child support recovery act. the court specifically said that act regulates interstate commerce. one of the primary categories. it regulates the challenge. one of the categories that congress can regulate under the commerce clause. , because congress properly enacted that. you have an individual who fell within the statute because he had a court-ordered child support payment that was due to a child who was in a different state. he fell within that particular statute. because he did not make his payment, he was in violation of the statute enacted. that is not even what we have here. he did not have the individual mandate provision. he did not have the basis for congress to pass that at conception. you are dealing with something that is applied with the commerce clause because it regulated interstate commerce that plainly does not fall within the category here. look at the heart of atlanta hotel case, but in those cases in the heart of atlanta, you have the individual or entity that was already active that chose to engage in commerce. once they were engaged in commerce, commerce had great authority to regulate them. the hospital decides to engage in commerce. the federal government tells them if someone wants to have the emergency services, you have to provide for them regardless. that is because they were already in commerce. the individual mandate is forcing people to participate in commerce. cane's no point -- casey point to that, for someone to open a hotel, to have our restaurant, to own a hospital, and once you have done that we can regulate you. these are acts to engage in commerce at the outset, and commerce can regulate them there. it is significantly different. >> what would you say about this law, only about catastrophic health care, so that in affect everyone was forced into the market? on the theory that outside religious objectives clearly is a very small group of people that would cost over $50,000, so that it was there to generalize. and there do say they want to be left alone. i think average person with a heart attack will not object when the wife drives them to the emergency room and the emergency room treats them whether they have health care or not. wouldn't you think that would be ok? >> there are certainly a lot of heart wrenching stories we could come up with the health-care market, but that does not provide a principal for granting congress the authority to remedy the problem. i am saying everyone has to have a catastrophic health care. to g >> they are trying to regulate it and describe it as an economic area. >> everyone does get the health care for which they cannot pay. >> that is not true. that is not true at all. >> we're down to a pretty small group. >> there are other ways they can solve problems. in this court's role is not to determine whether the ultimate objectives were liable objectives. the role is to determine whether the means they chose were within the constitution. there is no way this court can conclude the federal government can force someone to engage in economic activity and then cause a federal penalty. there is no precedent whatsoever. every case he cites to is absolutely distinguishable. congress created the problem to begin with that community rating. now their cause problems for the insurance companies and our remedy is to force people into the market, and they cannot do that. >> thank you very much. up to both of you, compliments and depreciation. it has been an excellent afternoon. the case will be submitted. an opinion will be forthcoming. we will give you no date or time. normally i would say you have three of the more attuned judges who believed it is better andknow yes than to wait deciliter. we will adjourn the court. thank you very much. >> the west pediment of the supreme court's. the figure of liberty in the center. the scales of justice guardians. pai-hed by two yesterday was another rainy day here in the nation's capital. a tea party rally still took place at the capitol. the speakers at the rally included the virginia attorney general who challenge the law in court, and the former republican presidential candidate herman cain. if you miss their remarks, you can view them on our website c- span.org. we're going to check the supreme court seen throughout the day. the media getting ready for the people that will be attending the remarks. there has also been a line of people gathering outside the supreme court. some of those people may be paid. they are paid waiters who hold the line for people who cannot hold the line all day. that is according to a " washington post" article. o>> it is like in france, when you have to do with the waiter all your life. >> i am not from france. i am an american. >> maybe it is just the french waiters i had to work with. >> stopping by arlington national cemetery to visit a couple of buddies that are buried there. take a what is everybody doing here for the supreme court today? >> [inaudible] >> here is a look at some of the people waiting in line. some of them may actually be paid according to "the washington post" article. people can make up to $350 to stay here in the line. they are paid by individuals, and sometimes lobbying groups and law firms in order to make sure those people get a seat when it comes time to go inside the court, which will happen tomorrow. the core holding three days of oral arguments. we're want to bring you for audio of the oral arguments on the health-care law tomorrow afternoon at 1:00 eastern time. win[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we are born to be checking the scene outside the supreme court throughout the day today, and looking at some of the challenges to the wall. tomorrow we will same -- air same-day arguments on the campaign in networks c-span3. the health care act just past the second anniversary of being signed into law. now we will show you some of the debate on the bill from back in 2009 when it was making its way through the senate leading up to a vote on december 21. the senate version passed a few this christmas eve. >> mr. president, it is obvious why the majority who think you. it is obvious why the majority has cooked up this amendment in secret, has introduced it in the middle of a snowstorm, has scheduled the senate to come in session at midnight. has doubled over 04 1:00 in the morning, insisting it be passed before christmas, because they do not want the american people to know what is in it. it is a deeply disappointing legislative results, but friends on the democratic side seemed determined to pursue a political kamikaze mission towards a historic mistake. this will be bad for the democrats, i am convinced, but even much worse for our country. thank you, mr. president. >> it all began in the presidential campaign. i do not like to spend much time recalling it, but health care was a big issue in the presidential campaign, on october 8, 2008, just a less -- just less than a month before the election, president obama said concerning health care reform and, "i will have all of the negotiations are around a big table. we will have negotiations televised on c-span, so the people can see who was making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies." that was a statement made by a then that senator obama. so what we have seen here is a dramatic departure. there has never been a serious negotiation between republicans and the other side. there has never been that -- i say that with a knowledge of someone who has negotiated many times across the aisle. do not stand up and say there were serious negotiations between republicans and democrats. there never were. there was negotiations with special interests, farmpharma. clearly this administration and outside of iowa was on that side of pharma, because they got a sweetheart deal of $150 billion that would of been saved if we would of been able to reinforce prescription drugs. a r pete got a sweetheart deal. got a sweetheart deal. there was throughout this, we should have set up a tent and put a person webs in front of it. that is the way this has been conducted pier yen and the the we have to take care of special senators. we have the louisiana purchase, cornhuskers' kickback. i got the florida flim flam, the one get that gives the medicare advantage in florida, but my constituents do not. so an answer to this question today, the majority leader said "a number of states are treated differently than other states." really? legislation is all about. that is compromise. where is that what? a number of states are treated differently than other states. that is what legislation is all about. that is compromise. that is not what the american people call in governing. that is called an opposite definition of what the president of the united states said where he said we will have negotiations television -- televised. the leader from illinois the other day just a few days ago, i said what is in the bill? the senator from illinois and i do not know. i am in the dark, too. here we are as the senator from tennessee set in the middle of the night, and here we are about to pass a bill with 60 votes. now, 60 votes represent 60% of this body. i can assure my friends on the other side of the aisle it does not represent 60% of the american people. 61% of the american people say they want this stopped. they disapproved of it. i guarantee you, when you go against the majority opinion of the american people you pay a heavy price, and you should. i will tell my colleagues right now, when you -- this will be, it is passed, and we will not give up after this vote, for the first time in history, for the first time in history, there will be a major reform passed on a party-line basis. every reform has been passed in a bipartisan basis. this will be a strict party-line basis. >> i just heard the senator from arizona saying this is not a bipartisan bill. i have heard talk about how this should be bipartisan. let's look at that for a second. as i see it, the republicans have no bill of their own. our bill has 60 democrats. a super majority. a super majority. i guess there is a bill over there with seven co-sponsors. that is it. and that is it. nothing else. my friends on the other side are all over the place. they cannot even agree among themselves what they want to do. they have no comprehensive bill like we have come up with. so i keep hearing that we democrats are not bipartisan. but who do we deal with? just the senator from arizona? justice senator from tennessee? how about the senator from oklahoma or south carolina? i am sorry. i feel sorry the republicans are all split up. they have not done their own homework to pull their own senators together for something positive. so what they have done is they have pulled it together to say no to try to kill the reform bill that we have worked so hard on all year. we extended a hand. if we had really wanted to phase out the republicans, we would have followed their lead in what they did in 2001 when they ran through the tax cuts for the wealthy. they did it on reconciliation so we could not filibuster. so we could not have any debate on it. that is what they did. we did not do it that way. president obama said we want to hold the olive branch out and work with republicans. so that is what we tried to do. we had numerous meetings with republicans. we had a market session that lasted 54 days. we accepted 161 of their amendments. in the end, everyone on the republican side voted against it. senator baucus bent over backwards. he went the extra 500 miles. he tried to get republicans to work with him on this bill. and in the end, only one republican would vote for the bill out of the committee. that is what we have. i am sorry to say my friends on the other side are in total disarray. they have nothing they can agree on. we have something we have agreed on, 60. a super majority. a bill moving forward. a pivotal point in our history. decade-long march. it eluded presidents going back to theodore roosevelt. my friends on the other side defend the status quo. they want us to vote with fear. everything you hear is fear. be afraid. it will not work this time. what the american people want is not fear, they want hope. they want to have the peace of mind and security of knowing that their children, if they have a pre-existing condition, they they will be covered by health insurance. the peace of mind knowing that they lose their job they do not lose health insurance. and they want the security of knowing that if they get ill, they will not be dropped by their insurance company. they want the hope and security to know that they are not just one illness away from bankruptcy. we are the only country in the world, the only one, where people could go bankrupt because they owed a medical bill. no other country would allow that to happen. we're the only one. this bill is going to stop that. people will not have to fear going bankrupt, because someone in their family got a chronic illness or a disease that cost a lot of money. american people want us to move forward. we're going to do it tonight at 1:00. we're going to move forward. >> the democrat bill we are voting on tonight raises costs. that is the administration's own budget scorekeeper. it raises premiums. that is the non-partisan congressional budget office talking. it raises taxes on tens of millions of middle-class americans, and it plunders medicare by half a trillion dollars. it forces people off the plants they have, including millions of seniors. allows the federal government, for the first time in our history, to use taxpayer dollars for abortions. so a president that was voted into office on a promise of change said he wanted to lower premiums. that change. he said he would not raise taxes. that change. he said he wanted it will work costs. that change. he said he would not cut medicare, and that changed, too. 12 months and 2.3 trillion dollars later, lawmakers who have made the same promises to their constituents are poised to vote for a bill that will not bend the cost curve, will not make health care more affordable, and it will make real reform even harder to achieve down the road. i am understand the pressure our friends on the other side are feeling. i do not doubt for a moment their sincerity. but my message tonight is this, the impact of this vote will long outlive this one of frantic weekend in washington. mark my words, this legislation will reshape our nation. americans have marty issued their verdict -- have already issued their verdict, they do not want it. they do not like this bill. they do not like lawmakers playing games with their health care to secure the votes they need to pass it. >> a look at the supreme court this morning on a cloudy day. expecting rain in washington. a few visitors outside making their way up the steps. there is a line forming to get theo tomorrow's arguing of t affordable care act. . >> we will bring the new body of the supreme court's argument on the health care law that will start tomorrow afternoon on air companion network. c-span 3. we will be checking the scene throughout the day at the supreme court. >> last month, former u.s. solicitors general precede the supreme court arguments, focusing on the individual mandate. they also argued before the 11th circuit court of appeals. the represented states that were against the act and one. the law required the purchase of insurance was unconstitutional. bloomberg lot hosted this discussion. >> good morning. i am pleased to welcome new to supreme court arguments briefing, co-sponsored by bloomberg law. we are preaching -- approaching the two-year anniversary. since president obama signed that into law, it has been challenged numerous times, culminating before the supreme court. this morning, we have to explore some of the arguments underpinning that case. i now have the distinct honor of introducing lyle. he is uncovering the supreme court for 54 years. in that time, he is covered one- quarter of the justices to set on the court -- has reported on the entire careers of 10 of those justices. he is the author of the reporter and the law, techniques of covering the court, and it is still available. i would like to welcome lyle. [applause] >> good morning. we are glad you are here. if you were not here, we would not be. contrary to perceptions of some of my colleagues in the press room, i was not around when the -- case was decided. that was one case --that was one case in which he did not appear. i was not very far behind when peter roosevelt began exploring the possibility of a national health care lot in the early 1900's. i can a long after that. my task is not to discuss the case but to give you some outlines of the logistics of what is going to be happening. the first thing that i would tell you for sure is settled is that justice kagan and thomas will participate in the case. there have been repeated discussions about whether one or both of them should disqualify themselves. there is one case urging justice kagan to refuse. there have been opportunities for them to refuse and they have not done so. it is perfectly acceptable that they will continue to participate. there will not be in a live television coverage of the oral arguments in late march. there is a request. i do not believe there is any possibility that there will be live coverage. one other thing that is settled is the court has completed the briefing schedule but not all are in yet. i did a count last night in the press during -- pressroom. there are 93 briefs. there are still more briefs to come including tomorrow i think it is due tomorrow on the server ability question. some issues that are almost settled are how much time there will be for the oral argument. they are committed to pipeline five hours but the parties have asked for another half hour. we presume we will see an order from the court asking for the competing allocation of time request. there probably will not be a safe date release of the audiotapes made. the current chief justice has a policy that he prefers not to release any idea taste on the same day of the hearing. now the common practice is to release all of the audio tapes on the front of the argument. -- friday following the argument. the daily press has lost interest by that time. there could be a change in policy for that case. it treats this case differently. the court has some of the filings in the case of the website. the court also has set aside 5.5 hours of argument for this case. i would urge you to not overlook the anti induction issue. this is one of the issues for the main street press. it tends to fall over division. there is a mandate. i would like to take up a few issues. most importantly, the birth control mandate is not an issue before the court now. if you wish to see where that kurdistan's as the legal matter, and they published the regulation region where that stands as a legal matter, at the published-- if you wish to see where they stand on the legal matter, they publish the regulation where it stands as a legal matter. it will require insurance companies to provide care. i would also like to address one major issue. this is the equivalent. it has been suggested that perhaps i should offer a prediction as to how it should come out. the following panel could be very informative. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you so much. in the publisher of a blog. -- i am. we are grateful for those who are watching streaming or three c-span. everybody understands the case that are about to hear on the act. there are incredibly well meaning people on both sides of the case. one small point of privilege is that i have a dog in this fight as a lawyer. i want to make clear that my job here has nothing to do with that. it is simply to facilitate the folks who will do the talking. we have produced a media guide for the folks who are here. you can find links to the bias in the back. we can give you a little bit of backgrounds about each compliment. he is a former solicitor general. half the states have sued the constitutionality of the statute. he's arguing every case. eking compass at least 10 of the oral arguments. michael carbon is a partner at the bankrupt. he is a partner at jones day. he is the former deputy head of the office of legal counsel. they have a principal lawyer for the plaintiffs. they have been formulating the legal strategy. they have been involved in the matter involving the business community and a lot of conservative issues. my last is the former acting general. he argued a most of the cases in the court of appeals as this was being litigated. he is now co-head of the super practice which is an international law firm. he is regarded at the very least among the same generation as the leading democratic lawyer. keela is a professor at yale university. he regarded fairly as one of of the five ones in america today. a particular, my own view. rather than gravitating toward esoteric, action gravitating toward the importance and clear hear. we are here to talk about cases as the whole. we will have a question appeared at the end. it goes on to ask about them, you are welcome to do so. you could talk about this for 5.5 hours. we have less than that. we're going to focus on the core of its. i have urged the panelists to engage other and not call back. none are known as shrinking violets and that should not be a problem. they really should cut to the heart of the matter. and lots of folks know it had bought the case. a lot of folks will not know as much about it. if i could just ask paul to set the table with a brief description of what the individual mandate is. >> i will give it a try. i think neal of have a different way of describing its. this has generated the most controversy. there is the individual mandates. it requires with one in two minor qualifications them to maintain health insurance. it is the act when you're putting together this. they have to do other insurance reforms including to make sure it is available to everybody and then you have not be denied insurance. they have run into problems. one state tried it with an individual mandate that was perceived as more successful. i do not think it was preceded by everybody. it was the only way to accomplish it. there were earlier versions of the act that more affirmatively embraced the taxing authority. it included an individual mandate. it gives rise to the individual issue. this is really completely unique depending on your perspective. there have been a lot of crises in the country where congress might have thought that forcing individuals toward a particular good or service might be useful. the government never did it. it has resonated with me. it is compelled purchase would have even been more effective regulation. it has incentives for people by giving them the incentives. it would have been much more proficient to simply say that everybody over a certain income level had to buy a car. the government never seen fit to do that directs requirement. it gives rise to the basic issue to the governments. i think they can see this. many suggest it is a fairly straightforward regulation. the challengers. to the nature of the imposition. there is the government's seeming inability to eliminate a principal such as can engage in this regulation. in a nutshell, i hope that this response of the setting the table. >> thank you for this wonderful event. i'm glad to be here with all of you. it i am not here now representing the government. i agree with a large part of what paul said. let me fleshed out exactly what congress is doing. it did not understand why this existed until i started getting really into the argument. congress is reacting to a problem with it the people uninsured. a large part of that has to be conditions. if you're in one job, they have other employer were to do. this person has high risk and so on. 50 million people are uninsured. conagra said we will eliminate -- congress the discrimination and insist that everyone be rated a certain level and the community. once insurance companies are told you have to do this at a fair cross-section, then everyone could wait to buy them until they got sick. that way you economize on their costs. that will create a massive adverse selection problems. they tried to reform the insurance market. what congress did is they said they would have an individual mandates so everyone has to have a certain amount of insurance. right now congress bounce every american -- found every american family that pays health insurance pays $1,000 extra for those who are uninsured. that is really what congress was saying. it is approximately 18% of gdp. it is a comprehensive regulation. why did the government do this with respect to the automobile industry? that is not a situation in which she can show up at the car lot, a drive off with a car and stick the bill to your neighbor. that is what is going on in the health insurance market. the uninsured and uni and are paying for health insurance are paying for them. that is an economic effect that israel -- and you and i are paying for the health insurance for them. >> is called insurance different in a way that explains how they could impose a mandate here but not in some other contact? >> no. he is always wrong for three reasons. he missed described congress's purpose. this comes straight from this. what we're trying to do is prevent the insured from subsidizing the uninsured. it is the opposite. what you're trying to do is conscripts individuals to buy insurance before and makes any sense for them to do it. it requires insurance companies to give it to all of the sick people. you counterbalanced by bringing in to people whose insurance some plea makes money. -- simply makes money. how much subsidy coming in from the individual mandates. 28 to $39 billion a year. you are taking a bunch of how the third year olds except for a catastrophic insurance. the only stymied what that is a 30 year old. -- the only time you what that is a 30 old. they say have to buy the contraceptive and wellness programs and things that'll do you a whole lot of good. why do we do that tax what your insurance money. as for the adverse selection problem, there is an 11 month time period you have a certain opportunity to buy insurance. what kind of person will sit there and say i really need insurance but i'm going to become a casino gamblers. i will be able to buy insurance on the way to the emergency room. cbo did not score it appeared there was not a line of testimony trying to document what causes this election. we can disagree about the policies and economics. what difference does it make. the court is not want to second guess what is beneficial for congress. congress is the one that makes the power. he can come up with whatever policy differences they think are important are what unique aspects. once congress has the ability compelling duty by the one is there. congress has the power. but congress has the power, that is the proper role. of the government tries to build these economic reasons while allowing this case, it is not unique. they can require you to buy a car. a gm car. we impose all kinds of restrictions on the car company that drive up the cost of cars. just like the nondiscrimination provisions strive of the cost of provision. -- insurance. if congress is allowed to force tankers to the provision, there is no reason in the world that they cannot do it just like they can do it and the health care context. as the justice department has been unable to show, congress has the power to serve the public welfare to improve congress, a game over. they can do it for banks and anyone else they want. >> among your reactions, both paul and michael have said that there is no limiting principle. is there no limit in principle or does it matter? >> the most important decision that the supreme court ever issued is mccullough versus maryland. the take them seriously, everything that they said is clearly wrong. clearly. here is what john marshall says. the argument is that this creates a corporation and it is special. marshall says wrong. he says of for reasons such a applicable. the corporation has already been created under other causes. why not here? george washington signed his name to individual mandates. i will read the language before the end of today. here is what he says about the limiting principle. q government tax me? yes. can they take money and buy stuff with it? yes. the only security and the abuse is against it itself. the act upon the constituents. this is sufficient security. if you do not like this, vote the bums out. i personally did not much like any aspect of law as a matter of policy. i would prefer to see a lot of torts reform. my wife is a physician and we have been sued in malpractice. my brother has been sued. i do not like this as a matter of policy. if you do not, roll them out. we voted for president obama and his party and they said they were going to do this. that is what they did. if he did not like it, we will have another presidential election contest. the limiting principle is that they are taxing us. they are making us pay. if they do a cash for clunkers, i do not think they will because there is no room for it. we do not need constitutional lawyers and judges pulling principles out of thin air to limit the ability of congress to pass a loss on cash for clunkers requiring you to buy a car. congress will not do it. there's not a need for its. if they do do it, i want to see why they do it. there maybe a reason for it. mike talked about construction. -- conscription. let me read you the language of a law that george washington find his name to. it is this sufficient bayonet and bill. they had a knapsack and bill. does not less than 24 cartridges. if you're 30 years old, you do not need a health insurance policies unless you're going to get hit by a truck. they're subsidizing older folks. welcome to social security. in denver people may be going in. there's nothing unconstitutional about that. to be will roll back 70 years of progressive legislation. on conscription, the next attack could very well be biological. the germ warfare. everyone will need vaccines. viruses do not respect state lines. today is social security means everyone needs to have vaccines. they are more likely to have it if they are required to have insurance. >> i wanted to make sure, there are too arguable constitutional basis for the statutes that have been discussed. the three be taught about the commerce clause. he has put on the table that there is another power that can be used to justify the statutes. it has blown a little bit hot and cold. can you address the question of whether this is a tax so that even if it worked not within the power, it is within the taxing power? >> mike will probably supplement them. there is this arguments that even if this is not on the individual mandate under the power that congress expressed, he said it was exercised. and nonetheless might be supported by the exercise of congressional power that at least the president said was not being used here. that is the taxing power. in some respects, i think the simplest answer to that argument and to his point about mccullough, which i embrace. here is the thing. the simple reason why the mandate is not a tax is because it was not labeled as a tax. it does not operate the way a normal tax does. it is clearly something different. we have not described how the tax does that. >> there is no tax. >> what this does, the mandate is a requirement that every individual, say people that are incarcerated in people that are native americans have a separate plan. everybody else has to get health insurance. there is a separate provision which is penalty that operates as a penalty against those who do not buy insurance. that penalty, which is a little bit closer than the mandate does not apply to everybody to him the mandate applies. there are a lot of people, virtually all the low income people that are subject to the mandate. they're not subject to penalty if they don't. it is not the principal focus. it is not the mandate that really has everybody else says. this is to the point from the call-up. what the chief justice said is that the taxing power is brought power and that once you have the government exercising the taxing power there will not be a lot in court to limit the power and get the taxes too high for that it is some doubt impermissible. all that is fair. the limit on the taxing power has to be structural and has to be people who are the taxpayers. that is as likely what the people said. that is why in earlier versions congress contemplated something. the people did speak. the people who passed this law and congress knew full well there not the votes to do this. they use the mandate. it is a sneaky tax. it is not on any group of people you'd otherwise rationally say to be subject to a tax, like people who are high income people are people who engage in certain transactions such are risky. all of that might make sense from a logical taxing policy. it taxes what your people you and not logically want to tax, reasonable help the, recently unpeople who do not have a lot of spare income. they are inclined to save their money. it has a lot of assets of the tax. it does not have the one thing that chief justice marshall said is critical, the kind of up front accountability that allows the structural process to work. he said we could start a serious conversation if we had an answer for why this is different from taxing people and taking things from some people in giving them to others. i think the short answer is that this is completely different. there's a lot of accountability in being very clear about to is getting the benefits of the tax. a group of insurance companies who otherwise would protest long and hard against a new impositions that are implicit in the insurance reforms were basically quiet it. an effective subsidy was devised for they got all this money on the backs of relatively healthy individuals. it would not have passed. >> i absolutely agree with every word he said. anything that congress can tax and take and give to an individual, congress can require one individual to pay for another. since congress can pay for somebody's insurance premiums and can require you to pay for this person's insurance premium. we all agree there is no constitutional limits in principle want to give congress the ability to take it for me and give it to you. this is the honesty of the political process. somebody ran for president and said hillary clinton, i am opposed to an individual mandates. bill not raise it on anyone with the west into a $50,000 a year. he could not endorse the individual mandate and impose taxes. the big difference is the tax system does apply to all americans or should. everyone to accomplish this, we need to do for the greater societal good. if you are forcing people to engage in a public good, at the public as a whole should pay for its. that is how we have done it if we require hospitals for people with their normal charitable instincts. this is all we're asking for. if congress wants to force one private citizen to help other people for obvious charitable reasons, is terrific. what you do not do is then not pay for it. what you do not do is make that take the entire tax. if we think it is so important to get protections against insurance discriminations for pre-existing conditions, terrific. that is a policy choice. we have to pay for it. the cannot ask someone to pay for the other insurance premiums. >> i think you can read this until you are blue in your face. you'll never find the principle. that is that congress has to somehow face it. but she is saying is that the great check is the political process generally. i do not think anyone was fooled that this was a tax and therefore constitutional. the way that you sign up for health insurance, you have to report it on your 1040 tax form and pay a penalty. you are reminded that this is a tax. the way that it is calculated is that it looks to a percentage of your gross incomes. it looks and smells like a tax. congress founded functions like a tax that will raise money. the cbo found it will raise $19 billion and putting it in the federal coffers. it is in the heartland of the power. i do not think it is as much about the tax power as what is the real check against these worries that my friends have pointed to. isogloss school in the early 1990's. i thought -- i went to law school in the early '90s. i thought it was a great idea do we get this stuff done. i am struck by the change.

i had the good fortune yesterday of having the chairman of the blue cross blue shields who thinks thathis particular measure is something that would be helpful in his industry. but that's one thing for another day. madam speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the house adopts this rule that it bring up h.r. 14, the house companion to the bipartisan senate transportation bill, a i'm pleased now to yield to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, my good friend, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: thank you very much, madam speaker, and i thank my friend from floda for yielding. you know, time and time again over the last several months we have heard from republican leadership. we've heard their talk about the highway bill, h.r. 7, and they've talked about it as their principal jobs bill for the 112th congress. well, here we are, march 21, 10 days before the expiration of the current extension of the surface transp

blue cross-blue shield oklahoma knows my practice parameters. they know what i'm good at, what i'm efficient at and what i'm not. they're not going to give up that knowledge on whether or not i should be doing a test or not by simply saying the federal government put a medical loss ratio. they're going to raise premium prices, which we're already seeing, in oklahoma. when we continue to treat symptoms stphefd underlying -- instead of the underlying disease. we don't solve the problem. we actually make the problem worse. that's why you get sued as a physician, when you've missed a diagnosis of a disease. and what i would tell you is that americans are at dis-ease about health care in our country. but we have committed malpractice in our approach to it because we are treating the symptoms and not the underlying dis-ease. mr. johanns: let me express my appreciation. but let me also follow up with a question because i think this is important. you mentioned ipab. this was a little-discussed provision, although you kept pointing it out. talk about the

blue cross/blue shield, and that provided me with diagnostic mammograms which includes an ultrasound. so, in that spring day when my surgeon oncologist asked me do you want to hear the good news or the bad news, all i heard her say was early breast cancer, noninvasive, and because i had the freedom to select my health care plan i was going to be scared my life, -- stared my life, and at the very least months of chemotherapy and radiation. what if i had a government health care plan? at the end of 2009, the group that dictates what your health care is going to be, ladies, and men, said women at the age of 50 could get yearly mammograms every other year. anyone under 40 that is diagnosed with breast cancer can be lethal, and the older you get the greater the chances are for breast cancer. this sounds like rationing. does it not sound like rationing to you? that is exactly what was said by the former professor at johns hopkins university, the first woman to be head of the national institute of health. she said it was rationing, she told the press, and at that time i went to susan g. colman in southern california and i demanded that they pronounced obama-care uh on fit for american women, and i actually -- obama-care unfit for american women, and at that time i said there is something our group says -- "sam, keep your mitts off of our tits." why would the task force do this? it is simple, ladies. first of all, they are sparing you for -- from mental distress in case you have a false positive, but according to "the huntingtown post" three months ago, they will reword the language so you better understand it terror and you do not understand what they're trying to do for you. -- it. you do not understand what they're trying to do for you. the cost of covering women 40 and over and the baby boomers far outweighs the cost of saving those women's lives that might die of best the breast cancer. to be fair, congress did pass and include in obama-care a provision for mammograms starting at age 40 for yearly mammograms, but let me tell you, ladies, it will not be enough. if i did not have an ultrasound, which found the breast cancer, i could have been at a later-stage breast cancer. indeed diagnostics. at the same time, congress and the president who loves this healthcare plan, decided they did not think they wanted it. they would have a ppo, so in the spring, and early-summer, i decided to have a bilateral mastectomy because obama-care was breathing down my neck, and not only that i was facing medicare, which meant one half of $1 trillion would be taken out of the medicare trust fund, and there would be a panel of 15 sitting around some table in washington deciding if linda could have surgery to cure her breast cancer or a pill. i decided on the bilateral mastectomy, and in early-summer of 2009, as i was being very emotional, as i was being wheeled down the hall from the recovery room, my husband reported to me later i cried out red, white, and blue [chanting] red and blue. >> my husband, wondering what i was talking about said hani, it is neat, john, and i said where is john -- honey, a disney, john, and i said where is john adams? when i got to my room a girl explained i am an unapologetic liberal, but if there is a war i am joining with linda. [applause] >> so, today, to save ourselves from rationing, we must get rid of this, now. we stand assembled and give our voice by the first amendment, and we tell the supreme court justices, no obama-care. no obama-care. no obama-care. >> it is a war on women, but not the war on women the liberals want you to think. it is a war on every one of us. it is a fight for freedom. we are freedom fighters, and we are going to keep on fighting. [applause] next up is the author of "democracy denied" and the vice president for policy at americans for prosperity. his name is bill. >> first of all, thank you guys for standing here for a couple hours in the rain. there are a few more minutes you will

i had the good fortune yesterday of having the chairman of the blue cross blue shields who thinks that this particular measure is something that would be helpful in his industry. but that's one thing for another day. madam speaker, if we defeat the previous question, i'm going to offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the house adopts this rule that it bring up h.r. 14, the house companion to the bipartisan senate transportation bill, and i'm pleased now to yield to the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, my good friend, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: thank you very much, madam speaker, and i thank my friend from florida for yielding. you know, time and time again over the last several months we have heard from republican leadership. we've heard their talk about the highway bill, h.r. 7, and they've talked about it as their principal jobs bill for the 112th congress. well, here we are, march 21, 10 days before the expiration of the current extension of the surface

blue cross/blue shield, and that provided me with diagnostic mammograms which includes an ultrasound. so, in that spring day when my surgeon oncologist asked me do you want to hear the good news or the bad news, all i heard her say was early breast cancer, noninvasive, and because i had the freedom to select my health care plan i was going to be scared my life, -- stared my life, and at the very least months of chemotherapy and radiation. what if i had a government health care plan? at the end of 2009, the group that dictates what your health care is going to be, ladies, and men, said women at the age of 50 could get yearly mammograms every other year. anyone under 40 that is diagnosed with breast cancer can be lethal, and the older you get the greater the chances are for breast cancer. this sounds like rationing. does it not sound like rationing to you? that is exactly what was said by the former professor at johns hopkins university', the first woman to be head of the national institute of health. she said it was rationing, she told the press, and at that time i went to susan g. colman in southern california and i demanded that they pronounced obama-care uh on fit for american women, and i actually -- obama-care unfit for american women, and at that time i said there is something our group says -- "sam, keep your mitts off of our tits." why would the task force do this? it is simple, ladies. first of all, they are sparing you for -- from mental distress in case you have a false positive, but according to "the huntingtown post" three months ago, they will reword the language so you better understand it terror and you do not understand what they're trying to do for you. -- it. you do not understand what they're trying to do for you. the cost of covering women 40 and over and the baby boomers far outweighs the cost of saving those women's lives that might die of best the breast cancer. to be fair, congress did pass and include in obama-care a provision for mammograms starting at age 40 for yearly mammograms, but let me tell you, ladies, it will not be enough. if i did not have an ultrasound, which found the breast cancer, i could have been at a later-stage breast cancer. indeed diagnostics. at the same time, congress and the president who loves this healthcare plan, decided they did not think they wanted it. they would have a ppo, so in the spring, and early-summer, i decided to have a bilateral mastectomy because obama-care was breathing down my neck, and not only that i was facing medicare, which meant one half of $1 trillion would be taken out of the medicare trust fund, and there would be a panel of 15 sitting around some table in washington deciding if linda could have surgery to cure fohe breast cancer or a pill. i decided on the bilateral mastectomy, and in early-summer of 2009, as i was being very emotional, as i was being wheeled down the hall from the recovery room, my husband reported to me later i cried out red, white, and blue. >> [chanting] red and blue. >> my husband, wondering what i was talking about said hani, it is neat, john, and i said where is john -- honey, a disney, john, and i said where is john adams? when i got to my room a girl explained i am an unapologetic liberal, but if there is a war i am joining with linda. [applause] >> so, today, to save ourselves from rationing, we must get rid of this, now. we stand assembled and give our voice by the first amendment, and we tell the supreme court justices, no obama- >> it is a war of women but it is not the war on women that liberals want you to think. it is a war on every one of us. it is a fight for freedom. we are freedom fighters. we are going to keep on fighting. thank you. >> next up is the author of "democracy denied" his name is phil kerpin. >> first of all, thank you guys for standing here for a couple of hours in the rain. stay here for a few more minutes. you will prevent much greater pain in the future. nancy pelosi was famously asked i