this expansion of medicaid is uniquely not onerous compared to past expansions of medicaid. the average share of state medicaid spending now is 59%, which i didn't know before but i'll take it for granted. for this expansion of medicaid, the federal government is undertaking to pay $100% of what it will cost to pay for newly eligible people through 2016 and after that the percentage drops to 90% until 2020 and it is made permanent at 90%. so the federal government is covering much more of the shared costs of funding medicaid for this expansion than it has for any of the past expansions. so the argument that this is uniquely onerous as a constitutional matter is completely nonsense. three minutes left. the rest of the arguments. next argument -- they have actually said this over and over again. never before has the federal government done this when it's expanded medicaid. never before has it said if you don't accept the new requirements, then you can only do that by withdrawing from medicaid altogether and losing all your existing funding. that's simply completely not true. a

that you consider an expansion and goes away. the patient centered homes, those are additional dollars, an expansion under medicare so those three in particular, there are others you say you consider expansions, inappropriate, they are going away, sometime in the future the committees could change their mind and reinstate that if they find the money. under this budget the assumption is that's an expansion, it goes away. >> yes. the chairman's mark assumes the affordable care act is repealed. in terms of -- >> those benefit goes away. >> in terms of the specifics we can go through the individual assumptions but the budget committee doesn't determine what happens with the donut hole and these very specific assumptions. we set a number or the committee through the resolution sets overall numbers. the committees of jurisdiction determine the details. >> right. but again, because the health law will be, the affordable care act will be repealed for now the assumption has to be that those expansions -- you answered the question but it's

then on top, a large expansion under affordable care act. i believe the block grant saf z savings are $110 billiopen.ent? >> we could go back and find that out. >> numbers. 30%. about 30%. so i understand some of this is cutting as you call it expansion from affordable care act. one of my questions for you is, what standards, or is therethe the bunt th the budget that would suggest we are going to hold states and governments accountable for providing services under medicaid. many of us are worried about but as the you know, big costs ash in nursing homes and frail, sick seniors. talking abut that later. is there any way there is something in the budget that hold governors accountable, or states accountable for, continuing to provide support for seniors in nursing homes, very frail, elderly, disabled, or is that up to the government snores. >> so our assumption is that states would be required

but starting in the 1984 expansion, with respect to pregnant women and infants, it was an expansion of the entire program, states were given the choice to stay in the entire program or not. 1989 when the program was expanded to children under 6 years of age, under 133% of poverty, same thing. 1990, kids 6 to 18 and 100% of poverty, same thing. in fact, every major expansion, same thing. and so, i just think the history of the program, and particularly when you read that in context of 42 u.s.c. 1304, which reserves the right of the federal government to amend the program going forward, shows you that this is something that the states have understood all along. this has been the evolution of it, and with respect to -chief >> could you give me some assurance? we heard the question about whether or not the secretary would use this authority to the extent available. is there circumstances where you are willing to say that that would not be permissible? i'm thinking of the arizona letter, for example. i mean, if i had the authority and i was in that position, i would use it all the time. you

every major expansion, same thing. and so i just think the history of the program and particularly when you read that in context of 42 usc 1304 which reserves the right of the federal government to amend the program going forward, shows you this is something the states have understood all along. this has been the evolution of it -- >> could you give me some assurance -- we heard the question about whether or not the secretary would use this authority to the extent available. is there circumstances where you are willing to say that that would not be permissible? i'm thinking the arizona letter, for example. if i had the authority and i was in that position, i would use it all the time. you want some little change made? well, guess what, i can take away all your money if you don't make it. i win. every time it seems that would be the case. so why shouldn't we be concerned about the extent of authority that the government is exercising simply because they could do something less? we have to analyze the case on the assumpt

is sub substantial or whether it's modest, or whether there's any expansion at all. the federal government could decide that under the current system too much money has ended up flowing to nursing home care, and that money would be better served used as the general welfare. the states could say, we don't like that, we would like to keep spending the money the way we were. and in fact, it seems to me, standing here today, before these expansions take place under their theory -- >> the smaller it is, the bigger the coercion. the smaller of what you're demanding of them, the bigger of the coercion to go along. >> the more they stand to lose. >> just before you leave that, i would appreciate if you would expand a little bit on the answer to justice kagan's question, when i read the cut off statute, which i stated has been there since 1967, unchanged, it does refer to the secretary's discretion to keep the funding insofar as the funding has no relationship to the failure to comply with the conditi condition. there is a sentence they could do that. so you have looked into

sometimes, as in 1972, it makes the expansion voluntary. that's also, by the way, what happened with the stimulus funds were were voluntary funds. you didn't lose all your medicaid funds which is why 17 states could say no. sometimes they take the voluntary approach, sometimes they take the mandatory approach.reta exercised the discretion to say it really isn't reasonable for you to have to gup for the visually impaired to cover these newly eligible people, we will make that discretionary, that would be essentially converting a 19le 4 amendment to a 1972 amendment approach and i just don't think that's the kind of discretion that the secretary has, with all due respect. now, moving on to the next point, justice alito, your hypothetical aptly captures the effect on this based on the fact these tax collars are being taken from the state's tax base. it's not like stewart machine where the government says if you don't take the option we're giving you, we'll have a federal substitute to go in. here if you don't take this offer we're giving you,

the expansion from 0 to 18 or even 0 to 6. and while you can argue those numbers, it's pretty hard to argue that they aren't roughly comparable as a percentage of the prior program or as a percentage of gdp. if i'm right on those numbers, or even roughly right, i don't guarantee them, then what you have to say well, indeed, medicaid has been unconstitutional since 1964. and if not, why not? >> the answer is no. that's because we're here saying three things make this unique. >> what are your second and third? i'm on pins and needles. >> one is the sheer size. two is the fact that this statute is uniquely tied to an individual mandate that is decidedly nonvoluntary. and three is the fact that they've leveraged prior participation in the program notwithstanding that they've broken this out as a separately segregated fund going forward. >> so on the third, suppose you have the current program and congress wakes up tomorrow and says we think there's too much fraud and abuse in the program and we're going to put a new condition on h

is substantial or whether it is modest or if there is any -- expansion of. the government could decide that under the current system, too much money has a and employing to nursing home care and that would be better in serving the general welfare if it were directed at infants and children but if the government said we will redirect the spending priorities of the money we're offering, they could say we do not like that and we would like to keep spending money and we have no choice because this program has gotten too big for us to exit. it seems to me standing here -- >> the smaller it is the bigger the coercion. the more you stand to lose. >> before you leave. >> i -- just before you leave that, i'd -- i'd appreciate it if you would expand a little bit on the answer to justice kagan's question for the reason, when i read the cutoff statute, which as i said has been there since 1965 unchanged, it does refer to the secretary's discretion to keep the funding, insofar as the funding has no relationship to the failure to comply with the condition. and as i read th

there were other expansions that have taken place, such as the 1984 expansions, where they didn't give states that option, but, here's the second dimension in which this is distinct, which is, here, congress has created a separate part of the program for the newly eligible mandatory individuals. that's what they called them. and those individuals are treated separately from the rest of the program going forward forever. they are going to be reimbursed at a different rate from everybody who's covered under the preexisting program. now, in light of that separation by congress itself of the newly eligible individuals from the rest of the program, it's very hard to understand congress's decision to say, look if you don't want to cover these newly eligible individuals, you don't just not get the new money, you don't get any of the money under the - >> where does it say that? i'm sorry, where does it say that? >> it says -- well, it -- where does it say what, justice breyer? >> what you just said. you said, congress said, if you don't take the new money to cover the new individuals, you don'

so while we are having those occasions on the table of course the issue of expansion is here expansion is there as your several exam is a regular thing for. every multilateral entity because. all the multilateral organizations are trying to attract partners to become stronger and so on a sofa wouldn't be unprecedented if you have both pakistan and india within one of their station because they they they are at war with each are you sure well you have to go to kashmir yeah i saw why or why they should be in each and every day the issue is being considered by the member states the decision hasn't been taken yet and one of the reasons why is that the shanghai cooperation organization has to prepare itself for expansion the sample of other multilateral institutions like the european union. just to name a few shows that it is a huge amount of work the multilateral in one multilateral organizations is supposed to do before expansion so what the a single member countries vora get done is that two thousand and nine they adopted. the regulations on admission of new members and in the year two t

there were other expansions such as the 1984 expansion where they didn't give states the option but here's the second dimension which is here congress has created a separate part of the program for the newly eligible mandatory individuals. that's what they call them and the individuals are treated separately from the rest of the program going forward forever. they are going to be reimbursed at a different rate from everybody who's covered under the preexisting program. in light of the separation by congress itself of the newly eligible the individuals from the rest of the program it's very hard to understand the decision to say if you don't cover these individuals you don't just not get the new money coming you don't get any of the money under the -- >> where does it say that? >> where does it say what? >> you said conagra said if you don't take the new money to cover the new individuals you don't get any of the old money that covers the older individuals. that's what i heard you say. where does it say that? >> there's to places it says it. it is 23 a in the brief. >> the funding cut off t

obama care uses fund to force medicaid expansion. the question that the supreme court has taken on is whether it's constitutional for the feds to do that. the bottom line, however, is that this heavily underreported and underrated issue implies that despite the massive federal funding that is forthcoming to support the expansion. two provisions, one the expansion itself and the individual mandate will level state general fund expenditures to sky high levels. that's the bottom line that emerges from my research. so the medicaid expansion part is basically two components. one the income eligibility limit is raised. and all adults rather than all those with dependent children are now eligible for medicaid. the individual mandate has really nothing necessarily instrinsicily to do with medicaid expansion as such. it's really to accommodate the coverage of those with preexisting conditions to avoid the adverse selection that would go with that. but the interaction of these two elements really spells looming disaster for date budgets. so to

the afternoon case about the expansion of medicaid in the states. we're going to air that here on c-span3 in about 45 minutes. about 3:15 eastern. also going to take your calls momentarily, but as lawyers com we're going to listen in for possible comments withyou' watcn c-span3. >> we just got out of the arguments and we're actually you know, delighted that the case is now under submission and we've had an opportunity to explain to the court why the states and the nfib think the statute is unconstitutional and why not just the individual mandate is unconstitutional because that's what was argued before the court yesterday, but also that the medicaid expanse is unconstitutional and that the invalidation of the mandate would cause it's entire statute to be struck down. that was the nature of the proceedings today. a great privilege to be able to present our case to the united states supreme court, obviously. a great privilege to argue and share the podium with the solicitor general of the united states, who did a terrific job. so this is all been some

past expansions won't be lost. you know, the mandate really is separate from the medicaid expansion issue. so that cou place, and they still could mandate thprram cover more peop. the question really is, the whole goal of the health reform was to cover all verye had insu. what it does, it breaks that circle of continuity they everybody has some kind of insurance. it will now put a bigger burden on the a lot of people they didn't have to cover before. >> go to the phones and hear from linda in t our democrats' line. good morning. >> caller: hi. i have two questions. first being, if the individual mandate is severed, and struck down, doesn't this,othe provisit this really ultimately hurt the private insurers that are going to be a part of the exchange? and my second question is -- it's broad. but we don't have a constitutional right to food. we don't have a constitutional right anything else. if we can strike down health care based constitutionalism, why not food stamps? why not public schools? why not anything the g

the expansion is really breathtaking. medicaid served in 1984. the federal spending was a spade over $21 billion. right now it's $250 billion. and that's before the expansion on the statute. >> well, if you're right, doesn't that mean that medicaid is unconstitutional now? >> not necessarily, justice kagan. we're not here with a one trick pony. we point to three statures. one is the size of the program. and if you want a gauge on the size of the program, the best place to look is the government's own number. footnote six. >> so when does a become too big? give me a dollar number. >> $3.3 trillion over the next ten years. >> the amount approximately if you look into it as a percentage of gdp, it's big. but it was about 2.0% of gdp. it will go up to 3% of gdp. now look at the kovrp rabble numbers, which i did look at, with the expansion that we're talking about before. or even from 0 to 6. and while you can argue those numbers, it's pretty hard to arg argue. if i'm right on those numbers, or even roughly right, i don't guarantee them. then would yo

that brief details why the medicaid expansion in the nca and nca itself is enormously ben fs official to states. i think we should bear that in mind. this is a very serious and genuine philosophical policy, political debate, but it is really not a debate between the states or state interests and the feds. as i said, i have to disagree with a great deal of how these, use were characterized by my friend here. as you might expect. but i do agree -- about the way in which roger and i think tim stated that, the basic simple issue. medicaid expansion in the aca has a number of aspects, but the main thing is very simple. it expands eligibility to all adults up to 138% of the federal poverty line from where it was before and roger and tim both appropriately described the

the solacicitor general -- one the things the expansion does, precisably because the expansion is designed to convert medicate to satisfy the requirement of the minimum essential coverage. things that used to be voluntary, will no longer be voluntary. the perfect example is prescription coverage. it's a big part of what some states provide voluntarily now. it will no longer be mandatory because the federal government has agreed that prescription -- so that option that the state has is being removed by the expansion itself. >> may i ask one question about your bottom line in this case. it sounds to me like everything you said would be to the effect of if congress continued to do things on a voluntary basis, adding these new eligibles and saying to states, you can have it or not, you can preserve the program as it existed before or you can opt into this. but you're not asking the court as relief to say, that's how we cure the constitutional infirmity. we say this has to be on a voluntary basis. instead you're arguing that this whole medicaid addition, the whole expansion has to be nullify an

is expansion and well though it has to expand in order to survive which finally usually kills not who comes to be a good guys up there this is like that is a c.e.o. considering expansion of course what you do is eastward or southward which way this is the issue on the agenda since we have several formal applications on the table one is from pakistan another one is from iran the member countries who are of the status of observers to be a seal but when will i i did didn't pakistan's status changed after lead the parliamentary committee on national security officially officially stressed the necessity of full fledged membership to not know me as a person to observe the. and they filed official applications to become full members of the game is asians and excuse me. i would like to finish the list india has clearly indicated that it will be in a position to put forward the official application as soon as this consensus on its canada show with m.v.s. you so while we are having those occasions on the table of course the issue of expression is here expression is as you sever legs and is a re

other expansions have taken place, such as the 1984 expansions, where they gave states the option. here congress created a second program. and those individuals are treated separately from the rest of the program going forward forever. they'll be reimbursed at at different rate from everybody else in the program. in light of the sell separation of congress in the newly eligible members of the rest of the program, it's very hard to understand congress's decision to say if you don't want to cover the newly eligible individuals, you don't just not get the new money, you don't get any of the money -- >> i'm sorry. where does it say that? >> where does it say what? >> what you just said. you said congress says if you don't take the new money you don't get the old money that covers the the old individuals. that's what i heard you say. >> right. >> where does it say that ha? >> there's two places it says that. and this is not the point about the funding cutoff. this makes the point that the newly eligible individuals are really treated separate ly. >> i want the part about the funding. th

reimbursed. >> what if there isn't medicaid expansion? does the government have a position on what should happen if the medicaid expansion is struck down? >> we don't think that would have effect that could be addressed in the next argument. we don't think that would have effect. >> so the government's position is if medicaid expansion is shut down the rest can operate? >> in the past congress has expanded medicaid coverage without there being a minimum coverage provision. >> i don't understand where you

we assume that expansion would be reversed. there are other assumptions on the mandatory side we make. >> you have assumptions regarding pell grants? >> we assume -- we do not assume an increase in the maximum award. we assume the current award level, the president's budget has a higher award level, but his budget doesn't sustain funding for that. he only funds it for two years so our assumption on pell grants is it be funded within the discretionary amount. we assume that pell grants is funded as a discretionary program. it's got this bifurcated treatment now, and portions funded with discretionary funds. we assume that the program's funded with discretionary resources and that the maximum award is maintained. >> that's a significant portion of that 166 is the shift from mandatory to discretionary. >> do you assume the doubling of the stafford loan interest rates that are coming out? >> we make no change with respect to the assumption in the baseline. that's under current law. >> let me turn to the function 920, allowances. yo

it really began because of french policy thinking about british expansion and how british expansion must be stopped, not only the expansion of settlement westward, which the french were concerned about given the fact that the british colonies were growing so rapidly in population and by the mid 1750s the british colonies had a population approaching 1.5 million people. far, far outnumbering the french in canada who may have numbered some 80,000 by comparison at the time. well, how could the french, with a population of roughly 80,000 perhaps in the st. lawrence river valley and neighboring regions, how could they possibly stave off english control of the continent when british colonials, those within the british colonies along the atlantic seaboard numbered 1.5 million. of course there were several hundred thousand slaves among the total population in the british colonies. the french were also concerned not only with the expansion of british population and the movement westward, but also of trade that british colonial traders from pennsylvania and virginia were venturing into the ohio co

our relationship was expansive given the long distance. when i return to the philippines, i learned my cousin, who murdered my mother and sister, and almost killed me as well, was released from prison after serving only 10- year sentence. i feared for my safety and i knew i was in danger and understood in order to meet, but -- to live, i have to leave the philippines to jay, where i would feel safe. i hired an attorney to apply for legal asylum. my application was denied, so my attorney filed an appeal to the ninth circuit court, and jay and i requested and a regular basis on theúagr status of the appeal. again and again we were told that it would take a long time before the court gets to my case. i did not know it, but my appeal had also been denied. my attorney never told me. all the while, we thought i was legal in we were waiting for the decision of the court. jay and i went about building our lives together. i gave birth to my two kids. they are the biggest joy in our lives, and i became a full-time mother. our family has always been

we do a lot of expansion. people start small through the credit union and then want to go to the bank. we know we are limited. we cannot afford to give out a big loan. starting from the credit union, we educate them about filing taxes properly and then moving on to the bank, a small one, expansion, and we work with the bank. the bank and credit union are similar. we do allow tax returns, projections. credit unions do not charge an additional loan or processing fee. processing time, on a small loan, -- consumer loans probably a few days. because we require a business plan, sometimes it takes longer. business plans take a while. especially bank statements. we need to see consistent income coming in. so far, a credit union delinquent rate is quite low because we are working with a client. we want to keep that low and as part of our mission. there is no application fee. if you are interested in an application or information, i have brochures, or you can give us a call. >> thank you. next is marked with wells fargo

the expansion of the available labor force creates opportunities that did not exist before. you have innovation and entrepreneurialism that increases the actual size of small and medium-sized businesses. they consume and that expands the demand curve. you have a dynamic economy for 90% of u.s. born workers that enhances their wages. the other 9% got whacked up side the head with globalization and immigration and everything you can list and they need help. getting rid of immigrants doesn't really help them. the final point is if you look at the last 15 years, 25% of publicly traded companies in the united states are essentially from the bay area region and one out of four was started by an immigrant. we have great data on this because it's all transparent. you can look it up. you can tabulate it. it's all a list of companies that we own, from google to intel, we know these companies. here is what you don't know but you kind of know if you just look around. in the next two years, we'll have much better data on. that is at the small and medium sized, it turns out that same disp

guest: past expansions will not be lost. the mandate is separate from the medicaid expansion issue.hat could stay in place and they could mandate of the medicaid program covers more people still, but the question is the goal of the health reform was to cover all of the uninsured. it erases that circle of continuity. he will put a bigger burden on the medicaid program to cover a lot of people they have not covered before. host: linda on our democrats line in connecticut. caller: i have two questions. if the individual mandate is severed and struck down, does this not -- leaving the other provisions in tact, does this not ultimately hurt the private insurers that would be part of the exchange? my second question is broad, but we do not have a constitutional right to food, anything else. if we can strike down health care, based on strict constitutionalism, why not food stamps? why not public schools? why not anything the government provides that is not in the constitution? thank you so much, and you have a great day. host: marilyn werber serafini? guest: if the individual mandate is st

is it slavery's expansion? is that it? a lot of northerners would have said yes. some southerners would have said yes defending their right to expand and take their personal property anywhere. some would say immigration. i want to turn and look at that group of the question of the -- for voters, the people who are most concerned about immigration as the primary issue. as we said the influx of roman catholics had spawned anti-catholic nativists, so-called no-nothing lodges, how they're given that name, right. their secret. so when you're asked to talk about this group you belong to you're supposed to say i know nothing, right? so the name sort of stuck. nativists came from lower middle class backgrounds and they feared both the political and economic consequences of the arrival of thousands especially, thousands of immigrations, especially catholics through the democratic party nativists believed that the catholics could secretly control the government. and they talked about catholics being loyal to a foreign power, to a foreign potentate in the form of the pope. t

. >> the rate of expansion increased over the past 4-5 billion years? >> exactly. increasing just about during that period. it was slowing down and now it's speeding up. >> did it slow down because the universe was creating galaxies and stars? do we have a billion galax snes. >> no. about 100 billion. >> can we talk about a galaxee? we he the solar system. it consists of 8 planets now? pluto has been demoted. >> correct. >> if you were over voting on pluto and whether it belonged in with the 3 others they were going to put in because pluto's size was comparable to the 3 others and they ought to get into this union too, how would you have voted? >> i would have voted the way the international astronomical delicacy voted. it was a wise decision. >> how would you have voted? tame way. it's bad to be tied up by historical artifacts so science can't progress into the future. >> so if -- that means we have 12 plan snets. >> no. >> you would voted against it. >> i would have voted there are 8 planets that are real planets. >> we can change -- we are really changing the pl

legal is setup presently and said that any change to that setup, meaning any consolidation or any expansion or contraction of space for that matter would require a conditional use. so any change to the status quo would require a conditional use. >> i was only trying to address some kind of materiality, like if wells fargo a.t.m. which is 75 square feet should vacate and be taken by urban tacoria, we don't want to force that tenant into a c.u. process. i'm trying to address some materiality to the anti-roll-up process. >> i'm not a real estate expert. does anyone -- >> from listening to the discussions, perhaps propose the approval of the legislation with the recommended amendments that a conditional use is triggered when a size over 7,500 square feet or a roll-up of x amount, which is kind of what i was hearing from the conversation. >> 75,000 -- >> 75,000, squse me, square feet. >> what that would allow is for the -- 75,000 is bigger than the largest space there and is actually bigger than all of the other spaces combined. so that is not going to happen unless someone comes over and takes

these are the most important reasons why the pace of expansion slowed after those first few quarters of recovery. without those challenges, without those forces, without those factors, the recovery would have been stronger. but looking forward, the question is what's the right economic strategy for the united states? what's the mix of investments and reforms and policies that will make growth stronger and economic opportunity broader in the future? the three most important imperatives we face today are to support economic growth now, to make the right investments in reforms, to make our economy more competitive over time, and to restore fiscal sustainability. these imperatives will require that we resolve the fundamental political divide in this country that exists today over the appropriate role of the government in the economy. first, important to remain focused on this we have to stay relent esly focused on strengthening the economy in the short-term. even though growth is gradually getting stronger, of course we have a long way to go to repair the damage caused by the crisis. we

los jueces en cambio, no dieron indicios de querer eliminar 1 expansion del programa medicaid a unas0 millones de personas de bajos ingresos. nosotros entendemos que la expansion de medicaid es sumamente importante sobre todo para comunidades de color, sobre todo para latinos porque va a ampliar la eligibilidad del programa. en los proximos dias, los jueces se reuniran a puertas cerradas para continuar las deliberaciones. se espera que en junio la corte suprema entregue su decision que podria definir el futuro de la reforma de salud. desde un hombre fue secuestrado anoche al frente de su vivienda en riverdale, maryland... ocurrio alrededor de las 10 y media de la noche sobre la cuadra 5200 de la avenida 59... los dos sujetos armados forzaron al hombre a entrar en su vehiculo y sobre la avenida kenilworth donde saco dinero.. las autoridades siguieron el vehiculo que chocodemarcha atras y sumara dos nuevas posiciones --nombradas por el gobierno-- a su junta directiva... el mas reciente plan de gastos del presidente incluye una reduccion del 10 por ciento a y dicho sistema de transporte

talked about the slavery expansion, slavery extension issue, number one. and number two we talked a little bit about immigration. so on both those questions the parties are virtually silent in 1852. that alienates a lot of voters. oh, a third issue, which often doesn't get much attention, was probably more important on the state level but, still, it was an issue is the question of temperance. temperance laws are what was sometimes called the main law which is the prohibition law first passed in maine back in the 1840s. that also was an issue. of course it was an issue again that traditionally the wigs had championed especially in the north, but all of those issues were not mentioned, were hardly mentioned at all, during the 1852 campaign. okay. i want to go back to the question of immigration for a moment here and see how the public alienation from the two parties gives fruit to the development of a new party which some people think might have been the replacement. we know ultimately in retrospect the gift of hindsight it wasn't, but at the time some peopl

they also looked at the expansion of medicaid. once again tonight, "newshour" health correspondent betty ann bowser begins our coverage. >> reporter: the morning arguments focused on whether parts of the law could survive without the mandate, the so- called severability issue. justice ruth bader ginsburg questioned attorney paul clement about the logic of revoking the entire law. clement represents 26 states opposed to it. >> i mean, it's a question of whether we say everything you do is no good, now start from scratch, or to say, yes, there are many things in here that have nothing to do frankly with the affordable healthcare and there are some th we think it's better to let congress to decide whether it wants them in or out. so why should we say it's a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you are requesting, or a salvage job. and the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything. >> what makes this different is that the provisions that have constitutional difficulties or are tied a