tv [untitled] June 28, 2012 5:30pm-6:00pm EDT
beds or those young mother who is are trying to get children immunized or those elderly who cannot substitute money for prescription drugs because they have to eat. i stand here desperately gratified for all those hours of town hall meetings when the violent talk of calling out the president was saying there was no care and humanitarianism in this country to be able to say that the sick need to be taken care of. i stand in a place where i could not be on the day of the emancipation proclamation when slaves were freed. i could not be there. but my ancestors could tell me what it meant to be free. today i stand on the steps of the supreme court feeling freedom for those who lay sick in their beds.
god is ever present for those of us who understand the omnipotent god in ourselves and i am grateful for the supreme court who recognized above the shouting of anger and violence against the sick that they were willing to uphold the constitution that allowed us to send young boys to war. allowed us to tax even the poorest. if we undermined the infrastructure of the commerce clause, the government would not exist. so i humbly stand here today feeling a sense that my pain has been overcome and my mother who died as a vocational nurse who lived afterwards with a sickness that was kronnic and if we did not have universal medicare for those over the age of 65, they would lay dead in their graves even before they could see their grandchildren. i stand here today in closing by saying that america is a great
country. democrats were willing to sacrifice and lose in 2010 because we believe in the humanity of all women kind and mankind. thank god. thank america, thank the constitution and thank the united states supreme court. i walk away in dignity! oh, yes! >> our last speaker will be hanson clark from michigan. >> thank you very much. >> everyone, i'm hanson clark and i represent the city of detroit, one of the most hard hit regions in the country. this ruling is clear, but very simple. it says that health care is a right for all americans and that when more people have health insurance, health insurance is affordable for everyone. it makes financial sense. we needed this mandate in order to make insurance affordable for even the sickest americans.
we needed americans who are healthy and can buy health insurance. the more of us who have health insurance, the cheaper it is for all americans. thank you so much. >> thank you, everybody. this has been a progressive caucus. >> more years! >> four more years! >> everyone, let's take your leader! >> and to recap, we have been looking at and listening to reaction to the u.s. supreme court's decision today on the affordable care act. the supreme court upheld most of president obama's health care overhaul. the vote was 5-4 with chief justice john g. roberts joining for more liberal members. he wrote the affordable care
acts requirement. that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. because the constitution perms such a tax, it is not our roll to permit it or pass upon the wisdom. that chief justice john roberts and the decision handed town today. the court did limit a major piece of the that expanded medicaid. to tell us what it means, we spoke earlier today with neal. he argued all of the health care law challenges in the lower circuit courts including the 11th circuit court of appeals case decided in the supreme court today. he was in the court when the decision came down and discussed his reaction, analysis of chief justice roberts's opinion and
the court's decision in the medicaid portion of the oral argument. heres. >> the former acting general and in that role argued all of the health care cases including the health care case before the supreme court. he joins us now by phone. neal katyal, can you tell us your reaction when you heard of the decision? >> i was sitting in the courtroom and the chief started with a discussion about why the commerce clause which is one of the arguments of the federal government that advanced to justify the legislation and why that was wrong and would be an unprecedented expansion of federal power. many of the people in the room at that moment had thought that oh, the federal government will lose hi then he tued to the government's second argument and the tax power argument. it was clear from just a coupl seconds in that the government
had won the case and the mood in the audience had changed markedly. the chief justice's opinion i think is quite interesting and said that the affordable care act's mandate provision that requires american to have a certain amount of insurance or pay a penalty, that functionally is a tax. it looks like a tax, it smells like a tax and quacks like a tax, it is a tax. >> i top the get to policy again and the law in a second. i am curious about your own frame of mind. over the short seconds really. >> the chief had done something similar in the voting rights act case. the constitutionality of the voting rights act in 1965 that i argue and i remember sitting there and it was again about
then he switched to all of a sudden which is the statute that allowed us to win. we did the same move here and i was holding out hope that the chief would come our way. it was nice to see it. >> have huh a chance to celebrate success? >> no. not really. i do think it's not my success. it's the success of a lot of men and women at the justice department and throughout the federal government that spent a lot time. very respectable attack. i have a lot of and i don't think that described the american constitution.
>> republican members of congress have called the chief justices and the chief justice's departmentation of the constitution here is one and he does focus on tradition and he rejected the argument. i'm not sure that that was the right answer. with respect to the tax power he said that the real issue is how something functions. this funks like a tax. he said for that reason it's constitutional. i don't know if you want to call it conservative or liberal or what. i prefer calling it being lawyerly and the chief justice among them is a darn good lawyer. >>or that note, going into this, many people said it would be a defining moment for the roberts court.
do you see it as such? >> a defining issue. it has been out for two hours. it's way too early to speculate about what it means for the chief justice and the supreme court more generally. time will tell whether this is going to mark a different era in the court or not. >> would you help us understand the medicate rock findings. i think it has potentially serious implications in the future, but not with respect to the act as much. a provision said states you have to expand to cover a bunch of people who are 133% on the poverty line. if you don't do that, you will lose all of your federal funds we give you.
the challenger said the state effectively have to expand medicaid. it's a lot of money, but our moneyy and our dollars and it's a gift to you. you don't have to take it if you don't want to. they also pointed out that since the inception of the act, the language in the act itself and the stad ut said the have the right to appeal and abolish at any time. they said you have been taking the dollars knowing this the whole time. the supreme court crafted a rule that said that that violates federalism. so that you can't threaten the states with the loss of their federal funds. at least in this dramatic way. time will tell whether or not this is again something that is going to be things to come or not. we don't know. >> last question for you.
it's on the anti-injunction act review. earlier we talked to a reporter. the description was a seeming incongrewity between the findings on the anti-injunction act and whether or not the mandate was a tax and the justice's finding that it was a tax and therefore stood. what's your lawyer's perspective on that? >> well, the anti-injunction act was extremely technical and i remember spending weeks and weeks trying to get to the bottom of it defending the law. at the end of t it's technical and what is a tax for anti-injunction act purposes and an old 1816 law is not a tax for constitutional purposes when we think about the 1787 constitution. there is a difference between the two and the supreme court picked occupy that difference. >> the two can stand side by side and in the eyes of the law be kong?
>> exactly. >> as we close here, this closing day of the court and wondering what's next for you as the summer progresses. this is a long process for you coming to this conclusion. >> i am out of the government so i have a lot of private clients that i will represent and celebrate this with. hopefully get a little rest in the days to come. thank you so much for talking to us. >> thank you. >> with today's supreme court ruling upholding the law, we want to get your comments and feedback too. you can go to our facebook page, post your thoughts and share your opinion with others. they will remain on the top of the page for the remainder of the day. more reaction now beginning with house majority leader john boehner and other members and house republican members.
this is about 20 minutes. >> good afternoon. thank you for coming. earlier today i was at the supreme court to hear chief justice roberts issue the decision on the affordable care act. while we respect the court, we respectfully disagree with the decision. just because the court upheld the law as constitutional does not mean it is a good law. in fact it's a terrible law. unprecedented government power. fundamental changing the relationship between the individual and government. in fact chief justice roberts acknowledged that. the court rules today that in fact the affordable care act is a tax. it is the largest tax in
america's history. we also know that cbo estimated up to 20 million americans will lose their employer health insurance and it makes it harder for small businesses to hire and as a mom and a wife making health care decisions like many families in america, we have seen our premiums skyrocket on average $2100 per family. for all of these reasons and more, the american people oppose this bill. in fact the opposition increased since the law was signed two years ago. that's why the republicans pledged to america to repeal this law. we are more determined today than ever to repeal this law. the supreme court spoke today that they won't have the final word. the american people will have the final word in november. >> i'm ann hayworth and i had
the privilege of caring for patients in the hudson valley for 16 years. i represent patients and doctors across the country. my colleagues tell me they are very concerned about their ability to deliver the care that their patients deserve and they have come rightly to expect. under the terms of this law. in success i am worried about medicare patients. i can imagine i took care of many of them. this 2010 law takes half a trillion dollars out of medicare. this directly compromises access to care. it is unacceptable. we are resolved here to honor the goals of that law which were the right goals. to have good health care for all americans. affordable and portable insurance. the wrong law. we cannot afford to impose a $2
trillion bureaucracy on the american people and we can honor those goals in ways that make sense. we are here to put patients at the center of health care. patients. their doctors and providers at strt of health care and not the federal government and cathy is exactly right. we are more determined than ever and we will succeed. >> hello. renee elmers from north carolina representing the second district. i set a new chapter written for health care as a result of the supreme court decision. it is not the chapter i was expecting, but it is that we'll continue in the fight. i came to washington because of obama care. as a nurse and with my husband as a surgeon who is here in washington now. we knew we had to fight against this for health care. as a mother, i am concerned
about our children. as a nurse i am concerned about our seniors. this decision keeps in place $500 billion being cut out of health care for medicare and our seniors. it also continues the independent payment advisory board which will be 15 bureaucratic unaccountable individuals who will make health care decisions. for our seniors and citizens. the fight continues. uncertainty remains. and the vision that has kept me awake so many times at night as a nurse, seeing myself holding the hand of a patient while the doctor comes into the room and says that their life saving treatment will be denied because the independent payment advisory board remains in my mind.
we are and will remain committed to this. we will repeal obama care and this will continue to be our fight and then the chapter for reform with efficient, accountable and sponl reform will be put in place. thank you. >> thank you and good afternoon. i'm ann marie berkle from the 25th congressional district. while the court ruled that this is a constitutional law, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's good policy. i am a registered nurse and since then a health care attorney. i have been in health care most of my professional life. health care to me is intensely personal, but also it's that i'm very passionate about it. throughout the course of the last 18 months, i had my hospitals and my physicians. i had senior citizens and i had
nurses come to me and say this law is bad. it is going to bankrupt us and affect the way we are able to provide care for our patients. it may be constitutional, but it's not good policy. as legislators are our primary goal needs to enact laws that do what's best for the american people and makes sure we have access to health care and do everything to keep the cost of health care down. this law doesn't talk about tort reform and take any of the necessary steps to really reform the cost of health care in this nation. the president continues to stay that if you like your health care, you can keep it. i am here to tell you i hear from the folks in the district all the time. from my figures and from hospitals. the concern that that's not going to be what happens. so many people and employers are going to put their employees into the exchange and they will lose their choice for health care in the united states of america. that's unacceptable.
unacceptable as legislators and should be unacceptable for the american people. as was mentioned, today begins the fight. today begins another debate. today begins the true debate on how we reform health care in the united states of america. thank you so much. >> good afternoon, everyone. the president's health care law is hurting our economy. it's driving up health care costs, it's making it harder for small businesses to hire new workers. and i think today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. what americans want is a common sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform that will protect american's access to the care that they need, to the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. and republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the american people and not repeat the mistakes that
gave our country this harmful law. listen, health care coverage has become too expensive for too many people in our country. the number one concern for families and small business people is the cost of health insurance. and the republican health care reforms will, in fact, lower health care costs. as kathy pointed out, women make about 80% of the health decisions for our country. health reform ensures that doctors ensure health care decisions and not bureaucrats here in washington. >> good afternoon. if for nothing else, today's health care decision underscores the importance of this election. the people of america are going to have a choice to make in november, and clearly it's a choice that will bear upon the direction of this country, as
far as their health care is concerned. the decision today really indicates we have entered an age in which the government, washington, will be controlling health care. unless something changes. most americans, i believe, still, still like the health care that they have, and the president has continued to say that his law will allow folks to keep the health care they like. but what we've seen is that's just not the case. obama care will preclude people from having the health care that they like. we have seen this law increase costs, and we are committed to changing that. we are committed to making sure that we can return to patient-based health care in this country, where we can keep costs low and we can increase access. and that's why went return the week of july 9th, i've scheduled a vote for total repeal of the
obama care bill to occur on with wednesday, july 11th. and in that way, we can clear the way towards trying to, again, focus on a accomplishing a health care future that is premised upon patient-centered care, lowering costs, and affording better access. >> today's decision raises the question, to be very clear, is the patient going to have the decision-making process, are you going to have a form of a government-run health care? is a debate that will derive this nation. but the debate goes much deeper just for the ability of the access and the cost. at a time when america faced 40 months of unemployment above 8%, unfortunately, i'm very fearful of the discussions i've had with
small business owners that the decision today is going to determine decisions they make in jobs. the economy won't be turning around, because this health care bill actually harms the economy. their own studies by the administration shows it will take people off their current health care plans that they have. it will raise the cost. so the debate has not ended. the debate has only begun. you see, a group of individuals behind us, they won't be the only ones, but i believe across the nation, will be a healthy debate, one that's on policy, and we look forward to working with those individuals and also listening to the nation to solve health care that actually empowers the patient to make their own decision. >> today was not a good day for freedom, it was not a good day for struggling american families, who wish to keep the health care that they have. i respect the ruling of the
supreme court, and i respectfully and vehemently disagree with it. for those who have concluded, though, that it is constitutional, i remind them, a constitutional law does not make for a wise law. the $1 trillion deficits of the obama administration are clearly constitutional. they are not wise. so the fight will continue. we believe the president's health care law still fundamentally is hurting our economy and hurting jobs. every day i hear from some small businessman in the fifth district of texas that i represent. one tells me that they'll never hire more than 50 people. another tells me they've already spent $350,000 in compliance costs and had to layoff six workers. the law weighs in at almost $2 trillion, $800 billion of taxes. family of four premiums up.
the affordable care act has not proven to affordable for struggling families, for taxpayers, much less a dwindling federal treasury. but most importantly, americans want to be able to choose their own doctor. they want quality health care, they want access to health care, they want portable health care at a cost they can afford. the president's health care threatens that. so the supreme court was heard today, and we respect them. as the republican leader said, the second week of july, the people's house will be heard from and ultimately the people in america will be heard from. >> this decision today by the supreme court was clearly a troubling decision. those behind us and in our conference clearly disagree with
that decision. but as chief justice roberts says, it's not the role of the court to protect the people from their political decisions. and the people clearly chose in 2008, and we are now as a nation living under the consequences of that political choice. but as a physician, i can tell you that the doctors and the patients of this land are very troubled, because this law, just like yesterday, it hasn't changed today, violates every single principle that we hold dear as a nation in health care. whether it's accessibility or affordability for high-quality care or choices for patients, this law violates all of those things and makes them more difficult, which is why each one of us has said in one way or another, we have worked together with our conference and with the american people to make certain that this law is repealed and that we move forward in a logical, rational, deliberate way with patient-centered health care, which means doctors, patients making decisions, not government. >> speaker boehner? >> if you would like to ask a question, all you have to do is
raise your hand. anybody wants to yell, ensure that i don't call on you. chad? >> my hand was up first. >> can you explain how something is -- the court finds it to be constitutional, all of you have sworn to uphold the constitution, you don't agree with the policy, but isn't there inconsistency there? you don't like the policy, but you respect the decision of the court, how are these things in c --? >> the court makes a decision about whether this law is constitutional. it doesn't mean the law is wise. it doesn't mean the law is good for the can countrountry. i'll give you an example. you look through the decision today, and the chief justice in his opinion outlines the fact that the commerce clause, trying to expand on the commerce clause is not constitutional, but the
cause, if a tax, it can proceed because the congress has the ability to impose taxes. so we could -- the government could decide we're going to tax you if you don't eat broccoli on tuesday. apparently that's now constitutional. but i don't think it's a very wise law. >> speaker boehner -- >> no, i said. no. all you have to do is raise your hand. no words required. >> the house has always voted to repeal with one of the first votes you took. the senate was unable to pass or repeal themselves. what makes it necessary to go forward and go through this fight again, because none of the dynamics have been changed as far as -- >> you know, i think the real outcome of today's decision is to strengthen our resolve to make sure that this law is, in fact, repealed. and we're going to work every