tv Happening Now FOX News June 28, 2012 11:00am-1:00pm EDT
make a difference when it's all said in done, with your business plans? >> no, i would say that -- if taxes go up and so on we'll have less cash, and my own feeling is that if that happens the economy will slow down, or not get much better than what it is today. we might have -- you might have the continuation of where we are today. not that other things won't be going on. >> reporter: finally quickly, and you've been very patient, your sons, locklin, or james, in any way, shape or form expanded roles. >> and my daughter -- daughters. >> reporter: everyone is getting involved. what will lochlin, what about james in a more expanded role
here? >> well they have to eastern it, and they have to want it. lochlin is very happy running his own businesses in australia and loves living there, so we'll see. >> reporter: so he wouldn't take over the publishing. >> i think that's highly unlikely. sorry to be -- [laughter] >> not give you anything there. mr. murdoch it's a pleasure. thank you very much. on a big news day, for you as well. the supreme court of the united states has upheld the president's healthcare law, a major media player, and a big, big healthcare player, thousands of workers, nonplussed by awful that. rupert murdoch and his company carry on. that will do it here. bill: neil cavuto thank you and our colleagues at the fox business network and our chairman rupert murdoch there.
while watching the news unfold business wise stocks are lowered by triple digits off about 160 points and we started seeing the selling as soon as the decision came down from the supreme court just about an hour ago. speaking of the court our analysis and understanding continues as our coverage rolls on on this historic day. good morning, everyone, i'm bill hemmer live in new york. i want to go quickly back to our panel, megyn kelly, judge napolitano, juan williams also with us here in new york. we are trying to go through this and sort through what we know and what we think we know. megyn you first. >> reporter: it is highly significant that the court upheld the individual mandate. that will become a political issue but that was the biggest vulnerability folks believed in this law. the medicaid ruling we have to sort out. it does appear now in the republican-controlled states where they have a republican state house if the states refuse to comply with the enormous expansion of medicaid that this
act required that that will be okay, there will be no penalty to them if those people are not covered. what does that do to the healthcare system? what does that do as a practical matter time will tell. court wrapped up as follows. ruth bader ginsburg who is not happy that the court did not uphold this law under the commerce law, she is one of the left-leaning justices wrapped up by saying the affordable healthcare act survives largely unscathed. she believes the setbacks will be temporary blips not permanent injunctions. s chief justice thanked everyone for their hard work. on the supreme court two often both pwo* both sides try to politicize the rulings and go after the justices coming down in a way they don't want. this it had gone the other wait criticism would be reversed. niece justices were con seurpld are firmed by bi-partisan ma
skwroerlgts in the senate. they try their best to follow the law as it is written and it serves nobody in this lawyer's opinion to criticize the justices for their constitutional interpretation, what we're left now is a political matter, and an analysis of how it affects us as a practical matter. bill: on the politics, john boehner we expect to hear him any more. today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. i'm ready to work with a president who will listen to the people who will not repeat the mistakes who gave the country obamacare. mitch mcconnell says the supreme court has spoken, this law is a tax he states. the bill was sold to the american people on a deception, but it's not just that the promises about this law were not kept, it's that it's made the problems it was meant to solve even worse. from mitch mcconnell. judge. >> reporter: if i were to summarize the opinion would i say this.
the commerce clause does not authorize the congress to compel you to behave, but it authorizes the congress to restrain your behavior. but the constitution let's the congress decide to tax and spend however it wants, because it will suffer political consequences if the people find the tax too burdensome or the expense to extravagant. in terms of the court, sometimes the court thinks like the vatican does, it thinks in terms of generations and centuries, knowing that law students and scholars and judges yet unborn will stream over the language given. they sometimes write not for the immediacy of the moment but for the future of human freedom as painful to conservatives as the chief justice's opinion may be there are some glimmers of light in it and glimmers of hope for future justices to restrain future congressess from interfering in the behavior of private persons.
bill: fox news put a poll out americans about the mandate to buy health insurance. 60% say it's a violation of their individual rights. 36% say it's acceptable under the constitution. the camera you see right now is on the house side of capitol hill. we will see and hear from the house speaker john boehner in moments. bret baier is standing by. so is juan williams. we are going to get our first commercial break right now. when we come back we will have much more for you on this historical day, understanding an analysis from what the nine justices have just ruled continues after this. [ male announcer ] don't miss d lobster's four course seafo feast, just $14.99. start with soup, salad and cheddar bay biscuits then choose one of 7 entrees plus dessert! four perfect courses, just $14.99. come into red lobster and sea food differently. see life in the best light. just $14.99. [music] transitions® lenses automatically filter just
the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it's meant to be seen. experience life well lit, ask for transitions adaptive lenses. delivering mail, medicine and packages. yet the house is considering a bill to close thousands of offices, slash service and layoff over 100,000 workers. the postal service is recording financial losses but not for reasons you might think. the problem ? a burden no other agency or company bears. a 2006 law that drains $5 billion a year
from post office revenue while the postal service is forced to overpay billions more into federal accounts. house bill 2309 is not the answer. by what's getting done. measure commitment the twenty billion doars bp committed has helped fund economic and environmental recovery. long-term, bp's made a five hundred million dollar commitment to support scientists studying the environment. and the gulf is open for business - the beaches are beautiful, the seafood is delicious.
last year, many areas even reported record tourism seasons. the progress continues... but that doesn't mean our job is done. we're still committed to seeing this through. bill: breaking news continues on the fox news channel. now learning mitt romney in washington d.c. today perhaps will make his first public statement in about an hour's time. that is a soft indicator by the way. that is not hard and firm. however, from the white house we are now getting word to
president obama will speak at 12:15, that is about an hour and four minutes from now. we are also hearing from republicans on the house side, eric cantor now saying that the week of july 9th, that is the week after congress gets a bit of a break for the july 4th holiday, they will begin the process of repealing what is left of the healthcare rule on the floor of the house. so look for that, and on that note i want to bring in bret baier and get more analysis about what we can expect from republicans, especially on the house side. >> reporter: the speaker forecasts that if the ruling came down as it has that there would be a vote right away, now we are hearing that july 9th week. we are also hearing many groups, like the taxpayer protection appliance saying now obamacare is officially the largest tax increase in american history doubling from 940 billion to 1.76 trillion. there will be a call on the stump in races across the country, not just the
presidential race on this very issue, that it is a tax now, as said by the supreme court, and the obama administration argued that in court. so our colleague bill crystal, really quickly, he forecast that this may happen yesterday. he's with the weekly standard, he said it coul could be a very good thing for republicans. he wrote, the people rule, persuading the people is the key. he quoted abraham link son saying quote, in this and like communities public sentiment is everything. with public sentiment nothing with fail, without it nothing can succeed. consequently he who molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts stat use or announces decisions. again that is abraham lincoln. you could see republicans really jumping on that. we've already seen statements about that in recent minutes. bill: in the upper right hand corner of that four box split,
as we call it that will be speaker john boehner in a matter of moments. they suggest he will be there at 11:15am which will be two minutes from now. you see reporters in the foreground. that may happen just a matter of moments from now. back to my panel here in court with megyn kelly, and judge napolitano. we are hearing about the vote on the medicaid expansion provision, that was item number 4 that the justices said they would address. the vote was 7-2 to strike it down on the medicaid expansion as it was written in the law. the decenters were justice breyer and justice kagan. this went down overwhelmingly. what do you read into this. megyn: this one was more clear to them than the other ones. this is one they could easily get behind. there is a question of how much threatening the federal government can do of the states. the states had gone into the high court and said, you can't do this. medicaid has become a part of our states and our budgets for decades now, and now you're
telling us if we don't comply with this law w we lose everything, we have to kick all the poor people off the medicaid rolls because we've been bad by not complying with the new medicaid law. the justices said that's right. the feds, the congress went too far by trying to manipulate the states in that way. they said, you can say you're not going to get the new money for bam car for obamacare, but you can't take away the existing funding for medicaid that the states have been relying on for all these years. bill: the states claim that this threat, meaning a threat of medicaid expansion serves no purpose other than to force unwilling states, of which there are many, perhaps a couple dozen if not more, to force unwilling states to sign up for the expansion and healthcare coverage affected by the act. given the nature of the threat and the programs at issue here we must agree.
>> reporter: the threat is the threat to take back from the states other dollars that the federal government is committed to pay the states to compensate the federal government for setting up the exchanges on its own. basically, this portion which has been inc invalidated said to the states, set up these insurance exchanges. they are basically for poor people or people out of work, people who can't get insurance anywhere else. if you don't set it up, we will set it up for you and then we will detubgt from what we owe you on other matters what it cost to set it up. that has been invalidated. the ability of the federal government to command the states to do something that they don't want to do and punish them financially if they don't comply with the command that has been invalidated by a vote of 7-2. more than half the states challenged this in the supreme court, they alone of the challengers were victorious. bill: to emphasize this republican governors across the country have suggested that they
are not going forward with setting up the exchanges. megyn: 19 of them. but i'm not sure -- we are still trying to figure it out. respectfully to the viewers we are trying to figure it out. i'm not sure if the state exchanges -- i think they still need to set up the state exchanges. it's the medicaid expansion. there were a couple of things the law did, it said for the very poor we are going to expand it. medicaid covers this number, now it's going to cover this number. the court casts that in doubt. if you're middle class and you don't have health insurance we are going to cover this too and we will make all the states set up state insurance exchanges so you can go out on the market and you can buy individual insurance and if the insurance policy costs $15,000 we're going to supplement it. we'll pay 10 grand. you as a family of four only has to pay five grand. when we say we are going to supplement it we mean the
federal taxpayer. i think that piece of the law stands. i think the states need to state up the state exchanges. the 19 republican states, republican governors, they need to scramble to set up the exchanges, it's that other provision about the medaid exparpbgs the sort of just above extremely poor folks i don't know what is going to happen. bill: it's a good point to clarify and we'll work through it too. it's the intent of the law if your employer didn't offer you service you could run to that exchange and give you coverage. >> reporter: where are you going to go if the exchange doesn't exist. bill: correct. that is the question we face at the moment. mitt romney talks at 11:45. that is some 27 minutes from n now. president barack obama will follow him at 12:15 eastern time. juan williams with me also. juan, are you able to enlighten us on how the medicaid program can be carried out if you assume that the basis of the law was to expand the number of americans who could get insurance, if
there is a particular state, the example we used last hour was the state of new jersey, if you're in that state and the exchange is not set up and medicaid is not expanded, what happens to those people? is this a grand riddle at the moment? >> it is. remember what we're talking about bill is the funding mechanism and we're talking about something that is really not in play for five years. what you've got in the immediate sense is the federal government says they will pay for this expansion of about 17%. what you're saying is if this is a tax as the roberts court has ruled this morning, then you could say, well could we apply the money differently? could we increase the amount of the penalty, could we look for other sources of funding especially when you consider that some of the savings that have been encountered, because under the affordable healthcare act there have been increased fraud inspections that have resulted in some savings. now you know cbo has scored in and said there are savings overall in this bill. republicans have said they are bogus, it's because of back
loading. clearly the obama administration now has the opportunity to try to apply some of that funding in a different manner to troy to help the states and help cover that 17% that is supposed to be in the expansion. but overall, bill, i think if you're looking at what we saw this morning, we live in very partisan, political times, and what you're seeing here is basically democrats celebrating a victory for president obama, house republicans now rallying, and i think they are angry at john roberts but they are going to go strong and possibly rally around repeal of this going towards the november election. bill: we'll watch that political note. juan thank you for that. we are getting this from our fox news producer inside the courtroom when the decision was handed down, he stresses to us that on two different occasions chief justice roberts expressed his view that today's ruling passes no judgment on the wisdom or merits of the law, congress can pass bad laws and this could be one of them but in his view if the people don't like the law
then voters should elect new leaders. that is the interpretation we're getting from inside the courtroom for the past several minutes. many, many thanks to my panel, megyn kelly and the judge andrew int'l falls, karl rove in austin, texas. juan williams here in new york and bret baier this is coverage will continue throughout the day and later tonight at 6:00 eastern time on special report. jon scott and jenna lee will pick things up. on the other side of this break on "happening now" we are aeu i waiting house speaker john boehner, his reaction will be fascinating, mitt romney i expected in 25 minutes in washington d.c. and 12:15, 15 minutes from now we'll hear the first statement from the president barack obama, his reaction what the justices have handed down today. this concludes our special coverage of the healthcare ruling. what a special day it is and that continues here on the fox
jon: fox news alert and reaction pouring in after the supreme court's momentous decision upholding most of the president's healthcare law. it will change the way government relates to each and every one of us. good thursday morning to you, i'm jon scott. jenna: we are so glad you're with us today, i'm jenna lee. welcome to a special edition of "happening now." we are live at the highest court in the land where moments ago the justices ruled in a 5-4 decision to affirm the individual mandate at heart of the healthcare overhaul. the mandate survives as a tax not as an extension of the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce, what you eat, what you buy. it carries political, economic and historic implications this
presidential election year. we have every angle covered for you from live reports, and analysis on how it impacts you, major political players weighing in with first responses on the ruling. the president is scheduled to speak 12:15 eastern time. mitt romney in about 20 minutes from now. and speaker boehner any moment. we'll bring you there when he starts speaking. shannon bream kicks off the coverage live at supreme court. >> reporter: all along from the pr battles to the legal battle the government has argued this two ways that this mandate with us a tax and it wasn't a tax. today their win inch argument with the chief justice writing for the majority was that this was a tax and he found that congress is okay to tax in this situation. here is a little bit of the opinion that boils it down. the requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty, that is the penalty you'll pay for not complying with the mandate may be reasonably characterized as a tax because the constitution permits such a tax. it's not our role to forbid it
or pass upon its wisdom or fairness. in the minority was justice kennedy. a lot of folks thought he would be the swing vote. he was among the four in the conservative wing who went in the decent. they said the government can tell you whatever they want you to do. the fact that we all consume food and are sooner or later in the market doesn't empower the government to say when and where we will buy. that is essentially what this act seeks to do. it exceeds federal power. the dissenters were not successful in gathering five to share their opinion, just four. there is the issue of medicaid. several states gathered together and said they didn't appreciate how this was handed to them. they'd have to take millions of people on their rolls and if they didn't they'd be in jeopardy of losing all the money that financed them. they say it is okay under this law millions to be forced onto the medicaid rolls and the states have to take them but the administration essentially can't
hold this threat over their head and say if you don't we will take away all of their funding. most of all 90% of this is a huge win to the administration and people who backed this law. you can hear the processers here and at least several of team have come to say if this is a tax don't expect me to pay it. come after me. we'll see what happens if we do have million also of americans who decide they are not going to comply. jenna: shannon, thank you. jon: now that the supreme court has upheld essentially the bulk of the healthcare law here is a look at the expected impact on every day americans. roughly 50 million people will gain insurance coverage through a mix of private insurance and medicaid. private health insurance premiums are expected to rise as they generally do, however. most analysts say you will see a noticeable increase in your premiums beginning in 2014 because of this law. meanwhile about 26 to 27 million nonelderly people living in the
u.s. will remain uninsured, they include illegal immigrants and people who would rather pay the penalty than buy insurance. jenna: now that the healthcare law is allowed under congress' power to tax, here is an example of what we're talking about what it comes to your taxes. by 2014 if you don't have health insurance you'll have to pay this tax. you can pay that tax in two ways, either a flat fee, or a percentage of your income, just depending on what is greater. for example in 2014 if you don't have insurance you're going to pay $95 or if you earn $50,000 you'll pay a $500 penalty. that is 2014, the tax grows over the next few years. by 2016 the fee is at $700 for one individual or 2.5% of your income. back to that $50,000 salary, that means you're going to be paying around 1,200 and $50 if
you shoes to pay that instead of paying the penalty. a lot at stake. something we should note, jon, this is something we'll be talking a lot about today is the economy. a lot of these projections depend on the economy, who is working and who is not, who has insurance through their employers, who doesn't. and so one of the questions that we're going to have to ask about is more immediate tax policies. we have tax cuts set to expire ate at the end of the year. will this tax law influence that in congress. jon: let's go to somebody who knows the workings of congress and the administration as well as the supreme court better than just about everybody, chris wallace the anchor of fox news sunday joins us now. i suppose when the president speaks, and that's expected in about 45 minutes, he can be expected to take a victory lap, chris, but is this a victory for him? >> i was thinking about that, jon, every since we got the ruling less than an hour ago.
it seems to me that the court handed a victory to barack obama, but it handed an issue to mitt romney. we are going to hear from both of them in the next hour. let me explain. obviously the fact that the court has upheld obamacare, the affordable care act is a victory for barack obama. it was his signature piece of legislation, and think of it the other way, if it had been struck down the opportunity republicans would have had to say, this president, the constitutional law lecturer wasted a year of the country's time and billions of dollars of the government's money on something that turned out to be illegal. so certainly i think you have to say they handed a legal victory to barack obama. why do i say that they handed an issue to mitt romney? you're hearing it already in statements from the republican national committee. they are taking jon roberts, the chief justice's ruling that this is not a mandate it's a tax.
they are calling it the obamacare tax on the middle class. for all the president's talk about how he hasn't raised taxes on the middle class, this mandate which now has deemed legally to be a tax is a huge tax increase on the middle class. in addition to which it seems to me mitt romney will be able to say look, all right the legal avenue is dead as a way to kill obama care. if you want to kill it you'll have to elect me as president and i think that is going to energize the conservative base, the plurality of people in this country who don't like obamacare to greatly energize. in a sense had they won in the supreme court it would ta taken the issue after the table, made it abstract and mailed it much harder for romney to energize them. jon: we are going to have to say goodbye. thank you, chris. chris.receivin tlement or annuity over 10 or even 20 years? call imperial structured settlements. the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today.
jon: a fox news alert and a victory, it would seem, for the obama administration. the supreme court in large part upholds the law that has come to be known as obamacare. we were talking about it just before the break with chris wallace when the computer cut us off. chris, you had a final thought that you wanted to share. >> yeah, i'll try to be quick about it. as we all know, the computers really run this place. but the point i was going to make was john roberts, i think a lot of people are wondering why would the chief justice have gone with the four liberals in the court and given obama this big victory, and i think whether you like his decision or not that john roberts, if you read
his decision, is casting it in terms of judicial restraint. not judicial activism which, of course, is one of his guiding principles. i just want to read you something from his decision. the government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax if it would otherwise violate the constitution. granting the act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read. and then he says because the constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness. so i think to a certain degree what roberts seems to be saying was, look, this was a national debate for a year, and for the court to sit there and by a 5-4 politically charged, the five conservatives as opposed to the four liberals, strike down this enormous piece of national legislation is maybe more -- maybe further than i am comfortable going in terms of judicial activism. so whether i agree with it orbit, as a matter of judicial restraint, i'm going to pay deference to the congress and go
with their decision and even help them a little bit and say, well, it isn't a mandate, it's really a tax. jon: interesting. chris wall lace, thank you. >> you bet, thank you. jon: more reaction will come on sunday, you can bet that this man, his exclusive guest, chris' exclusive guest, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell will be joining him. check your local listings fundamental times in your area. jenna: we're awaiting a lot of new reaction from both the president and governor mitt romney to the supreme court's decision today to uphold in most parts the health care law. joining us now with his first reaction to the ruling, republican senator marco rubio. senator rubio, big day here, historic for our country. in your opinion, what does this mean for the american people? >> well, i think it's telling that a victory for the obama administration means the middle class tax increase. and that's exactly what this is. let's be clear. the supreme court only rules on the constitutionality of things. they don't rule on whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. and i think after all the noise
is done, i hope people back home fully understand what this means. and here's what this means. it is now unlawful for you not buy health insurance, and if you don't why it -- buy it, you have an irs problem. the irs is going to be on your back and chasing you. they're going to take away your refund, increase your fees, they're going to come after you. that's what this now means for millions of americans is you don't have to buy health insurance, but if you don't, you're out of compliance, and you have an irs problem. and somehow the obama administration thinks that's a victory. that's everything you need to know about the administration. jenna: i know you weren't in office when the health care vote went through, but right now is there anything that the senate could do that could change the outcome of that tax? >> no matter where you stand on this health insurance issue, and we do have a problem in america, i hope we can reach some sort of common sense, reasonable consensus that says, look, we have a health insurance problem, we have to do something about
it, but getting the irs to chase after millions of americans for not buying health insurance was never the way we hoped this thing would go because that's what we're left with now. that's what this means. and i hope that people back home understand that, that if you don't buy health insurance, you are, you have an irs problem. and who wants that? so i hope that even the democrats here in the senate will realize that this was never what -- i hope this is not what they spended and we'll repeal this thing and let's start from scratch roadway placing it with -- replacing it with common sense approaches that doesn't put millions of americans at odds and at war with the irs. jenna: let's talk big picture here. what do you think this means for the republican party ahead of the election in november? >> well, look, this is such an important issue to everyday americans, and i hate to politicize it. i think in many respects, we're back where we were when i ran for office in 2010. one of the central issues of the campaign was this real anger at the overreach of the obama administration on this health care law. and i think this now becomes the
central issue again. in light of the other thing that happened today is that a new report came out that last month economic growth in america was pathetic, it was anemic, and do you think the news that millions of americans are now going to be chased by the irs to prove that you have health insurance, do we think that's going to help economic growth or hurt it? so i think this goes right back to the argument about the economy. just one more piece of evidence that the obama administration is hurting economic growth in america. jenna: senator rubio, nice to have your comments today as we continue to work through the news and the headlines. look forward to having you back to talk more about this issue and others of course. senator rubio, thank you very much.on t >> thank you, jenna. jenna: we'll be right back with more "happening now." hello? hello? yes. i didn't realize i'd be talking to an actual person. you don't need to press "0" i'm here. reach a person, not a prompt whenever you call chase sapphire.
get two times the points on dining in restaurants with chase sapphire preferred. jon: a fox news alert, you are looking live at the exterior of the supreme court, the facade wrap inside scaffolding and netting. we're told they're doing some repairs to the facade of that noble building, but you could be forgiven for thinking that they were trying to protect it from the political earthquake that
has ensued after the supreme court of the united states just this morning largely left intact what president obama called his signature piece of legislation, the affordable care act, also known as obamacare. for more on the court's ruling, we're joined by new york's former lieutenant governor betsy mccoy. she is a well known critic and a longtime critic of the health care legislation. she has read the entire law and wrote an e-book about it called "decoding the obama health care law." surprised, ms. mccoy, about what the court has decided here? >> well, actually i'm not that surprised. if you take a look at this law, 2,572 pages, it's a booby trap. the politicians claimed that this was not a tax. but the court was obligated to rule based on what the letter of this enormous law said, not what the politicians told the public. and, of course, this law empowered the irs to impose this
health care mandate. so it was not so unpredictable that the court would have to follow the letter of the law. but the lessons to the public is this: that the next congress they elect should put this 2,572-page law in the paper shredder and give us a 20-page bill in plain, honest english that members of congress and the public can actually read. jon: because many of them didn't read it before it was passed. >> no one read it. that's exactly the problem. so many politicians really didn't know that this is, in essence, a tax that moves the united states far more toward a socialist, european-style state where the government collects a large share of your earnings and then provides your needs rather than depending on you to make decisions for yourself. jon: the president has called it not a tax. the supreme court says it is. that's going to be the semantic battle ahead. betsy mccoy, the former lieutenant governor of new york, thank you. jenna: well, semantics is important, especially when we look at these opinions.
we're getting some of the details from this right now and the way that some of these justices viewed the words like "penalty" or "tax." tim o'brien is a journalist who's covered the united states supreme court for two decades. is that really what it came down to, tim? >> well, it did come down to a semantic debate. i think this is a landmark decision on the commerce clause, the first time in 75 years, the first time since the new deal that the court has struck down economic legislation brought under the commerce clause. i think part of it may go back to justice scalia's questions during oral arguments, what will congress do next, force us to eat broccoli? calling it a tax break, you can get away from that. a lot has been made of the fact that justice john roberts was what a lot of people thought would be the wrong side. i do not get the sense that they act out of politics. they try to get it right. but consider for a moment how it would have looked had he bonn the other side --
jenna: let me stop you there, just this past weekend there was this overwhelming criticism from some folks that said if the supreme court rules the individual mandate unconstitutional, it'll be evidence that the supreme court is too political. but that same argument isn't made with the decision. why not? >> well, of course, it didn't find it unconstitutional. but had it done so you would have had five republican appointees voting against it and the four democratic appointees voting in favor of it. i have to tell you, i don't believe they act out of politics, but it certainly would have looked that way. jenna: tim, nice to have your thoughts today. it's so great to have you. i know you've got to run to catch a flight. thank you for your time. a big day here, of course, with the health care ruling and the supreme court. we just talked to senator rubio about how he feels about this law. he says his big read on it is that this is a new middle class tax increase. we're going to have a senator from the other side of the aisle react to that. jon: also still waiting to hear from the speaker of the house,
jon: some of the biggest names in washington will be speaking within the hour, among them president obama and the speaker of the house, john boehner. but first up we expect to hear from the presumptive republican nominee, mitt romney. and if you look on the podium there, jenna, you can get what the thrust of his remarks are going to be, repeal and replace obamacare. that's what we expect to hear him say in just a minute or less. jenna: it's very interesting to hear the conversation about how this is going to play out politically. senator rubio just joining us,
we also had chris wallace joining us as to how this law will be digested by republicans as they move ahead towards november. one of the questions that comes up is how does this issue of the tax, the fact that the health care mandate, the individual mandate is allowed because it is a tax? the president said firmly back in 2009-2010 that this is not tax. so how does the president take this ruling, and how do the republicans take this rule, and how does each side view it now? a tax ask a tax. jon: the supreme court quite clearly called it a tax and said that's why congress is allowed to pass this law. here comes the presumptive republican nominee, mitt romney, who heard the results of the supreme court decision along with the rest of us a little bit more than an hour ago. >> as you might imagine, i disagree with the supreme court's decision, and i agree with the dissent. what the court did not do on its last day in session, i will do on my first day if elected president of the united states. and that is i will act to repeal
obamacare. let's make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do. what the court did today was say that obamacare does not violate the constitution. what they did not do was say that obamacare is good law or that it's good policy. obamacare was bad policy yesterday, it's bad policy today. obamacare was bad law yesterday, it's bad law today. let me tell you why i say that. obamacare raises taxes on the american people by approximately $500 billion. obamacare cuts medicare, cuts medicare by approximately $500 billion. and even with those cuts and tax increases obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt. and pushes those obligations on to coming generations. obamacare also means that for up to 20 million americans they
will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep. obamacare is a job killer. businesses across the country have been asked what the impact is of obamacare. three-quarters of those surveyed by the chamber of commerce said obamacare makes it less likely for them to hire people. and perhaps most troubling of all, obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor. for all those reasons, it's important for us to repeal and replace obamacare. what are some of the things that we'll keep in place and must be in place in a reform, a real reform of our health care system? one, we have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so. having 20 million people up to that number of people lose the insurance they want is simply unacceptable. number two, gotta make sure that those people who have pre-existing conditions know that they will be able to be
insured, and they will not lose their insurance. we also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their effort to assure every american has access to affordable health care, and something that obamacare does not to that must be done in real reform be is helping lower the cost of health care and health insurance. it's becoming prohibitively expensive. and so this is now a time for the american people to make a choice. you can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life separating you and your doctor, whether you're comfortable with more deficits, higher debt that we've passed onto the coming generations, whether you're willing to have the federal government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like or whether instead you want to return to a time when the american people will have their own choice in health care, where consumers will be able to make their choices as to what kind of health insurance they want.
this is a time of choice for the american people. our mission is clear. if we want to get rid of obamacare, we're going to have to replace president obama. my mission is to make sure we do exactly that. that we return to the american people the privilege they've always had to live their lives in the way they feel most appropriate, where we don't pass on to coming generations massive deficits and debt, where we don't have a setting where jobs are lost. if we want good jobs and a bright economic future for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace obamacare. that is my mission, that is our work, and i'm asking the people of america to join me. if you don't want the course that president obama has put us on, if you want instead a course that the founders envisioned, then join me in this effort. help us. help us defeat obamacare, help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive and that's killing jobs across this great country. thank you so much. jon: governor mitt romney is not taking any questions after those
remarks. about an hour and a half ago we found out that the supreme court upheld in large part the president's health care law. mitt romney says it will be the first thing that he strikes down, that he tries to repeal if he is elected president. we also learned that his campaign raised about $300,000 in online donations in the first hour after the supreme court announcement came out that obamacare is, in fact, in large part constitutional. mitt romney there saying that he wants to repeal it, that just because the supreme court says that it is constitutional doesn't necessarily mean that it's good policy. we'll have other reaction from other prominent republicans later on as well. jenna: we're also awaiting the president's reaction, as you mentioned, jon. his first reaction publicly will come around 12:15 as we understand it about the supreme court's ruling. in the meantime, we want to get straight to senator chris coons who's joining us, the democratic senator from delaware.
and, senator coons, we've heard a myriad of different things about this ruling, we just heard from mitt romney calling it a job killer, this new health care law. we've heard it described as a new tax on the middle class. how do you respond to that? >> well, jenna, i've always been interested in and supportive of the affordable care act not from the perspective of the presidential campaign or how it plays out in politics, but how it effects real people. my wife and i have heard from dozens of our neighbors, our friends, our constituents about how the affordable care act has changed their lives, made it possible for them to get access to high quality health care by getting access to insurance even though they have a pre-existing condition or even though they're under age 26 or even though they've maxed out on a previous practice of lifetime caps. melanie martin, for example, the woman from wilmington who came up and spoke with my wife two years ago and her individual story, her journey of trying to get access to high quality mechanic is just heartbreaking.
the affordable care act made it possible for her to get access to health care. tens of millions of americans have been enjoying free preventive services, access to high quality insurance and access to best in the world health care that we have here in the united states because of the affordable care act. jenna: you mentioned the effect on real people and that, of course s is the most important part of this story. but how do you think the perception from those people you mentioned will change when they find out that they have to pay more in taxes for some of the services that you're talking about? >> well, see, i disagree. i think that the congressional budget office, the independent referee of the actual costs of things passed by the congress, scored the affordable care act as actually reducing the deficit and not as a massive new tax on the american people. that is part of what we will be debating in this upcoming campaign, and ihink chief justice roberts and the majority of the court today showed real leadership in finding narrow and appropriate grounds on which to uphold the affordable care act and, thus, making it a central
issue in the presidential campaign and in the elections this fall. jenna, in our constitutional system these very tough, debatable positions on public policy like what is the best way to provide health care and what's the best balance between individual liberties and caring for each other through world class health care should appropriately be decided at the ballot box, not by judges. so i'm pleased with this decision today that allows us to make this one of the major issues in this fall's election campaign. jenna: senator coons, nice to hear from you, thank you for the time. >> thank you, jenna. jon: so the u.s. supreme court court upholds the health care law, major victory for the obama administration, and it gives republicans perhaps a new line of attack for the 2012 campaign. welcome to a brand new hour of "happening now," i'm jon scott. president obama will be speaking in just a few minutes, please, stick around with us. the patient protection and affordable care act survives that constitutional challenge in a 5-4 vote including the heart of the overhaul, the individual mandate.
this means that virtually all americans will have to carry health insurance or pay a tax. house speaker john boehner says the law hurts the economy by increasing health care costs and making it difficult for small businesses to hire. he says the ruling shows the need to repeal the entire law. bret baier, the anchor of "special report," joins us now, and the speaker of the house has already announced a vote date in the house to try to get it done. that's kind of tilting at windmills, isn't it, bret? >> well, he's announced that before, that it was going to happen no matter what the ruling was out of the supreme court. if it wasn't all struck down, the house was going to vote to repeal it all. we couldn't, obviously, get that to the president's desk. we will likely hear the president say many of the things you just heard senator coons say here on fox news channel, defending the health care law and the good provisions that are
seen by many people as positives. that was the tricky thing for republicans going down the road, how you could deal with that and repeal the whole thing. this as a political issue as we've been talking about this morning is very, very powerful. we've heard from a lot of republicans already this morning. you obviously just heard from mitt romney, and you are seeing the structure of how this battle will play out in the general election. democrats are thrilled, but the political battle for them will still be uphill as the polls are upside down on this issue. jon: right. you talked about the political issue, and it seems like in many ways the supreme court handed republicans a campaign issue when they pronounced that this is a tax, paying for the affordable care act is a tax and, therefore, congress has the power to essentially institute it for all americans. here's what congressman darrell issa said. he said: in selling obamacare, congressional democrats and president obama assured the
american people that it was not a tax. today the supreme court ruled it was, in fact, a tax. u.s. senator kelly ayotte from new hampshire: by imposing a tax on the american people, the president's health care law represents an unprecedented federal overreach into individuals' perm lives. personal lives. and final my from senator rob portman, a man who is considered a potential vice presidential candidate: >> reporter: that's right that senator portman's statement sounded a lot like governor romney's statement there about flawed policy. on the tax issue people will jump on this especially from the right. it's interesting that john roberts the chief justice sided with the left block, the liberal
justices on this issue, and that we were looking at justice kennedy as the swing vote here for the longest time. but he read the decent today, and the decent, a joint decent with scalia, kennedy, thomas and alito, he wrote this. to say that the mandate imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it judicial tax writing is particularly troubling. justice kennedy reading that from the bench in the joint decent. it is something that is fascinating to watch. the court always looking at the specific issues one by one, each case is different, but this one has such a massive ramification, politically and around the country. bill: and it's going to give you plenty of material to talk about tonight on special report. >> reporter: definitely. jon: bret baier thank you. jenna: we are minutes away from the president's injuries reaction to the supreme court decision that upholds his
healthcare law pretty much in its entirety. there is an important part that we'll get to a little later on in the program and talk about hopefully with senator lee coming up about the medicaid expansion. in the meantime, as far as the president goes he is going to speak in about ten minutes in the east room of the white house. that is important because it's the same place that he signed the bill into law about two years ago. chief white house correspondented henry is live at white house. >> reporter: you're right to make that connection. it was in the east room where vice joe biden made that profane declaration saying this is a quote, big bleeping deal. it's interesting because this morning as the confusion set in about what was really going on, one once top administration officials figured out that the president had a big victory a tweet was put out. you can see it there, quote, it's constitutional.
and the next word starts with b and rhymes with richest. gaspart set another tweet. this is an important moment in improving the lives of all americans. i think it's telling because it gives us an idea of the tone the president will like to strike, this is not a political victory for him only but he will cast this as a victory for millions of americans who will health insurance now. at this moment on the white house website there is still an old blog post from december of 2009 when the fight in washington was, is this a tax or not. there is a blog from a white house aide saying this is not a tax, and adds, in fact it's a substantial net tax cut for american families. you can see how the white house argument has now flipped. they are very much willing to embrace now the idea that it is a tax, because that is what kept this alive, jenna.
jenna: interesting switch of words, an interesting blog to keep up for the last couple of years. thank you for mining that out. it gives us an interesting perspective today. we'll watch for the president. jon: senator mike lee, a republican from utah joins us. he is a member of the tea party caucus. in some ways has the supreme court given the president an issue to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? they have said it's constitutional, but they have said, senator, this is a tax. the president says it's not. >> you know, this ruling today, while not the one that i wanted, or expected, will prove to be a victory for the individual mandate that is fleeting and short-lived and really i wil. they've said they are able to sustain it only by shoe morning it quite awkwardly into congress' taxing authority.
most americans don't like the individual mandate already, they'll like it even less when they understand that it's a tax. jon: we understand that the speaker of the house has scheduled a vote for july 9th to repeal the affordable care act on the house side. when that gets to the senate will it go anywhere? what happens to it? >> well, a number of us in both houses of congress are going to do everything we can to make sure that this gets a full and fair vetting and that it gets an up or down vote. the american people deserve not to have a tax increase without congress ever acting, and that's what happened today by mandate, by dictate of the u.s. supreme court. there will be tremendous political consequences to any who support this. any who vote to sustain this tax will do so at their own political perfectly. this is a huge boon to the campaign of mitt romney. many will be flocking around him saying we don't want new taxes,
especially we don't want new taxes on the poor and that's essentially what this does. jon: senator reid has not been seen as someone who is likely to allow this bill to come to the senate floor. can he be pressured to do so? >> with the support of the american people we can get people to change their mind. i anticipate that if people continue to contact their members of congress, continue especially to contact their senators and say we want an up or down vote on the question of whether a new tax should be imposed on americans, 75% of which, by the way will be paid by those earning less than $120,000 a year. with that kind of pressure, the senate can be expected to do the right thing. jon: we mentioned that you're a tea party caucus member obviously elected with great support from tea party constituents. do you expect that this ruling will generate all kinds of enthusiasm among the tea party
members? >> this will generate a lot of enthusiasm among americans generally. to an increasing degree americans are having discussions about the power of government, the constitution, around the kitchen table. they are talking about whether congress should have the power to tell people they have to buy something they may not want. it offends our basic sense of freedom as americans to be told that by government bureaucrats. i think this is a huge victoria try for people everybody who want to restrict the power of government. jon: senator mike lee, senator from utah. thank you. jenna: both sides on the immigration law when we got that ruling said it was a victory. it's up to the viewers to decide whether it's a victory for you. more on the landmark ruling, including the obstacles that remain to enacting the healthcare law in its entirety. there is a lot to come, how does it get done? what role will the rule play in the elections.
there is a political angle to this. we will talk with arizona pep whip jon kyl, in just a moment. are you receiving a payout from a legal settlement or annuity over 10 or even 20 years? call imperial structured settlements. the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today.
jenna: fox news alert. a big news item of the day the supreme court rules that the healthcare law can stand, not exactly how it was written and there are a few different parts to it that maybe have changed a little bit when it comes to the relationship between the federal government and the state and medicaid expansion. we won't get too far into that right now. we are awaitth president. the president is set to speak his first address to the country after finding that the supreme court ruled his healthcare law is allowed. that is not the president, that is a guy just checking to make sure that the camera is in the right ankle and the audio is on, right, jon. jon: interesting. here comes the president. jenna: good thing that guy got out of the way. jon: the stand in got out of the way first in time. will the president acknowledge
that it's a tax, listen for that. >> good afternoon. earlier today the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act. the name of the healthcare reform we passed two years ago. in doing so they have reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in america, in the wealthiest nation on earth no illness or accident should lead to any family's financial ruin. i know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this. about who won, and who lost, that's how these things tend to be viewed here in washington. but that discussion completely misses the point. whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the supreme court's decision to uphold it. and because this law has a direct impact on so many americans i want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you. first, if you're one of the more
than 250 million americans who already have health insurance you will keep your health insurance. this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. insurance companies can no longer impose life-time limits on the amount of care you receive. they can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. they can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. they can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. they are required to provide free preventative care like checkups and mammograms, a provision that has already helped 54 million americans with private insurance. and by this august nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and ceo bonuses and not enough on your healthcare. there is more. because of the affordable care act young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parents' healthcare plans, a
provision that has already helped 6 million young americans. and because of the affordable care act seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs, a discount that has already saved more than 5 million seniors on medicare about $600 each. all of this is happening because of the affordable care act. these provisions provide common-sense protections for middle class families and they enjoy broad, popular support. and thanks to today's decision all of these benefits and protections will continue for americans who already have health insurance. now, if you're one of the 30 million americans who don't yet have health insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable private health insurance plans to choose from. each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost this law allows them to do that too.
i've asked congress to help speed up that process and give states this flexibility in year one. once states set up these health insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against any american with a preexisting health condition. they won't be able to charge you more just because you're a woman. they won't be able to bill you into bankruptcy. if you're sick you'll finally have the same chance to get quality, affordable healthcare as everyone else. and if you can't afford the premiums you'll receive a credit that helps pay for it. today the supreme court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance. this is important for two reasons. first, when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick and show up at the emergency room for care the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums.
and second, if you ask insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, but don't require people who can afford it to buy their own insurance, some folks might wait until they are sick to buy the care they need, which would also drive up everybody else's premiums. that's why even though i knew it won't be politically popular, and resisted the idea when i ran for this office, we ultimately included a provision in the affordable care act that people who can afford to buy health insurance should take the responsibility to do so. in fact this idea has enjoyed support from memorandum bores of both parties, including the current republican nominee for president. still i know the debate over this law has been devisive. i respect the very real concerns that millions of americans have shared. and i know a lot of coverage through this healthcare debate has focused on what it means politically. well, it should be pretty clear by now that i didn't do this because it was good politics. i did it because i believed it was good for the country.
i did it because i believed it was good for the american people. you know, there is a framed letter that hangs in my office right now, it was sent to me during the healthcare debate by a woman named natoma canfield. for nears and nears natoma did everything right, she bought health insurance, paid her premiums on time. but 18 years ago natoma was diagnosed with cancer. even though she had been cancer free for more than a decade her insurance company kept jacking up her rates year after year and despite her desire to keep her coverage, despite her fears that she would get sick again she had to surrender her health insures and was forced to hang her fortunes on chance. i carried natoma's story with me every day in the night to pass this law. it reminded me of all the americans, all across the country who have had to worry about not only getting sick but about the cost of getting well.
natoma is well today, and because of this law there are other americans, other sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, who will not have to hang their fortunes on chance. these are the americans for whom we passed this law. the highest court in the land has now spoken. we will continue to implement this law, and we'll work together to improve on it where we can. but what we won't do, what the country can't afford to do is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were. with today's announcement it's time for us to move forward, to implement and where necessary improve on this law. now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time, putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard they can get ahead. but today i'm as confident as ever that when we look back five
years from now, or ten years from now, or 20 years from now, we'll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward. thank you. good bless you, and god bless america. jon: that was the president saying that the supreme court has upheld the signature piece of legislation of his term in office to this point. but saying that let's not go back and fight the battles of the past, clearly he is telling congress not to try to undue this legislation that he is so proud of having passed, and yet at same time he points out that he didn't do it because he knew it would be politically popular, obviously the president has been reading the polls and knows that most americans do not like the way that healthcare has been imposed upon them, the healthcare law, and it has actually grown less popular as it has gone along. our chief white house correspondented henry join
correspondented henry joins us more with more reaction. >> reporter: i think you put your finger on it with the president trying to stop this effort by mitt romney and republicans and the hill saying that they now will move to repeal this law. the president saying, let's not refight the battles that we've had for the last two years. you're right also to note that he wants to frame this as him doing the right thing, it's not about politics, because he's taking a beating on the politics. who would have thought with a conservative leaning court that we'd hear from the president today, quote, the highest court in the land has now spoken. many people were expecting that he would have to be spinning today a decision that would be bringing down his signature domestic achievement. this potentially could give him a shot in the arm after a brutal june with a bad jobs report at the beginning of of the month, bad economic signs weighing on his poll numbers. this could give him a shot in the arm. on the other hand has you heard from mitt romney a little while ago he thinks this will embolden
the republican side. we got a statement from the iowa g.o.p. state party chairman a. j. spiker saying, quote, president obama clearly lied to the american team. he's referring to when he repeatedly promised during the battle for healthcare that this was not a tax increase, basically the party chairman in iowa, other republicans, senator lea few moments ago when you were speaking to him, saying the highest court in the land is now saying, this is a tax increase and that will be a big political weapon for republicans moving forward, jon. jon: a fascinating argument to watch as it evolves over the next few months. thank you. jenna: we are witnessing history in the making right now. today's healthcare ruling is definitely one that we'll be talking about for years to come. we wanted to get a little context here for some previous big decisions from the high court. rick folbaum is at the breaking news desk with more. >> reporter: we wanted to look at landmark decisions some of them controversial in their day and the impact they had. if the court had ruled
differently today they would have found the law passed by congress to be unconstitutional. the first time that happened was in 1803, marberry versus madison. the court voted to give itself that power not specifically granted in the constitution. other big case necessary 1857 a supreme court ruling against a slave named dreade scott who sued for his and his family decision. it intensified the national debate over shraeufr raoefplt it was nullified by president lincoln's emancipation declaration. thurgood marshal arguing and winning before the court in the landmark brown versus board p-f education case back in 1954, a unanimous court, 9-0, paving the way for the civil rights movement, ruling that separate public schools or black-and-white students were unconstitutional. in 1973 the court ruling that abortion is a fundamental right
under the constitution, that decision was a vote of 7-2, based on the argument that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is consistent with her right to privacy. of course bush v gore in 2000 stopped the florida recount and allowed the state's 25 electoral votes to be given to george w. bush making him president, that vote was 5-4. the justice is declared that their decision could never be cited as precedent. another 5-4 decision ruling that the government cannot limit the amount of campaign donations, and so, again, today with a ruling of 5-4, another landmark case, jenna to add to that list. jenna: thank you so much. jon: the heart of president obama's healthcare law upheld by the highest court in the land. what happens next? we'll tell you what it means for hundreds of millions of americans, those who have insurance and those who don't. also, what about the 26 states
that filed suit against the federal government? we find out what is next when we talk to someone who represented those states before this case went to the supreme court. ok! who gets occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas or bloating? get ahead of it! one phillips' colon health probiotic cap a day helps defend against digestive issues with three strains of good bacteria. hit me! [ female announcer ] live the regular life. phillips'. see life in the best light. live the regular life. [music] transitions® lenses automatically filter just the right amount of light. so you see everything the way it's meant to be seen. experience life well lit, ask for transitions adaptive lenses.
our chief national correspondent jim angle takes a look at that. republicans, jim are saying the key today was not whether the mandate was constitutional? >> reporter: that's right, jon. republicans of all stripes, including mitt romney whom you heard not too long ago have been arguing and are still arguing that even if the law is constitutional it's bad policy that creates an unworkable system and republicans are ready to, as they put it, repeal and replace the law listen. >> americans want it repealed, and that is precisely what we intend to do. americans want us to start over, and today's decision does nothing to change that. the court's ruling doesn't mark the end of the debate. it marks a fresh start on the road to repeal. >> reporter: now democrats, of course, have been somewhere between extactic and predicting
that this could lead to single payer healthcare. the leader of the senate says he is pleased they upheld the law even though he talked about making changes in it. listen. >> we know when wcome back here after the elections there may be some things to do to improve the law and we'll do that working together. >> reporter: of course the obama administration vigorously denied that the mandate was a tax which is the only reason the court decided that it was in fact constitutional. justice kennedy who decented noted from the bench that the administration went to great lengths to structure it as a penalty not a tax. they said the administration had tried to sell it as a tax it would not have passed. jon: what is the overall political impact? too early to tell which side wins or loses here? >> reporter: it's too early to tell who wins or loses. it absolutely reinstates obamacare as a hot political issue, just as it was in 2010. you heard the president saying, oh, let's not go become to the arguments of 2010, he should
wish for something else in this case. one lawmaker, dave schweikert of arizona said this has awakened a sleeping giant. the election just changed. he argues the 2010 election that gave control of the house to republicans was driven biopw-pl a care and concluded it's back in play. terry holtz said simply, obama might have his law but the g.o.p. has a cause, one he says that promises to galvanize republican support around a repeal. state officials says this makes the hilt care law the predominant issue in the fall campaign. jon, there are also lots of concerns about how to pay for this bill, and whether or not it will be a lot more expensive than the president had sold it as being deficit neutral. jon: fascinating, jim as you say the only reason the supreme court authorizes it is because it's a tax and congress can levee taxes. the president says it's not. >> reporter: and exactly what the administration insisted it was not. jon: fascinating.
jim angle, thank you. jenna: senator lindsey graham a republican from south carolina joins us now. senator, what happens next? >> well, i think the american people need to -- this is not a republican issue any more, jenna. what happened is that the only way for this bill to be upheld constitutionally is for the politicians who passed it to say they are okay with a tax. we don't need a massive tax increase to fix healthcare. president obama looked the camera in the eye and said we are not taxing you. every democrat on the floor of the senate in the debate said, this is not a tax. if it had been seen as a tax they won't have got even ten votes, much less 60. so what happens next, is we go to every democrat, including the president who said it wasn't a tax and ask them now, what do you think, and what do you believe, because the only way it can be legally upheld is for you to have used the power to tax.
so -- they either don't know what they are doing or they lied to us. so this is a huge issue in the fall, the big looser is the american people, because they don't need to be taxed any more, and taxing the american people to fix healthcare is the wrong model. the other big issue is that people are tired of politicians saying one thing and doing another. so to every democrat who voted for this bill, will you accept it as a tax increase or not? jenna: one of our colleagues over in the house. eric cantor says after the july 4th recess he's going to bring a bill to the floor of the house to repeal the healthcare law. that could potentially, senator graham, set up some sort of a showdown that you're describing here where lawmakers have to come forward and vote for or against what is now viewed or described as a tax by the supreme court. do you see something similar happening in the senate? >> absolutely. the issue is not about healthcare any more, it's about taxes. do you think we need a hundreds
of billions of dollars in new taxes to fix a broken healthcare system? we need more choice and more competition, not more taxes. and the taxes being levied wind up allowing the federal government to own healthcare. that is one issue. republicans should go to the floor of the senate and the house and challenge every democrat who embraced that this is a tax, and if they won't embrace it being a tax, repeal the bill. and the other thing is the president of the united states should explain himself. why did he take the presidential podium and assure us all we were not using the power to tax. the reason he said that is because he knew he couldn't pass this bill. but when he went to the court his lawyers said, we'll look as the power to tax as a way to uphold the bill. this is disingenuous, it will not stand and i have a bill six months ago introduced with senator brasso that basically said all states should be able to opt out of obamacare and now
we should take that bill up. jenna: let me ask you a quick follow-up on that. senator, of course the president did not use the word tax in his address just a few moments ago. >> right. jenna: he said the sue proepl court reaffirmed a principle, a principle that everyone deserves access to healthcare. if you can afford it you have to buy it if you can't afford it you should have access to affordable healthcare. what is the republican plan for the healthcare market? we do know that these healthcare costs regardless of the state of this law and how its implemented is something that is so crucial towards the financial stability of this country. >> the republican plan to fix healthcare is not to increase your taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. the republican plan to fix healthcare is a step-by-step process rather than a 2700 page bill you don't understand. our plan is to allow you to buy healthcare across state lines, to do away with the preexisting illness exclusion, to create more competition not less. to work with democrats and not
rely on the power to tax the american people to pass a healthcare bill. the president needs to be held accountable for being disingenuous during the debate. the democrats need to be held accountable for taking the floor of the house and the senate and denying they are taxing the american people. they need to answer the question. now that the court said the only way you can uphold this bill is to use the power to tax, will you accept this as a tax increase? and if you won't accept this as a tax increase will you work with republicans to find a better way. jenna: if the supreme court affirmed this law how do you hold the president accountable, senator? >> it's called an election. every republican running for the congress, or the senate should say that if i were in congress i would not have voted for a tax increase to fix healthcare. every democrat who voted for this bill should be labeled as a
massive tax increase member of congress, or repeal the bill. they can't have it both ways. jenna: senator graham, nice to have you today, big day, historic one. we look forward to having you back and talk more about this. thank you, sir. >> thank you. jon: fox news alert, and while most of our attention thus far today has focused on the supreme court let's take you a couple of blocks away to capitol hill where the house is beginning debate on another monumental issue, the rule that will govern how the house will handle a contempt resolution against the attorney general eric holder, the nation's chief law enforcement officer. you might remember congressman darrell issa a's and oversight committee voted to eric holder hold in contempt of congress because of his failure to release documents, to the committee, to the congress regarding the fast and furious gun running scandal, that debotched gun running plan that put guns in the hands of mexican
gun cartels. some of those guns were later used to kill brian terry, a border patrol agent. at any rate they are beginning the debate on how this will all go down in the house. we will continue to watch that. we will also continue to watch this historic decision from the supreme court upholding in large part the affordable care act, what has become known in this country as obamacare. much more "happening now" coming up. and crowd cheering sfx: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering so, i'm walking down the street, sfx: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering just you know walking, sfx: sounds of marching bandnd and crowd cheering and i found myself in the middle of this paradeeet, sfx: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering honoring america's troops. sfx: sounds of marching bandnd and crowd cheering which is actually in tquite fitting becauseadeeet, sfx: sounds of marching band and crowd cheering geico has been serving e military for over 75 years. nd aawh no, look, i know this is about the troops and not about me. right, but i don't look like that. who can i write a letter to about this? geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
your doctor will say get smart about your weight. i tried weight loss plans... but their shakes aren't always made for people with diabetes. that's why there's glucerna hunger smart shakes. they have carb steady, with carbs that digest slowly to help minimize blood sugar spikes. and they have six grams of sugars. with fifteen grams of protein to help manage hunger... look who's getting smart about her weight. [ male announcer ] glucerna hunger smart. a smart way to help manage hunger and diabetes. jenna: certainly a big part of the ruling from the supreme court today is about the significance of how it affects states. lee casey is a former justice defendant attorney for the reagan and bush administration, bush senior administrations i should say. he represented the 26 states in their challenge to the healthcare law, and part of that case, lee, was about this medicaid expansion we've been hearing something about today,
the medicaid expansion on a state level. what does this ruling, by the supreme court mean for that? >> well, what it means is that the states won a great victory today. the law originally required them to expand their immediate indicatmedicaid programs up to 137 perfected of the federal poverty level. that is enormously costly to the states and that is part ever the heart in many ways of their challenge. the court said, no, congress cannot do that, congress cannot coerce the states into expanding their medicaid programs by threatening to take away all of their medicaid money. by doing that it gives congress a serious problem, because of course as you know the court upheld the mandate, so now there is a significant part of the population who must buy health insurance, but the mechanism to do that, the expansion of medicaid that congress had
originally envisioned is not going to be there, at least in some of the states, and so this gives congress a serious problem. jenna: let's stop there. as we have been leading up to the day of this case we've been talking a lot about if the individual mandate is stripped from this law, then the law can't be implemented in the same way potentially. now what you're saying is that if this medicaid expansion doesn't happen the way that it was believed to happen on the state level now, there are some questions about how this law is implemented especially when it comes to individuals' families that are looking to buy healthcare or get access to healthcare. >> that is absolutely right. i mean the law was in fact adopted as a whole. it had a lot of working parts. and the mandate was critical to the law, but critical to the mandate was the medicaid expansion, because that is the mechanism whereby people who are not below the poverty level but are still not high income easterners will b earners will
be able to get their insurance and comply with the law. that is no longer likely to be there in many of the states. jenna: what is next for the states then if they have these people who have to get healthcare, will the states be forced in other ways to set up their exchanges in different ways? what is the affect for -- there's obviously a lot of different states and a lot of different policies, lee, and i know you represented 26 of them. give us a sense of what it's really going to be like. >> it is going to have to be a state-by-state decision, but it is very likely that at least some of the states, not necessarily just those that are part of the lawsuit will now decide that they simply can't afford to expand their medicaid programs in this way, and that means that congress is going to have to figure out a way to cover those people that were originally supposed to be covered under that expansion. jenna: lee, we all have to buy healthcare if we don't have it by 2014, so we want to get shopping as soon as possible. we have to get out there and start recertify s-fpg our plan
research our plans and know what is available to us. if that is still a big question mark how do the american people do that? >> they need to look to congress. there is a big question and a lot of them aren't going to be sure where they get their coverage, and how they are going to comply with the law, and many of them aren't going to be able to afford the tax. of course the court upheld the mandate as a tax, but there is a lot of people who can't really afford that. jenna: it will be interesting for the first year in 2014 if you're an individual the tax is $95, or 1% of your income. so if you're making $50,000 that's $500. that is just something to think about, that is for the first year. it goes up after that. lee, this will be an interesting journey. we hope to have you back as congress has to work through this. it's nice to have you lee, thank you very much. >> thank you. jon: those numbers certainly are fluid, aren't they. jenna: absolutely. jon: the president's individual mandate was at the center of the healthcare controversy. what about possible threats to state sovereignty? coming up an attorney general
jon: we are continuing to sift through the supreme court's decision just announced this morning on the president's healthcare law. justices voting 5-4 to uphold the individual mandate, which has been the focus of most of the debate. but the states also have a lot at stake here with new requirements looming on medicaid. what does this mean for state budgets and for those on medicaid. south carolina attorney general alan wilson served on the executive committee of the case, he was in the supreme court for all three days of oral arguments back in march. you have been quoted as saying, this decision is catastrophic for states like south carolina.
what do you mean? >> well this is absolutely catastrophic, it's a hallow victory to say we won on the medicaid part of the argument. basically what's happening is is the court has said that states cannot be held hostage with old money -- keeping old money but having new requirements. what is going to happen is is that we are going to get these new requirements imposed on the states to provide coverage for new medicaid recipients. the rolls are going to swell. we are joined at the hip with this. the medicaid rolls are going to swell, expand, states will be stuck with the bill and that will be passed on to the people of south carolina and awful the other states. we are very, very concerned about this. and unfortunately the administration got a victory today, but unfortunately for the country it's a defeat. when the supreme court called the mandate a tax they basically did what the legislative branch should have done, they
originated a tax in the third branch of government, not the legislative branch of government and that's what justice kennedy said in his decent and that's something i have a great concern with. jon: right the decenters said this is a judicial lee imposed tax in effect, even though the president and the congress didn't want to call it that. let's get back to this medicaid. you're going to see medicaid rolls swelling in south carolina, and in other states as a result of this ruling? how much is that going to cost your state and does that bring tax increases of its own? >> absolutely. you know, it's not just the medicaid expansion, it's the losses everywhere else in this law. what people aren't talking about, when you look at for instance people who are in their 60s, right now if you look at the age band of how much a premium of a 62-year-old could pay it's not going to be more than six times what a healthy 22-year-old pays. this law caps that at 3 times what a healthy 22-year-old pays. so you have senior citizen americans paying three times less in premiums as to what
younger americans are paying. who do you think is going to make up that difference, younger americans premiums are going to rise but they are not going to pay those premiums, because they will pay a lower tax. they are going to default to a lower tax and refuse health insurance. they will pay a lower tax until they get sick, then they will get a $6,000 a year policy to cover a preexisting condition that is going to cost a hundred thousand dollars to get care for. so what you're basically doing is you're lowering the pool of money that we can spread around to fund people's healthcare and that will be very dangerous for young americans. jon: it sounds like a paperwork nightmare. >> it absolutely is. jon: senator wilson from south carolina, thanks for being with us. >> thank you. jon: we'll be right back with more coverage on "happening now." i woke up with this horrible rash on my right side.
an intense burning sensation like somebody had set it on fire. and the doctor said, cindie, you have shingles. he said, you had chickenpox when you were a little girl... i said, yes, i did. i don't think anybody ever thinks they're going to get shingles. but it happened to me. for more of the inside story, visit shinglesinfo.com jenna: fox news alert, want to take you back to the economy and what's happening with the
market. the dow is trading lower by more than 1%, it was lower before we got the results from the supreme court about the president's health care law being upheld. of course, that's one of the big head liens of the day, but we don't want to forget this as well, 386,000 americans filed for unemployment in the latest week, and that number, around that range, has stayed high over the last several weeks. there's big questions ahead for the job market and big questions ahead for the economy, jon, especially because so many of the projections we get from the congressional budget office about the president's health care law depend on certain things happening in the economy, certain recoveries happening. so if that doesn't happen according to plan, then some of these numbers we're talking about today do a lot of shefting. jon: a lot of the numbers were predicated on a healthy economy with lots of people working and paying taxes, and that's not happening. jenna: especially by 2014 when those taxes go into effect. just under 400,000 americans filing for unemployment every
week. jon: and the cbo has said it's going to take a look at the supreme court ruling and figure out what the cost after owl of this is because not all of the president's plans were approved by the supreme court. there are some issues with the states and medicaid. what is that going to cost? that, the cbo says, will take some time to decipher. jenna: it's going to take us even longer to do it by ourselves. [laughter] jon: going to need a lot of pencils to figure this out. thank you for joining us today. jenna: "america live" continues coverage right now. megyn: fox news alert, we are awaiting speaker john boehner's reaction to the supreme court's decision upholding the president's health care law. we will take those remarks live when they happen right here. in the meantime, we begin with this: it is a landmark day in the history of our country. we are waiting to hear not just from the speaker of the house, but from several other people who are expected to comment on the ruling that came out this morning addressing the supreme
court's 5-4 decision upholding the controversial individual insurance mandate at the heart of the president's health care overhaul. welcome, everybody, i'm megyn kelly, and the news is breaking this afternoon. the chief justice of the united states, john roberts, a george w. bush appointee to the high court, siding with the four left-leaning justices ultimately allowing the law to stand. for the most part. interestingly, lawmakers had argued that the individual mandate was not a tax. we were repeatedly told this is not a tax, even the president himself in justifying the law and pushing for it prior to its passage said publicly, repeatedly this was not a tax. but when he got into court, he argued something very different. and, ultimately, that argument prevailed today. the justice department's own lawyers told the united states supreme court this is a tax and that it was justi,