Skip to main content

tv   America Live  FOX News  June 28, 2012 1:00pm-3:00pm EDT

1:00 pm
congress' taxation power. the supreme court majority agreed. and that helped insure this law's survival. chief justice john rockets writing that the mandate can be characterized as a tax, and because the constitution allows congress the taxing power, it is not the court's role to then step in and try to forbid them. outside of the high court, reaction was mixed. news of the supreme court's decision hitting wall street hard. health care stocks taking a hit in the minutes after the announcement. remember, health care represents one-sixth of the u.s. economy. as for the political fallout, house majority leader eric cantor has already scheduled a vote to try to repeal the law. that is set for the week of july 9th. and some are now questioning if this will spark a repeat of the 2010 outrage that we heard when
1:01 pm
this law was first debated. erupting in town hall meetings across the country at the time. [cheers and applause] >> leave us alone. that's all we would ask, would you leave us alone. [cheers and applause] megyn: ultimately, that outrage reached the ballot box with democrats suffering major losses in the midterm elections of 2010, and now here we stand june of 2012, and supreme court as we knew it would all along had the final say for now. joining us now, tom goldstein, he's founder of scotus he has argued dozens of cases before the high court and, tom, i owe you my thanks because i was on your blog this morning as this ruling came down, and we were getting conflicting reports, and you -- as expected and as always -- had it right. the high court upheld the
1:02 pm
individual mandate but not on the grounds most of us expected. >> not on the grounds that most of us expected, not on the principle argument that the obama administration had offered. the affordable care act was saved by the conservative chief justice, john roberts, applying maybe not a conservative result, but a conservative judicial philosophy saying it's my job if i can find a way to uphold what the people across the street have decided to do as the elected representatives, that's what i'm going to do. i'm going to be modest in that respect. and he said that it is possible to construe the statute as a tax. i don't think he loved the idea, but he said it was his responsibility, and that gave the administration the critical fifth vote that it needed having lost the court's normal center vote or swing vote, anthony kennedy, who was through and through with the dissenters. megyn: and yet the news was not all good for congress in particular and the administration overall, and what was interesting in part in this decision, tom, was how hard the
1:03 pm
court came down on the commerce clause argument which was what they spent all their time on virtually at the oral argument, the government saying we have the power to regulate interstate commerce. people sitting on their couches affect interstate commerce when it comes to health care whether they know it or not, and a majority of this court said, no, and clipped congress' wings on what has previously been read to be a very expansive power, the commerce clause power. >> right. this was another big 5-4 fight in the case in which the administration and congress lost. they had asserted the power to require individuals to buy a product as part of a larger regulatory scheme saying it affects interstate commerce. but the chief justice writing the controlling vote there said, no, that goes too far. the power congress has is to regulate commerce, and we agree with the states that you can't create commerce, you can't force someone to buy something. but in the end that's really going to be one for the history books unless congress wanted to go out and write laws requiring
1:04 pm
people to buy things. the plaintiffs here, the objectors said this was unheard of, and it really was. so i don't think that that's going to have a big effect on congress' law-making authority. megyn: right. >> there was another piece of the statute though -- megyn: right, and i want to talk to you about that. the medicaid piece. this is the piece of the statute that 26 states had challenged because the congress had also said, states, you have to expand your medicaid rolls, people who are a little, who have a little bit more money than the very, very poor. >> yeah. megyn: and the high court did not side with the administration on that exactly, tom. explain. >> right. so here's the deal. in the affordable care act congress gave a bunch of money to the states, but with serious strings and said if you don't do what we want in expanding medicaid and follow all of our eligibility rules not only will we not give you this money, but we'll take all of your money away under medicaid which would be just devastating for the states. and the states said, look, this is ridiculous. this isn't a real offer. this is the federal government trying to make us do something
1:05 pm
as sovereigns. and the supreme court agreed with that and said, yes, congress can condition this money, the new medicaid money, on certain sets of rules. but you can't threaten them with all, losing all of their medicaid funding or all of their federal funding. so that's important for medicaid. i don't think it effects the implementation of the affordable care act because no state was going to turn this down anyway, taking away all of the medicaid funding. but remember, congress puts strings on things all the time. it says, states, you have to have maybe a certain speed limit, or we're going to take away your highway funds. this part of the decision could be the one that has the most significant effect, as say, in clipping congress' wings and giving more rights back to states. megyn: before i let you go, talk about what this means for the roberts court. because the feedback we're getting now, of course, some on the right are angry with him because they didn't want it upheld, but some are already saying it was a brilliant move by the chief justice because he managed to not expand congress'
1:06 pm
power under the commerce clause, find a way to uphold legislation which, as you point out as a conservative philosophy to defer to the congress, and remove the high court between monday's decision on arizona and today as an election issue. i mean, who could really look at this court and say, oh, it's completely partisan, or it's completely in the tank for one side or the other? >> well, that's the upshot. i'm not saying that's why the chief justice did this. it is noteworthy that he not only voted to uphold the statute but said, i'm going to write the opinion. and it's going to be hard not just this year, but for the next ten years to criticize the john roberts supreme court and the conservative direction that it's headed in as partisan. i think it diffuses that issue significantly for the left, and it really does remove it as an electoral issue. i think he believe inside this result because he did have that modest philosophy, but it certainly is good for the institution, and i think it probably gives the public more faith in the result here, that a conservative chief justice can
1:07 pm
find a way to uphold the democratic president's signature accomplishment will show the country that this isn't a partisan institution. megyn: scotus blog average day 3,000 hits, today hundreds of thousands? >> no, we just clipped over three million. megyn: did you really? >> yeah. we had about a million people on the blog, and we just went over the top of three million. megyn: listen, you deserve it. been reading it for years. thank you so much, sir. >> you're the best, thank you. appreciate it. megyn: all the best. we're taking your thoughts on it throughout the next go hours. we will be joined -- well, wait until you see our lineup, but we're going to be taking your thoughts. follow me on twitter @megyn kelly. as you heard with tom, there are some very nuanced pieces of this. it's not as simple as you may know or may have been led to believe. well, just diplomats after the decision came down -- moments after the decision came down, the executive director of the democratic national committee who sent out a tweet, his name
1:08 pm
is patrick gaspard, and he wrote: it's constitutional, followed by a b word that rhymes with "witches." that was his reaction. about a half an hour later he took to twitter again, this time tweeting, oops, i let my scotus excitement get the better of me. in all seriousness, this is an important movement in improving the lives of all americans. gaspard previously served as president obama's political director in the white house. on the other side of the aisle, one of the first republicans to react saying that the white house's victory on health care may be short lived, congressman dave. >> week earth of arizona saying, quote, the u.s. supreme court just woke up a sleeping giant. the election just changed. the election just rolled back to 2010 because it was driven by obamacare. it is back in play. the congressman's remarks echoing what we saw three summers ago from folks storming
1:09 pm
the town hall meetings. >> i'm only 35 years old. i have never been interested in politics. you have awakened a sleeping giant. we are tired of this. this is why everybody in this room is so ticked off. megyn: that memorable moment in pennsylvania between one angry constituent and then-democratic senator arlen specter. many voters clearly expressing their deep displeasure for the then-health care bill fueling the gop takeover of the house back in the midterms of 2010. well, health care, as i mentioned, represents one-sixth of our economy, so what will today's supreme court decision mean for small businesses, for your employer, for our jobs crisis and our economy? right after this break we will be joined by special guest mike carvin. he's come for the national federation of independent businesses. he is the man who argued against the health care overhaul before the high court. he are join us with his perspective on what this means for businesses.
1:10 pm
and the most important reaction of the day, we have a panel of nine doctors just ahead. nine practicing physicians who will give us their take on the future of health care. they will join me live here in the studio for one of our special focus groups. this time we will do it live right in front of all of you. they will join me right there. and we will talk about what's going to happen in their offices, what are happen between doctors and patients now, and what does it mean for your health. stay with us. >> kill the bill! kill the bill! 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.
1:11 pm
1:12 pm
[ music plays, record skips ] hi, i'm new ensure clear. clear, huh? my nutritional standards are high. i'm not juice or fancy water, i'm different. i've got nine grams of protein. twist my lid. that's three times more than me! twenty-one vitamins and minerals and zero fat! hmmm. you'll bring a lot to the party. [ all ] yay! [ female announcer ] new ensure clear. nine grams protein. zero fat. twenty-one vitamins and minerals. in blueberry/pomegranate and peach. refreshing nutrition in charge!
1:13 pm
megyn: fox news alert right now on capitol hill house law make is are prepared to vote on whether to hold attorney general holder in contempt of congress, and right now in florida we are waiting for the attorney general to give a speech. this is scheduled to take place before a latin american
1:14 pm
political group. we do not know if he will speak about the fast and furious gun-running investigation and today's contempt vote. if news happens, we will bring it to you, we will show you the controversial move planned as well by one group of congressmen who are planning some theatrics during the contempt vote today. that's coming up. well, the sweeping supreme court ruling on health care will no doubt have a major impact on the nation's economy. what does the ruling mean for the small businesses who banded together to challenge this law but now have not received the result for which they hoped? they are now required by law to provide health insurance for their workers if they employ more than 50 employees or pay a penalty. small businesses, many of which are still struggling in this sluggish economy and were very vocally objecting in court to the law. our next guest argued against the health care overhaul before the high court, he was one of the two -- there were two main
1:15 pm
lawyers who argued, he was one of them -- and his name is mike carvin, counsel for the national independent federation of businesses, partner at the law firm of jones day where he and i used to practice. mike, welcome back to the program. >> thanks, megyn. how are you? megyn: how are you? >> i've had better days but, yeah, it was not a helpful decision by the court today, obviously, for small businesses or anyone else. megyn: what does it mean for them now? >> it means obamacare will go into effect absent, obviously, a political solution which will impose enormous costs on small businesses and will lead them to do one of two things, either never get over 50 employees which means fire some people, or get to 50 employees and pay onerous health insurance, or they may just drop health insurance entirely and pay the penalty. megyn: why would they do that? why would they drop health insurance totally and just pay the penalty? >> well, i think most people will predict that health insurance premiums under this act are going to skyrocket, and it might be more economically sensible for you rather than paying $12, $13,000 a year in
1:16 pm
medical insurance, pay a $2,000 penalty and let your poor employees try and fend for themselves. it's not something small business owners want to do, but this is the dilemma that the government's imposed on them. megyn: you argued before these justices that this was an expansion of the commerce clause like we'd never seen before and not a constitutional one. you won on that. [laughter] you won the battle, but you lost the war was chief justice roberts decided to take a walk over to the liberal side in terms of binding together with the liberal justices, and they decided it was a tax. is there still significance to the commerce clause part of this ruling? >> oh, very much so. i mean, in terms of the law, the law has been -- the constitution has been greatly straightened out, and i think it was a very helpful decision by the court. in other words, what they said is what the obama administration and the democratic congress thought they were doing was completely unconstitutional. what they lied to the american people about turned out to be constitutional.
1:17 pm
in other words, they couldn't impose a mandate under the commerce clause, they told the american people repeatedly they were not impose ago tax, but -- imposing a tax, but unfortunately, they've gotten away with this bait and switch, and the court has upheld that very cynical turn of events. megyn: we're going to talk about this with our political panel in just a bit, but president obama himself, not just his surrogates, himself repeatedly told the american people this was not a tax, not a tax, not a tax. and now, ironically, the supreme court has upheld his law because he went into court and argued something exactly the opposite of what he had told the american people. >> yeah. there's no two ways about it. a fraud has been perpetrated on the american citizenry. they were promised during the campaign that people making less than $200,000 wouldn't have their taxes increased. president obama, every democratic leader in the house and senate promised them they were not raising taxes in this act. after it was passed they cynically had their lawyers go to court and say it is a tax and, unfortunately, the court
1:18 pm
aided and abetted that bait and switch on the american public. megyn: what is your take on what we saw from chief justice roberts here? >> look, chief justice roberts understood that there are very serious limits on the commerce power and that what the congress did in the act was unconstitutional. again, that's the good news. the bad news is for whatever reason, and you'll have to ask justice roberts, he rewrote the statute to turn what was clearly a penalty for an unlawful act into a tax or a lawful act. i'm glad he rewrote the statute rather than the constitution, but neither one of those can pass rational scrutiny. megyn: before i let you go, we're going to be joined by douglas holtz-eakin who was formerly of the cbo. they score the bill, they know about medicaid. he's got some opinions on this medicaid piece of the bill, but what are your thoughts? that's one area where those challenging the law won to some extent. what are your thoughts on the import of that piece of the court's ruling? >> i'm pretty much at sea on that, megyn.
1:19 pm
i didn't want argue that. that involved the states. the net of what the court did today was say they could require you to have this new medicaid expansion, but they couldn't impose the onerous financial penalties on you that the act was going to impose. so i think it's just a purely numbers question for a lot of states. is the penalties for not participating worse than participating and all the expenditures that that requires, and i just don't know the answer to that question. megyn: well, mike, i can say this as your former law colleague, you gave a brilliant argument. and i'm sure you're disappointed, you and your clients, but you as a lawyer were supreme. so thank you, sir. >> thanks a lot. appreciate it. megyn: all the best. the supreme court may be making history, but as we measure the impact of this health care ruling, there is another piece of history being made in washington today. the house, watch it here, has just started debate on whether to hold a sitting attorney general in contempt of congress. but before they are done we expect some fiery theatrics by one group of lawmakers.
1:20 pm
we will tell you about it three minutes away. >> we're only asking for contempt for refusal to turn over the direct -- the information directly related to a cover-up of a false statement made to senator grassley and the american people. this is rudy. his morninstarts with arthritis pain. and two pills. afternoon's overhaul starts with more pain. more pil. triple checking hydraulics. the evening brin more pain. so, back to more pills. almost done, when... hang on. stan's doctor recommended aleve. it can keep pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is rudy. who switched to aleve. and two pills for a day free of pain. ♪ and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels. holding down the fort while you're out catching a movie. [ growls ] lucky for me, your friends showed up with this awesome bone. hey! you guys are great.
1:21 pm
and if you got your home insurance where you got your cut rate car insurance, it might not replace all this. [ electricity crackling ] [ gasping ] so get allstate. you could save money and be better protected from mayhem like me. [ dennis ] mayhem is everywhere. so get an allstate agent. are you in good hands? recently, students from 31 countries took part in a science test. the top academic performers surprised some people. so did the country that came in 17th place.
1:22 pm
let's raise the bar and elevate our academic standards. let's do what's best for our students-by investing in our teachers. let's solve this.
1:23 pm
megyn: fox news alert, right now on capitol hill house lawmakers are preparing to vote on whether to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt for refusing to turn over thousands of documents related to a gun-running sting known as operation fast and furious that put weapons into the hands of very bad criminals down in 34ebgs coe resulting in -- mexico resulting in the death of hundreds down south of the border as well as the death of one border patrol agent in america. we are also hearing that one group of democrats is planning a
1:24 pm
very public show of displeasure with this vote. our chief congressional corps responsibility mike emanuel on capitol hill with the latest. >> reporter: hi, megyn. house lawmakers will be asked to vote on two contempt resolutions against attorney general eric holder. one, criminal which was passed out of the committee last week, the other civil which might be an easier path to ask a judge to force the department of justice to hand over documents. a former federal prosecutor turned congressman got very passionate when talking about the family of fallen border agent brian terry. >> the question for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, mr. chairman, mr. speaker, is this: what percentage of the truth will you settle for? if you have ever sat on the other side of the table from parents who have lost a loved one, is 50% enough? is that enough of the documents? 75%? a third?
1:25 pm
>> reporter: debate continues on the house floor. we expect members of the congressional black caucus and other groups that are supporting attorney general eric holder to walk out of the house chamber in protest. one of those planning to walk out explained to us why he's planning to do so. >> i think it's important that we recognize and stand for the proposition that this president through his attorney general is being attacked and attempts to discredit, demonize, marginalize, those things have happened that are unique to this presidency. and i think that statement needs to be made. >> reporter: house democratic leader nancy pelosi calls this contempt effort content bl, others would call it history, the first against a sitting attorney general.
1:26 pm
megyn? megyn: mike emanuel, we will watch and wait. well, today's vote on the health care law, supreme court vote, a big surprise to some. what led chief justice robert to side with the liberal side of the bench? some on the right are suggesting that this george w. bush appointee, john roberts, may have just, quote, handed the white house to mitt romney. we will speak to the man who vetted the chief justice, former attorney general alberto gonzales. plus, you did not hear president obama just now say the three-letter word, but the supreme court majority called the heart of the president's health care law a tax. the political fallout of that for a president who promised no new taxes for middle class americans. we debate right after the break. >> if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, a quarter million dollars a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.
1:27 pm
[applause] i repeat, not one single dime. [ music playing, indistinct conversations ] the charcoal went out already? [ sighs ] forget it. [ male announcer ] there's more barbeque time in every bag of kingsford charcoal. kingsford. slow down and grill. [ engine turns over ] [ male announcer ] we created the luxury crossover and kept turning the page, this is the next chapter for the rx and lexus. this is the pursuit of perfection.
1:28 pm
1:29 pm
>> republican health care reforms will insure that families and doctors make health care decisions, not bureaucrats here in washington. megyn: there you have it, john boehner, short and sweet making remarks on the president's health care overhaul, not happy about the, about the ruling at the u.s. supreme court. but the republicans vowing to repeal and replace. if you are just joining us, the u.s. supreme court this morning in a 5-4 vote upheld the core of the's health care law. the majority which included the four left-leaning justices plus the chief justice who is thought to be more conservative saying the individual mandate that requires people to either buy
1:30 pm
health insurance or pay a penalty amounts to a tax, and congress does have the constitutional ability to tax us. but that becomes a political matter for the president. because before this actually was passed by the u.s. congress in trying to sell it to the american people, president obama argued repeatedly that this was not a tax. >> no payroll tax, no capital gains, no tax of any kind on americans. >> right. >> can you still make that promise to people today? >> i can still keep that promise. because as i've said, about two-thirds of what we've proposed would be from money that's already in the health care system. >> your critics say it is a tax increase. >> my critics say everything's a tax increase. my critics say that i'm taking over every sector of the economy. you know that. look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not,
1:31 pm
but -- >> you reject -- >> i absolutely reject that notion. megyn: he went into court and argued something else, and the justices agreed that it is a tax. and that's the basis on which they upheld the law. joining me now to discuss it, christopher hahn who's a former aide to new york senator chuck schumer and chris plant who's the radio host of the chris plant show. chris plant, does that become a political issue, or do people forget about that? >> oh, it's going to be one of the centerpieces of the political debate between now and election day. the president was against the individual mandate before he was for it and insisted that it wasn't a tax before it was a tax. again, they sold it, and you saw on the interview with the clinton administration official there, they sold it as not being a tax, and they argued it before the supreme court as being nothing but a tax. this is his signature achievement, and it's one of if not the largest tax increase in american history, and it's a tax increase on the middle class, thank you very much.
1:32 pm
>> okay. >> yeah, and it will affect people that can least afford it. i know that democrats are going to want to celebrate this, and use these tired old phrases like energizing the base, but this is, i think, contributing to what's going to be a wave election -- >> my response might surprise you a little. i've always said it's been permissible under the tax code for the individual mandate and the penalty associated with it to go forward. and i agree it'll be a centerpiece in the campaign, but not the presidential campaign; in house and senate campaigns. mitt romney's chance of becoming president went dramatically down today, and a lot of money interests are starting to think maybe we should focus our efforts on the house and senate because mitt romney who created romneycare in massachusetts is ill equipped to have this fight on a national level. in fact, he can't have it. he passed the exact same bill with the exact same penalties as governor of massachusetts. so -- >> not true. megyn: all right, let me can you this. chris plant, let me ask you this.
1:33 pm
the latest fox news poll shows that 60% of likely voters are against this law, do not want to see it upheld. those folking cannot -- folks cannot be feeling that great. not only that, but the romney campaign just tweeted out that since this morning's ruling they have taken in a million dollars in donations. so does your colleague have it right that this is bad for mitt romney's presidential hopes? >> no. no, of course not. no, this is actually good for mitt romney. people are going to come out as never before. you should have heard the callers to my radio show this morning. this really took everyone by surprise -- >> the base is fired up! the base is fired up, chris! >> let me tell you something else, the state, what they've passed along to the state is going to lead to massive tax increases on a state level. so that's the hidden tax other than the $500 billion tax that's right at the front of this thing. you've also got the medicaid mandate which is going to cost on a state level up the i didn't
1:34 pm
yin-yang. megyn: chris hahn, i want to ask you because mike carvin was on here earlier, and he's a respected lawyer. he said, look, a fraud has been perpetrated on the american people. >> yeah. megyn: he suggested and others are also suggesting that this would never have passed if it had been, you know, honestly presented to the american public as a massive tax increase, in part because of the promises we heard from president obama throughout the campaign and as president that sounded like this. listen to this. >> i will -- listen, now, i will cut taxes, cut taxes for 95% of all working families. [cheers and applause] because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class. [cheers and applause] you will not see your taxes increase one single dime, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, not your income tax, no tax. because the last thing you need is higher taxes when we're in a
1:35 pm
recession like this, and you won't get one under an obama administration. [cheers and applause] if you make under a quarter million, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime. not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax. no tax. we don't need to raise taxes on the middle class. if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, a quarter million dollars a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. [applause] i repeat, not one single dime. in fact, in fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut. that's right, a tax cut for 95% of working families. megyn: chris hahn? >> well, you know, the penalty is not going to effect the vast majority of americans -- >> it's not a penalty, it's a tax. >> it will not be a tax increase to the vast amount of americans who already have and already pay for their health insurance. it will effect those people who are irresponsible and wait until
1:36 pm
they break a leg, go to the hospital and expect chris plant, chris hahn and megyn kelly to pay for their arm to be set. megyn: wait a minute, if they break a leg, why are we setting -- >> yeah, i know. [laughter] megyn: i've got to run. we could keep this going because i have not one, but two former united states attorney generals next. >> jobs, jobs. >> thank you for having me. megyn: not that we don't love -- politics aside, next hour we will get perhaps the most important reaction of the day from our panel of nine doctors. they will be here live on the future of health care in the wake of this ruling. plus, we talked with the man who broke the supreme court news today at the top of our hour, and one of the lawyers who argued the case at 1:15. next, we will speak to two former united states attorneys general, michael mukasey and alberto gonzales who, by the way, was the man who vetted chief justice john roberts. that's next. publish [ horn honks ]
1:37 pm
♪ ♪ [ man ] excuse me miss. [ gasps ] this fiber one 90 calorie brownie has all the moist, chewy, deliciousness you desire. mmmm. thanks. at 90 calories, the brownie of your dreams is now deliciously real.
1:38 pm
1:39 pm
1:40 pm
>> 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. megyn: that was president obama last hour speaking publicly for the first time taffe supreme court upheld d after the supreme court upheld his law, but republicans saying they will do anything they can to repeal and note the law's mandate now referred to in this court opinion as a tax is still deeply unpopular with voters. joining me now for reaction, michael mukasey, the former attorney general of the united states under president george w. bush. general, welcome back to the program. >> good to be here, megyn. megyn: your thoughts on what the supreme court did today? >> well, um, i guess judging from that last clip, the president thinks the supreme court offered him a cigar. i'd be very careful if i were him smoking it because it's an exploding cigar. what they said is that this can be defended only as a tax. it can't be defended as a
1:41 pm
penalty because if it's a penalty, a violation of the commerce clause. so it's going to to have to be defended as a tax. they also said that the medicaid mandate to the states, that is that they had to offer insurance to single people under 65, all single people under 65, or else face the withdrawal of all medicaid funds is unconstitutional. so they threw out that part, and they kept this. megyn: what do can you make of them discussing the commerce clause power? if we could get somebody's cell phone off, that'd be helpful. is it yours, general? bad general! [laughter] it's not every day that you get to scold the former attorney general of the united states. thank you. what do you make of the fact that they even touched on the commerce clause issue? they actually didn't have to go there, but they did. >> good and hard. and, um, that, i thought, was, um, an extraordinary part of the
1:42 pm
opinion and a part that makes it impossible to defend it as an exercise of the commerce clause. megyn: and so now does the congress have less power in some way to regulate our lives because of this decision, or does it amount to a nothing burger? >> it's not a nothing burger. they've got less power to regulate our lives under the commerce clause which is the way they've been regulating them for a substantial part of modern times. and it's also now raising the debate about the taxing power and how far they can go under that power. what it is they can do. there are people who say that they can spend money for anything that promotes the general welfare. that's one view of article i, section 8. another view is that they can spend only on things that are enumerated in the numbered paragraphs in article 1, section 8. that's a debate the court didn't get into here because nobody raised it. megyn: what do you think as the former attorney general of the united states about what this does to the court's reputation and whether this helps or
1:43 pm
undermines the argument advanced by some that it's a political body and needs to be an issue in an election year? >> the way judges are selected has become political. that's in large measure because of issues that the courts have taken on, that people have offered the courts, that the political branches have avoided. it's been kind of a two-way street. the political branches don't want to decide issues, they let the courts decide them, the courts say open up and give us your issues. i don't think this is going to effect or should effect in a negative way any view of the court. i think if you -- megyn: not roberts? because i'm sure you've got a lot of people on the right who are not happy with him. >> i know. i know, i know. read the opinion. read the opinion. judges, once they get there, do what they do on the basis of the law that they set forth in their opinions. that's all they've got. and when cases get to the supreme court, they get there because there's something to be said on both sides. and there was something to be said on both sides here. and it got said in several
1:44 pm
pages. i mean, it's a half inch of paper in my briefcase. megyn: yeah, yeah. >> um, so i don't think it's going to hurt his reputation, nor should it. nor the court's reputation. megyn: general mukasey, any thoughts you want to share with us on the sitting attorney general possibly being held in contempt of congress today? >> sorry. can't get into that, megyn. megyn: had to ask. >> understand that you had to ask. [laughter] megyn: thank you so much for being here. and now we are joined by the man who helped vet chief justice john roberts when we knew him as a nominee, alberto gonzales, also former attorney general of the united states. general, welcome to you as well. >> megyn, i promise you, i don't have my cell phone on. megyn: oh, good. see! now, he's ripping on you. [laughter] okay, general gonzales, let me ask you because, you know, to the people who are watching this saying, thanks a lot, john roberts, what say you? >> well, you know, i'd like to spend a little time thinking about the opinion, reading it
1:45 pm
carefully and would like to withhold final judgment. i've got a great deal of respect for john roberts. i spent a lot of time vetting him, talking with him about his philosophy of judging, and so, listen, no matter who the judge is, you're going to disagree at some point with respect to decisions by judges. that's just the way it is. but i have a great deal of faith in john roberts in the decision he rendered today. and what's really important from my perspective is we need to find a way to make sure we have viable health care, affordable health care, effective health care for americans, and now we know that we can, that this is one avenue to get it through the affordable care act. the political process, if people believe we ought to go a different direction, then we should do that. megyn: talk about this commerce clause ruling to the extent the high crt said with the majority you cannot expand the commerce clause, and i just want to read the viewers a quote. this is from justice roberts. it's a little long so bear with me.
1:46 pm
he writes: construing the commerce clause to permit congress to regulate individuals precisely because they're doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. upholding this act under the commerce clause would give congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. they gave power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. >> well, i agree with the reasoning here. i must tell you, given what i know about chief justice roberts, he's very disciplined in deciding cases on the most narrow grounds possible, not reaching issues -- again, i want to withhold final judgment, but i do kind of wonder why if he makes the decision that the congress has the power to tax the commerce clause analysis, but i have a great deal of confidence in chief justice
1:47 pm
roberts -- megyn: yeah. it's a good point because the court could have just said we uphold it on the taxing power, and it really ticked off some on the court including justice ginsburg who called that analysis scant sense and is stunningly retrogressive. and she sees, you know, a problem in the jurisprudence as the court has laid it out on the commerce clause and the power of congress. i want to ask you overall, sir, what do you think in terms of the court now? i asked this of general mukasey, as a political football. does this decision undermine the ability to use this either by the right or the left as an election year issue? >> i think that an election year issue when the stakes are this high everyone's going to take advantage of anything they can use in order to advance -- megyn: but how? how do you go after this court now as a partisan body when you've got chief justice roberts, a conservative
1:48 pm
appointee, siding with the left on the arizona immigration law and now on the president's health care law? >> oh, you mean -- well, i would just say most fundamentally this is what, why presidential elections are so important. if not this case, there are going to be other cases down the road that are equally -- maybe not as important, but very important. and so presidential elections are fundamentally so important because the president of the united states gets to decide who serves on the supreme court and is involved in making these kind of decisions that impact the lives of americans all across this country. megyn: before i let you go, gotta ask you the same question, any desire to comment on what we're seeing with our sitting attorney general and the contempt proceedings against him today? >> i've got no comment either. [laughter] megyn: you know, i had to try! >> i understand. [laughter] megyn: but you decline. sir, thank you. it's always a pleasure speaking with you, and we appreciate you being here today. >> good to be with you, megyn. megyn: take care. fox news alert, we are right now getting the first in what will
1:49 pm
be a series of votes towards holding the sitting attorney general, eric holder, in contempt of congress. it's not every day you have three attorney general segments right after another. [laughter] mukasey, gonzales and now on we go to holder. i mean, this could be a watershed moment in the fast and furious investigation. we're back in three minutes with what we expect to be the first steps towards that. right after the break. [ male announcer ] this is the age of knowing what you're made of. why let erectile dysfunction get in your way? talk to your doctor about viagra. ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take viagra if you take nitrates for chest pain; it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. side effects include headache, flushing, upset stomach, and abnormal vision. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. stop taking viagra and call your doctor right away if you experience a sudden decrease or loss in vision or hearing. this is the age of taking action. viagra. talk to your doctor.
1:50 pm
1:51 pm
1:52 pm
megyn: fox news alert, house lawmakers are right now taking the first in a series of votes toward holding the u.s. attorney general in contempt of congress. they say he has failed utterly to comply with subpoenas that demand documents from an atf phoenix gun-running operation known as operation fast and furious.
1:53 pm
that gun-running operation had the cooperation of the doj. to what extent is not yet known. one of the things they're trying to find out. william la jeunesse in los angeles for a look at what is at the center of all of this today. william? >> reporter: well, megyn, this is very much a finger-pointing game. doj blames phoenix, said they lied to them. the atf blames the u.s. attorney, and the u.s. attorney blames its own staff. so when critics say this is a fishing expedition, they're right. the committee's looking for documents that show who's telling the truth and who's lying, and this is what they are fishing nor. let's go through it. the raw data of what happened on the street levels chronicling the agents' report of the investigation. the atf director says he read those reports, and the attorney general that he reported it to, attorney general's top staff, he concluded they were gun walking. the committee staff wants to see that smoking gun e-mail to impeach that february 4th letter to congress. wiretap applications. remember, the doj said their top
1:54 pm
attorneys never saw the actual allegations, the committee says let's see the summaries to see who's telling the truth. the fbi also knew about this investigation because their own informant was buying guns with taxpayer money. the committee has not seen any documents proving the fbi knew. a atf agent's case file, she knows everything, and her file will reveal who's telling the truth, the whistleblowers or the superiors who say the atf stopped every gun it could win guidelines. now to the e-mails that were following brian terry's death. following his death, the justice department wrote a report detailing its involvement and that of the u.s. attorney. the committee has not seen that report or any e-mails that were from justice acknowledging their role in his death. that they found implausible. let's go to license plate recognition. now, the atf claims it sop stopped every gun it could, the
1:55 pm
whistleblowers say that's not true because they knew the cars and plate numbers of guns heading to mexico, and that is why they want to see that because the agency knew when those guns were going back to mention sew. megyn: well, the high court's ruling may be getting headlines, but the big question for millions of americans is what happens now with our health care, especially in light of this ruling on medicaid and how the states don't have to expand it if they don't want to. we've got a panel of nine doctors live in the studio in just a bit to help us answer that question. plus, was the sleeping giant just reawakened? remember the boisterous town halls from three summers ago? the furious anger among voters who never liked the health care law in the first place and certainly don't like it any more now, now that the heart of the law is called a tax, how do they feel 1234 ?rsh ♪
1:56 pm
1:57 pm
you want to save money on car insurance? no problem. you want to save money on rv insurance? no problem. you want to save money on motorcycle insurance? no problem. you want to find a place to park all these things? fuggedaboud it. this is new york. hey little guy, wake up! aw, come off it mate! geico. saving people money on more than just car insurance.
1:58 pm
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 l 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. megyn: the political fallout is getting more dramatic. the nation's highest court
1:59 pm
upholding the controversial heart of the healthcare law which requires americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine. both sides preparing for an epic fight that could reshape america's future. it was celebrated as a victory among democrats but blasted by republicans who vowed to repeal it again. celebration and protests break out on the court steps. here is president obama and here is governor romney reacting a short time ago. >> 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. >> it was bad law yesterday, it's bad law today. our mission is clear. if we want to get rid of obama-care we'll have to replace president obama. megyn: watch for the healthcare
2:00 pm
outrage we saw in 2010. voters were furious about what was then the healthcare bill, producing moment like this. a memorable exchange between an angry voter and democratic senator arlen specter. you have awakened a sleeping giant. we are tired of this. this is why everybodith this room is so ticked off. megyn: chris, those who wanted this law struck down in total or the mandate gone have been disappointed. but there is a question about whether the dnc official who said it's constitutional "b" rhymes with witches in a tweet was premature in his celebration on the political front. >> well, maybe was talking about
2:01 pm
dogs. i don't know. i do know this. if in fact mitt romney does go on to win the presidency on november 6, we'll look back to today. we'll look back on this afternoon, this decision this morning as what made it possible. this will be if romney prevails the -- one of the most substantial means by which he does it. megyn: he has come out and said the supreme court may have made their decision but the american people have not. day one, job one, refeel obama-care. we are told from his campaign he already received a million dollars in donations since this morning's rulings. the fox news poll suggests 60% of the american public does not want this law. now they have been told they have to live with it by the supreme court unless they do something politically. >> the prediction from the establishment press and from democrats for a long time is that mitt romney would have so much trouble getting conservatives onboard. there would be a long primary
2:02 pm
process and romney would never win over the right. the supreme court just did his job for him. romney who finished the process a lot earlier than expected now knows that every conservative -- because this is the most important issue to them in so many what is -- will go march for them in pennsylvania, ohio, florida, all these places, the same kind of voters who gave republicans the largest victory in two generations in 2010 will march for mitt romney. he knows that. now he can count on that and they will be with him all the way. megyn: how does the president manage that dynamic? when i think back -- hemmer and i were cohosting america's newsroom for that town hall. i think back to the passion of the american public who oppose that law and they still reign in the majority. how does president obama manage
2:03 pm
the anger that a lot of people have about the government in their view intruding with their relationship with their doctors? >> it's been held in abeyance for these 282 days since the president signed the law. a lot of companies, employers and insurance companies held off on doing things because they didn't know what the supreme court was going to do. now the supreme court has acted. now they will flip the switch. people's premiums may go up people maybe shift out of their insurance. employers may dump them. what's that going to do to that 60% number you talked about. what is that going to do to public disaffection for this legislation. you enter a place where it could be not as intense as people yelling at arlen specter. but more intense in terms of people come to dislike this law in specific as opposed to the abstract. megyn: you will have the left and president obama saying we
2:04 pm
have millions of americans who will get kicked off healthcare once it kicks in if mitt romney is elected president. the right believes we've created another social program we'll never get out of if president obama wins another term. >> at the white house it's a good day. the president is probably very happy he was vindicated at the supreme court. but out in chicago this cannot have bent happiest news. i'm sure from a cynical political per tech tough they would have rather have the supreme court take it down so they could rally the troops. instead it's romney's troops who are rallied. megyn: we have news on how today's news could affect the presidential race particular tonight fundraising arena. the romney campaign raised $1
2:05 pm
million in less than four hours since the decision came down. the dpem krats sent out appeals based on the healthcare fight. no word yet on the response to those. one wildcard is part of the healthcare law that it did not uphold. it includes a huge medicaid expansion in all 50 states. the feds threatened to with hold existing medicaid. if any state did not participate in the new expanded medicaid program. but the court rules those states cannot be penalized for opting out of obama-care and that is a victory for the 26 states that sue.the government over the healthcare law, the medicaid presence. it could lead to a whole new set of issues. who is going to pay for the very poor to get the healthcare that congress put in place for them. you? me? federal taxpayers?
2:06 pm
who? joining me now the former director of the the congressional budget office. his group filed afriend of the court brief on this medicaid issue. in terms we can understand, what did the high court do today? >> it said you cannot take away an existing funding for medicaid if they choose not to expand it as the affordable care act wanted it to. in dollar terms a governor can say no thanks, i'm not going to do this medicaid expansion and those people will not go on my books. even more striking, those same individuals will be eligible for federal subsidies in the federal insurance exchanges. so governors have a clear incentive to say no thanks to the expansion. send them off to the federal government to the exchanges. megyn: this law affects two main groups of people. the very poor, then the middle
2:07 pm
class. and they were going to get their coverage through state insurance exchanges that the federal taxpayers are helping pay for. >> absolutely. megyn: now you are withdrawing the coverage potentially on the medicaid front, you have got people who have not a lot of money who may have to go over here onto the state exchanges. is the funding for that taken care of in this law? >> in the law it says whoever shows up gets the subsidy no matter what. the person at risk is the american taxpayer. one of the important things is they chose to put half the insurance expansion in medicaid because it's cheaper. we'll see a much more expensive bill. the second thing is in 2014 governors have the option to roll back their medicaid coverage to the bare minimum. so there will be even more people eligible for insurance subjects does. the potential cost is in the hundreds of billions of dollars. megyn: are you saying today's ruling by the supreme court has
2:08 pm
added hundreds of billions of dollars to the price tag of obama-care. >> yes. there is no question it's much more expensive. megyn: it's up to the states whether they want to participate in the program. the high court didn't say you can't. they said it's up to you. didn't feds make it attractive for the states to participate in this? how many states are we talking about that are going to opt out of this medicaid expansion? >> we don't know for sure but the math favors opting out. if you stay in you are responsible for 10% of the cost of the expansion. if you don't, you are responsible for no cost, and those individuals in your state don't go uninsured, they get covered with a better insurance package. if you care about the uninsured, the real incentive is to push this cost off the taxpayer and say no. megyn: nabsy pelosi says she is not concerned about that part of
2:09 pm
ruling, should she be? >> yes. megyn: doug, thank you, sir. fox news alert. big story breaking up on capitol hill. we are getting word that a big group of democrats is getting ready to walk out of the floor of the u.s. congress. they are getting ready to walk off the floor in the middle of this contempt vote against attorney general eric holder. we were told the black caucus would leave, now we are told it's a bigger group. the breaking news next. if you watched one piece of television today to help break down what the supreme court ruling will mean for you. this is it. we'll sit down with a focus group of doctors. nine doctors right here live on this set. to discuss how today's decision impacts their practice, the future of healthcare and whether
2:10 pm
americans need to be concerned as many were when this bill was first proposed. and a fast acting formula. so you can kill bugs inside, and keep bugs out. guaranteed. ortho home defense max. starts with arthritis pain and a choice. take tylenol or take aleve, the #1 recommended pain reliever by orthopedic doctors. just two aleve can keep pain away all day. back to the news.
2:11 pm
2:12 pm
2:13 pm
megyn: we have two cameras near the house floor in washington, d.c. where we are told we should expect to see a large group of democrats walk out from the house floor in protest any moment now. we just got word that steny hoyer is going to lead a large group of democratic law makers in protest against today's contempt vote against attorney general eric holder. wrapping up the first in a series of votes toward holding mr. holder in contempt of congress, criminal contempt of
2:14 pm
congress, folks. joining me now to discuss it julian epstein, and jay sekulow. jay argued many cases before the supreme court. i want to talk about operation fast & furious and eric holder. but i want to get your thoughts on healthcare. we have been following that with you all along. your thoughts, julian, as the guy who used to be chief legal council to the committee we are watching have the contempt vote, can they stop it by getting up and walking out? >> no, but they can make the point that it's a political effort more than a legal one. the legal standard when it goes to court is the committee would have to show the information they wanted to get is essential to their legislative function. the justice department has accommodated all the committee's request when it came to the operational aspects of operation fast & furious. and they made an sea come days
2:15 pm
wit comes to d they made an accommodation on this other matter. megyn: the republicans will argue it's he accepting they have this information because they think there was a coverup and a letter with bad info and they think that was done to cover up their role in operation fast & furious. how does the just decide whether that passes the standd. >> darrell issa in the last administration when they were pushing for the contempt vote on harriet miers and josh bolton said the committee wasn't entitled to that information because it wasn't essential to their legislative function. there is no real theory there has been any serious coverup. most of the theories i think bored on outlandish. i think there is almost a zero chance the committee will win
2:16 pm
this in court. i will point out as a matter of record. i'm 2-0 on where the courts were going to go. >> i didn't give a showed yesterday on where the supreme court was going to go. by the way, section 2b of the immigration act was declared constitutional. here is the problem. you have got a situation where the reaction by the republicans in the house is legitimate my view because a letter was delivered to the senate and copies to the house that was incorrect as a matter of law and incorrect as a matter of fact. there were false statement in that. it took 7 months for that letter, 9 months for that to be removed. what the house wants is what happened, what was going on and a coverup is never going to be protected. you are not going to get a court order to say it would be illegitimate for the court look at document involving the coverup.
2:17 pm
megyn: let me ask you, jay, we are just getting breaking news that the attorney general is scheduled to speak on we expect on the contempt vote in about two hours. 4:45 p.m. which is when the actual vote will take place. but this walkout we are told could happen any moment. jay, the question i wanted wantd to ask you, is there some risk in the democrats doing that in the case when the head democrat looked at the terry family and said, i will do everything possible to find the person accountable and no matter how height goes i'll hold that person accountable. >> that is the tape you will see played over and over and over again if this walkout takes place. to buttress that argument, you are going to have democratic
2:18 pm
support for this contempt. 24. so this is significant. they may do the walkout as julian said more for show than anything else. but i think darrell issa is very serious and we'll see about the repercussions. that would be what normally would happen and we'll see what the court does. megyn: you guys understand this, they are going to vote for contempt. we believe they have the votes to hold them in contempt. then they will go to the u.s. attorney and say enforce this criminal contempt citation and he won't, then they will go into civil court and say judge can you make him force the documents. julian, question for you. if you have got 20-some odd democrats crossing over to vote in favor of contempt, what does that do to the democrats'
2:19 pm
argument that it's all a political witch hunt. >> i don't think anything. i think those 24 democrats are doing it because of the request of the nra. we know the nra is strong in their district and that's political. darrell is is a contradict himself in terms of the position he took under the bush administration which did involve an alleged coverup. the department of justice has provided over 8,000 documents. remember eric holder was the guy who stopped, investigated, reassigned officials involved in this. they satisfied the questions for the committee. megyn: i have got 60 seconds to a break and i want you to weigh in on healthcare. julian, healthcare today. >> a huge win for the country, a huge win for obama, it makes him look strong as a leader and a huge victory for the rule of law and the supreme court and
2:20 pm
justice roberts. >> commerce clause authority which was the main part of this, the majority of the court said congress did not have it. john roberts called it a strike, i call it a ball. but they delivered to the republicans the theme for this election, this presidential election and the house and senate and there is only one way now to get rid of the affordable care act and that will be majority of republicans in the senate and the house and mitt romney as president of the united states. megyn: to be continued. depending on what happens with mr. holder. we heard from the justices. now we hear from the doctors. perhaps the most important reaction of the day. nine practicing doctors tell us what this means. okay, team! after age 40, we can start losing muscle --
2:21 pm
2:22 pm
8% every 10 years. wow. wow. but you can help fight muscle loss with exercise and ensure muscle health. i've got revigor. what's revigor? it's the amino acid metabolite, hmb to help rebuild muscle and strength naturally lost over time. [ female announcer ] ensure muscle health has revigor and protein to help protect, preserve, and promote muscle health. keeps you from getting soft. [ major nutrition ] ensure. nutrition in charge!
2:23 pm
2:24 pm
megyn: we are getting a lot of new reaction on capitol hill to today's decision on the healthcare law. the democrats celebrating a victory. the republicans saying repeal and replace. >> reporter: there is a growing sense among republicans that while they may have lost this battle it may help them win the war, the war being the general election of 2012. john thune says this puts all the focus on the election. marco rubio says this takes him back to 2010 that energized the tea party. senator lindsey graham says chief justice john roberts is a genius. his ruling demonstrates that this disingenuousness of the
2:25 pm
democrats in denying this was a tax. >> the president of the united states looked every american in the eye and said this is not a tax. every democrat who vote for this bill said it was not a tax. they knew if it were viewed as a tax it would go down in flames. >> reporter: the victorious democratic leadership that was poised to condemn the court praised them for their decision. >> if there were no other reason to pass the healthcare reform act other than costs, costs to our economy in terms of it being a competitiveness issue, and cost to federal, state and local budgets, then we would have had to do this. so the politics be damned. this is about what we came to do. >> reporter: i just read that
2:26 pm
sound bite to senator rand paul and he said that is absurd. between, a growing sense among republicans that this has energized the base. one conservative blogger at red says this decision hands the election to mitt romney. megyn: one of the most important reactions of the day from doctors. how does the supreme court decision affect them? and ultimately you, the patient. we have put together a panel of 9 physicians who will join us live in the studio. they will give us their take on what happens in their offices now and how this will shape the future of healthcare in america. that's next. >> we are getting ready to sign a check on the backs of the american people without checking the bank account. i'm afraid you are going to bounce another check. or annuity over 10 or even 20 years?
2:27 pm
call imperial structured settlements. the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today.
2:28 pm
2:29 pm
2:30 pm
megyn: the supreme court upheld the controversial core of the presidential healthcare law. the mandates that requires people to buy insurance or pay a penalty. here now to weigh in on what this means for you and your doctor, we'll talk to a panel after doctors from all different specialties who feel, you know, they are split on whether they like this or don't like this ruling. we'll have both sides represented.
2:31 pm
dr. marc siegel. let me start with you. your reaction. >> i'm concerned insurance creates a big interface between the doctor and patient. most doctors in this country has a lot of patients. we are not seek new patients. i'm concerned if insurance companies decrease reimbursements, the more regulations, the more there is a block went doctor and patient. i think medicine is an individualized thing. i think the art of medicine varies from one patient to the next. the more guidelines and regulations i have the more problematic. the individual mandate bothers me because i think young patients that are not unhealthy will essentially be paying for sick older patients. megyn: they definitely will be. >> they will be paying high premiums for that and that bothers me. megyn: people are worried. some people are concerned about what does this mean for me and my doctor. me and my healthcare?
2:32 pm
is it going to change my relationship with my doctor. let me go to you, doctor you are with the columbia medical health center. >> i did most my training in the national health service. megyn: across the pond? this is what some people are worried about that we'll wind up with socialized medicine. >> the system we have in the u.k. is not the socialized medicine we are talking about here. what we are talking about here is people having to pay for their insurance and most people know what the discussions are. but in the u.k. we have a healthcare system where it's free pint of service. they are labeled as socialized medicine but they are different healthcare models. megyn: is the future for america the british system? when this was being debate as a bill, people would say, it would scare people. we are head for the british
2:33 pm
system. we are headed for the canadian system. if this bill becomes law we'll be canada. >> i don't think that's the case. i'm a faculty member, chairman of medicine at a large teaching hospital. we are interested in increasing access to healthcare and increasing quality. our initial feelings are this bill is going to do that. we also want to lower mixed costs. we are interested in the uninsured. some of our hospitals have 20% uninsured. and this is going to remedy that situation. megyn: is there any question -- even with those who oppose the law, is there any question this is good for the people who do not have health insurance? >> absolutely. >> you cannot think of healthcare in a vacuum. this is all connected to the immigration law they just passed. it has to do with the economy. they are all really together. and you have to think of it as.
2:34 pm
if you are going to have patients that go to the emergency room with no insurance and they have really horrible diagnosis, they need a ct scan and mri. nobody in the emergency room is going to say what kinds of insurance do you have in they come in and get the operation and may stay in the hospital for two weeks. that's one of the reasons why i think we have the best healthcare system in the world today. megyn: we provide the care whether you have the insurance or not. >> but this today will give them access. so they may have whatever you want to call it, medicaid or obama-care. so they come in and they can take advantage of that. i think our good doctor's point is well taken the the access is available. the next question is what kind of care are we giving them? is it just quantity or is it quality? megyn: the question is not on what care are we giving them, but people who have insurance through their employer are
2:35 pm
worried about what happens to my care now? now i'm sharing my doctor which there is a shortage with millions of other people. >> i look at this as a win for patients. and it's time as a country that we put patients ahead of politics. this is the first step to insure everybody has access to affordable quality care. what i have already seen from the ac tax are people with preexisting conditions able to get care. speak of immigration. i had a young lady who came over as a teenager. was diagnosed with hepatitis c in another country. could not get treatment until this year when she was able to get insurance. i could helper take care of that as well as other problems. i got a phone call about a patient in michigan who was not eligible for medicaid.
2:36 pm
she went to planned parenthood and was diagnosed with cervical cancer. with the expansion today she'll be able to get the surgery she needs. we are expanding the primary care force. megyn: this is something dr. siegel talked about a lot. there is a doctor shortage in this country. especially in primary care and there is a question about whether people will be able to get access to their primary care physicians they want. dr. manny, what say you? >> i think doctors got what they deserve with this bill. and i say that very sarcastically. for the last whatever, 50, 60 years, doctors have given away the business of medicine to the government. when i hear words we are going to be looking at and we are concerned about, well why haven't we done anything about it? so yes when chart politicians
2:37 pm
come along and they promise them things, we give away our independence. that came with the hmos and they came with more regulations, now doctors got what they deserve. at the end of the day we are in a socialized medicine system now. it's just going to be more controlled. and, yes, he's happy because he's employed. he chose that path. the doctor -- he works for a hospital. he gets a paycheck. megyn: we are doing this doctors for the entire half-hour. we'll get to everybody. but you are in private practice it. do you see a difference between the doctor at the hospital and the private practitioner? >> completely. just to say -- let's make a point about access. giving someone an insurance card doesn't guarantee them access it's all about are there doctors available to see them.
2:38 pm
when it comes to emergency rooms there have been several studies that say people are medicaid tend to use e.r.s if they have a sniffle. megyn: isn't that the case today? how does obama-care add to that. >> there are long waits in massachusetts. the number of emergency rooms in this country have creased by 10% the d have decreased the past decade. megyn: we have to take a break but what i want to talk about after the break -- there was a lot of talk about how the actual relationship between my doctor and me was going to change. the feds are going to tell my doctor what tests he or she could prescribe and what they couldn't. i want to talk about whether that is real and whether it now zands as a result of today's ruling. we'll be right back.
2:39 pm
2:40 pm
2:41 pm
2:42 pm
megyn: i have a terrible pain in my back. is there a doctor in the house? whatever your heart desires. a dermatologist, indifferent, a rheumatologist. world famous prostate surgeon, right? listen, i want to get to whether the government going to be putting in between me and my doctor. >> i think you have the u.s. task force which is -- i don't know what their responsibility -- it's like a branch of this coming in and saying no psa for any healthy man out there. psa is a test we use for diagnosis of prostate cancer. now they are saying it's unnecessary and has created
2:43 pm
confusion among patients with elevated psa. they said the same thing about the mammogram. >> there was no urologist on that panel that advised against prostate screening for men. they didn't collaborate with other groups. >> the insurance companies will pick up on that. you don't have to. i don't have to follow this. i'll tell my patients you need to get your psa but then you get a call from the patient saying they are not paying for it. now you are stuck. >> no reimbursement. megyn: doctor? >> they needed to put the mandate in place, now the tax, so insurance companies could take on all of these people with preexisting conditions. we wanted to control the insurance companies, we haven't done that. insurance companies have gotten more control.
2:44 pm
they have bought providers' practices and hoos all over the country to reduce competition. you start to control the practices of what doctors can and can't do. so you changed the entire dynamic of healthcare delivery. megyn: doctors are answering to insurance companies more than they did before? >> the government said we would hold insurance companies more accountable, but with the ruling today we gave them one more cashed in terms of control. employers today who insure most of the workforce have zero control in terms of controlling premiums for insurance companies. we have done nothing to empower them. premiums have gown on nch $2,000 per family since the law went into effect. >> and $1.1 billion will be refunded by august. >> because they didn't do what they were supposed to. the law said they had to stay above the medical loss
2:45 pm
threshold, and because they couldn't do that, every dollar you spend, if you don't it 80 cents towards medical care then you have to pay a refund. while it seems like money black your pocket. it means the end result didn't happen. megyn: let me go to the dermatologist for a smooth presentation. it's been a long day. are you in private practice? >> i am. megyn: as a practical matter how does this affectour business? you have got to make your records electronic. >> i have been electronic for 10 years so that hasn't been a problem. but as a physician who takes half insurance and half private patients. i don't know much about this law. i just hear the stuff i see on the news and from my colleagues. but when i have a patient i have to fights for referrals for my
2:46 pm
patients. then when i priebt medicine, i think what insurance do they have. who do i have to call, who is going to have to sit on the phone and speak with an administrator to see if they can get this medication. am i document it right? if i don't documenting it right and i get audited they will say you didn't do exactly what you said. what you do does matter, it d what you do doesn't matter, it's how you document what you do. when you put more people into a system and don't have more money more that system. for those of us in private practice. i have a fixed overhead. i have to hire staff whether i'm seeing patients i still have to pay out that money. so there is a certain amount of pressure on me. as physicians we are busy being doctors. i'm studying, doing medical education. i don't have that much time and interest in getting into the politics of it. i just like to be able to see my
2:47 pm
patients, have a discussion with them and make things better. megyn: dr. paddy you work at a hospital. >> the system is broken. we need a fix. but the fix is going to be different throughout the country. what works for me in the south bronx may not work in suburbia. that needs to be looked at and addressed. i work every day as an emergency physician. many of our patients come in. we treat them. 2/3 of our patients we see in off hours between 5:00 in the evening and 7:00 in the morning. a lot of patients we treat, we make them better or admit them to the hospital. a couple weeks later i'll get hers from insurance companies stating we decide we are not going to pay for this visit. care was delivered, the patient
2:48 pm
was treated and hopefully made well or made better, and we get a denial letter. i sit down on my free time. we go through the chart and try to document and justify why we treated this person for their emergency medical condition. we send a letter back to the insurance company. many times they will stay we still deny it. so the point is we are doing the care no matter what. and our patients don't have access to their primary care physicians so they come to the emergency department. we still deliver the care. but where is the reimbursement for that? >> we are heading towards a two-tiered system of healthcare. nobody looked at who is in the network. who is going to play ball with obama-care and who isn't. if you are rich like in great britain if you are rich you pay for the best. megyn: you pay out of pocket. >> you pay for the technology
2:49 pm
the insurance won't cover. that where we are heading to a division. insurance is going to cover basic services and if you don't like that you can pay for the rest. >> like dr. j., when i was in boss into was in private practice. i moved down here and took a salaried position long before the aca happened. i have many more issues with private insurers than i do with medicare in terms of getting drugs approved. megyn: we'll discuss that after the break. i also want to discuss -- tort reform. and two pills. afternoon's overhaul starts with more pain. more pil. triple checking hydraulics. the evening brin more pain. so, back to more pills. almost done, when... hang on. stan's doctor recommended aleve.
2:50 pm
it can keep pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is rudy. who switched to aleve. and two pills for a day free of pain. ♪ and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels. so what i'm saying is, people like options. when you take geico, you can call them anytime you feel like saving money. it don't matter, day or night. use your computer, your smartphone, your tablet, whatever. the point is, you have options. oh, how convenient. hey. crab cakes, what are you looking at? geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
2:51 pm
2:52 pm
2:53 pm
megyn: raise your hand if you think this affordable care act is good for patients. >> parts of it. >> i think, you know, to some extent there are some good things about this. maybe they can go to see the doctor but you are not going reform healthcare unless you make the patients responsible to be their own doctor. obese 'tis on the rise. diabetes is on the rise. thanks to great doctors they are living longer. the average health is 78 or 80 years old and medicare is not going to sustain this. who is going to take care of your obesity? you have got to lose the weight. there is no incentive to tell you. megyn: raise your hand if you believe president obama's promise if you like your doctor and your existing medical plan you can keep him and this. do you believe this?
2:54 pm
no one is raising their hand on this. >> you can't afford it. this is the promise. we can't afford to keep the coverage and the doctors we have. the doctors are out of network. the insurance premiums have gone up. at what cost can you keep your coverage and your doctor? megyn: raise your hands if you think obama-care is good for the patients who already have insurance today. >> no. >> preexisting conditions -- >> we want the patients to get good care. but you should want your doctor to be happy. megyn: it's an interesting proposition. before i let you go. is there a doctor shortage in the country? >> absolutely.
2:55 pm
megyn: does obama-care help or hurt it. >> it starts to hurt it. >> today was a great win for the patients. i think the point is well taken. you will have the two-tier system. you will have a system for the private ones that will pay for it and get fancy operation, then everyday doctors for the rest of the country. megyn: who is taking care of your patients right now. get to work. doctors, thank you all. great job. appreciate it. we'll be right back. a party?
2:56 pm
[ music plays, record skips ] hi, i'm new ensure clear. clear, huh? my nutritional standards are high. i'm not juice or fancy water, i'm different. i've got nine grams of protein. twist my lid. that's three times more than me! twenty-one vitamins and minerals and zero fat! hmmm. you'll bring a lot to the party. [ all ] yay! [ female announcer ] new ensure clear. nine grams protein. zero fat. twenty-one vitamins and minerals.
2:57 pm
in blueberry/pomegranate and peach. refreshing nutrition in charge! :
2:58 pm
>>megyn: big day. big ruling. we appreciate you getting your news from fox news. we appreciate the men and women who at the end of the day are the ones who are affected by this law. they and you and the patient. >>shepard: great stuff, the news begins anew. not much going on today! after more than two years of legal challenges, political battles and intense media
2:59 pm
coverage the supreme court today ruled in favor of upholding the heart of the president's health care law. we will break down the decision, reaction and political implications for the president and the challenger for the white house, the former massachusetts governor romney. well cover the poe tell economic impact. and get the specifics of what does this mean for you and your family. as we move toward 2014, all ahead, unless breaking news changes everything. this is "studio b." all first from fox at 3:00, in new york city, president obama hailing the supreme court decision to uphold virtually all of the historic health care overhaul, and that includes the controversial mandate that requires everyone to have coverage or pay a fine. or a tax. many are calling it a major victory for the president. >> whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country who slaves will be more secure because of this law and the supreme court's decision


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on