tv Andrea Mitchell Reports MSNBC June 28, 2012 10:00am-11:00am PDT
exactly that. >> good day, i'm andrea mitchell live in washington. what a day. a landmark 5-4 ruling. the supreme court, led by chief justice john roberts, upheld president obama's health care law, ruling the individual mandate is constitutional under the government's taxing authority. nbc news justice correspondent pete williams is live at the supreme court. nbc's david gregory, moderator of "meet the press" is here as well as chris cillizza, the msnbc contributor and managing editor of postpolitics.com and of course nbc news chief white house correspondent and political director chuck todd, host of "the daily rundown." pete, first to you. because this was very complicated. you're the one who stood out there and explained it allç to us. take us through the reasoning of the court. as they came up with this unexpectedly complicated decision. >> all right. what chief justice roberts basically does in this opinion says, let's look at first of all what the claim is against the individual mandate. that congress cannot require everybody to go out and buy
something because that's beyond the power and the constitution that says congress has the power to, quote, regulate commerce. now, those who had objected to this said if somebody doesn't have insurance, then they're not doing anything you can regulate. and basically justice roberts agrees with that. however, he says, there's a longstanding cannon or tradition of interpreting laws, acts of congress, that says you look at there are other ways to find it constitutional. and he says there is. this is the government's fallback argument that if the mandate is still constitutional under the congress' taxing authority. what the chief justice says here is all we're saying is, if you don't buy insurance, then you get taxed the same way if you buy gasoline or anything else. it's a tax on something that you've done or not done and that he says is within congress' power. and then he goes on to say on the medicaid side of thing, andrea, he sort of gives the states half a loaf here. they have said congress has put
us in an untenable position. cover more people, give them more benefits and if you don't do that, you lose all your medicaid funding, you're out of the program. what the supreme court said today is you can't go that far. those states who choose, for some reason, if they want to, not to take the federal money for the expanded çprogram, wel you just don't give them the money, but you can't throw them completely out of medicaid. >> chuck todd, the reaction at the white house, very restrained reaction from the president. how do they proceed politically? >> they see this in two fronts. number one, they think they have a small window here to essentially re-sell health care. that there is a moment now over the next few days, perhaps the next week where you'll have a public -- you saw it in our own polling. the numbers we debuted on your show earlier this week shows there's a third of the public, up to a majority of them in various parts of the health care law, that said they would have had mixed feelings no matter which way it went. so there is a pr opening here for the white house. the second thing that they
emphasize is they believe that this puts the republicans, mitt romney in a box. while his base is going to want him to run on repeal, repeal, repeal, that it is not a conversation swing voters want to have anymore. that there is essentially voter fatigue out there, if you will, on the health care issue, with the middle. maybe not with the base, but with the middle. and so i suspect it will be interesting to watch romney, but i suspect you'll see him gradually get off of the health care message a little bit. republicans on house and senate races, they're going to pound the tax issue. they're going to try to do what they can there. and they may get some mileage on house and senate levels. the presidential level, like i said, the white house feels pretty good, but they also acknowledge, perhaps in two weeks, they might not be talking about health care. >> well, eric cantor has already scheduled a vote we hear. david gregory. republicans on the house say july 11thç, week after next as soon as they get back from recess.
they're trying to take a stand on repeal. >> i understand chuck's analysis on this in his reporting and what the white house aspirations are. i'm not certain they're right. i thing therek there are a lot americans who can be reached out of the wisz come of health care reform, pursued in the past by the president. i don't see how mitt romney gets off that conversation. when he announced his campaign he said this is going to be a centerpiece of it. i think he goes forward on that. there's something else we don't talk a lot about and we should in this campaign, that is the supreme court matters. elections matter because presidents appoint supreme court justices. the next president will have one to two to appoint. that gets the juices flowing of the base of both parties. >> chris cillizza, let's talk about this for a minute. the politics of this, at large. how big an issue now is the supreme court, is health care in this campaign? >> well, i think david is right that, and you heard this in the mitt romney statement. which was essentially the only way, if you don't like the
affordable care act, the only way to get rid of it now is to elect me, mitt romney, and get rid of barack obama. that that's the only avenue left to us. look, i think someone said to me today that the tens, the people already on ten in the republican base, excited, enthusiastic, as ready to vote as possible, this goes to 11. a spinal tap reference there. the people that are already excited are over the moon more i think that that will be the republican argument. david made this point, the stakes of the election are now. we can't depend on the court, can't depend on congress. the only thing we can do to get rid of this law which the base of the party hates, hates is the right word, is to get rid of barack obama. and i think that's what you'll see romney focus on in the coming days and weeks. to the extent he focuses on health care at all which i think is an open question. >> now, so far up until today,
the roberts court was really defid defined by citizens united. pete, take a look at the court, the building behind you, what we learned now about justice roberts and interestingly lost in the shuffle of all of this is that military valor law was overturned. so justice kennedy wrote that decision. basically the court held, that you can lie about a lot of stuff, lie about being a hero in the military, free speech trumps everything else. >> this has been a very pro free-speech court. they knocked down a lawsuit against fred phelps who protested military funeral. they knocked down a law about crush videos. so this is consistent with recent supreme court rulings on free speech. they say, you know, even if you lie about receiving a medal of honor, that's protected speech. the court does note congress is narrowing that law to say, if you lose the lie to get some gain, you commit fraud, tried to get in a va hospital, try to get
benefits you can get prosecuted for that. that's the direction where they're going there. back to the mandate question. you know, oneç of the things that's been sort of puzzling throughout all this is, okay, if you didn't pay the tax, then what? there was a suggestion from some supporters of the law that it had no teeth in it. that even if you didn't pay the tax, you couldn't be prosecuted. well, there is a footnote in today's decision that says this is like any other tax. and you can be penalized if you don't pay the tax. what the footnote says is you have a choice. you can buy insurance or pay the penalty which amounts to a tax. then it says what an individual may not do is not buy insurance and not pay the penalty. so the court is pretty clearly saying that if you choose not to buy insurance, that's your choice, but you have to pay the penalty and if you don't, then the irs can come after you. so that's a clarification. >> of course, the white house went to such lengths to say this was not a tax because they hate
the "t" word. that's hung around them. david gregory, you're a veteran washington court watch enner an pick up a lot of things. rumblings from the conservative, bob barr as well as individuals. >> i think his legacy is going to be reexamined. the reality today is chief justice roberts is chief justice because of president george w. bush. today you have liberals in the country cheering outwardly for the chief justice of the supreme court. let that settle in for just a moment out of polarized washington. the need for the supreme court to be beyond politics. that's not been the reputation of the roberts court because he saw that's very important, particularly onç controversial decisions. conserve atives i'm talking to today say roberts will be views as being intimidated by the left. they went so far to say he unnecessarily in his opinion gave deference to the commerce
clause in fact saying, i agree with my conservative colleagues on those laws. it can be congress' ability to levy taxes. that was unnecessary language according to court watchers but an attempt to sort of pacify the right as he did something that will be criticized heavily among conservatives. very interesting to watch how this plays out. >> pete, final word to you? >> reporter: i was going to say one thing, it's going to take a lot more decisions before there's a john roberts legacy. you have to remember that william rehnquist, his predecessor as chief justice, occasionally surprised people by joining the liberals to uphold the family and medical leave act. joining the liberals to say miranda is good law, against the conservative attack. so, you know, it's a big decision. it certainly would be an important one in his career. but he's pretty young. he has a long way to go before he has a full legacy here. >> well, it's one of those days in washington that we will all remember and our thanks to you, the all-star team, who watch our
coverage tonight. thank you, pete, great work. chuck, chris cillizza, and david gregory. of course, watching on "meet the press" as you have more time to absorb all of this. bring us the latest. our special coverage today of the health care ruling continues next with msnbc's rachel maddow. plus, still ahead, dr. zeke emanuel, massachusetts governor deval patrick,ç virginia goverr bob mcdonnell. plus, jay rockefeller, mark halperin and john heilman. this is "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. [ male announcer ] this is rudy.
his morning starts with arthritis pain. and two pills. afternoon's overhaul starts with more pain. more pills. triple checking hydraulics. the evening brings 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.
rachel, good to see you. >> thanks. >> let's talk about this, because it was not entirely what was expected. you have this coalition of justice roberts and the four liberals, quote/unquote, on the court. and it does send a signal that you can't always prejudge. you shouldn't prejudge what the court will do. and perhaps it takes some of the sting of politics out of this whole debate. >> it's so interesting to look at the difference in expectations about what was going to happen today. and then what actually happened. i mean, reading the political body language yesterday in washington, i mean, the republicans planned to have their congressional spokespeople on health reform, cathie mcmorris-rogers, one other member of congress, at the court and walking outside and making an immediate comment. the democrats, meanwhile, did their press conference at the capitol, reserved, defensive, raising money on the prospect the court is going to overturn it. president obama watching at the white house. you could tell from the body language the democrats thought they were going to lose and republicans thought they were going to win. it did not happen.
looks a little prescient. we sawç scalia giving this blistering, an rgryangry, peopl it, partisan dissent. he read from the bench, going beyond the matter, criticizing the announced policy on implementation of immigration law and some people read into that that maybe justice scalia was sort of venting he lost some of the conservative majority who he expected to stand with him on health reform. i don't know if that's true. i don't know if that's why he was so mad. he was definitely mad and things definitely went against him and the other conservatives today. >> and there's been all sorts of tea leaf reading. what we now know is justice roberts is more of an independent thinker in terms of not being as predictable as one would think. there's some big issues coming up in the fall term. pete williams was cautioning us, this is not the robert's legacy yet from his perspective.
doma and affirmative action coming up in the fall in terms of social issues that are profoundly important certainly to both wings of the party as well as presumably a lot of independents. these are big issues coming up. we don't know yet what's going to happen with this court. what we do know is that health care, it can still be debated as part of this campaign. it will inflame the bases. but it's going to be the law of the land. now we're going to see implementation. zeke emanuel is going to be coming up next to talk about how this is going to begin brick by brick being put in place. >> yeah. you know, you think about the risk and the reward with this ruling today on both sides. and i mean, the republicans, frankly, are pretty much where they were. they are vehemently against reform. they have two awkward things that they bring along with that. one is that their main proposed change to theç existing nonreformed system is essentially a privatization of medicare which is very, very popular and people really don't want privatized and the presidential nominee is somebody who implemented this exact same health reform change at the
state level. they're sort of in the same position. when they have a strong position, but awkward baggage that comes along with it. on the democratic side, had the president's side lost, had the health reform law been struck down, the only real way that the president i think could have salvaged a win out of an outcome like that would be to really focus on the courts. to really make the supreme court the issue. to say, listen, this isn't normal times. you have a very partisan supreme court. the roberts court is being radically conservative, we can't let them run off with the country that way. john roberts acted in a way that will prevent that caricature from being alive in politics. you're right. the biggest reward that the democrats could potentially reap from this decision is if they, as chuck wases saying earlier, is if they sell health reform to the american people again. that's what they have to do and they started it right out of the gate with the president explaining what the law does in layman's terms from the white house today. >> they didn't do a great job of it the first time around. now they've got a second bite at
that apple. >> yeah. >> rachel maddow, great to see you. we'll be watching tonight, of course. thanks so much. >> thanks. and how will the law be implemented? dr. zeke emanuel, former white house health and policy adviser, joining us next. and join our conversation on health care at #hcmsnbc. this is "andrea mitchell reports". why am i wearing a bow-tie? where did i leave my bicycle? after all, when you're enjoying the beefiest, juciest bite of pure kosher beef, nothing else matters. goodness gracious, that's kosher. with no fillers, by-products, artificial flavors or colors. hebrew national. the better-than-a-hot dog- hot dog.
plus, if your home is unfit to live in after an incident, we pay for you to stay somewhere else while it's being repaired. home protector plus, from liberty mutual insurance. because you never know what lies around the corner. to get a free quote, call... visit a local office, or go to libertymutual.com today. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy?
with today's announcement, it's time for us to move forward. to implement, and were necessary, improve on this law. >> the supreme court ruling today clears the way for states and insurersç to start putting together the pieces of just how health care will be implemented. dr. zeke emanuel is a former health policy adviser for the obama administration. he's now a professor and vice provist at the university of pennsylvania. and chair of the department of medical ethics and health policy at its school of medicine. all of that, thank you. >> nice to be here. >> nice to have you here. especially on this day. you worked very hard to get this law passed.
>> yeah. >> and you believe in it. and now it's going to be implemented. >> well, i think, you know, we've had a sort of two-year uncertainty about whether it's going to be implemented or not. this takes it i a way. everyone can go forward and really focus on getting it right. >> let's talk about the pieces of it and how it will affect people. so far, already, people, younger people, have already been covered. the big kick-in comes ahead in the two years to come. >> right. in some time about a year from now you'll be getting the rollout and the enrollment in the exchanges and the insurance policy will be activated on january 1st, 2014. tens of millions of americans. the estimate is that when everyone gets involved, it will be about 32 million people who are now uninsured into the health system. either through medicaid or the exchanges. that will be the big expansion of access. of course, there a lot of things going on now to bring the costs down, to bring the quality up. and those are happening because hospitals are working hard.
insurers are working hard. doctors are working hard on those things. and not waiting for the deadlines that are in the bill. >> do you really believe that the costs will come down as the pool gets broadened?ç >> the issue isn't -- the issue isandrea. we need to be careful. how fast are we going to get to $3 trillion on health care? will we slow that rate? the rate has already slowed over the last few years. many of us are seeing signs that it's going to continue to come down because hospitals are doing things like get reducing readmissions, being efficient and focusing on people who are high-cost users to get their care better and save money. people with diabetes, heart failure. there is a lot of effort out there to work on this. >> i mean, you see it every day. you're at the hospital. you're in academia. do you think as technologies advance -- these are expensive. until you can get cost containment built into the system, doesn't the spread of
new testing and new technology inevitably lead to more costs? >> that was the word i was looking for, inevitably. that's not true. does new technology inevitably lead to new costs in the telecommunications sector? >> in the short run? >> no. they find out how we can add technology that actually saves money. let me give you a good example of my favorite. new bottle caps on prescription drugs. >> ones i can't open. >> "a," you can't open, but "b" electronically signal whether you take the medicine or not. if you don't care it by a certain time sunday, wireless message to your doctor, that you haven't taken the medicine. sends a wireless message to you% pharmacy when you need refill. more compliance with medication, less chance you're going to get sick and not come back into the hospital. there's a small cost to those things. part of what we're incentivizing in the new system is a lot of innovation that reduces costs
and takes costs out of the system. you're going to see a lot of really smart people focusing now on getting technologies that can save money. we're going to see this in the i.t. sector with electronic health records, finding out which patients to we need to target? and then bringing things to target. we've already had tripling of the number of companies working in the electronic health care space. because of this. >> i want to talk about access, because there was initial confusion, not on our air, thanks to pete williams and goldstein from scotus blog. there was some confusion out there about what the medication ruling really entails and whether states will or will not have to comply. >> basically by a 7-2 vote including justices breyer and kagan with the conservatives. they said that this was not just an expansion of medicaid but really a new medicaid program and that you could not penalize states who don't adopt it by taking away their old medicaid program. i think the policy question is, will states expand their
medicaid program, yes or no? i think there are going to be some states for ideological reasons -- >> you had 26 states who went to court to challenge the president's affordable health care. >> some people were ideological reasons who say, no, we're not expanding medicaid. if you look at the economics, the congressional budget office did a report inúslptember 2009 that said, look, for most states this is going to be a bargain and i'll tell you why. right now they're paying for uncompensated care for people who don't have insurance. >> could not be more expensive going into the e.r. >> and also their insurance rates on state employees are up because of this cost shift. and they will save both of those pots of money and pay 10% of the expansion of medicaid. net/net for states. that's actually savings. california, for example, is estimated to save $2 billion in 2019 as a result of joining and expanding its medicaid program. >> couldn't it be the federal government is then told, you have to, congress, you have to pass laws that give the states
more money to pay for kicking in with this new system? >> i don't think so. we pay $the federal government pays 90% of the bill for expansion beginning in 2020. so i think most states are going to find this a very good bargain. as i said at the start, there may be some states who for ideological reasons texas says we're not going to do what the federal government is going it tell us, well, they'll lose out. you know, unfortunately, millions of texans will still end up without insurance and figure out what to do at the federal level. >> since this kicks in gradually, not until 2014, is it going to be difficult for the president to sell this, for democrats to explain whyt they think health care is a good bet? >> the communications strategy has been less thanoptimal. >> you're being kind. >> the individual çprovisions e very popular. there's a lot of misconception about the individual mandate.
most people don't realize the insurance they get from their employer now qualifies for the individual mandate. that employers with less than 50, workers don't have to actually offer insurance. so i think as this gives the administration an opportunity to explain the bill to the public, and explain those provisions which are popular. kids under 26 being on your plan. the no pre-existing conditions exclusi exclusion. those are really popular. americans don't want to give them up. they have an opportunity now to explain how this will go into effect and you'll never be able to lose it. given what the supreme court said. and that, i think, will turn the tide for americans. i predict in two or three years, the vast majority of americans will be wildly supportive. >> and right now the house speaker is speaking. dr. zeke emanuel, thank you so much. john boehner. >> underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety. what americans want is a common sense, step-by-step approach to health care reform, that will
protect americans access to the care they need from the doctor they choose at a lower cost. and republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the american people and not repeat the mistakes that gave our country this harmful law. listen, health care coverage has become too expensive for too many people in our country. the number one concern for families and small businesspeople is the cost of health insurance. and the republican health care ç reforms will, in fact, lower health care cost. as cathie pointed out, women make about 80% of the health care decisions for their families in our country. republican health care reforms will ensure that families and doctors make health care decisions, not bureaucrats here in washington. >> good afternoon. if for nothing else, today's
health care decision underscores the importance of this election. the people of america are going to have a choice to make in november and clearly it's a choice that we'll bear upon the direction of this country as far as our health care is concerned. the decision today really indicates we have entered an age in which the government, washington, will be controlling health care. unless something changes. most americans, i believe, still, still like the health care that they have and the president has continued to say that his law will allow folks to keep the health care they like. but what we've seen is that's just not the case. obama care will preclude people from having the health care that they like. we have seen this law increase costs. and we are committed to changing that. we are committed to making sure that we can return to patient-based health care in
this country. where we can keep costs low and we can çincrease access. and that's why when we return the week of july 9th, i've scheduled a vote for total repeal of the obama care bill to occur on wednesday july 11th. and in that way, we can clear the way toward trying to, again, focus on accomplishing a health care future, premised upon patient-centered care, low erin costs and affording better access. >> joining me now, after eric cantor and john boehner's statements, mark halperin, "time" magazine and msnbc political analyst and john heilmann for new york magazine, also an msnbc political analyst. both of them, of course, co-authors of the book "game change." mark and john, you also were at mitt romney's announcement. you've been talking to a lot of republicans as well as democrats in the aftermath of the decision.
mark, first to you, if you want to take a shot at where the romney campaign and republicans feel they can get some leverage now after this decision which went in the president's favor, of course. >> well, they have additional leverage from the nature of the decision, as you know, because they can talk about big government and washington controlling health care. but also they can now talk about the president as a tax raiser. they're pretty united. if you talk to republicans, look on twitter, look at press releases. they were expecting if the decision went this way, that would be their line of argument. it does, as you were talking about with rachel earlier, it does give the president a chance now to get back into defending the law and the merits. he did that earlier today in his statement. statemen!licans, governor romney's campaign just claimed in a tweet they've raised over $1 million since the decision. there's no doubt that the organizing principle of republicans is helped by this. now, i've heard people say, well, this takes governor romney off message. he wants to talk about the km
economy. talking about big government and the taxes is talking about the economy. i think it supercharges their message in a way that is politically helpful to them. >> and john heilemann, how does the president reframe the issue as he tries to resell health care? >> andrea, the president is going to try to talk about the thing he's wanted to talk about for a long time which is the constituent parts of this bill that have always been popular. i think you noted earlier, probably more than once in this show, that the sales job, the political -- the act of public persuasion that the white house has had to do on this bill has been not well handled over the course of the entire debate and the post-enactment of the law. as mark said, president obama is -- this is going to be a political issue this fall. the romney campaign sees a way to make hay with this which going to make the president defend it. there's a lot in this law that is, in fact, popular. the one aspect of it that is not popular is the individual mandate. that's now been upheld by the supreme court. it's the law of the land. president obama is now going to go out and try to make the case on the individual piece parts of
the bill that people generally like and try to tell people, hey, this is now the law and if you let it play out, we're going to have benefits for you you're going to like. >> mark, eric cantor is scheduled to vote on repeal on july 11th. presumably that's going to be aç party-line vote. you don't expect blue dog democrats are going to go over it now? will they rally around the white house. >> a handful will. the most part if you remember a congress who voted on the law previously, you'll probably vote for it. i suspect a vote not to overturn the law or change it. >> right. >> i suspect you'll see a lot of democrats saying, i want the law to stay, but we need to have changes. even the president says, the law needs changes. of course, any big law like this is going to need changes. there's no doubt because the mandate's unpopular, because republicans are going to talk about taxes, i don't think there's any doubt. however much the president talks about the law, republicans in the fall, from mitt romney on down, will advertise against obama care. you'll see far fewer democrats
wanting to brag about the law, brag about having supported it. and that difference is objective. it's not a partisan thing. it's objective. it does tell you where the balance is on this right now in the context of november. >> and john heilemann, what about the supreme court? does that become less of a focus, less of a lightning rod? >> absolutely. if you think 2012 is basically an aselection where it looks a little bit more like 2004 than 2008, this is a decision that energizes republicans, the republican base and puts them on offense. on the democratic side, for the reason you just pointed out, the democrats were getting ready to run against the supreme court. not just in the white house, but throughout the party. the liberal base of the party would have had an issue here if this had seemed like an overtly partisan decision. now it's with chief justice roberts siding with the liberal wing of the court,ç that takes that issue away from the progressive base. they have no argument now against the supreme court to try
to energize them. in that narrow sense i think it's politically more advantageous to republicans than democrats. democrats don't have that rallying cry of an overtly politicized supreme court they could have carried into november. >> john heilemann an mark halperin on a big day in washington. the "game change" boys. thank you very much. thank you for being with us. still ahead, governor deval patrick of massachusetts, west virginia senator jay rockefeller, and, of course, governor bob mcdonnell from virginia. special coverage of the supreme court's ruling on health care continuing on "andrea mitchell reports." on msnbc. and two pills. afternoon's overhaul starts with more pain. more pills. triple checking hydraulics. the evening brings 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.
sven's home security gets the most rewards of any small business credit card! how does this thing work? oh, i like it! [ garth ] sven's small business earns 2% cash back on every purchase, every day! woo-hoo!!! so that's ten security gators, right? put them on my spark card! why settle for less? testing hot tar... great businesses deserve the most rewards! [ male announcer ] the spark business card from capital one. choose unlimited rewards with 2% cash back or double miles on every purchase, every day! what's in your wallet? here's your invoice. in its ruling today to uphold president obama's health care reforms, the supreme court ruled against 26 states that oppose the individual mandate. what is next for those states who challenge the law? joining me now, chairman of the republican governor's association, virginia governor bob mcdonnell. virginia, of course, was one of the lead states suing the federal government.
thank you very much. good to see you today. >> thank, andrea. >> what was your reaction to the decision? it came, as you know, from john roberts leading the majority. >> naturally we're disappointed. virginia was the first state to sue, by believing it was unconstitutional and creating a huge power grab by the federal government and interfering with the ability of states to control policies and individuals to control their own health care. so naturally we're disappointed. listen, this is not an endorsement of the policy. it's simply the court determining whether something was legal or not. we obviously hoped for a different decision. but what this means now is this is going to be a significant issue in this election. the majority of the people of the united states, 60%-plus, oppose it, like i çdo. and i think that this now will become an issue as to who becomes the next president of the united states. i think we need a change. i think that president obama's spent so much time and energy the last couple years on this that when he should have been focusing on debt reduction and job creation. he's been a failure in that
area. now we're stuck with this unbelievable mandate on the people in the states. i think we need a new president. >> well, you don't get a new supreme court, though. so the court has upheld it. the mandate is deemed legal. electing a new president doesn't change the mandate and the ruling of the court that it's constitutional. >> yeah, but legal and constitutional is different from whether it's good. the court makes no passage on the policy. they simply said that while it's not constitutional under the commerce, or the necessary and proper clause, andrea, it is upheld under the tax clause. we haven't reviewed the opinion in full yet. it's going to take a while to do that and see what the full impact is on up. the point is, the legacy of this president now is the largest new debt in american history, $16 trillion, a terrible economy he's not improved, with 8% unemployment right now for 40 months. and now the largest new tax increase on the middle class in modern american history. and a grab of power by the federal government that's
unprecedented. i tell you what it means for virginia. $2.2 billion of an unfunded mandate in medicaid expansion over the next decade. we've already had medicaid grow from 5% to 21% of our budget in the last 30 years, andrea. for everyç governor, these medicaid mandates are crushing expenditures to endure. this is a real hardship. it's not the way. we all think increased access, reduced cost of health care is a good goal. this is the wrong way to do it from a policy perspective. >> governor, is your state going to go along with the medicaid expansion? >> well, our state is eventually going to follow the law, but we'll see what the law might be next january. i'm hoping we get a new senate and a new president that understand debt reduction and job creation and economic development and understand free enterprise and federalism. i think that's the problem with this president is while we should have been focusing on creating jobs for the people and
having a coherent energy come policy and getting us out of the $16 trillion, he spent an enormous amount of time on this new, horrible 3,300 page bureaucratic mandate on the states. and so now we're stuck with it at least until we see if we have a new senate and a new president. i'm going to do everything i can in virginia to see if we can accomplish that. then andrea, the policies might change. obviously the states will follow the law. we have to wait and see, first of all, what the mandates are in this as a result of this court decision and secondly what happens in a couple months. >> governor, what's happening with the vetting on vice presidents? have you been going through all your tax records and turning things over to the campaign? >> all i've been doing is going through my schedule to see how much time i can help mitt romney win and republican governors win. i'm not talking about çthat. that's speculation for you experts in the media and governor romney. >> okay. he's the ultimate expert on that subject, isn't he? >> he is indeed.
>> great to see you today. >> thanks, andrea. white house victory lap won't last long if republican mouse leaders have their way. the republican controlled house announced eric cantor is holding a vote to repeal health care reform right after the july 4th recess on july 11th. joining me now, democratic governor deval patrick of massachusetts. speaking for the white house today. how do you respond to the votes that are sure to come now as republicans on the hill gang up against the president and try to overturn this in some sort of legislative way? >> well, andrea, first of all, thanks for having me. i think today's a great day for, a great victory for the american people. it's interesting, you know, what we hear from reaction from republicans in congress and some in statehouses, are all the things they're not going to do, all the ways they're going to try to preserve a status quo where cost of health care has been too high for too many working families or out of reach for the working poor, where the cost of it has been crushing for our economy. what we have is a solution.
a hybrid solution. one that comes out of the model here in massachusetts that has done already a tremendous amount of good, preserving people's choices, bringing health care costs down. more businesses offering insurance to their employees than before health care reform started. and we are healthier. and, you know, if you're in government because you believe it's about helping people help themselves, this is a great outcome. i wish the republicans in congress and my colleagu]jez statehouses would work with the president on the other issues facing the american people today. the big challenges facing us. and move on from this. this is an unequivocal victory. let's take it and move forward. >> now, since the reports are that 99% of massachusetts residents have coverage now. so -- >> that's right. >> you'd have to say that mitt romney did a good job as governor since it came through under him. >> he did. i mean, and he's proud of health care reform here and he should be. you know, you're right. it's 99.8% of children.
98.2% of our overall population. as i say, our health care, our health outcomes are better. more businesses offering insurance. and it has not been a budget buster. the expansion, itself, added 1% to state spending. that's another myth about the affordable care act. in fact, the expansion is paid for by the federal government. and it's paid for by the federal government because it's a recognition that health is a public good. and everybody ought to have access to that care. >> deval pat rick, thank you very much. thanks for being with us today. >> great to be with you. up next, we have west virginia democrat, senator jay rockefeller. he's been a mover on health care on the hill. and join our conversation on health care at #hcmsnbc. you're watching "andrea mitchell reports." only on msnbc.
single payer option, the public option, democratic senator jay rockefeller of west virginia who chaired the senate commerce committee. great to see you. your reaction to this, your response to today's ruling. >> i'm pretty happy. andrea. you know qiq9ñ we worked on it a a long time, i know it's not necessarily popular, and that's because it's not well understood and the reason it's not well understood is that we did it from the ground up out in the open. so there was confusion, but i'm proud of the product, we'll continue to tweak it and make it more acceptable. but one part that i'm not happy about is what happened with medicaid. because we're very sensitive, i'm very sensitive to people who are on medicaid, but still can't afford to buy health insurance. and what we did in the bill was we expanded the range of income to be included under an expanded medicaid program so that they
could buy health insurance. the supreme court was not friendly to that and that leaves us with a problem and that leaves the states with the option of ignoring medicaid or people on medicaid if they want to and i'm fearful of that, that won't happen in west virginia, i pray. but it will happen in a number of other state where is people will be very happy to get rid of medicaid and medicate people. >> is there any effort, do you think, could there possibly be an effort down the road to relettir relegislate this and find a way to get around the court's ruling? >> that's one of the greatest things about this ruling is it wiped all of my greatest fears off the table and they continue -- they're not goingço cover people with cancer, they can't say that anymore. and all kinds of problems were solved. but this one remains and the joy of it is, if there is joy, the
challenge of it is, is that we now have time to work specifically on this problem. part of that would be putting pressures on state legislatures and governors having all the interest groups who care about medicaid, which i think is much more efficient as an insurance policy than any private health insurance company. it's very, very efficient. so we just have to find a way around it. >> many of your west virginia, your fellow democrats, senator manchin, the governor, the congress member, ray hall are deciding not to go to the democratic convention and 40% of the democratic voters voted not only against president obama, but they voted for some convicted felon, he is remarkably unpopular, the president is in your state. are you planning to go to the democratic convention? >> first of all i'm chairman of the delegation, so i think it would probably be a decent thing for me to do, don't you?
and even if i wasn't the chairman, i have never missed one ever. i think it's -- if you're a fairly senior person many your party, i think you have an obligation to be there. >> i know you've long been an environmentalist, that's part of your fiber, but let's talk about yourç speech against the coal industry. that was a signature speech last week on the senate floor and led a lot of people to say, wait a second, may jay rockefeller has decided to take on the coal industry and not to run for re-election. >> no, the second is not true. the first is true and that is taking them on, frankly this speech has been boiling, bubbling inside of me for about three years. and fortuitously, along came the bill that we were voting on which gave me the opportunity to speak directly to the issue of
that bill and also the larger issue of what the coal industry is not doing to protect coal miners and their futures by not reaching out and helping develop new technology, it's a very sad story. coal can still play an enormous factor in our energy policy, but right now, people are being rather calm about i, i'm not. >> nice to see you, whether you're calm or not, we always have having you on, senator rockefeller. thanks for being with us today. and which political story will be making headlines in the next 24 hours, i have a feeling it's health care. the fallout for justice roberts, for the court and most principally for the white house and for governor romney. >> i 100% agree with you, i actually think the story that i'm the most intrigued in, and maybe it's a minor çstory, butt
may become a major story is john roberts. a guy who's appointed chief justice by president george w. bush today being praised by liberals. i think it's fascinating to remember. go back and read, it's worth reading, it's was a short, opening statement, john roberts opening statement in 2005. which democrats spent the next 6 1/2 years or every day between then and today rolling their eyes about. but when you go and look at what roberts said, he didn't think the congress clause was constitutional. he went and found a way that the law could stand. it's a remarkable moment. >> chris cillizza, my friend, you're going to be taking the helm tomorrow while i'm traveling to the aspen festival. i'm andrea mitchell reports, join us next week, we're live at the aspen ibs festival. my colleague tamron hall has the
next hour. we are following more breaking developments as so many people are reacting to the supreme court ruling and in fact, within this hour, the democratic leadership will respond and also joining me is a guest of news nation. james clyburn will join us live, we'll also talk to presidential histori historia historian. and the debate is going to be in less than an hour, the vote on whether or not to hold attorney general eric holderç contempt. new information coming up for you in three minutes on news nation.
if you made a list of countries from around the world... ...with the best math scores. ...the united states would be on that list. in 25th place. let's raise academic standards across the nation. let's get back to the head of the class. let's solve this. i'm tamron hall, the news nation the following breaking news this hour.