tv The Cycle MSNBC June 28, 2012 12:00pm-1:00pm PDT
obama put the bill into action will be with us. >> the house vote to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of congress. day four of "the cycle" rolls on for june 28. good thursday afternoon to you. and welcome to "the cycle." the gang is here. hey, guys. so yesterday we were anticipating the news, today we have a little bit of actual news. >> and as we have actual news, who was it that predicted that the mandate would be upheld? >> criss tall. >> who was the only person who predicted the mandate would be upheld. >> i giver to it you, you predicted it at the table. but i did -- >> w
>> it's a great day for the court, and for america. >> it was a great call. you got it right. we are surprised. >> by now we all know the court's decision, the law stays on the books, but not quite as it was written. and here are the two men that will battle out health care2uj% the next four months. >> 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. >> obama care was bad policy yesterday, it's bad policy today. obama care was bad law yesterday, it's bad law today. >> i wonder if it was bad law when mitt romney signed a very similar law in massachusetts. we'll leave that for another time.
nbc news justice correspondent pete williams. pete i know you can only stay with us for a brief time. so i will start with you. you were literally out of breath this morning as the decision was issued. run down the highlights for us. >> i want to know which of you thought this would be upheld as a tax decision. this is actually two decisions here, the first one looks at the central claim by opponents of the health care law who said congress can't do this because congress has the power to regulate commerce, but somebody who doesn't have insurance isn't engaged in commerce, and therefore is beyond the reach of this law, the supreme court actually agreeded with that by a vote of 5-4 with chief justice roberts joining the conservatives. but they didn't stop there, they then looked at the fallback argument that the government had, which said the congress can do this under its taxing authority and that's where the supreme court found the majority
to uphold the law. chief justice roberts joined by the four liberals on the court said congress has the inherent power to tax someone and that basically they're taxing a choice, a choice not to have insurance, that's well within the congress power to tax, which is the supreme court said it's many times upheld in a variety of decisions. so that's the essence of the case. now there's one other part of this and that's medicaid, the states had complained that by forcing them to expand medicaid coverage. that was more than they should have to do. and the punishment if they didn't go along with that is they said the federal government can't kick them out of medicare entirely. that's the essence of the decision today, upholding the law, so now people who -- people basically have a choice, either buy insurance or pay a penalty, which the court said was a tax and curiously, that's what the
law looked like in the first place anyway. you always had this choice of either abiding by the temprms o the law or pay this penalty or tax. it now becomes a bit of a dancing on the head of a pin thing to say whether the mandate is upheld or not or whether the mandate is upheld under the taxing authority. in any way, it's upheld anyway. >> let's talk about the two key personalities in this. for the longest time, if there was going to be one republican justice who sides on the side of the -- was anthony kennedy. andç roberts was the trojan hoe guy that bush put on there with the great credentials and was put on there as a partisan guy. maybe we got both of these guys totally wrong. >> based on the oral argument here at the end of march, there were actually many people who said that of the conservatives,
chief justice roberts seemed to be the one who was most receptive. to the possibility of upholding the law. if you go back and look at the argument transcripts, it's justice kennedy who seems to be the most troubled by the health care law. so there was always an indication that it might be robert ors ken difficult but roberts i don't think was ever out of the play after you listened to the oral argument. >> mike saks sticks around. >> i remember explicitly the president insisting over the past two years that the individual mandate was not a tax. in fact i think we have a clip from that from a 2009 interview with george stephanopoulus. >> some of your critics say it's a tax increase. >> my critics say everything's a tax increase. there's critics who say i'm
taking over every part of the economy. >> so you reject that? >> i absolutely reject that notion. >> this court essentially upheld the individual mandate as a tax. did they effectively correct the president today? >> they didn't as much2correct the president as they did say exactly what he really meant. every lower court that opined on this said that the president said it's not a tax, congress said it's not a tax, so it's not a tax. this was a complete john roberts maneuver here, he did not want to uphold it under the commerce clause, and that's where he joined the four conservatives and he wanted to push back at the administration. he did -- >> i think you're absolutely right. i think what happened was that roberts said, you know what?
the government made the wrorng argument. the government's lawyer argued the wrong -- >> but this is the good argument. >> the government made the argument, but the court only one person, and that was kennedy during the oral arguments seemed at all receptive to the taxpayer argument. so this came as a big surprise that roberts actually went with the taxing power. and that's the way he could see daylight. well, roberts today kept the power for the court, kept its legitimacy and still managed to push the law the way he wanted to. masterful. >> john roberts said it's not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. so i may not agree with this politically$ cut you voted for the guy, you get to live with him. i don't want to rip this law apart. >> let's keep in mind, that if it is a tax, which the court has
said it is, you don't pay the tax number one, and only 2% to 5% of americans are going to be subject to this at all and perhaps even less in massachusetts. which does serve as sort of a model for this. only 1% of massachusetts residents are subject to the penalty that mitt romney put in place. >> let's keep this in mind, america is the only rich nation in the wor that has a large number of uninsured people. >> the big issue is actually the medicaid issue, the court held it as discretionary. do not have to. so a vast expansion of health care is now in jeopardy towards people in the 26 states that challenge the law and said that they had a gun to their head by the federal government to enroll into the medicaid expansion. that's going to be a big deal, that's going to happen in
november, that people will vote, whether or not they actually think they should have their poorest people enrolled in medicaid. >> thank you so much for joining us, mike saks from "the huffington post." and next, the law stays, so how will it work for patients? the head of the national physician's alliance joins us from as "the cycle" rolls on for thursday june 28. uncer ] this was how my day began. a little bird told me about a band... ♪ an old man shared some fish stories... ♪ oooh, my turn. ♪ she was in paris, but we talked for hours... everyone else buzzed about the band. there's a wireless mind inside all of us. so, where to next? ♪ so, where to next?
♪ what started as a whisper every day, millions of people choose to do the right thing. there's an insurance company that does that, too. liberty mutual insurance. responsibility. what's your policy? [ male announcer ] you're at the age where you don't get thrown by curveballs. ♪ this is the age of knowing how to get things done. so, why let erectile dysfunction get in your way? talk to your doctor about viagra. 20 million men already have. ask your doctor 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. without freshly-made pasta. you could also cut corners by making it without 100% real cheddar cheese. but then...it wouldn't be stouffer's mac & cheese. just one of over 70 satisfying recipes for one from stouffer's.
in, the 32 million american who is don't have it now will become eligible for coverage. by 2014 an estimated 95% of americans will be insured. those are just numbers, our health care system is clearly broken. we spend more money than any other developed country and we rank 37th in quality of care. here to talk about this is the head of the pennsylvania school of medicine, she's president of the national physician's alliance. i want to start by asking you this, the law survives for today, basically. but we are still going to be operating the system where we have strong private insurance companies and it seems that this law curbs some of the worst excesses of private insurance, but a lot of the problems that people complain about with insurance still exist. how big of an improvement is this, really? >> the decision upholding the affordable care act today is a fundamental defense of the
rights of americans of life, liberty and the pursuit of happy.ç >> one of the provisions in the law that's certainly gotten a lot of attention in the political world involves medicare. i think you know, $500 billion of cuts phased in over a few years, republicans reign against democrats on this in 2010, they still mentioned it in 2012. the response is this is not actually going to come from patient care. from a provider standpoint, explain how that works how you can have $20 million coming out of the system and not have patient care -- >> part of that money is a reduction in fraudulent billing in the system. and in fact, the obama administration last year has
recovered four billion dollars of fraud lent or illegal building in the system. they have already cracked down and they're doing a great job of it. secondly the law reduces taxpayer subsidies to offer medicare advantage plans, and those medicare advantage plans are going to be on a level playing field with traditional medicare. and a piece of that traditional $500 billion number is actually in the ten years that the law was written. >> it was something that president bush enookted which was supposed to create thisç competitive free market system, actually ended up being more expensive and less efficient and that's where most of the cuts come from. troy, did you have something? >> i would like you linking this to life and liberty, it's a nun neekly intimate decision and american law.
but some doctors tell me that they're a little concerned now that we're going to have the government so involved in the cost of health care, that now we're going to have -- what studies and tests doctors can do and really being involved in the sort of medicine that's being practiced rather than so-called evidence-based medicine. do you see that as a problem. >> first of all what the law does is get the doctor and the patient back together and together they will be able to make decisions. the person that was in between myself and my patients were private health insurance companies. and because of all of the new regulations of private health insurance companies that are contained in the law, that problem is going to go away. health insurance companies are going to have to cover patients preexisting conditions. that's always been the main thing that's been between myself and my patients. secondly, the law puts into place a number of mechanisms to have physicians like myself get
better information that together with our patients we can make the right decision for each individual patient. the law supports a lot of new research that will be unbiassed, it won't involve funding from pharmaceutical or medical device companies so we can get better more çunbiassed research on really what best treatments are and use that information together with our patients to make decisions. >> maybe i'll open this up to the table here, but it strikes me listening to valerie here paints a good picture of what this law is going to do. my rant at the end about how a lot of the individual components of this when you explain them to people are very popular. it's going to mean something to people -- i wonder how much time do you think it really will take for people to realize this is what's actually in it. >> most of the provisions haven't been enacted yet, so having them actually in place
would be a step in that direction to people actually understanding what this bill is all about. and frankly, i don't expect that this bill is perfect, i don't expect that everybody does. i think it passed with a step forward and something that we could build on, rather than now having to start from scratch and wait decades more which we really can't afford to wait. we have a stepping block forward that we can build on. >> i think interestingly, to steve's point, it is a complicated bill, people still don't really understand what's in it. i think you're also short shrifting the american public, and they do sort of in a macrosort of way don't like it. only 26% of americans wanted this bill upheld in it's ç entirety. 67% wanted the individual mandate overturned. so i don't know if more time --
>> i'm not short shrifting the american public, but i'm also not short shrifting the millions of dollars that were spent convincing people that this is a terrible, terrible bill. >> so you think people have been influenced by bad ads? >> yes. and it is susceptible to negative advertising. >> i don't think we have seen a lot of what's coming up in this bill and they don't like it. >> statistics lie all the time and when we break the bill down into certain components, people say actually i like that, i like that, i like that. >> the clock doesn't lie, we're out of time for this segment, i'm going to say thank you to valerie for joining us. the entire house is set to vote on contempt charges against eric holder in the next hour.
we're watching other politicking happening now. the house is set to vote on whether to hold attorney general eric holder in contempt of the senate. a numberç of democrats are expected to join with their republican colleagues in voting for contempt. as many as 30 dems could dessert holder making him the first cabinet member in history to be held in contempt of congress. we have luke russert on the hill. thanks for coming back.
>> so, luke, what's going on? when do we expect this vote to happen? >> right now we're in a series of procedural votes and we're having a debate from both sides on the floor. but by about 5:30 p.m., you will have had two votes that are occurring in the house. you will have a vote to hold eric holder in criminal contempt of congress, and a vote to hold eric holder in civil contempt of congress. the civil one essentially the house if they wanted to could hire their own lawyer, their own council and pursue this case into various courts that would then try to instruct mr. holder to cooperate with the congressional investigation. the problem with that is that courts move slowly and the house's authority on this expires come january when a new congress is voted in. what we're really seeing here is
a political show. the red meat of the -- they want eric holder's head, so they're going to get it today out of the house, but a lot of democrats say, and gop leaders admit that the timing is not -- it will not be the lead story, which it would be on any other day and the minority whip steny hoyer on the house floor, usually the market is 87 days this. will happen in a week. it's a fascinating development here on capitol hill, eric holder will be the first cabinet member held in contempt of congress in the history of the republic. >> thank you, luke for joining us again. so, guys what are we to make of this vote. >> i think luke hit the key point there at the end is that the timing is not a coincidence.
and this is everything about -- it has pretty good political instincts about what's good for his party and what's bad. he has very little room to maneuver. this is a scandal that was born sort of on the fringes, it's come into the main stream, but it's starting to look like a fringe theme, some members of congress are saying that what this really was was a conscious attempt to bring drugs to mexican drug gangs, it's starting to sound really fringy. we're going to do it in the deadest period for that. >> but now we see theç fortune magazine take on the story, they're not actually trying to let -- >> that was never atf policy. >> but the guys did walk. that's not a lie. the fortune magazine piece is alleging that the gun walking wasn't the plan of the atf, but the guns walked. we know they walked. >> who debunked the fortune
magazine article? >> town hall. nobody's disputing that piece. so curious timing on the vote today and speaking of curious timing let's go back to the story that we have been talking about today in the cable news world and on the twitter-verse. >> they have said that it can't be upheld under the commerce clause, the individual mandate can't. >> the individual mandate is surviving as a tax. >> millions of americans heard that the supreme court has upheld the health care law. >> big news day. >> yeah, fun day to be in news. >> for pete williams. >> one thing that they keep talking about is that it's upheld as a tax, but the other four justices, said no, the commerce clause fits here, but we want to make a deal, we want to get this done. you want to have it as a tax, fine. four justices say that this does
fit as interstate commerce. roberts found an idea that's consistent in his mind with jurisprudence. but i'm looking at the reaction onç the right to chief justice roberts today. he did not appreciate the needle that they're threading here. i think they actually called him a traitor to conservatism. a conservative republican saying i lost two friends today, america and chief justice roberts. >> not overdramatic. it is a great tweet and if you look back at what these republicans have been saying about chief justice john roberts in the past. it was slightly different. i think we have a tweet from john boehner, supreme court justices john roberts and samuel alito, president bush's two successful appointments to the supreme court aren't who they hoped and thought they were, justices committed to a fair and
justice interpretation of the constitution. >> if that group is mad about what roberts has done, then clearly he's done the right thing. and he's not the partisan person that we thought he was. i'm just thrilled. >> you love john roberts now. >> i love john roberts today. i'm wearing a john roberts t-shirt under all this. >> i woke up this morning to howard dean on "morning joe." he doesn't know that, but i woke up to him this morning on "morning joe" doing what howard dean does best which is spin. and he put on this incredibly impressive performance, we all love howard dean as the network. this is amazing agility, take a look. >> romney claims victory but obama gets victory, this is the most unpopu i don't think it should ever have been there in the first place. there's a lot of things that people like, so i believe that even though the obama folks have
put up a huge fuss about the individual mandate, romney is going to say the president's initiative got ruined and all this kind of stuff. but the truth is people now have a lot to like in this bill. >> when it comes right down, huge bin for obama. by that logic, it was upheld, it was a huge loss? >> democrats were moping and saying what are we going to do to get over this. and republicans were excited that we're going to win this thing finally, this is going to move us toward victory in november. this is a huge momentum gainer for obama. this is a huge legitimacy gainer for obama. let's -- like i was saying before, we have had a lot of false alarm predictions on what the turning point is for public opinion. i remember about a week before this thing passed, bill clinton made a lot of news, he said the minute this thing actually gets passed. the approval rating is go to shoot up 10 points. now i'm hearing it again, the
way i look at this is, look, this is a big controversial thing before today, it's a big controversial thing of the polling around gay marriage and that before obama spoke, the numbers were one thing, and then after -- there's very specific reasons for that. >> can i recommend we drop spiking the football? we need a new one. can we say doingç the hula? something totally unrelated. i am so over this. >> we'll have to think of something better than spiking the football. coming up, a doctor tells us what's going to happen next.
not really. [ female announcer ] only flood insurance covers floods. for a free brochure, call the number on your screen. by what's getting done. measure commitment the twenty billion dollars bp committed has helped fund economic and environmental recovery. long-term, bp's made a five hundred million dollar commitment to support scientists studying the environment. and the gulf is open for business - the beaches are beautiful, the seafood is delicious. last year, many areas even reported record tourism seasons. the progress continues... but that doesn't mean our job is done. we're still committed to seeing this through. while the mandate is the headlines today, the supreme court decision also upheld the law's medicaid expansion. the law expands medicaid to
about 17 million more americans in ten years. the issue was if the law infringed on states' rights and spending powers by attaching conditions to federal grants. the court's final say is that the law can withhold some but not all medicaid funds if a state does not agree to expansion. so what does that mean? good thing we have dr. donald berwick. let me see if i get this straight, i know this is wheel house for you, so we're going to start here. so states can agree to expand their medicaid coverage in order to receive federal funding. if they do accept federal funding, they have to adhere to the rules in the bill. and they can also refuse the funds now and the expansion, but they get to keep their existing medicare -- medicaid funding, right? >> yes. that's right. under the medicaid law of 1965, states could choose to be in medicaid or not, all eventually
chose to be in medicaid, but they can set the eligibility limit, so one state could say you're eligible below 50% of the qeñline, other states 100% of the poverty line, there's a lot of variation, and the government shares in the cost,, the new law says that everybody will be covered cut huff is $31,000. the difference is 100% federal dollars for three years and then it falls to 90% federal dollars so it averages out to the new people it's federal. the state can stay out of that expansion. they can keep their medicaid program and not participate in the expansion if they choose to do that. >> let me follow up on that, because it seems to me there's been this movement, where you
have states, particularly in the south where you have republican governors, republican legislatures and just generally speaking very conservative state where is they are moving as far and as fast away from the federal government as possible. is there a scenario here where we basically have two americas, sort of a blue state america, in red state america where there isn't? >> i don't think that's likely, if you look at the logic of it. let's say you're a state that's set its medicaid coverage at 50% of the poverty limit. 95% to major all, you can expand. if you choose to stay out of that, what happens? those people are still living in your state, they're still poor, they're goingç to come to your emergency room, they're going to be operated on and they're going to have diseases that get worse and you're going to have to pay for that, and that will come from the state, free care pools and charity in the state. i think what's going to happen
is, the states are now, all states are going to be under pressure from providers to say why are you leaving this money on the table? let's join with the federal dolla dollars because these patients are going to -- it may take a little longer now that there's no loss of the medicaid program but i think the states are going to come to their senses and they're going to be encouraged to do that by providers. >> in an interview you did recently with the guardian, you said the republicans who opposed the bill, quote, and we can put this on the screen, have concerns about rationing, about government takeover of the medicine, about the socialization of medicine, none of which were accurate and -- last week a top doctor in the uk at the university of kent told the royal society of medicine that the country's national health service kills off 130,000 elderly patients a year.
isn't rationing inevitable when demand outpaces supply? >> we have in this country, we're spending more than double most other western democracies, we have plenty of money in the health care system to give the care, all the care people want and need. we don't have to think about rationing, that's not on the table and those accusations are ridiculous in the american ç context. and we're not talking about a government takeover of care, i don't know where that idea came from. we still have private delivery of care, doctors and hospitals, we still have a robust private health care system. we have to put insurance companies on much better behaviors, so they don't take away your insurance if you get sick. private coverage has to cover prevention now because that makes a lot of sense. and if you're very, very poor, and there's no one else to pay for you, to the government will make sure you have access to care. that's not rationing, that's opposite of rationing. >> illness and injury can happen
to anybody at any time in their lives and it is a major reason why people go bankrupt or lose a lot of their wealth or the money that they have. we have a safety net now that's going to keep pust losing a ton of their income áand your health care, and thes alleged $500 million cuts in medicare, all the old talking points coming back. i hope we're not going back to that particular part of the debate. >> i think romney wants to move away from this debate as soon as possible. so i don't think you'll see him messing with that. up next, what the decision means for the 2012 presidential politics. we'll bring in the political man mark murray as we do on "the cycle." 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.
how much in fees does your bank take to watch your money ? if your bank takes more money than a stranger, you need an ally. ally bank. no nonsense. just people sense. perhaps the most troubling of all is that brahm care puts the federal government between you and your doctor. if we want to get rid of obama care, we're going to have to replace president obama. >> i didn't do this because i thought it was good politics, i did it because i believe it was good for the country. today is the time to move forward, to implement and where necessary improve on this law. >> both presidential campaigns are yauzing the ruling for the rallying cry. but how will this actually play out? let's bring in expert senior political editor mark murray.
how does this decisionç transfm the race? >> i'm not sure we have an answer to that just yet. there are a lot of different theories, on the one hand, you can argue that this energizes democrats and liberals that were looking for some good -- you have republicans who have been trying to stop this health care law for the past two or three years now, were unable to do so. and there's a third after here, we're going to be talking about something else that this supreme court decision goes against everyone's minds and hearts and we're going to talk about something else. >> we have called this the roberts court, because justice. but he put his -- he's the decider, not kennedy, it's truly the roberts court. talk about how you would assess the roberts legacy from here?
>> and this did throw everyone for a loop, for the longest time, justice kennedy has been the swing justice. but this is just one opinion, and of course, this is the biggest opinion the roberts court has issued on in a political lens. but it is just one opinion. again, justice roberts was in the majority on citizens united. he has been a very, very conservative supreme court justice, which is why although conservatives are criticizing his majority -- his decision today, that he's not getting that much blow back, particularlyç as much blow bac as you would have seen had there been a 5-4 decision against the democrats here. >> so they haven't quite called for his impeachment just yet. we're waiting on that. i want to bring it back to the romney campaign, republicans have obviously made a lot of political hay out of health care, to their benefit really in 2010. how much do you think that romney is going to want to talk
about health care in the election going forward, i mean is this going to be much of a factor? >> their campaign and all the correspondence we have seen, they want it to be about obama not necessarily health care. romney when he talks aboutcare, strengthens his conservative credentials, gone are the days of the massachusetts governor who actually enacted health care reform in the state of massachusetts, he was for a mandate. he was for tea party mitt romney and that's what i saw today in a lot of respects, him speaking in the way he did, in the manner he did, using the rhetoric he did, really does strengthen his ties to that base that he's really going to need. this is almost shaping up to be more of a base election than one that is trying to decide swing voters. >> crystal, we talked about it before, there's this idea that there is going to sort of rile up the conservative anti-obama base.
i think that's probably true in the short-term. but i think romney wants to get off this as soon as possible and move on to other stuff. but here's where i think republicans are going to go with this. there wasç communication today from the senior network of the y-g net work. y-g network applauds the supreme court's decision. health care is an extremely important health care decision and the decision to call it an individual mandate. the spirit of -- obama care will not allow them to keep it. so i think you're going to see republicans running and this is a winner, running on this idea that it's official, the supreme court just announced it, this is a $2.6 trillion tax on the american people. and i think that's the talking point you're going to hear. >> you talked about howard dean's spin. that was some great spin.
>> i think there's some political winner this is summer. >> that obviously is going to be their spin, there's going to be spin from the other side about how this is going to be a policy decision that republicans have been attacking. we have this instinct, and i am the worst offender when it comes to this. we always say there's some campaign going on. how does it hurt this side, how does it hurt this side. i think this is one of those cases where it's a huge development in election politics. the decision has to do with principlesy. if you want to talk about the politics, obama can claim validation. romney can claim urgency. he can say if you don't like this law, you can vote for me. % obama could then turn under and romney could claim validation. i think it's in washington, i really do. this is a hugely significant policy day. >> obama definitely wins the news cycle.
definitely wind beneath his wings and when you talk about romney wants to return to other stuff, that other stuff would be the one thing that he can talk about. he is a one trick pony. all he talks about is jobs. >> that's all american people care about. >> too bad he didn't create jobs in massachusetts. he lowered the unemployment rate because people left the state. that's not actually lowering -- >> that's not true. >> that is actually true. it's not actually creating new jobs for people. fleeing massachusetts to find work and moving to the south. >> number one issue people care about this year, jobs. it's with one thing obama doesn't. he's got 19 weeks left. >> he doesn't have a play. >> we're waiting to hear his plan on that and many others. >> thank you, mark murray. leaving the day's developments in the clear. krystal clear and here's a taste of a new album i'm wearing.
fiona apple's new album. ♪ the president from interview: i talk to folks on rope lines and in coffee shops. people who have been out of work. you can tell it wears on them. narrator: he's fought to pull us out of economic crisis for three years. and he still is. president obama's plan keeps taxes down for the middle class, invests in education and asks the wealthy to pay their fair share. mitt romney and his billionaire allies can spend milions to
distort the president's words. but they're not interested in rebuilding the middle class. he is. i'm barack obama and i approved this me what's more beautifultwo covergirls!rl? that's right, get two miracles in one product. covergirl makeup, and olay advanced hydrating serum. it's tone rehab 2-in-1 foundation. one pump, covers spots, lines, and wrinkles. and one bottle helps improve skin tone over time. that's what i was supposed to say now. well, no one can understand you. ♪ tone rehab 2-in-1 foundation from easy -- breezy -- beautiful... covergirl! covergirl! and try new pressed powder to help brighten your skin tone.
the individual mandate. will it stay or go? >> the individual mandate. that is at the heart of president obama's health care overhaul. >> is it legal? >> the part of the health care law, the individual mandate, will stay in place. >> it's just the individual mandate. >> the part of the overhaul, the individual mandate. >> so clearly, i'm happy. even wearing my happy yellow
dress. happy the supreme court made the right call. i'm happy that the president will not have an asterisk beside his signature first term achievement and that health reform remains in place. but while we are rightly celebrating, let's not nor get there is much more to this bill than a mandate. republicans have wanted you to know two things about it. number one, it's a socialist stig death panel layden that denies you your freedom to not tout health care and number two, that the bill is really, really long. well, it turns out that in 900 pages, not 2,700, congress did manage to say something other than you must buy health care. young people can stay on their parent's health insurance and no more co-pays for preventive care. no more dropping people from
health care insurance because they get sick. no more hearing the word, sorry, it's a preexisting condition. there's loans to get non-profit healthç care co-ops up and running to increase competition in the health care market. changes in the way that medicare works to focus on quality, rather than quantity. there's even, wait for it. tort reform. so, amongst all these changes that help and protect ordinary people, yes, there is a mandate. albeit one this carries a small tax in the supreme court's word and no penalty if not paid. look, the mandate is important, but this bill is is really not about the mandate. it's about increased competition. about controlling rise in costs. it's about bringing humanity to a fundamentally broken and inhumane system. most of all, it's about people like julie whose daughter violet was born with a rare and life threatening condition quoted as mom's rising, julie said unless a cure the found, our daughter
will be admitted to the hospital through the our lifetime and a lifetime limit on insurance would limit her lifetime on earth. now, that is gone. because of health care reform, violet will live and her parents will sleep usier. let's continue to improve our health care system so there are fewer tragedies and fewer people left behind. it's not about the mandate. guys. >> that was beautiful. >> it was touching. you care deeply about this and that is clear. >> thank you. >> krystal clear. and i can appreciate that. i still, i mean i stand by my original statement. this is a $2.6 trillion tax that is going to add to theç cost o health care, but i appreciate your passion. >> everything agrees that what we have now is broken. >> absolutely. >> everybody's on the same page there and this is a solution that i don't think is perfect, but i think it's important and i think it's a building block. >> but how could you not mention
the cornhusker kick back? >> or broccoli. >> when you talk about julie and you put a human face on it and we think about the 30 million people who are uninsured until 2014, it really brings it home and as parents, we're like, wow, that's really important. i do return however to s.e.'s point about well, if you don't buy in then you have a penalty, but a tax, but there's no penalty for fot paying -- >> that is still unanswered. i think congress is going to have to deal. >> the example with massachusetts, people want to buy in. >> when mitt romney was governor, right? >> who? right. right. it was his idea. >> yes, for states. >> all right, guys. big day today. that was fun. >> your kids are going to be on
their insurance insurance, coyou realize? >> i have no problem with that. i'm very happy with that. that does it for "the cycle." martin, it is all yours. >> thank you so much, krystal and thanks to all of you and to you for staying with us at this new hour of 4:00. it's thursday, june 28th, a day really fhe