Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
How Will Health-Care Law Affect Citizens?; Starbucks CEO Pushes for Health-Care Reform; Governor, Attorney General at Odds over Health-Care Lawsuit
Aired March 24, 2010 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: All right. Time to take it to the next level. CNN NEWSROOM continues right now with Ali Velshi.
ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: Tony, thank you. You have yourself a great afternoon.
I'm Ali Velshi. I'm going to be with you for the next two hours today and every weekday. I'm going take every important topic that we cover and break it down for you. I'm going to try and give you a level of detail that will help you make important decisions about your health care, your tax dollars and your security.
So let's get started. Here's what I've got on the rundown. You've spoken out on health-care reform in a big way. The verdict: you want more information on how the changes will affect you. Well, we've got that information. We're bringing back the avatars to give you a clear picture of where you stand.
Plus, the health-care battle is far from over. Fourteen states are now suing the federal government, calling the reforms unconstitutional. Get this: some of those states have governors who fought in favor of health-care reform. We're going to talk to one of them. She's not happy.
Also, remember the trainer who was killed by a killer whale at SeaWorld? There's video footage of her violent death. And there's a big question over whether or not it should be released. We're having a heated debate on my Facebook page about it, and we'll discuss the pros and cons right here.
All right, 22 pens, capacity crowd, lights, cameras, jubilation. That was yesterday's signing ceremony. Today President Obama signs another measure that is tied to the landmark health-care overhaul. This one is pretty low profile.
At about 2:30 Eastern, about 90 minutes from now, the president will sign the executive order that swayed a crucial number of anti- abortion rights Democrats to help pass reform. Those Dems will join him along with Pennsylvania Democratic Senator Bob Casey, but cameras aren't invited. Don't expect any hoopla about this one. That's a list, by the way, of the people who will be in the Oval Office.
The White House says the order simply restates existing federal law, which limits abortion funding to cases of rape or incest or when the mother's life is in danger. Those limits and more would extend to future insurance exchanges.
Now, we've broken this down before. Exchanges -- think of them as marketplaces -- will have to offer at least one plan that does not cover abortion. And those that do will have to keep abortion money strictly separate from their other funds. For policyholders, that will mean writing two checks at premium time.
In the meantime the Senate is wading through 20 hours of debate on a measure that would tweak the bill that President Obama signed yesterday. This continues to get confusing.
The companion bill that they're working on is a very small fraction of the size of the original bill. It's about 150 pages long. And under the rules of reconciliation, it can be amended, but it can't be filibustered. So Republicans still hoping to push things off the rails. Amendments are key.
So far, here are some of the amendments that they propose: barring erectile dysfunction drugs for sex offenders; cutting so- called sweetheart deals for specific states; and stripping out an overhaul of the federal student loan program, which Democrats tacked on to bypass a filibuster.
Now, after the debate comes what some people are calling voterama. It's expected to wrap up on Friday. And remember, any change at all would send the measure back to the House and send House leaders, I suppose, to their medicine cabinets.
And, lest we forget, more battles loom in courthouses across the nation. Fourteen states have filed lawsuits, claiming -- and those are the states you're looking at -- claiming that federal health reforms are an unconstitutional power grab, that the states have the right to legislate health care. It's not a right that was given to the federal government explicitly in the Constitution, so they can't take it.
Later this hour, I'll talk with a Republican senator who supports those suits and a Democratic governor who doesn't, even though her state is one of the ones that's suing.
OK. That's the policy debate. Let's just take that off the table for now, because you have told us that you want to know what it means for patients, for taxpayers. What does it mean for your bottom line?
Our senior medical correspondent, Elizabeth Cohen, is putting names and faces to all those aches and pains, whether they're hurting you physically or financially. She's been doing a great job in the last couple of days with these avatars that she's resurrected for us.
There may be no better way to tell the story than through these avatars. And now we actually have a bill that we can look at. You can actually tell us how different people are being affected by health care. So take it away.
ELIZABETH COHEN, CNN SENIOR MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right. So let's take a look at what this bill will mean for, first of all, Undocumented Ursula. Ursula is in this country illegally. And there's been a lot of debate about what to do...
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: ... because there are seven million undocumented people without insurance.
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: And in many ways, you and I pay for them...
VELSHI: Sure.
COHEN: ... when they show up at emergency rooms where they get treatment. So what this bill does for Undocumented Ursula is pretty much nothing.
VELSHI: OK.
COHEN: It does not help her. She cannot go on the exchange, that marketplace you just mentioned. She's not allowed to go there.
VELSHI: She can't buy insurance that way.
COHEN: She can't.
VELSHI: OK.
COHEN: The way that it does -- I should say almost zero.
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: Because the way that it does help her is that this bill has a lot of money for these free clinics...
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: ... for these community health clinics.
VELSHI: Right. And she might be there.
COHEN: She can go there. Those places do take undocumented workers.
VELSHI: OK.
COHEN: So I shouldn't say completely nothing.
VELSHI: But nothing explicit in the bill that...
COHEN: But not explicitly for her.
VELSHI: OK, very good.
COHEN: That's right. All right. Let's say good-bye to Ursula, and let's say hello to Laid-Off Luke.
VELSHI: And there are lots of people like Laid-Off Luke in this country.
COHEN: Oh, boy, there sure are. And so you see Luke's got a pink slip. He's got a job application. He's trying. He can't afford COBRA, because, like, who can afford COBRA?
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: Very expensive. And what does this bill do for him right now at this minute? Ali, I'm going to draw another zero. It really does not do very much for him at all. Starting in 2014, he'll get some subsidies...
VELSHI: Yes.
COHEN: ... but right now his best bet is really to get on Medicaid.
VELSHI: Right. So these folks are in the worst situation. Because maybe you had COBRA. COBRA is very expensive. But under the stimulus, COBRA costs were reduced for a while.
COHEN: Right.
VELSHI: But ultimately, that runs out.
COHEN: Right.
VELSHI: And once -- once you're laid off and you're out of COBRA, you're kind of out of luck.
COHEN: You are kind of out of luck. I mean, it was a lot of debate over the past year about what to do for people like him.
VELSHI: Yes, yes.
COHEN: But really, he is sort of in this category of people that gets a little bit stuck...
VELSHI: Yes.
COHEN: ... until 2014 when he does get some subsidies.
VELSHI: What he get -- he gets subsidies. And by the way, by 2014 we should start to see more insurance kicking in. Which means if you're buying it, not as part of a company, do we think it's going to get cheaper for people who have to buy their own insurance? Depends on how much you...
COHEN: It should get -- depends on how much money you make.
VELSHI: Yes.
COHEN: I mean, by definition, if you're making less than 88,000 it should get cheaper.
VELSHI: You'll get something.
COHEN: Because you're getting a subsidy.
VELSHI: Yes.
COHEN: So for those people, yes. But if you're making more than that it might actually get more expensive.
VELSHI: Right. Got it. OK. All right, very good.
We're going to take a break. We're going to come back. And we're going to see some more examples of very, very specific people and how you will be affected. You might see yourself in one of these avatars. We're going to figure out how you're affected by health-care reform now and when things kick in a little later. So stay right with us. We're continuing this conversation with Elizabeth in a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: OK, we're back with Elizabeth. We're taking a look at how the health-care changes are going to affect people very specifically. Last block you told us about some people who are going to see marginal benefit from -- from the health-care reform immediately. Now you're going show us some people who are just downright not getting -- not happy about it.
COHEN: Right. Not happy about it at all.
VELSHI: Yes.
COHEN: OK. First of all, the Rich Family. They are not so happy about this bill, because they make $250,000 a year. OK? And they used to pay about $3,600 in Medicare payroll taxes.
VELSHI: OK.
COHEN: All right? With health-care reform...
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: ... they're now paying about $5,900 per year.
VELSHI: Wow.
COHEN: So that was sort of one of the ways.
VELSHI: Yes.
COHEN: Remember we talked a lot about how are we going to pay for this thing?
VELSHI: Yes, that's right.
COHEN: This is one of the ways we're paying for this thing. VELSHI: And by the way, there's -- in addition to this, they're going to pay taxes on stuff that has nothing to do with payroll taxes. They're going to pay taxes on investments, on dividends and things like this.
COHEN: Right, right.
VELSHI: So they're going to get it...
COHEN: Good point.
VELSHI: ... extra there. So the tax rate...
COHEN: That's why you're the business guy. Right.
VELSHI: They're definitely not happy. Let's take the smiles off their faces.
COHEN: Right. Exactly.
VELSHI: All right.
COHEN: There we go.
VELSHI: Let's do that.
COHEN: OK. And all right, now we have Tanning-Bed -- Tanning- Bed Tammy.
VELSHI: This is an interesting one.
COHEN: This is kind of funny.
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: I would have loved to have been in the room where they thought, "Wow, let's tax people who tan."
VELSHI: This is the Jersey Shore edition of health-care reform.
COHEN: And that's not a mustache, that's a sad face on Tammy.
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: Really, she should have a sad face. She is going to experience a 10 percent tax on her tanning activities. And again, just one more way...
VELSHI: But what she pays when she goes to -- it's got nothing to do with insurance...
COHEN: Right.
VELSHI: ... because people who go to tanning salons don't claim that on insurance.
COHEN: No.
VELSHI: You go in. You pay your money. And it's going to cost her 10 percent more because that 10 percent is going to subsidize health-care reform.
COHEN: Exactly.
VELSHI: Is that the government saying that they don't like tanning?
COHEN: I guess that's one way of doing it. I mean, there's -- you know, they would say there's nothing in it for anybody else. I mean, you get a tan, but you also increases your chances of getting cancer.
VELSHI: You medical types don't seem to be big fans of tanning salons.
COHEN: No, no. It's not recommended.
VELSHI: Yes, all right. So Tanning-Bed Tammy is not going to be pleased.
COHEN: All righty. OK. Let's take a look at a third person here. Small-Business Saul. All right. He's sort of got a little bit of a smirk on his face here...
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: ... because he learned -- he's got a business of about 60 employees...
VELSHI: Yes.
COHEN: ... that he's going to have to pay a tax of about $2,000 per employee because he doesn't offer insurance.
VELSHI: Right. That's almost a fine.
COHEN: A fine, not a tax. I'm sorry.
VELSHI: Yes.
COHEN: I should say the word "fine." That is a -- that is a fine, not a tax. Now, there are all sorts of caveats and whatever.
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: But it pretty much boils down to that. Saul doesn't offer insurance.
VELSHI: Yes.
COHEN: He gets...
VELSHI: So he needs to make a calculation to say, "Can I offer insurance, and is it going to be less than $2,000?" And my -- my, you know, I certainly haven't looked into it as much as you have. But my look at insurance is that no business can really insure their employees for $2,000.
COHEN: Probably not.
VELSHI: So they're going to probably -- until things change, and maybe they'll change. But for now, if he doesn't want to pay it, then he's going to end up paying that tax.
COHEN: Right. And I think -- I imagine what's going to happen is, as they see how small businesses respond...
VELSHI: Yes.
COHEN: ... if they see a lot of them prefer to pay the tax -- pay the fine, rather, maybe they make that fine bigger.
VELSHI: Right.
COHEN: I don't know. It will be interesting to see how that changes over time.
VELSHI: All right. This is excellent. You've got others or this is it?
COHEN: This is it, just the three of them.
VELSHI: All right. So one that we're going to be looking at a little later on in the show, because you talked about this yesterday, is students who go to college and who are under their parents. They will now see an extension until the age of 26.
COHEN: Right.
VELSHI: And that will kick in in about six months or so.
COHEN: That's right. As long as they remain dependents.
VELSHI: As long as they remain dependents. OK, we're going to talk in detail about that. So if you have students in college, we're going to talk a little about that later.
Elizabeth, thank you so much.
Listen, if you're Starbucks, if you're the CEO of Starbucks, what do you think your biggest expenditure is? Believe it or not, it's not coffee beans. Poppy Harlow is joining us in just a minute to tell us a bit more about that. There she is. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: I may be a business guy, but I actually know less about Starbucks than the average person. I tend to get my coffee out of a machine in the back here, and it doesn't cost me anything. But it's a big story. And if you're Starbucks, this is a real bean-counter's dilemma.
They spend more on health care than they do on the raw materials to make the coffee that you buy. Now, that's exactly why Starbucks says it is so emphatic about pushing for health-care reform. They've really been pushing for reform. And Poppy Harlow has been following it very closely. She joins me now from CNNmoney.com. She sat down and talked with the boss at Starbucks about health care -- Poppy.
POPPY HARLOW, CNNMONEY.COM CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's interesting, Ali, because this is something I didn't know about Starbucks before I prepared for the interview with the CEO. We're going to show you the man we talked to. His name is Howard Schultz. He's been at the head of this company for decades.
And the issue here -- he's even sat down with the president and talked to him about this -- is that Starbucks gives health insurance, offers it to any of their employees, including the baristas behind the counter, as long as they work at the company for three months and they work there 20 hours, at least, a week. That is unlike a lot of companies in their sector.
VELSHI: Yes.
HARLOW: Why do they do it? Well, you've got to go back decades to when Howard was a kid growing up in Brooklyn, as he puts it, on the wrong side of the tracks. They didn't have a lot of money. And he said everyone should be treated equally. He takes issue with the fact that there are millions of Americans without health care.
That is why, despite the company's hard times over the last two years, he would not give up health care for his employees. And Ali, it costs $300 million for Starbucks every year to provide this.
VELSHI: Wow.
HARLOW: Three hundred million dollars, more than that spend on the coffee. So I want you to take a quick listen to part of our interview where he talked about his reasoning behind this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOWARD SCHULTZ, CEO, STARBUCKS: I can't get engaged in the political debate one way or another, but one thing is for certain: almost 50 million people are uninsured. That doesn't feel right to me and it shouldn't to anyone in America.
And second, if companies like Starbucks -- and there are many companies like Starbucks -- who do the right thing have this kind of cost basis, and it continues to rise, at some point you've got to stand up and say that not only is the system broken, but once and for all, it has to be fixed in a way that provides a company like Starbucks and others an opportunity to do the right thing without turning its back on its people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: So you heard it, Ali. He said the system's broken. It has to be fixed.
That interview was just a few days before health-care reform passed in the House. Whether or not this is the fix that Starbucks and other companies need, Ali, that's the question. Is it going to take away the burden of that cost from corporations? It's yet to be seen, Ali.
VELSHI: Yes, and that is a big question, because one of the things we've seen is that, while this bill addresses insuring a lot of people, 32 million people who otherwise weren't insured...
HARLOW: Right.
VELSHI: ... it doesn't fully tackle the cost of health care. And we know that it's been going up at a rate much faster than inflation. And small businesses and employees have been sharing the burden of that increase.
HARLOW: That's exactly right. I mean, in our interview, he called it a runaway train.
VELSHI: Yes.
HARLOW: And said he just cannot sustain this cost. He even -- this was interesting -- had one of their major shareholders call him on the phone, Ali, last year and say, "This is the perfect time for you to get rid of health care for your employees, save the company hundreds of millions of dollars."
Howard said, "Easy answer, just not going to do it."
But again, you have to find that balance between what Washington is going to give, what businesses are going to give...
VELSHI: Yes.
HARLOW: ... and what -- what consumers and employees can do, Ali. And it's a big question. So we're going to have more of it for you in the next hour. We're going to dig deeper.
VELSHI: All right. Kudos to Starbucks for making those decisions. I still find the coffee a little expensive, but people do love it, Poppy. They really do love it. Good to see you. We'll talk to you in an hour.
HARLOW: I don't drink coffee.
VELSHI: Poppy Harlow, naturally effervescent.
All right. I've got to do a little plug for my weekend show, by the way, "YOUR $$$$$." You can catch it Saturdays at 1 p.m. Eastern. If you're out and about, don't worry: there's an encore presentation, what some people in the old days would call a replay, Sunday at 3 p.m. Eastern.
All right. Let me check out some top stories we're following for you here at CNN.
This is just in. A senior Pentagon source tells us that the Defense Department plans to ease its policy on gays in the military. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy has been mired in controversy, and now Defense Secretary Robert Gates is expected to announce some changes to it.
One change: if a gay soldier is outed by another military member, that won't automatically set the wheels in motion for discharge proceedings.
As you know, President Obama has asked for the entire system of "don't ask, don't tell" to be pulled.
Also in Washington, Senate Republicans are rolling out their last-minute tactics to undermine the health-care overhaul. They promise to use every parliamentary tool available to derail the measure during the 20 hours of debate before the reconciliation vote. It can't be filibustered, but it can be amended, and amendments mean it has to go back to the House.
And President Obama's foreclosure prevention program -- foreclosure prevention program is blasted by a government watchdog who says it may do more harm than good. The special inspector general for TARP says the program has been mismanaged, and now there's a risk that many homeowners may re-default. The report says the $75 billion loan modification may help as few as 1.5 million people. That was half of the administration's low end of the goal.
And in Mississippi, a lesbian teen has won a court battle over her right to take her girlfriend to the prom. But the big dance is still canceled. The court sided with the 18-year-old, Constance McMillan, saying school violated her First Amendment rights with its ban on same-sex dates. But the judge stopped short of forcing the school to hold the prom. Students will have to attend a private party instead.
All right. Straight ahead, the legal fight over health reforms. If you thought there were twists and turns in Washington, wait until you hear what's going on in Washington state. I've got the governor on the phone. We'll speak to her in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Well, if they can't turn back Democratic health-care reform in Congress, Republican opponents have other options, including lawsuits.
Now, as we've been reporting to you, 14 states, these states in red, have filed suits that challenge the very constitutionality of the new federal mandates, especially the one requiring almost all Americans to buy coverage or pay fines. Basically, the attorneys general in these states say that is not a right that is given to the federal government to -- for them to put that into the law.
All of those states, by the way, have Republican attorneys general, except one, Louisiana. But get this: look at the four states here. Four of the states have Democratic governors who, in some cases, campaigned actively in favor of health-care reform. Democratic governors, Republican elected attorney generals, and there is the rub.
Washington state is one of those four, and a very unhappy governor, Christine Gregoire, joins me on the phone from Olympia.
Governor, thank you for joining us. You're not happy that your attorney general has joined the suit.
GOV. CHRISTINE GREGOIRE (D), WASHINGTON (via phone): Well, I'm sure not, because you know, what he's done is said the position of the state of Washington and its people is to deny health-care reform in this state. What that does is leave behind small businesses and those with pre-existing conditions, those who are uninsured, young adults, those on Medicare. And it leaves behind my taxpayers who are paying for the uninsured today.
So to say that he represents the people of the state of Washington, I find fundamentally flawed.
VELSHI: Governor, most Americans will realize the attorney general is elected separately from the governor, and it can happen, as it does in your state, where they're from different parties. Were you consulted on your state joining this -- this lawsuit?
GREGOIRE: I was not. I served three terms as attorney general in my state and, by tradition, that office always consults with its chief client, and that client is the governor of the state. And more often than not, when we're involved in public policy, with the speaker of the house and the majority leader in the Senate.
No consultation whatsoever was had here. I was notified by a newspaper article.
VELSHI: Have you spoken to the attorney general, or has your office communicated with him?
GREGOIRE: I did. I called him on the phone when I saw the newspaper article and said, "Is this true?" And he indicated it was. And I proceeded to explain to him, are you aware of the benefits to the people of the state of Washington and some fairness issues that Washington state has fought for, for decades, and how, if you undermine this bill in the action that you're taking, what we will see ourselves is fundamentally, again, being treated unfairly, in my opinion, by Medicaid reimbursement to our health-care providers.
He wasn't aware of that. He had not consulted. He'd made up his mind. He joined the lawsuit.
I'm just concerned that attorneys general, myself having been one, have a right to be independent, but they do an obligation to consult with their chief client.
VELSHI: Let me just read to our audience a statement that we got from the attorney general, Rob McKenna. He says, "I am concerned that the measure unconstitutionally requires all Washingtonians to purchase health insurance and places an extraordinary burden on our state budget by requiring Washington to expand its Medicaid eligibility standards, in violation of our state's rights, guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment."
So he stated it a little differently than I read in the -- the actual complaint, but the bottom line is, they are referring to the Tenth Amendment and the federal government's rights, vis-a-vis imposing the kind of penalties, restrictions or mandates that the bill has.
You were attorney general. Do you agree with that interpretation?
GREGOIRE: I surely do not. When we look at the responsibility that we have as individuals in this country, we step up to that, sometimes by requirement. I contribute, obviously, to fire protection in my community. I have never yet had to use the fire department. I pay my taxes. The federal government tells me I have to pay my taxes, and those are used to help those less fortunate and for other purposes, all of which I contribute to.
Our taxpayers in this state today are paying for the uninsured. It isn't free. And so what that means is our insurance is growing dramatically, some by rates of 30 to 50 percent, because we're having to pay in our own health insurance for those who have none. Our taxpayers are having to pay for those who have none.
So what the bill does is says basically everybody has to accept individual responsibility. That's as it's done in so many different ways in this country. That's as it should be. Finally health-care reform in America, I think is good for all Americans.
VELSHI: Governor, you and three of your gubernatorial colleagues in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Colorado are all today having to face the same situation, in that you've got attorneys general that appear to be working contrary to what -- what your position is. So there may be four different approaches to how to deal with this.
At the moment, what's going to be your best approach in feeling represented in this lawsuit or making sure, as this lawsuit goes forward, that your differences are heard?
GREGOIRE: Well, I want the voice of those Washingtonians, those taxpayers, those with preexisting conditions, those small businesses, those Medicare beneficiaries, the young adults, the uninsured all to have their voice in that courtroom.
So I've told the attorney general I expect representation. I'm entitled to it in Washington state. And unfortunately, what that leads to is a situation in which Washington state will be in a courtroom arguing against itself. That should be avoided under any circumstance possible. And I had hoped it would be avoided here. But I can't sit back and not allow the voices of those people, taxpayers and others who will benefit from this health-care reform, to not be heard by that court. VELSHI: Governor, thank you for joining us. We will follow this with great interest, and we'll, of course, be talking to your colleagues in other states who are also in the same position.
Governor Christine Gregoire is the governor of Washington state, at odds with her attorney general about the lawsuit that has been filed, where Washington state is a participant.
We're not done with this conversation yet. After the break, I'll talk with a Republican senator who couldn't be happier that his state is challenging federal health reform. Stay with us. We're continuing on with this story.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: I've got a few e-mails, I've seen a few comments on Facebook about aren't we done with health care reform? But the truth is, you do need to know how it applies to you. You do need to know a little bit of the politics still going on, because usually by the time the president signed a bill, it's done. But in this case because of the machinations in Washington, it's not done.
And then there's this whole other aspect. The 14 states that are suing to block the new federal overhaul of health care. Florida -- here are states, by the way. These are the 14 states. Florida is one of the states. Republican governor, Republican attorney general, so no conflict within the state.
Florida's attorney general is actually what you might call a states' rights backlash. They're talking about the Tenth Amendment and the fact that the federal government has not explicitly been given the right to impose a mandate on Americans to either get health care coverage or pay a fine or a tax if they don't have it. Florida's Republican senator George Lemieux is behind this move 100 percent. He joins us now from Capitol Hill. Senator, thank you for joining us.
SEN. GEORGE LEMIEUX (R), FLORIDA: Thanks for having me, Ali.
VELSHI: I just spoke to Christine Gregoire, one of four governors in states who joined this lawsuit who are not in agreement with their attorneys general about going forward with this lawsuit.
But it sort of just underscores the issue here. And that is that people thought this was done and they were going forward with it. I want to understand the basis behind this lawsuit, because generally speaking, there are going to be states that don't like things that the federal government does. Why does this sort of elevate to a different level?
LEMIEUX: Well, the issue is not whether or not the states like it, it's whether or not it's within the federal government's authority under the Constitution to do parts of this bill. And the one part that is really being seized on by our Bill McCullom, our attorney general in Florida and attorneys general in other states is this idea of the mandate. That the federal government is go to tax or fine you if you don't purchase health insurance. That is beyond precedent in this country. We've never said that the Congress has the power to enact a law to fine you for not doing something. So, that's one of the arguments he's making, among others. I think it really is a state's rights issue. It's also the right of the people to have their own authority and not to be regulated by the government in an area we never intended the government to be.
VELSHI: What in your mind would be the best outcome of this? Because there's obviously something a little political about this. It tends to be mostly Republicans backing it, and it's certainly a last stand against health care reform. Are you expecting to see this go all of the way to the Supreme Court and possibly win?
LEMIEUX: Well, it is going to go to the Supreme Court, I think. I think they make a very good argument. I've looked at the precedent myself. I used to be the deputy attorney general in Florida. So, I reviewed the case law. I don't think the United States Supreme Court has ever said that the Congress could go this far.
So, I think they will win. But look, this health care bill is not over. We're going to debate and discuss this issue for the coming decade. It's a program we can't afford. There's substantial cuts to Medicare. We're going to put 15 million new people into Medicaid.
I filed an amendment today on the floor of the United States Senate that says, look, if Medicaid's good enough for 15 million more people, 50 million in total, let's put the United States Congress, let's put all 535 of us and Joe Biden into the Medicaid program. It's a failing program. It's not working in our states. And it will expose the hypocrisy of this health care bill.
VELSHI: OK. So, let's see. As a former deputy attorney general and a U.S. senator, and you have read all of this, tell me how we square this circle. We do accept that Congress does mandate all sorts of things that involve people having to do something or pay a tax of some sort for it. Why is this so different?
LEMIEUX: Well, under the Commerce Clause, which is under Article I of the Constitution when it talks about the enumerated powers of Congress, the Congress has the power to regulate commerce. The Supreme Court over time has viewed that very broadly, but they have never applied it to a situation where someone is failing to do something, failing to take an action. They've never said the federal government could regulate that far. And I really think that is the clear distinction here. This is not saying we're going to regulate you because you bought a bushel of wheat or drive a truck across state lines --
VELSHI: Let me ask you something, Senator. What about when you fail to pay your income tax? What about if you fail to register for the selective service? There are provisions that allow you to be penalized if you don't do certain things.
LEMIEUX: Well, the income tax, for example, is a specific provision in the Constitution. It is a different provision. I think the selective service thing is different. I think that's defending the country. I don't think that is a failure to act.
To purchase health care insurance, which you're supposed to be taking care of yourself. The federal government says we care more about you than you do. We're going to make you buy health insurance that you wouldn't buy for yourself. I think that's beyond what our framers intended. I think it's beyond the clear language of the constitution.
VELSHI: Senator, thank you for taking the time to explain this to us. It does start to get complicated, and I appreciate that you seem to know the topic well. I appreciate talking to you.
LEMIEUX: Thanks for having me on, Ali.
VELSHI: Senator George Lemieux joining us from Capitol Hill. Senator from Florida.
All right. You would face a lot more questioning at the airport if Robert Harding had his way. Who is he? Well, he's the man who has been nominated by President Obama to head the Transportation Security Administration. And he's telling lawmakers he wants to make U.S. airports more like Israeli airports. Our Security Desk has a closer look, straight ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: All right. Here's an interesting development that is going to affect all of you. You may not know nor generally care who is in charge of the Transportation Security Administration. As you know I travel a great deal. I do kind of care because I want to know how they want to run the place. And if the guy who is on the seat to be nominated for this job gets his way, things are going to change for all of us. In particular, for me. It might take me a little longer to get through security, but it might be safer.
Let's talk to Kate Bolduan. She's following this at our Security Desk in Washington. What's the story here, Kate?
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hey, there, Ali. You really kind of hit the nail on the head. We're talking about -- why am I talking about Israeli airport security model and we're talking about airports in the United States.
Well, moving towards a more like the Israeli airport security model is part of the strategy that President Obama's nominee to leave the Transportation Security Administration says he wants to utilize here on U.S. soil. Who we're talking about is retired Army Major General Robert Harding. He's in the middle of confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill, yesterday and again today. Listen to a little bit of that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT HARDING, TSA NOMINEE: I agree with you that we should move even closer to an Israeli model where there's more engagement with passengers. I think that increases the layers and pushes the layers out. I think that's a very important aspect of providing security, is engaging the public.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: He mentioned it right there, but what this comes down to is more passenger engagement, as they call it. And while Harding said he would like to move more in the direction of the Israeli model, he didn't say exactly how far. And that's important to point out, Ali.
And you probably know, but a lot of our viewers may not. The Israeli model, the airport security model, it is marked by aggressive questioning of passengers. Interviewing every passenger that arrives in the airport for anywhere between one minute and ten minutes. In extreme cases, up to an hour. They may even in some cases ask you to provide documentation -
VELSHI: Right.
BOLDUAN: -- to support some of the answers to the questions. Like the you're going to a business conference, provide documentation for what that really means. That would be a big increase and a lot more personal interaction in terms of airport security.
VELSHI: Part of the Israeli model isn't just the information gathering but the idea if you're engaging somebody for that period of time, you're more likely to sense whether they're lying to you or not.
BOLDUAN: And one of the -- we actually spoke to the former head of security for the airport in Tel Aviv, (INAUDIBLE), and he said that it's about getting emotional cues. People are more likely in personal interaction to give up emotional cues if they're suspicious or if they have some kind of -- if they're hiding something than if you're simply just walking through a magnetometer or something like that.
VELSHI: Yes, and you know, right now, we've got the TSA has put people who sort of observe behavior of people in the lines. But this would be taking it that much further. The interesting thing about the Israeli model takes place before check-in. That would mean a whole different structure, having people who are not airline employees necessarily but security employees asking you questions before you get to check-in.
BOLDUAN: It would be a big change if you went all the way to the Israeil model. I mean, they advise passengers to come to the airport three hours ahead of time. I mean, that would completely negate the reason for flying in some cases. Say you're going from Washington D.C. to New York City, which is normally a 45-minute flight.
That's actually what the former head of security at Benjurian (ph) airport said. He said it may not be -- the Israeli model may not be a perfect match for the United States because of certain privacy concerns, which this aggressive questioning has been criticized for, but also because of the sheer volume of passengers traveling through U.S. airports compared to Israeli airports. But he said more human interaction would benefit the U.S. VELSHI: Right, and as you said, Robert Harding hasn't said specifically what type of changes he would make. He was speaking generally.
All right. Kate, great to see you as always. I thought if I kept you going for a few minutes, I would detect some cues.
BOLDUAN: You get it?
VELSHI: I was trying the system.
All right. Kate Bolduan at our Security Desk.
All right. Checking some of the top stories that we're following for you right now on CNN.
The health care reform battle is now being played out in the Senate. At issue, fixes to the new health law demanded by House Democrats as their price for supporting the overhaul legislation. Approval is expected at the end of the week, thanks so fast-track budget rules that allow passage with a simple majority.
Help is on the way for some distressed homeowners with subprime or adjustable-rate mortgages. Bank of America says it will make their payments more affordable. Homeowners who are at least 60 days late and whose mortgages total more than 120 percent of their home's value can have their balances reduced over five years to a maximum of 30 percent.
And heads up for parents with babies. More than one million baby slings made my Infantino are being recalled because the products have been linked to three infant deaths. The Consumer Product Safety Commission says babies can suffocate in the soft fabric slings. Parents are urged to immediately stop using the slings for babies under four months of age
All right. When we come back, we're going to talk more about health care reform. This time, we're going to talk about the impact on young adults. We're going to talk to somebody from a university who says this could be very helpful to young people, but there might be some pitfalls. When we get back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Okay. A lot of young Americans and parents are breathing a big sigh of relief now that the health care reform bill is law, although we have discussed extensively that there are some things could stand in its way.
In six months, dependent children, and that's key, you have to be dependent, up to the age of 26 will be allowed coverage on their parents' insurance policy. Until now, it was the age of 23. It's going to go up to the age of 26.
This extends the current law, which was removing young people when they graduate or they reach the age of 23. Right now, it isn't clear whether the parents or the companies are going to have to pay for the extended coverage. It assumes the kids are covered under the insurance you get from work.
The importance of this should be obvious when you consider that there are more than 13 million uninsured young adults in the United States. That's the nation's single largest group of uninsured people.
Another significant change but one with a caveat. Also coming in to play in six months. A dependent who is 18 or younger will not be able to denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. However, starting in 2014, insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage to anyone with a pre-existing condition. That's got nothing to do with being a student.
Joining us now from Philadelphia to talk more about this is Drexel University Law and Public Health professor Robert Field. Professor, thank you for joining us.
ROBERT FIELD, LAW AND PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSOR, DREXEL UNIVERSITY: My pleasure, Ali.
VELSHI: All right. We've got a couple things we need to understand or clear up a little better. We know that the law is going to provide for students as long as they are dependents to stay on their parents' policies until the age of 26. But this isn't free. And we don't quite know who is paying for it.
FIELD: That's right. But the fact is that they will have access to coverage under those policies. And that means they're not going to have to look for individual policies.
VELSHI: Right.
FIELD: Which can be difficult and expensive in the private market. It's also likely they'll get better coverage under their parents' policies because employees tend offer better policies than the individual markets.
VELSHI: But as we have seen, as insurance prices rise, and one of the things that the health care reform bill doesn't explicitly address, is the rise in the cost of health care. Many companies make the insured person pay more insurance for their dependent's coverage than they do for themselves.
FIELD: Well, that's right. It's going to depend on the policy. But most companies make a contribution towards that coverage. So the important thing is, that they'll have access to the coverage. They're not going to have to worry about going to the private market, worrying about shady companies, worrying about limited coverage. But the cost is definitely going to be an issue.
VELSHI: Right. And in many cases students who can't get the coverage easily just choose to go without coverage because it's cheaper and less complicated.
Listen, stay right there, I want to talk to you when we get back about how parents that have kids who are going to college or are in college or might be graduating should be thinking about this. And, by the way, Professor Robert Fields happens to be one of those parents. So, he's got professional and personal insights into that. And we'll get them from him in just a second.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Hey, sometimes I have to catch myself and remember not to be so wonky. Boy, I've been talks a lot about health care and I can give you really interesting nuances, but really we actually need to sit back and say what does this mean to me?
So, I'm joined again by Robert Fields. He's a professor of law and public health from Drexel University, who really knows a lot about the issue of health and public policy, which is exactly what this health care reform bill is about.
But he knows about the other side, too. He knows about kids in college and the concerns about what happens when they leave college. So, just your parent hat on and tell me how the parents in my audience who either have kids going into college, in college or coming out of college, what they should be thinking about?
FIELD: Sure. Well, it's been interesting. I follow this stuff for a living and try get into the wonky weeds of it, and then I discover that I need to deal with it as an individual. And you see it at ground level very differently.
I have two boys, 25 and 22, one of them just graduated from college, and he gets thrown off our insurance. You know, congratulations, here's your diploma, you're now uninsured. So, we went through the private market to try to find him a policy, and what do you go on the Web site for each of the companies, and then you try to figure out where in that Web site the individual policies are. And sometimes they really don't want to promote that. They'd rather sell to employers for understandable reasons.
And then you go to the different companies and it's like often comparing apples and oranges. They have different lifetime caps and co-pays and deductibles. They have different premium structures. And then, finally, you get the information and you request the packets from the companies, takes a week to come. They're almost as thick as the health care bill itself.
And you finally figure that all out and you sign up for the coverage. Then you go through a lengthy application process in which they ask about literally every health care encounter over the last five years, and you worry if he misses something, a little detail here or there, maybe if he got sick, they'd use as an excuse to rescind the policy. So, it's quite an involved process.
VELSHI: Now, when you take into account two things, one is the relatively invincibility of being young and the fact that young people don't typically think about their 401(k)s or their retirement money or long-term health problems because you feel like a million bucks. And the fact that you're moving into a slightly -- not slightly, a remarkably uncertain job market.
FIELD: That's right.
VELSHI: The temptation after what you just described is to sort of say, you know, let's not deal with this now. You're fine for a few years or until you get your first job and your employer will cover you. What do you say to your fellow parents in this situation? Is it worth going through the trouble and figuring it out right now?
FIELD: Well, again, working in the field of health policy, I'm not going to let my kids go uninsured. It's almost like the shoemaker who lets his kids go barefoot. We can't have that in my family, and I impressed on them how important it is.
It's important because what's really the insurance here. Even if it's not covering for the routine doctors' visits, the routine tests, the important thing is you be protected if heaven forbid something awful happens. That's what insurance is supposed to be for.
So, someone could be hit with a car or diagnosed with an awful disease, and all of a sudden, you're talking about a hundred or several hundred thousand dollars in medical expenses. So, a child could have their financial future ruined before they get their first job, and that's what I've impressed on them. I think this is very important. I think it's like having an auto policy if you're going to drive a car, a fire policy if you own a home. I think it's fundamental to whatever you do.
VELSHI: It's interesting, though. You're talking about definitely the catastrophic stuff.
FIELD: That's right.
VELSHI: So, if you want to trim it on the front end with the regular doctor visits, at least -- bad things can happen when you least expect it.
Given what we know about where health care is right now, and there are a couple of challenging moments facing it, including this court case I was talking about earlier, the lawsuits -- but would you say parents can breathe a sigh of relief now with their graduating students?
FIELD: I think they can breathe a half a sigh of relief.
VELSHI: Okay.
FIELD: Their graduating student can some back on their policy, but, first, as you mentioned, it's not quite clear how that will be paid for.
VELSHI: Right.
FIELD: Some companies may include it as if they were back dependent as children. Some companies may require that they pay the whole increment without a company contribution. VELSHI: Right.
FIELD: The other issue is once you turn 26, it's going to be happy birthday, you lose your insurance again. So, they're going to go back into the individual market again.
VELSHI: And hopefully at that point, we don't know if that's the case, hopefully you're in a job where your employer offers health care at this point, but that's not certain thing at this point, either.
FIELD: That's right. Now, employment-based coverage will remain the same, and if you find such a job, you'll be set. Of course, with the economy as it is today, who knows. It's certainly not a sure thing, and more and more companies are dropping coverage, particularly smaller companies. If you can hang on to 2014, then you can go into one of these exchanges. And the key thing there is if you do have a preexisting condition, they can't deny you coverage.
FIELD: Professor Robert fields, what an great discussion. Thank you for sharing your knowledge on this, both as a parent and a professional. Robert Field is a professor of law and public health at Drexel University.
OK. When I come back -- this is something, boy, this gets me hot under the collar. What does secret sauce have to do with getting a loan or a job? I'm going to tell you on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
