Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Obama Health Care Law Upheld; Roberts May Have Tipped His Hand; "A Victory For People"; "Obamacare Is Bad Policy"; Stinging Loss For Republicans; Save Money On Health Care; U.S. Exempts China From Sanctions; Ann Curry Leaving "Today" Show
Aired June 28, 2012 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BROOKE BALDWIN, CNN ANCHOR: Candy, thank you so much. Hello to all of you. I'm Brooke Baldwin. What a day, a huge day of news and a lot happening live during this hour.
First, this historic ruling from the United States Supreme Court today, the health care law championed by President Obama is deemed constitutional.
And this is really widely seen as the biggest Supreme Court decision in more than a decade. It could be a defining moment in the campaign for president, as with we look toward November.
We're going to have the political back and forth from President Obama and the presumptive Republican nominee here, Mitt Romney. Both of them spoke today.
But I want to get straight to the nation's highest court, to Kate Bolduan, who's been covering this, really, since it broke this morning.
And Kate, I want to break down the vote here in just a moment, but first, just the nuts and bolts. How did they rule?
KATE BOLDUAN, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: How did they rule? This was a 5-4 split decision, as our viewers and you well know. I mean, this was a bombshell case, a very complex opinion and a very interesting journey in getting there.
Essentially, the chief justice in writing the opinion for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, in the first part of the opinion, he says that under the commerce clause, which was a lot of where the argument was and what a lot of people kind of based their reasoning for the individual mandate that we've talked so much about, and the first part of the opinion says, under the commerce clause, Brooke, the individual mandate was actually unconstitutional.
But later on, a surprise to many court watchers when the chief justice says that the individual mandate can be upheld and is constitutional under the taxing clause. And as you read through the opinion, it appears that the chief justice himself was alone in that reasoning.
I want to read this key quote to you that really explains it all for you. The chief justice writes, "The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. The mandate would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command."
He's talk about the commerce clause there. He goes on to say, "The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. The mandate is therefore constitutional because it can reasonably be read as a tax."
It's very interesting, a very complex ruling. But as we now know, the chief justice was joined to form the majority in their opinion. The dissenting justices, though, made very clear they supported throwing out the law in its entirety, invalidating the law, but we now know where it stands today.
BALDWIN: And quickly to underscore your point, this is the huge surprise today. We had talked, on the cover of "Time" magazine, the decider was Justice Kennedy. When in fact, it was the chief justice appointed by a Republican president who in fact leaned more towards the liberal-leaning justices on this one.
BOLDUAN: This is also a surprise, when you look at the vote breakdown. So it was a 5-4 ruling, as we said. The chief justice was joined by the four more liberal-leaning justices on the court, Justice Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
On the other side, many people call the traditional swing vote Justice Kennedy, joined with the other more conservative-leaning Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.
So the vote breakdown in and of itself was a surprise for many watching this today. But as we say, the ruling here is final, but as we can tell from the reaction and the conversation s in the political realm and the fallout, the discussion on what happens from here and what it means in politics today is far from over -- Brooke.
BALDWIN: It continuous on. Kate Bolduan, we appreciate it. I want to pick up at the point we just ended with and that being no doubt that the bombshell here out of this morning's Supreme Court ruling is that Chief Justice John Roberts supported the constitutionality of really the crux of this legislation, the individual mandate.
But the chief justice might have tipped his hand during the oral arguments back in March. We did some digging and guess what we have found?
A little exchange between Chief Justice Roberts and the attorney representing the National Federation of Independent Business and in it, you can hear Roberts seems to scoff at the idea that the mandate is not a tax. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: The whole point of the suit is to prevent the collection of bounties.
GREGORY KATSAS, PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY: Of taxes, Mr. Chief justice. ROBERTS: Well, prevent the collection of taxes. But the idea that the mandate is something separate, from whether you want to call it a penalty or a tax, just doesn't seem to make much sense.
KATSAS: It's entirely separate and let me explain to you why --
ROBERTS: It's a command. The mandate is a command. Now, if there's nothing behind the command, a sort of, what happens if you don't follow the mandate, and the answer is nothing, it seems very artificial to separate the punishment from the crime.
KATSAS: Well, I'm not sure the answer is nothing. Congress then separated out mandate exceptions from penalty exceptions. It defined one category of people not subject to the mandate.
One would think those are the category of people as to whom congress is saying, you need not follow this law. It then defined a separate category of people, not subject to the penalty, but subject to the mandate. I don't know what that could mean, other than --
ROBERTS: Well, why would you have a requirement that is completely toothless? You know, buy insurance or else or else what or else nothing.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BALDWIN: CNN senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin is here. Jeffrey, I remember you and I talking back in March, and you were saying, you know, you have to pay really close attention to some of the questions back and forth here as it could foreshadow this ultimate ruling, and it kind of did.
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, it did. But I don't want to claim that I knew this was coming.
BALDWIN: You don't know everything?
TOOBIN: Believe me, no, this is quite apparent that I don't know everything. Chief Justice Roberts, during the oral argument, at times was more sympathetic to the government's argument than Justice Kennedy, who was thought to be the swing vote.
It is -- but it is also true that Chief Justice Roberts said a lot of very critical things about the government's argument during the argument back in March. It is -- it is surprising.
I mean, look, we can -- it's always easy to say, we knew it all along. But the fact that Roberts turned out to be the swing vote rather than Kennedy, and Kennedy wrote this very stirring, almost angry dissent.
So his vote was obviously quite locked in stone and it was really Roberts who was the only one in play.
BALDWIN: OK, no Monday morning quarterbacking. I'm going to look ahead, because I know our viewers are intelligent. They've heard it now. You know, the individual mandate not constitutional under the commerce clause, but rather under the same Article 1 of the constitution within, you know, Congress' power to tax.
TOOBIN: Right.
BALDWIN: Here's my question though, how does this work? Because you know, come 2014 when Americans must buy health insurance, do I pay an insurance company? If I opt out, that's a tax? Who takes my tax? Walk me through that.
TOOBIN: Well, it's -- believe me, there will be a lot of implementation instructions, but it actually seems pretty clear. There will be a box. Actually, Chief Justice Roberts said this in court today.
There's going to be a box on your 1040. Do you have health insurance or do you not? If you do, end of story. You don't have to pay anything.
If you don't have health insurance and you don't fit certain narrow exceptions, you have to pay a penalty, but it really is that simple. Most people, this will have no impact on because most of us get our health insurance through our jobs.
BALDWIN: But if we don't --
TOOBIN: Well, if they don't, they are the people that the law is aimed at. Those people will either have to buy it on their own, or if they can't afford it, they'll get some subsidy for some portion of that insurance.
Those are the people this law is directed at, and those are the people who will either have to get health insurance or pay this penalty.
BALDWIN: OK, I just want to tell our viewers we're going to talk dollars and cents. We have this whole graph prepared for a couple of minutes from now in terms of what you will be paying, if you are taxed, if you opt out. But, Jeff, how does the government enforce this?
TOOBIN: Well, the same way they enforce the tax laws that you have to pay your taxes. There is some question about whether there could be criminal penalties. There does not appear to be a criminal sanction if you don't pay the health insurance penalty.
But the government can come after you, just like, you know, anyone who has had painful exchange with the IRS. If they think you owe more taxes than you do --
BALDWIN: They're going to find you.
TOOBIN: You get audited and they send you letters and it can get very ugly. That will also apply to this payment penalty if you don't have health insurance. But you can always avoid this by simply just getting the health insurance. BALDWIN: And check the box saying, yes, I paid. I just wanted to explain to our, you know, viewers how exactly this will work come 2014.
Final question, bigger picture question, and as I ask you, I want to show this poll. We found this poll in terms of how Americans approve, how they disapprove of the Supreme Court and how they're doing their job.
You can see 50 percent approve so not exactly stellar, stellar numbers. An effort for perhaps Chief Justice Roberts to appeal to more Americans, maybe appear more conciliatory? What do you think?
TOOBIN: You know, one of the great things about the Supreme Court is they are insulated from these public pressures. And certainly, the justices know that they are public figures and they want to be respected.
But the reason they have life tenure, the reason they don't stand for the polls, stand at elections is that they are supposed to enforce the constitution regardless of whether it's popular or not.
BALDWIN: That's their job.
TOOBIN: A lot of Democrats were very angry after Bush V. Gore. A lot of Democrats were angry after Citizens United. A lot of Democrats are happy about this decision. That's generally how it's been over the course of the history of the Supreme Court. If you like the decisions, you like the court.
BALDWIN: OK. Jeff Toobin, thank you. I know, you know, you've written the book "The Nine," you know this. But I want to tell our viewers, this quick note about what it really takes to be a justice on the Supreme Court.
The constitution has no qualifications on who can be a justice, which means to fill a seat on the highest court in the land, you don't have to be a lawyer and you can be any age.
The reaction to this historic news, obviously, it's pouring in, including from two men who want your vote in November.
Make no mistake. President Obama just scored a huge victory with today's health care ruling. But the Republicans say this isn't over. We're going to hear from both sides. I'm Brooke Baldwin. The news is now.
Forget calling your doctor about how this ruling impacts you. CNN's Sanjay Gupta answers your questions live.
Plus, some hospitals and doctors are offering a discount if you pay in cash. I'll speak with someone who says the industry's biggest problem is that we just accept the price.
And for the first time in history, possibly during this show, an attorney general could be held in contempt. We're monitoring the fight on Capitol Hill.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: All right, make no mistake about it. Today's Supreme Court decision is a major victory for the president that many political watchers say will help his chances for another victory re-election come November.
But the president's first response to his win today in the nation's highest court wasn't about the politics, but the people.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: In doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle. That here in America, in the wealthiest nation on earth, no illness or accident should lead to any family's financial ruin.
I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost. That's how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington.
But that discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Well, now to the president's rival in November, Mitt Romney, emphasized that the one thing that came out of today's ruling, the justices have interpreted one part of the president's health care reform, the individual mandate, as a tax.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let's make clear that we understand what the course did and did not do. What the court did today was say that Obama care does not violate the constitution.
What they did not do was say that Obama care is good law or that it's good policy. Obama care was bad policy yesterday. It's bad policy today.
Obama care was bad law yesterday. It's bad law today. Let me tell you why I say that. Obama care raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Let's go to national political correspondent Jim Acosta, following Mitt Romney today. And really, his reaction is repeal, repeal, repeal.
JIM ACOSTA, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Brooke. And it's funny that you played that quote, because I went back and looked at Mitt Romney's speech and what he said there just outside the capital.
He used the term "Obama care" 18 times during those remarks. And those remarks only lasted about 5 minutes. So I think what the Romney campaign has decided to do here is realize while, yes, this is a legal victory for the president and history does remember the winners.
They do know that the polling shows that the president's law is still unpopular. And the president acknowledged that in his remarks just after Mitt Romney spoke.
So the Romney campaign is just going to continue to go after how they feel that this law is unpopular. One thing we heard from Mitt Romney today, he basically said, look, I am the last exit on the Obama care highway.
What the Supreme Court did not do today, I will do in my first day of office. So what he's saying to voters right now is, look, if you want this law gone, I'm your last chance.
BALDWIN: And couldn't this, Jim, be perceived as a victory for team Romney because it could galvanize conservatives to get them out of November. You know --
ACOSTA: It does.
BALDWIN: -- get Obama out of office.
ACOSTA: That's right. I mean, one of the things that the Romney campaign was doing all morning long. And by the way, they were very hush/hush about this event they had right outside the capital.
But once they confirmed and once they got their messaging going, they were starting to put out on Twitter the hash tag fullrepeal. Not just the people inside the Romney campaign, but the RNC. They were both sort of coordinated in that messaging response.
The other thing they were tweeting out to everybody, Brooke, and it was hard not to catch this, is the fact that they were fundraising. Basically, they were seeing a bounce in the fundraising after the ruling came down.
Andrea Sol, the spokeswoman for the Romney campaign has been tweeting that out all day long, and I think the last time she tweeted this out, she said that they were over $1 million, that they had raised today just since the ruling came down.
So, yes, this is galvanizing Republicans. This is uniting Republicans behind Mitt Romney, and it's sort of the ultimate irony because the Democrats were going out and even some Republicans pointed this out during the campaign.
Mitt Romney is the father, many of them say, of Obamacare, and now he's the last guy that can stop it, according to the Romney campaign -- Brooke.
BALDWIN: Jim Acosta, thank you.
Big day in Washington because, also, let me tell you, at this hour, a huge debate over the "Fast and Furious" scandal.
Lawmakers are speaking out as to whether or not Attorney General Eric Holder should be held in contempt of Congress, which would be the very first time in history for an attorney general.
A vote is expected live during this show. Stay right here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: The Supreme Court's health care ruling today, not the only big news coming out of Washington this hour. The House of Representatives expected to vote any moment here on contempt of Congress charges against Attorney General Eric Holder.
Republicans held hearings, they pushed for this, really, it's an unprecedented vote, after the White House refused to turn over documents on the "Fast and Furious" weapons crackdown.
So today's vote caps off a long feud between these two sparring side. I want to go to Capitol Hill, to Joe Johns. And so, Joe, if I'm hearing this correctly, we could get a vote on these charges sometime in the course of the next two hours. What are we looking at?
JOE JOHNS, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Well, the House Republican leadership moving forward with this over the bitter objections of Democrats. The House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi just a little while ago saying here at the capital that this makes a witch hunt look like a day at the beach.
Democrat Heath Shuler saying, this is the kind of thing -- this is the reason why he's stepping down from the United States Congress. An ever-growing number of Democrats threatened to walk out at some point on this vote.
First, it was the Congressional Black Caucus. We're also hearing about members of the Asian Pacific caucus, members of the Hispanic caucus, members of the progressive caucus, all talking about walking out at some point.
Though, many are being encouraged to at least get a vote in on this criminal contempt citation that's coming up on the House floor, really an uproar here on Capitol Hill -- Brooke.
BALDWIN: So if those different groups walk out, then what? Do they still hold a vote? And secondarily, explain to me the difference here. I know they're going to be voting on civil contempt and criminal contempt. What's the difference?
JOHNS: Republicans have the ability to pass this thing, if they want to. They're also expecting to get some votes from certain Democrats who come from districts that are impacted by the National Rifle Association. That could be 20 or 30 Democrats joining the Republicans in all likelihood to be able to push a contempt citation over the finish line, if you will.
Now, the question about a civil versus criminal, a criminal contempt citation cites the attorney general for civil contempt of Congress. That would be referred to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia who happens to be an employee of the Attorney General Eric Holder.
The speculation there is that if it follows past precedent, that referral really doesn't go anyplace. The other thing, the civil contempt essentially empowers the Congress and the Oversight Committee to go into civil court and to sue for the release of certain documents.
That, of course, is probably a more promising route for them. Nonetheless, they still, potentially, have big problems, and it could certainly take months and months to be resolved. So, a very tough row to hoe, either way they go, after they leave the House floor today -- Brooke.
BALDWIN: OK, so let's say they vote yes in terms of civil contempt. It does go into the courtroom, however many months down the line. We know that the president used his executive privilege here. Does that not supersede either outcome of either vote?
JOHNS: Well, that's a question a judge would be asked to answer, whether the president made appropriate use of his executive privilege in this case.
And I've certainly heard it argued both ways, but that is part of what a judge would be asked to decide, if there isn't some negotiated solution before that, and there still could be.
BALDWIN: OK. And for months, CNN and other news organizations, even the Department of Justice themselves, they have referred to "Fast and Furious" as this the botched operation.
But there is this new, dare I say, explosive investigation, really, by "Fortune" magazine, saying that is not the case. Tell me about these new claims.
JOHNS: Right. The central premise of this story in "Fortune" magazine that's really making the rounds here on Capitol Hill is we've been led to believe over the months and months that this gun running operation called "Fast and Furious" was done so that guns were intentionally trafficked.
Well, this article suggests there was no intent. That the only reason guns may have gotten somewhere they weren't supposed to go was because of lax gun laws or because of prosecutorial interference or politics or other factors.
So, it's a fascinating article, and interviews with certain ATF agents who were on the ground in "Operation Fast and Furious." Of course, the problem is, if you believe that, then you also have to believe that the Justice Department, even the White House and a bunch of people here on Capitol Hill either lied or ignored the truth.
Because presumably, they would have had much more information coming to them, that's been circulated generally. So bottom line on this, we will get an answer that's much closer to the truth.
That is called an investigation by the inspector general of the Justice Department looking into all of this. And when that report comes out, that will probably the closest version of the truth for all of us.
BALDWIN: OK, we will look for that truth and we will also be looking for these votes there in the House. Joe Johns, we'll follow it right along with you. Thank you, sir, from Capitol Hill.
The Supreme Court's decision on health care is an historic ruling today, both on the law and on paper more than 1,000 pages.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOLDUAN: As you can see, this is very thick and we're reading through it. It's very legally dense. Going right back to it to find out about the rest of it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I haven't had a chance to sit down with my protractor and magic 8 ball to figure that out because you have to go section by section. That's going to be a while before we figure that out.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And then we get into even more complicated language on the spending clause.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: OK, so a lot of pieces of paper. Sanjay's got some paper as well. I know Sanjay read there this legislation. We have questions, you have questions. Dr. Sanjay Gupta is standing by and he's going to answer your questions live.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: President Obama today called this health care decision a, quote, "victory" for people all over this country. So I want to go to the people, get your questions, and by the looks of it, they have a lot of them.
Chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta has been fielding them, and Sanjay, my friend, take it away.
DR. SANJAY GUPTA, CNN CHIEF MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, we've been getting lots of questions, Brooke, as you're mentioning, getting questions from people out there in the field, also coming in on social media.
I believe we have a couple of questions, I'm going to check here, but if not, we'll go to Twitter. Jaleel, can you hear me?
BALDWIN: Go to Twitter, Sanjay.
GUPTA: We have a couple of Twitter questions. I've been getting them all morning long. I have this one here, specifically, it's from someone who says they had knee replacement surgery early because they didn't want the government deciding they were too old.
And they were specifically asking questions about these, what they call the death panels with, the death squads, specifically, Brooke. You remember that conversation from several months ago.
First of all, a couple of points about this, he says he got his knee surgery early. You know, the conversations about getting an operation are obviously always between patient and doctor.
And hopefully a doctor would give a patient an operation at the time that they need it. But what I think he's specifically asking about was this provision in the original bill that said that people would have conversations -- who are in Medicaid recipients would have conversations with their doctors about end-of-life care, like how they wanted to be treated around the end of life.
And that's what sort of started this entire death panels' discussion saying, is this going to be a panel to basically decide who lives and who dies? That particular provision is no longer as part of this law although it was really mainly just counseling of people near the end of life.
What there is, is something known as the independent payment advisory board. So this is a board that basically gets together and decides exactly how much certain procedures will be reimbursed under Medicaid.
So if you're getting a knee replacement like this particular gentleman did, how much would doctors be reimbursed for that. That's something that really happens already.
Medicare already decides these things, but what the law specifically is talking about is a board now that's going to convene doctors from different specialties and determine exactly how much reimbursement for various different procedures.
BALDWIN: OK.
GUPTA: I don't know if we have our guests yet.
BALDWIN: Let me ask you this one. Here's one from a viewer. When will the health care laws provisions actually go into effect? It's not for some time, they ask?
GUPTA: Yes, you know, that's a good point because people think there's a big ruling today, so what happens tomorrow? And the reality is that many of the provisions, or at least many of the major ones that we've been talking about don't go into effect until January of 2014. Specifically now, this mandate, and again, Brooke, what that means is that for everybody who can afford to buy health care insurance, and they don't have it, they have to buy it now that's the mandate or face a penalty.
If they don't have enough money to purchase it, depending on how much money they earn every year, they may be eligible for tax credits or they may be eligible for Medicaid, which is being expanded under this as well.
All of that's in January of 2014. The biggest thing, I think for a lot of people, and we get a lot of questions about this specifically, is this idea that people can no longer be discriminated against based on pre-existing conditions.
So if you have an illness, you may have had a hard time getting insurance, you may not have been able to get insurance at all, you may have been denied coverage, you may have been dropped from your policy after becoming ill, that all goes away.
It so will be much easier for people who are ill and who need health care insurance to get it -- Brooke.
BALDWIN: OK, Sanjay, thank you. Folks, keep the questions rolling in. I have a lot, you can tweet me @brookebcnn or Sanjay @sanjayguptacnn. Sanjay, thank you. We'll check back in with you next hour with more questions.
Meantime, current and former congressional members are speaking out about today's ruling.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SENATOR HARRY REID (D), MAJORITY LEADER: I'm happy and pleased to see the Supreme Court put the rule of law ahead of partisanship and ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.
SENATOR MITCH MCCONNELL (R), MINORITY LEADER: There's only one way to truly fix Obama care, only one way and that's a full repeal.
TOM DASCHLE (D), FORMER SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: This is a green light with an exclamation point. What this says is let's go forward now at full speed.
REPRESENTATIVE MICHELE BACHMANN (R), FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is clearly unconstitutional. There is no basis in the constitution for the government to have this level of history-making expansion of power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: No shortage of opinions today. We're going to ask one Republican senator what he thinks of Chief Justice John Roberts, after he sided with the Obama administration. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BALDWIN: Obamacare lives. Republicans did everything they could to chip away at the law in the two years since it was passed, and many were confident the court would strike down the individual mandate.
So for them, today's ruling kind of has to sting. Senator Roy Blunt is one of those Republicans who was rooting for Obamacare to fall.
Senator, welcome. You lost in 2010 when this law was passed. You lost again today. Yet you are still pushing for the repeal of this law. Doesn't that make you look kind of like a sore loser?
SENATOR ROY BLUNT (R), MISSOURI: Well, Brooke, I'm having a little bit of a hard time hearing here for some reason --
BALDWIN: Let me try again, Senator Blunt.
BLUNT: I always thought there were just three questions that need to be answered. One is, is it constitutional, two is, is it a good idea and three is, can we afford it.
The court merely answered one of those questions today in a 5 to 4 decision, but that answers the question, they are the court. And I think the bigger debate goes on to, is it a good idea and can we afford it?
And people in the country appear to have decided that it's not a good idea and we can't afford it and it's going to be a big discussion between now and November.
BALDWIN: Senator Blunt, I want to make sure we're having a two-way conversation. Can you hear me now?
BLUNT: I can barely hear.
BALDWIN: OK, I'm going to speak as loud and clearly as I possibly can. I want to begin with Chief Justice John Roberts, a man appointed by President George W. Bush, sided with the liberal-leaning justices on this.
Does that make you take a step back when you realize that a conservative justice, chief justice, was the swing vote here?
BLUNT: Well, they're going to be a lot of things to look at as we look at this decision. One will be the fact that they told the states, the court did, that you don't have to put the 25 or 26 million people on Medicaid --
BALDWIN: But, sir, I just asked about the chief justice specifically. Forgive me for interrupting, but the chief justice specifically, does that make you step back and worry about this supposed, you know, conservative chief justice?
BLUNT: No, it doesn't. I'm not a lawyer. As I said, there are three issues. You can do lots of things that aren't a good idea that are constitutional. Now with we go to the other two questions. I thought it was interesting that the court decided that even though the administration said during the whole debate, this isn't a tax, as soon as they got to court, they said, no, it's a tax.
So it's not about interstate commerce, it's about the power to tax. So now we've involved taxing and actually a tax that will be levied on the people that could afford to pay it the least, the people that for whatever reason don't have insurance.
There's a lot of this debate still to be had. We're just not going to have the constitutional debate anymore. Now we go to, is it a good idea? Can we afford it?
BALDWIN: On the affordability, on the dollars and cents that Americans will be facing come 2014, you know, the CBO director does say that because of the size and the scope of this law, certain cost projections, looking ahead, it's impossible to really tell right now. So isn't it misleading for your Republican colleagues to cry financial doom over this today?
BLUNT: Well, we know for sure that they're going to -- that they intended to cut $500 billion from Medicare to fund this new program, so you could have the whole "could we afford it" debate on that one issue alone.
Why would you take a program that's about to have significant financial challenges anyway and use it as a big pay-for for a new government takeover of more of the health care plan?
This debate now really gets started. The constitutional thing, while narrowly decided, is set aside. And now we get to, do you think this is a good idea?
Aren't there better things to do to make the health care system work better? And my side of this debate is, let's repeal this and let's start over again.
And try to produce a system where people get more competition to provide services to them and they and their doctors make decisions, not some regulating board out of some far-away place.
BALDWIN: I know Mitt Romney said, day one, if he is elected, he used the same word. He will repeal Obama care. You are Romney's congressional liaison. His campaign says it raised $1 million since the ruling. I want to just listen to some of Romney's comments on this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROMNEY: As you might imagine, I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision and I agree with the dissent. What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is, I will act to repeal Obama care.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BALDWIN: You yourself said, you know, the law is the law. Now that the nation's highest court has ruled this is constitutional. Doesn't it hurt Romney's rhetoric in the long run?
BLUNT: No. I think we can constantly look at laws that have been passed, particularly laws that haven't gone into effect fully yet, and still ask that question, is Americans should have the right to do at every election, is this really what we want to do, or is this really what we want to keep doing?
And like it or not, this will now be a big issue. Two-thirds of the people in the country say they'd rather see this law not go into effect, and they have a chance on Election Day to express that opinion plus others they'll have about jobs and the economy.
BALDWIN: I believe some of the polling was around 50 percent, not exactly pleased with the law, but some of that, some 13 percent was more, this wasn't liberal enough. So I think it kind of depends on what numbers you're looking at.
I do want to end on this. I want to read something you said on Monday. Quote, "I could get in lots of trouble in the currently environment saying I think we should have more compromise. But what I've said about this is what I believe -- compromise is the price for living in a democracy."
Compromise, Senator. Will more of your Republican colleagues have to learn the meaning of compromise after today?
BLUNT: Well, I think that understanding that in a democracy, it's always the choice between the perfect and the possible, it's a choice between the possible and not moving forward.
This was a case. Look at the votes on this, no Republican votes in the House, no Republican votes in the Senate. Clearly, there was no effort to compromise and find bipartisan solutions on this or you would have found them.
After the Senate, after the Democrats lost the 60th vote in the Senate, they would have gone back and said, OK, we can't pass the bill we wanted to pass anymore. Let's really be sure we carefully craft a bill.
And we'll see what the American people think. I think I know what their answer is to the last two questions. Is it a good idea? Can we afford it? I think we're going to say no, no, let's see if we can't do a better job.
BALDWIN: We'll see. Senator Roy Blunt, I appreciate you live in Washington for me.
Next hour, we're going to be talking with the House Democratic Whip, Steny Hoyer. H will join me at 3:45. Don't miss that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: In addition to the surprise ruling on health care today, a surprise swing vote and it comes from the unlikely chief justice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BALDWIN (voice-over): It was the latest twist of many surrounding the Affordable Care Act, a close 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court justices with the majority voting to uphold a cornerstone of Obama's presidency.
The surprising swing vote, no, not Justice Anthony Kennedy, but Chief Justice John Roberts, something of a surprise considering Roberts' history and reputation.
A conservative justice, he was nominated to the court by President George W. Bush in 2005, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, but then Democratic Senator Barack Obama voted against that nomination.
But when it came to Obama's signature legislation, Chief Justice Roberts sided with the majority. Those regarded as the court's four liberal justices.
Yes, Roberts agreed with his fellow conservative justices, including Kennedy, that under the commerce clause, the individual mandate would be unconstitutional.
But he argued that it was constitutional and justified as a tax and ultimately it was the Roberts' court, Roberts' swing vote that handed a Democratic president his landmark victory.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: So you go to your doctor, you are sent in for a test, your insurance pays. But then you find out if you had paid in cash, it could have cost you much less. Wait until you hear this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: I'm going to let you in on a little secret in the health care business. Most people don't know this, but it can save you a lot of money, especially if you don't have health insurance or if your insurance has a huge deductible.
A lot of doctors and hospitals actually offer big discounts if you pay them up-front in cash and the savings, we've done some calculating, it can be huge. Take a look at this.
This is from an article in the "Los Angeles Times." So, for example, the list price for an abdominal CAT scan at one hospital in the L.A. area, more than $4,400. The discount one big insurance company negotiated with the hospital, you see, brings it down to $2,400.
Then the "L.A. Times" called the hospital, they asked for a cash price, look at this -- look at this compared to the initial price, $250 in cash.
Terry Savage writes about money for "The Chicago Sun-Times." Terry, I want to get the ins and the outs here and the big gotcha of these cash discounts.
But before we do, have to ask you about today's big Supreme Court ruling, upholding Obama care. What's it mean for everyone's wallets come 2014?
TERRY SAVAGE, FINANCIAL COLUMNIST, "CHICAGO SUN-TIMES": Well, it's going to be very interesting to see, of course, each state will set up an insurance exchange and will have five or so different plans mandated.
So that everybody in every state gets a basic plan and you can buy the higher end plan and that will be determined in 2014, as you said.
In the meantime, you've added 30 million people to the insurance rolls. If they can't pay for these plans, then the federal government will subsidize them, based on their income, or fine them if they don't have a plan -- or tax them, I should say.
But the fact is, that's going to mean so many more people on the insurance rolls. What happens to the prices of services? Because that's what the story you just gave is all about and what the impact of this new law will be.
When you have insurance, you just go to your doctor and he says, well, you need this test. And you say, well, it's covered by my insurance, isn't it?
Yes. OK, well, fine, where do I go? But, people that don't have insurance or have very high deductible plans, who want to be insured for catastrophic instances, but couldn't afford full insurance, those people are starting to ask.
It's no surprise that there are different prices for the same services. Think about a car.
BALDWIN: Power to the patient, right, Terry?
SAVAGE: Pardon me?
BALDWIN: It's really the power to the patient to ask.
SAVAGE: It is, if you ask. If your incentive is to ask because it's your money, if you go into an auto dealer, you don't pay the sticker price.
You do some research and get the lowest price or go to the place where you get the lowest price. We don't have those incentives in health insurance.
BALDWIN: Let me ask you this though, if you know, come 2014 everyone has to buy insurance, how do you, you know, finagle the best deal?
SAVAGE: Well, these insurance -- well, you know, you can online to an insurance exchange that exists today if you don't have individual health insurance. You can go to h ehealthinsurance.com, put in your state, where you live, you will be present with lots of different policies.
High deductibles wit deductibles, low co-pays so you can search today and that's what should be set up by 2014 so that you'll be able to pick a plan that works for you, and if you can't afford it with, the government will subsidize it.
You know, today's ruling, everyone knows someone who has an ill child or has a pre-existing condition, women who get divorced or lose their jobs before they qualify for Medicare, all those people need insurance for sure.
So this whole Obamacare thing so attractive, but just like when we had mortgage subsidies through Freddie and Fannie or student loan subsidies through Fannie Mae back then, and now this health care subsidy, it's so good. The benefits seem so great until you have to pay for it.
And without incentives to control health care costs, without people checking around to get prices, and you should do that, without that, costs are going to spiral out of control.
And one day we're going to have some kind of rationing or government decision making about who gets what. That's the great fear here. Not that this isn't a great idea, but where are the costs going to be taken care of.
BALDWIN: Again, let me give the web site. You said to find your best deal in terms of insurance, ehealthinsurance.com. We made a graphic because this is all going to affect all of us come 2014.
The thing is if you check the box and if you opt out, saying, nope, I'm not buying health insurance. I do want to let our viewers know what the penalty is because there is a penalty.
From 2014, the penalty will be $285 per family or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater. Fast forward two years, it goes up to $2,085 per family or 2.5 percent of that income.
Let me move on to this, though. In terms of wangling a deal with your doctor in getting a discount, why can't I ask for a discount, pay cash and then submit it to my insurance company? Why can't I do that?
SAVAGE: You can't do that. But insurance companies negotiated discount and typically the cash prices is somewhere around that the insurance companies negotiate. What you're going to see in the future about paying cash to your doctor is something that's happening now called concierge medicine.
If you're in your 60s, listen up to this. You want a younger doctor because by the time you go on Medicare, and your doctor, part of this is being paid in cuts by Medicare reimbursement to doctors and hospitals.
So one day doctors are going to say either I can't make enough money, I'm retiring, or I'm not taking new Medicare patients. So have a relationship with a younger doctor so when you get older and get on Medicare, the doctor won't give you up and say I'm sorry, I can't take you anymore.
Many doctors are saying, pay me $1,500 or $2,500 to cover my basic costs before I will even accept you as a patient. That's a kind of rationing we don't want, rationing care who can most afford to get the best doctors by paying a side fee.
But it happens in England and in Canada. You have a government-controlled health care system and doctors don't make enough and there isn't enough reimbursement for hospitals, and right away, you have -- we have problems distributing health care.
So that does lead to rationing or people not getting the care, because doctors won't take them.
BALDWIN: That is so important that people get the care they need, get the care they deserve. Terry Savage with the "Chicago Sun-Times." Terry, thank you.
BALDWIN: The network morning anchor leaves the show with a tearful goodbye, Ann Curry in her own words today.
Plus, just in. Surprising news about Iran, its oil, and punishments from America.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BALDWIN: The promise from the United States that it will take action against any country that continues to buy large amounts of oil from Iran doesn't pertain to China.
A source in the office of Democratic Senator Robert Menendez tells CNN the Obama administration will exempt China and Singapore from those sanctions. Those sanctions are set to go into effect today.
After a flurry of rumors all week long, Ann Curry tearfully announced this morning she is stepping away from her anchor position on the "Today" show.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANN CURRY. HOST, "TODAY": This is not easy to say, but today is going to be my last morning as a regular co-host of "Today." I will still be part of the "Today" show family, but I will have a new title and a new role. But this is not as I expected to ever leave this couch after 15 years, but I am so grateful, especially to all of you who watch.
MATT LAUER, HOST, "TODAY": Can we just say, it's not goodbye, not by a long shot. We'll continue to put you on planes, maybe ask you to jump out of one or two in the near future. And you'll be with us at the Olympics, which we're looking forward to. But most importantly, you've made us better, and we thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
CURRY: Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you so much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BALDWIN: Curry says she will continue to report for NBC. Last week reports surfaced that Curry was being pushed out of her role as co- anchor. This after rival "Good Morning America" recently beat "Today" show in the ratings for the first time in nearly 16 years.
