tv Ali Velshi on Target Al Jazeera June 25, 2015 10:30pm-11:01pm EDT
the united states supreme court handed a major victory to president obama by upholding a key part of the law that will help define his legacy, the affordable care act, or obama care. a high court 6-3 ruling means 6.3 receiving subsidies to by health insurance can keep the coverage. 16 million americans have insurance thanks to a law passed in 2010, a law that republicans repeatedly tried to repeal. the decision did not quieten the critics. texan critic said today's decision count: coming up, we'll debate the g.o.p. assertions with an obama
care critic. one thing that the supreme court decision does not change about obama care is medicaid expansion. in 2012 the court dealt a defeat to the president, ruling states did not have to expand the health care programme. 18 states chose not to do it while utah, alaska and florida are considering the expansion. for the states that opt in, the federal government is picking up the cost of the expansion until the end of next year. in five years that funding drops to 90%. david ariosto has been covering obama care from the get-go. how does the ruling play into other part of the affordable care act, including medicare. >> it doesn't. this was about an individual mandate and subsidies in the 34 states. updirectly it's a different bowl of wax. the political momentum, many analysts say has a potential to shift in terms of whether the
states will stop fighting the expansion of medicaid. some of the other components of the law that have been unpopular in republican-dominated states. medicaid is one of those parts of the law that is essentially been bifurcated system. we had 29 states, the district of colombia that expanded medicaid, providing low income coverage to the population, but we have 19 states that don't. there's two separate health systems in the united states. that was the danger in the ruling. if the 34 states that the court ruled in favour of king, those 34 states would have had a system different than those other states. it really breaks down in terms of blue states and red states. blue states started the exchanges, the state exchanges. the red states red on the federal government. >> a lot of red states are not opting into the medicaid. >> who are the winners and losers? >> if you look at the ruling. the winners are 6.4 million in
the 34 states. they faced hikes on average around 272 per month increase. that is roughly equating to 3200 a year more. someone who is living on the margins here, you know, looking at the health care, paying $300, another 272 on top of that might push them out of the market. in that case the danger in terms of the risk pool and insurers is more and more of the people that need health care will stay in. the sicker, the older and the young people that keep the costs down will exit. that was what many were talking about in terms of the death spiral of obama care. now, the losers - i have to say the people that make more than, say, $94,000 a year, a family of three. those are the people not earning the subsidies if many cases, it's about 15%. they were not getting the subsidies, and many of the premiums have gone up.
as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars. the individuals are paying higher costs as a result of this law. >> david, thank you the health care policy advisor to former texas governor, who is running for the presidential nomination, he advised 2012 presidential nomination and a senior fellow of the mapp hattan institute -- manhattan institute. what was your reaction. >> i agreed with the dissent, more than the majority. i thought the majority reasoning, established by state, it meant established by the states or federal government. they kind of rewrote the law to suit the policy outcome they wanted. the supreme court is not meant to do it. >> under conservative legal theory in some parts they are supposed to measure the intept of what they were looking at. putting that aside. what about the existence of the affordable care act. >> it's important the supreme
court, however it ruled, not one word of the care, the law, would have changed. so this ruling wouldn't have affected the law as it is, but the implementation of the law, about the not the letter of law. >> you don't like the law? >> well, i'm a critic. law. i don't think it achieves the goals it sets out to achieve in terms of making health care affordable. >> one of the main goals of having health insurance, it protect people against bankruptcy and premature death. would you agree with that. >> not necessarily. a lot of people are seeing increased costs. >> the general premise that the more people that have health insurance, you protect them from ruin and stop them from dying. that's good for the economy. >> it's good for everyone to have the financial security from being protected against catastrophic loss due to health care bills. the axe ca doesn't -- a ca doesn't achieve that.
>> it expands those covered. 2010 it was 18% uninsured, now 11.9%. >> it's important to underthat's a superficial way to look at how people are covered. not all insurance products are the same. and health insurance doesn't necessarily mean health care. a lot are on medicaid, but the medical literature shows people on medicaid have no better outcomes than people with no insurance. >> some states opting in to medicate report a surge in the diagnosis of diabetes, and if you diagnose early you save society, that person in terms of medical costs. would that suggest that the expansion helped at least people and at least states. >> in theory early diagnosis is important. the overwhelming evidence with medicate is that is not what happens. a lot of physicians don't take medicaid.
if you don't find a doctor. you can't get that early diagnosis. that's a problem with the medicaid problem. >> would you support - suppose of up to you to replace obama care, would you support the applications of insurance companies. they no longer can impose limits. >> i would say that one problem with the aca is that it limits and narrows too much. the choices in the way people buy health insurance. there's a broad range of product. >> that's a different issue with whether insurance companies play by a set of rules, they can no longer discriminate against children or drop coverage if they get sick. the requirement to provide free care. they are good things to require from an insurance company. >> they are good in theory. you have to be mindful how much they increase the cost of
insurance, the cost of insurance increased more than 50% on average since the law went into effect in 2014. >> 50%. >> yes. >> the average premium increased by 3%. >> we did a study at the manhattan institute. we looked at the aca filings and compared them to buy a relatively inexpensive plan. on average, this was in 2014, 2013, the average increase in the typical county was 47%. another two years have gone by. the premiums have gone back. >> costs will go up somewhere if the idea is to make the system more efficient and cover more people. >> not necessarily. that's the fall assy of the aca. it things if it's more expensive, it's more affordable. it's not the best way to do things. we are having a fiscal strain. the best way to make health insurance more affordable is to
limit the government's role in determining how insurance has to be designed. >> by limit of course, it makes it not more efficient or less costly, it says instead of the government providing subsidies individuals have to cover more of the costs themselves. >> that's not correct. the way the plan works is it's more trogzive in certain ways than the system today. it diverts resources to the poem that need the help - the sib, the vulnerable the poor. we heavily subsidise insurance for everyone. we don't need to do that. the plan, essentially the premiums are lower. the costs will be higher. the hidden costs. >> they are not hidden costs. if you think about auto insurance. why do we buy autoinsurance. to protect ourselves in the catastrophic financial loss from
totalling our car. we don't expect auto insurance to spay for gasoline or auto exchanges or car washes much when you have insurance like that, it's more affordable. the middle class is squeezed. the cost of insurance is eating up the income. because we are lauding on an acquirement. >> under your analogy, an insurance company can say "you were speeding, we'll cover you", that may be a deductible. most say they are going to spend money on the front. they don't calculate what the cost might be depending on the situation on the back end. >> it's important to be transparency. when people buy the insurance product. if they have cancer, get hit by a bus or have a stroke, that's a hard one game, that's where they
colony collapse disorder, is a threat to our way of life and food security we take for granted in the united states. president obama assigned a task force to get to the bottom of the mystery. findings were released. far from satisfying answers, the report was slammed by environmental groups. jacob ward has a report on the link between bee deaths, pesticides and stinging cover ups by the u.s. government. >> if you look in there, there's bit of nectar and pollen in there. they didn't starve to death. >> researchers are there. something else killed them. >> reporter: jeff anderson is a third generation bee keeper. >> in the '70s, it was a piece of cake, a walk in the park. >> reporter: he's trying to recover from the death of 70% of his stock, a worldwide trend in losses of bees. a lot of research blames the rise of neonicotinoids used to
treat seeds and taken up by the plant in the soil. president obama's task force was set to put the brakes, but many believe it missed the marks because of censorship by the u.s. d.a. according to the public employees for environmental responsibility, a service group supporting government employees. the director, jeff rooke, says several scientists faced harassment because their studies put highly toxic pesticides in a bad light. >> they suffered everything from being restricted from publishing, forbidden for making preparations at scientific churches, all the way to the other end of the scale of suffering demotions, suspensions, investigations disrupting laboratories, a gambit of push back. >> in march rooke sent this leader to the secretary of agriculture:
a little more than a month later, imprompted by the letter. 28 groups appealed to the u.s.d.a. for a public investigation into the gagging allegations. friends of the earth was one of the signatories. >> the groups were very concerned that if the u.s.d.a. is prior to itsing the interests of the pesticide industry over those protecting bees and the environment they wen be able to protect a plan to address the bee crisis and protect our food reply. >> reporter: the white house task force didn't respond to the alert. and it's not cheer how extensively neonicks and bee death will be probed. deaths led to a 2-year moratorium on nooeio nicka tan i said, but u.s. farmers growing
wheat, corn and soya beans use the chemicals widely, despite a 2014 study revealing na neonickana no idea offered little or no ben it. >> those pesticides are getting into the environment, they are systematic and toxic to bees. 10,000 more times tan ddt. >> reporter: pesticide manufacturers blame naturally occurring deaths, being trucked from crop to crop. sin getta even sent this warping in an email:. >> even though the pollinator research action plan is in place for many take holders, especially beekeepers like jeff
anderson, without the policies, the plan pd success is doubtful jacob ward joins us now from washington. these are serious allegations. what does the department of agriculture say about them? >> the u.s.d.a. has not gotten back for a statement. jeff rooke shared with us a letter received from the secretary of agriculture rejecting his demands. here is what it says: essentially the u.s.c. a is saying they are closing the door on this and keeping the whole matter internal. >> what does it mean for the scientists making the complaints, do very have a sense that the u.s.d.a. will back off. >> it's not the case. it's harder for scientists within the organization. there has been a deal of strife
they are not allowed to share findings. this is a basic part of science. the u.s.d.a. attacked the e.p.a. for saying: that drove theme crazy. they wrote back: definitely a turf war growing between the two agencies. >> we'll ask about the e.p.a. findings. what does all of this mean for the task forces pollinator protection plant. >> environmental advocates and
others say this is falling apart here, that this essentially is avoiding the tough choices that need to be made about the pesticides, and it's interesting to note that the e.p.a., which is in charge of trying to enforce and regulate the collection between pesticides and bee deaths, only gets $2 million of an $82 million budget. the rest of it goes to the fda thank you, on option could involve banning the pesticides that some blame for the death of these bees that are important to the food change. next, we talk to a man that represents the pesticide industry. he says - not so fast.
we are back with stinging allegations in the mysterious deaths of millions of bee colionies across the united states. president obama's white house task force was supposed to fine outside what was causing the decimation of the bee population, some sign sifts believe it failed to do so because of the research censorship by the u.s. department of agriculture, no everywhere is critical on the report on the link between bees and pesticides. the next guest welcomes the plan saying ongoing research and field studies found no adverse effect on bee colonize when pesticides are applied according to label directions. from the pest industry trade groups they say pesticides is not social for the rapidly declining be population. i wonder if you can explain why? >> good to be with you.
i want to make it clear that our industry and former customers share the concerns of beekeepers everywhere, about the continued problems with pollinator's health, and we see our industry as being in a strong position to be part of the solution. >> i wonder if you are as concerned about this as you are the allegations of the u.s.d.a. sensoring scientists, do you want to take the opportunity to say that the united states department of agriculture out to not sensor science of any kind? >> absolutely. we are in full support of complete transparency and the having of scientific endefors as it pertains to bee health. and the leadership shares that same commitment. >> if we look at all the factors, is it fair to say that
pesticides might be one of those factors. not only is it fair. in collaboration principally with the u.s. verbal protection agency. >> it's very much on the table and pesticide research is ongoing. that includes the research and development of product to control parasites and others that are known as a huge problem for beekeepers in this country and around the world. >> farce what else may be on the table. europe banned the use of neonicks. the u.s. wildlife and fisheries banned neonicks. would you be open to a ban? >> no, sir, i would in the. i would point out that you probably overstated the steps
that the u.s. wildlife service has taken with record to neonicka tan i said. we are in dialogue with wildlife about their approach, and making suggestions to them on how they might refine the approach. the farmers who are leasing ground from the fish and wildlife service have the appropriate use of tools that can benefit the crop production and also benefitting the environment including pollinators. >> you agree the main reason junior for nooe j nicks is to -- neonicks is to protect crops from pests. >> yes. >> that's the main goal. want the report of 2014 saying:
. >> we presented information to u.s.d.a. since they came out with their limited study that proved e.p.a. and other agencies, and customers, that they overestimated the amount of soya bean seed that is treated and pretreated with neonicks and other treatments, and, number two, that there was more literature and information regionally where the products are beneficially used by farmers, there's economics and environmental benefits to seek treatments for soya bean producers. >> how nervous, how afraid is the pesticide industry of this story? >> we are not nervous or afraid at all. what we do, and what we stand
for is continuous improvement and ippo vags. we -- innovation. we lead the entirety of all sectors with regard to investment and research and dox, looking for newer, better product, and for reevaluating the safety of existing products in the marketplace. we welcome the questions like those that you are raising today in our conversation, but the opportunity to continue to advance science, to work in collaboration with government officials, particularly those at e.p.a. that have the principle regulatory authority to design the studies and e-vallate the -- evaluate the science produced by the studies so we can see innovation lead the way farmers continue this marvellous story of marvellous agriculture and the productivitiers the springboard for the rest of the world in the united states. >> the president and c.e.o. of
cropping life. thank you for coming on the programme. we appreciate it. >> my pleasure, look forward to talking more with you about this important topic. >> that's the show. i'm david shuster in for ali velshi. thanks for watching. historic ruling. [ chanting ] the supreme court saves president obama's signature domestic achievement. >> today's decision has monumental significance. upholding a key part of the affordable care act. more legal battles lie ahead. civil rights victory - justices ruled in favour of a crucial legal strategy used to fight housing