Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal  CSPAN  March 4, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EST

7:00 am
bravin speaks on the aca subsidy. >>and ♪ >> good morning everyone. open phones. in today's top news. yesterday the house passed a clean funding bill without language blocking the executive action on immigration, avoiding a shutdown of the agency. the vote was 257-167. all no votes came from republicans. also, the israeli prime minister tells congress that the pending deal with iran is a bad one.
7:01 am
happening this morning, the supreme court will take up the latest challenge to the affordable care act. much more on that throughout today's "washington journal." democratslenny gainthis is the houston chronicle. this is a failure.
7:02 am
to fund the department through september. no strings attached. here is the front page of "the boston globe." the house oks homeland funding. divisions widen between john boehner and hard-line conservative republicans. also this morning their headline on this story. homeland security receives funding. they say the gop capitulates but the war is not over. this is immigration is the reaction from capitol hill.
7:03 am
i voted against this because it does not deny funding for the president unconstitutional action. he voted against what the speaker wanted to do. since it democrats refuse -- senate democrats refuse to compromise. another chairman who oversees reform panel voted no on the funding bill. i will not power amnesty. harry reid tweeted out open or i hope we all -- "i hope we all learn the right lessons from this unnecessary showdown. common ground to be something we seek."
7:04 am
you can weigh in on what the republican did. this morning. let's go to dean. you are up first. go ahead. caller: thank you so much. if our country ever needed a leader like netanyahu it is today. maybe we could run for president sent obama lied about his birth. when that the a great day? host: republican. caller: good morning. it is great to speak with you. i'm all the way back from january of last year. i also wanted to talk about
7:05 am
benjamin netanyahu's speech. i was taken aback by what he had to say. i was very pleased. i think the last caller is correct on the fact that we need a leader like netanyahu. a quick thing i want to bring up. a supreme court case that will be heard today concerning the subsidies is pretty clear. it is written in the language that only the states that the federal government cannot hand out subsidies. the federal government has to do that. if the supreme court was to look at the law itself it should not down what has in going on. >> i hope you stay tuned in. we're going to be talking about the case from both sides, how
7:06 am
both sides see this. what did congress intend when they wrote those four words established by the state? good morning. caller: i am almost 70 years old. i've never seen the disrespect for a sitting president. asking someone from another country to come in and speak it republicans are happy. i've never seen the disrespect to any president. this is the same guy that [indiscernible] i do not understand. you want to know why we cannot get together in this country? republicans are saying we're not going to do whatever you say as long as you do what we are a everything is ok -- what we say, everything is ok. host: mavis in fort lauderdale. we are on open owns.
7:07 am
what are your thoughts? caller: i am calling in reference to benjamin netanyahu's picking. it is amazing to me that republicans can be so happy with what happened yesterday. when you look at netanyahu, he was the same guy who came to congress in 2002. where did that lead us? the iraq war. he wants american kids to fight the war. there is nobody from israel right now fighting against isis. if anybody needs to go it is the americans. the republicans a show to such industries and divided this country. i feel so inclined to think about the israeli will, it is beginning to bring separation. it does not matter about the
7:08 am
government. the government is the people. host: kathryn in baltimore. democratic caller. what are your thoughts? caller: i would hope america would understand that we only the president because he is supposed to represent all the. -- all the people. it is better for us to work together than be separated. we must take into consideration all of the will. no one loves israel more than america does. i am not quite sure such a political speech was allowed in the u.s. congress. we applaud the efforts of the congress to move the homeland security bill forward. host: that speech was a joint meeting. it took was in the house chamber. if you missed that you can go to our website. another headline this morning.
7:09 am
this is "the washington times." the new york times is reporting yesterday that hillary clinton used a personal e-mail. it was highly unusual according to regulators for her to have done this. if you want to weigh in on that story as well. on the israeli prime minister speech, this is the first page. netanyahu bashes a very bad deal . they also note that the leader of the senate laid the groundwork tuesday for lawmakers to vote on a bill requiring congressional approval of any iran nuclear agreement.
7:10 am
they plan to's the that the measure. he said he would vote against any effort to take up that though. they will try to advance that legislation as early as monday when the senate is in session. also on this speech by the israeli prime minister, he put this online yesterday. he noted that sitting here was the holocaust survivor. and newt gingrich.
7:11 am
democratic caller. good morning. caller: listen. my comment is on the speech yesterday. it was a great speech. he is proposing this to take place. cannot undermine what the president is trying to do. you really do not even know what the whole deal is. i cannot believe that we have such open opposition to undermine what our president is trying to do. there is no alternative to doing nothing would be better than trying. i cannot believe what you would undermine our president. he is trying to come up with a solution to prevent maybe a disaster from a country that is
7:12 am
trying to undermine everybody for their own interest area that is my comment. host: republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning. how are you? another issue that clearly falls along partisan lines, i can't at least reach as well. i loved it. i thought it was and has to. i am not sure is a lot of the critics this morning that actually watched or listened to it prime minister netanyahu did nothing but think the united states congress, america, and president for all of the support. everything else that the united states has provided. it was a lot of lavish praise. it was a good speech. before he turned to what he thinks was a bad deal.
7:13 am
we have to take this in perspective. we have six countries that are negotiating with iran. the p5+1. israel's not allowed to sit at the table to talk about whether iran will be able to proceed going forward with developing nuclear power. israel is the nation that is most threatened by it. by a nuclear iran, phenomenal. that is really what he was talking about. this is an x essential threat. the democrats and obama have taken it as an insult or a di ss or whatever, this shows how liberals and conservatives view the world and.
7:14 am
host: i do want to share with the viewers what countries are have permanent status with them. we want to talk a little bit more about the case that looks at whether or not congress intended for subsidies for those people enrolled in federally run exchanges. michael is joining us on the phone. the legal argument against subsidies. explain your thinking here. guest:host: thank you for having me.
7:15 am
this is about tens of millions of americans like kevin pays he was a professor of music and virginia. his hours were cut by his employer, leaving him with a k cut of $8,000 because the irs illegally imposed the obamacare mandate on his employer. the clearly denied the irs that authority. he and tens of millions of other americans are being subjected to the mandates. it is in violation of the clear language of the law. the other americans are suffering. some of them have lost jobs.
7:16 am
this is not what health care reform is about. those things are bad enough if they are imposed illegally. here they are being imposed illegally. we expect the supreme court to disagree with the two lower courts. host: you are referring to section 1311. an exchange shall be a nonprofit entity that is established by the state. the supporter of the subsidies say that those four words are a term of art. it is either established by ace eight or by the federal go on behalf of this. host: the way that these taxes work is that they are triggered when people are available.
7:17 am
this is a different session that has the operative language. they are only available through an exchange established by the state. there is no question what this means. however, it is when they are available in the states that employers are penalized for the mandate. many are penalized because of the way they are just with one another. 38 states have failed to establish help insurance exchanges. the subsidies are not available in those states. the subsidies are subjected to the mandate.
7:18 am
it has subjected them to that mandate. the subsidies were also there. host: if the court rules that the subsidies are illegal report showed that as many as a nine people -- a million people from work and lose the subsidies and possibly not be able to afford health-care insurance. host: a lot of people do not like that out, night and one of them. when people say that premiums will skyrocket for it is a bad thing of the cost of this law that will be me transparent -- made transparent, they are complaining about the affordable care act and how it actually works. transparency is a good thing. if the cost of obamacare is more than the people are willing to bear, that creates an opportunity for congress to enact better health care reforms
7:19 am
that reduce the cost of care incidents increasing the cost. (202) 737-0001host: republicans say they have a plan b. what do you make of the plan b? caller: the administration is not telling us what it is. they have been very careful in the way they have used their words. it is irresponsible not to talk about what it will do. the president made them a all promised. they should be given the opportunity to plan for the subsidies disappearing. the president is not notifying them of a very important risk of their obamacare coverage.
7:20 am
republicans are coalescing around a general approach truce wanting to this. it is hard for them to do so when the administration will not say what it is when to do. caller:host: would justice will you be watching? who are you listening for? caller: if this meeting were about anything but obamacare and the court would rule to the plate because the issues are that clear. host: that is what you think. ok. thank you for your time. he will be joining us to talk more about what he heard from the court today. also on the own, we have the other side. elizabeth is the chief counsel for the accountability center. she standing to the way to be let into the court today.
7:21 am
she wrote the brief to the supreme court are doing a favor for federally run exchanges for half of lawmakers on capitol hill. let's begin with whitey you believe congress intended the subsidies for all the exchanges? host: tax credits are available to all americans who need them. if you read the law and actually read it and not read it out of context, the losses tax credit shall be allowed for americans that have the income level. if you meet that income level requirement, then you shall get these regardless of the state you live. the text is clear. when you read this in context with the rest of the law it is
7:22 am
clear that is the way the law is written. when you look at the intent of the members of congress who wrote it, it is 100% clear that congress thought it would be available across the country to all americans who need of financial assistance. host: while the congress include "established by the state." caller: the solicitor general has done a really great job showing that this is a term of art. it is used all the time and reflects the fact that they will be run at the state level rather than a single marketplace. it says that if the state government does not established its own exchange, the federal government will step into the shoes of the state and establish "such exchange." when you read the whole statute
7:23 am
which is what the supreme court tells us to do incident isolation, it is clear that the tax credits would be available to all americans. host: when you wrote your brief you referenced one section of the law, 1401. " the term -- why did you reference this part of the affordable care act? caller: that is what part of the long talks about. the challengers gloss over the fact that the part of the law they put their entire argument on is the entire amount of the tax subsidies here is that saying who they go to.
7:24 am
the part of the law we reference is those who say who gets the tax credit. it is based solely on income and not the state you live in. it is not just supporters of the law. if you go back to the law, you see folks opposed to the affordable care act saying it depends on your income and folks who meet the encumbered armand will be getting -- income requirement will be getting what he said was a bad thing. the possible republican presidential candidate in 2016, scott walker, designed his entire state health on the assumption that even if the federal government read the exchange in his estate that americans who met the income requirement would get tax credit. both members of congress and supporters of the law understood
7:25 am
tax credits to be available in all states across the country for americans who need them. even in accordance with the law understood that to be the case. state understood the tax credit to apply. host: you are about to be let into the court. you will get a seat there in the courtroom today. who will you be watching? what are you listening for? caller: i do agree with my friend on the other side. i will be watching all of the justices. all nine justices have signed on to the idea that courts when they interpret statutes are to read statute in their context and entirety and not take provisions in context. we do that in this case and it will be a clear win for the government.
7:26 am
i think they are concerned about federalism like justice kennedy in familiar. he will be looking at the idea that the state never got the message that the challenger said it was to send it. they said they should set them up. that is a big argument. host: thank you for your time. she will also be part of our sundays "washington journal" roundtable discussion. we will be talking about it throughout today's "washington journal." i want to get back to more of your phone calls this morning. kevin in maryland, democratic caller. go ahead. caller: how are you doing? host: i am doing well, sir. caller: i'm going to take a few seconds to share this with you. i would like to go back to the beginning on the prime minister's visit.
7:27 am
if it is true that the president of the united states was not informed of the visit i think that was very disrespectful. i spent 30 years in the united states marine corps and i know the importance of keeping the chain of command informed. if eestnet not him in there more or less, that was very -- if they snuck him and there more or less, that was very tacky. all they had to do was tell him that he would come anyway. i do not see why it was such a secret type of thing. host: i am going to try to get in another phone call before i do that. i want to thank in a few headlines. racially biased policing in ferguson. also this headline from the st. louis dispatch this morning.
7:28 am
all eyes made by president obama's task force. policies manning profiling waste on race, sexual orientation and other factors. jim and georgia, republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. i enjoy your show. a couple of comments. it kills me to hear about how disrespect the republicans have been about netanyahu's visit. they seem to forget, the liberals do, that george bush was in commented, stupid, dumb, couldn't give a speech. that was ok. main street media never reported that. every time you turned around with clinton there was a scandal. host: many of you calling in
7:29 am
about the israeli prime minister's. you will have a chance to do so again if we missed you. the last hour we will go back to open phones in today's top stories. next he will talk about the supreme court reporter for the "wall street journal of more about this case. later people delve into this health care law and talk about subsidies with a long-term reporter now with kaiser health news. here's a little bit of the prime minister's speech yesterday for a joint meeting of congress. [video clip] >> i know my speech has been the subject of much controversy. i deeply regret that some perceived by being here as political. that was never my intention. i want to thank you, democrats
7:30 am
and republicans, for your common support to israel year after year, decade after decade. [applause] i know that no matter what side and the i'll use it, you stand with israel. -- what side of the aisle you sent, you stand with israel. [applause] [cheers and applause] the remarkable alliance between israel and the united states has always been above politics.
7:31 am
it must always remain above politics. america and israel shares a common destiny. the destiny of promise lands and freedom all for hope. israel is grateful for the support of america's people and of america's presidents from harry truman to barack obama. [applause] we appreciate all that president obama has done for israel. some of that is widely known. [applause] like strengthening security
7:32 am
cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-israel resolutions at the u.n. some of what the president has done for israel is less well-known. i called him in 2010 when we had forced fire. he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. in 2011 we had our embassy in cairo under siege. he provided vital assistance at crucial moments. or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on hamas. [applause] in each of those moments, i called the president and he was there. some of what he has done from israel might never be known because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic
7:33 am
issues that arise between an american president and an israeli prime minister. i know it. i will always be grateful for president obama or that report. -- for that support. [applause] (202) 737-0001host: if you missed the speech you can go to and watch the whole thing there appeared today before these dream or, the justices -- the supreme court, the justices will be hearing about se subsidies. the case is "king vs burwell"." joining us as a guest to talk about this case. let's go back.
7:34 am
what is the path work? caller: it originated before the first care case of the court three years ago. this case comes out of what was described by some people as a glitch in the law, a provision that critics say limits these tax credit by state governments themselves and those run by the federal department of health and human services. when that provision was discovered by a lawyer in south carolina, the word spread through conservative activist circles. decisions were made to launch a lawsuit challenging those subsidies. they could effectively disembowel this law and states that did not operate their own exchanges. a case that we had today was organized by a group in washington called the
7:35 am
competitive enterprise institute. they hired a lawyer. they provided the financial muscle to organize a very impressive challenge. host: it comes down to section 1311 which states "in exchange shall be a government agency that is established by a state." how are the plaintiffs arguing that the way this is written is harming their clients? guest: that is a very interesting point here at in order to get into court you have to allege a specific harm. it is a free writing super legislature that anyone who does not like a locking come in and complain. there has to be a specific injury. in this case it is that they do not want to pay anything for health care. they would not have to buy health care if they did not get the subsidy because it would cost them more than 8% of their
7:36 am
income. that is the threshold for affordability. the injury they are suffering is that the tax credit they get through the law is so generous that it lowers the cost of health care so much they no longer call for a hardship exemption from the federal mandate. their complaint is that insurance costs have dropped too much because of the subsidy. they can purchase it at a very discounted rate if they do not get through some other means. host: they are saying they do not want to have to purchase it up because of the law they get penalized. if the subsidies did not exist a good claim that health care is too expensive in relation to their income and therefore they should not have to pay the penalty. the hardship exemption. guest: that is right. and affordable care act means
7:37 am
less than 8% of one's income. these subsidies are part of the mechanism that the law envisions to lower the cost of health care for people. generally these are people who are what you might say they are working people. they are taxpayers by definition. they make too much money to qualify for medicaid but they do not have insurance through their employer or some other means you're at in this case there are some questions about whether they have this through the veterans administration's or other reasons why. the theory is but for the subsidies that insurance would cost too much they would qualify for the exemption. host: do the plaintiffs have standing? will that be brought up at all? guest: has it been answered? it hasn't not been -- in our
7:38 am
reporting we discovered questions about possibly four of these plaintiffs. whether they were subject to the mandate and eligible to be involved. it is not what the questions presented i court. it was challenged early on. they did not really pursue that western. they accept to the affidavit saying they were eligible to bring the lawsuit. it is possible that one of the justices may raise a question about it. it is not one of the formal questions. host: what are the defendants saying? guest: the obama administration has used the word "absurd." they say this section does not preclude the irs and giving tax credits to residents of states that did not establish their own exchanges and defaulted to the federal government. they claim that if you look at
7:39 am
the statute as a whole and other provisions that seem to assume that these tax credits are available in all states regardless of which level runs in the exchange that the rest of the law would not make sense if they do not apply without regard to the entity that runs the exchange. host: let's get our viewers involved. we will come back to talk a little bit more about what both sides are saying. democratic caller. you are up first. louisiana. caller: thank you for taking my call. this is getting to be ridiculous on c-span. i have been watching or 15 years. it is 2 3, 4, to 1 conservative speakers. "the wall street journal" is owned by rupert murdoch. they have no dog in this fight.
7:40 am
it is outrageous that you cannot read the act. everybody knows of the poor working-class. host: you cannot read the act of not knowing that. guest: how many of us have actually read the act? it is more than 2000 pages long. this is not the act of the authors and it is the official version. there was an unusual purple event took laced during the legislative process. the democrats lost their fill of roster -- filibuster-proof majority. this was in may 2009. the house passed a different version of the bill. normally those go to a conference committee.
7:41 am
when the democrats lost the seat held by ted kennedy they lost the ability to bring in new amendment to the bill. they had a choice of adopting this draft version or giving up. they chose to adopt the job version. there are congressional aides that knowledge that if they had more time to work on they would have ironed her rough edges. host: it limited to the irs who gets the subsidies? guest: the irs and ministers tax code in credits. they published a regulation that confirmed they were available regardless which level of government. host: joe, independent caller. caller: i got a question. you have to go into a hospital to have an operation. they say do you have insurance? the say no.
7:42 am
they say it will cost $4000. if you have insurance it is $19,000. i would like you to extrapolate on that. if i got out of the hospital my medication cost $400. the next month i got out of line. i got a good rx card and a jot down to $100. explain that. guest: i am not a health policy expert. i cannot claim to know the ends of this complicated sector. it is a market force to an extent. big insurance companies negotiate special rates with hospitals and providers. hospitals will have a sticker price that is much higher.
7:43 am
if they can get it from an occasional patient, i am sure they will take it. that kind of discrepancy, the idea that individuals with out insurance are asked to pay more than people with insurance was one of the factors that the advocates of the law said motivated them. host: if the court were to really hit the administration that those four words "established by the state" means subsidies cannot begin to those on federally run exchanges, is that depressing for the rest of the provisions for those exchanges run by the federal government and not those established by the state? guest: that is not seem to be one of the major issues. the major implications are found to limit subsidies. it will be striking enough.
7:44 am
there has been some discussion about how many words are issued. i believe it is simply one word. if the word that was used was a different proposition it would be different to make the same argument. serving the state would be for the state. it is like the states and the lawsuit is premised that in requires this to create the marketplace. host: let me show our viewers law lawmakers wrote about what they intended. they wrote this. to start, the provision explicitly --
7:45 am
what are they alluding to? guest: they are saying that maybe if you just read that one sentence it you would think it only applied to exchanges that the state is so created. if you look at the whole law
7:46 am
then you would say maybe it is ambiguous but we have to wait the interpretation another way. statutory interpretation in some cases depends on what perspective you choose to look at. are you looking at an extreme close-up? it is not clear which is the proper angle about which to look at the law. if you look at those words they have a case that looks pretty strong. if you look at other sections of the law, the government has a strong case. host: what is chevron deference? will apply here? guest: it is a term of art that refers to a case from the 1980's involving the chevron oil companies. the general principle that they
7:47 am
adopt to buy justice john paul stevens was when there was ambiguity about the statute courts should defer to the agency reese hospital for implementing it unless it is clear -- the agency responsible for implementing it unless it is clear it is a rational or illogical in some way. host: go ahead with your question or comment. caller: my question was about the 95 form. i two-part to it. if you received a 1095 form and it was incorrect, how would you know it was incorrect? if it is incorrect, how do you receive a directed to 95 form -- 1095 form? host: this is referring to the
7:48 am
workings of the law. guest: i cannot help you with that. i do not really know it wrong the consumer health line angle. i would bet that the government has some kind of information i that would immediately answer when you call. guest: these questions about health care can be answer coming up. and about 20 minutes. we will be talking with mary agnes carey who is a correspondent with kaiser health news. we are hearing arguments in that case. he can see folk outside of the -- you can see folks lined up outside the court trying to get the limited public seats. how will you be covering the hearing today? guest: as c-span viewers know,
7:49 am
there are no cameras that transmit supreme court arguments. that applies to those that cover it regularly. no electronic. we can bring in a pad and pen and that is it. we are going to have three correspondent attending today. to him will leave before the argument is over. -- two fo them fully before the argument is over and right there in russians. --there will be a near-live blog. you will get a sense of the argument within a few minutes. there will be able lives feed. we will be covering it through the traditional ways. we will have stories running on our website as quickly as possible.
7:50 am
more coverage in the print edition of tomorrow. host: cameras are not allowed in the court. site and sounds and reaction to arguments challenging the health care law. looking at whether they help a insurance premiums. only 16 states have established these state run exchanges. the audio will be released friday. that evening you will be able to hear what the justices have to say and what russians they will be asking. derek in austin, texas. (202) 737-0002caller: i think most
7:51 am
americans know the law was made for every's aides. this is just hatred toward anything the president does. they can be as picky as they want to. it is a waste of time. this is going to effect people's lives if the law is taking down. guest: that is one of the things that is most interesting. when you have a supreme or case it is clear what the implications will be. this one is fairly unknown. as i interviewed the subsidies today, he told me that as evidence that it is really not a partisan there. he says it is the republicans that will serve the immediate
7:52 am
blowback if they win because the pressure will be on them if the subsidies disappear. it will be up to republican majorities in congress and republican majorities in most of the states that have failed to establish exchanges. if the challenge wins, congress could fix it by changing one word in the law. states that are declined to set up exchanges could choose to set them up and make their resid ents eligible for the subsidies. whether this incident being a net negative or a positive if it grows in they are cheered for their strong resistance, it is hard to say. on the political end we do not really know. on the personal and, the media site with the suspension of subsidies.
7:53 am
they may no longer be able to afford health care. on the other hand, they will be back where they were in 2014 or 2012. what is so bad about that? kwak when will they consider the impact of their decision? guest: many have raised those implications. the reality is of course they will. it is relevant and figuring out what congress set to achieve. to on a very reading of the law. that would be a factor. on the other hand, the political implications that is who they are sympathetic to work. those are not supposed to be
7:54 am
factors. there is a subtle line between looking at what the consequences are and picking your own favorites. (202) 737-0001hhost: houston texas. caller: the last 28 years i worked in the county house built in houston. i've seen the results of people not having insurance. the idea that they would try to take this away from people who have ever had insurance is mesmerizing to me. i think they should come in work and some of the county hospitals and see some of the people who we see who have not had insurance. i'm retired now. i worked there for 30 years. it is deplorable that they would try to take this coverage away from people who have not had
7:55 am
insurance. i thank you. guest: i think that if the challenge succeeds, the court will say they are not taking away anything. the law simply does not provide internet subsidies to people in those states. if it is something the people really care about they can take action in their state capital and legislature or representatives in washington and extend the subsidies and what will be a lawful way. they're not saying the government cannot provide the tax credits. they are saying the congress did not. when the obama administration chose to make them available to americans regardless of their address, they were violating the law that the president sides. that is their argument. host: several things have been written about the arguments. here is one from the
7:56 am
urban institute. it eliminates 29 billion in tax credits and cost sharing. the number through private markets would fall by 69%. the people would be older and less heatlthy on average. the penalty did not apply to many people. richmond, virginia. republican caller. good morning to you. caller: i wanted to make a comment about this health insurance. i have blue cross for years. i had a really good premium payment i paid every month here at i had really good insurance. after this took effect i lost my insurance, my premium went up to $600 a month. i think it is terrible. i hope the supreme court does decide to go the republican way.
7:57 am
that's my comments. host: frank in ohio independents. caller: my question is, first of all, good morning. a lot of people are missing the fact that everybody wants the american people to insurance but nobody what our economy to fair. l. obamacare will take on our economy. people do not understand that. we want to be able to live in a good economy. host: we talked about the impact of the court decision. administration saying we do not have the authority to have a plan b. republicans have been writing yesterday. we do have a backup plan here. we will take care of it. host:guest: they are for that.
7:58 am
they say not that they want to kick sick people out of their hospital beds and see them die in the street, they say there must be better approach is. it may be a contrary decision or the government. it may unfreeze the wheels of government in some type of compromise could be worked out by the congressional republicans. that is very speculative. we have not seen a lot of common ground between the president and republican majorities in congress. itthe president would be very reluctant to make any changes in the law. it is unclear whether republicans have the majority themselves or any specific solution. a few members making a proposal is not the same as congress itself in both passing a greta: let's end your piece in
7:59 am
"the wall street journal" this morning. why do you think that? jess: past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. in the last health care case three years ago, it was the chief justice who provided the deciding vote to uphold most of the law. he did so in an opinion that said -- suggesting his own personal distant -- this does for the way it works. he found that he needed a duty to uphold it if there was a plausible argument to do so. the chief justice may be faced with a similar question, does he want to look for a strict reading of this text that challengers say leads to only one result or does he have to look at broader issues involving the economy and whether the court itself is perceived as political for striking down what democrats considered to be a huge achievement? greta: all right, we will let you go to cover the case. thank you for your time.
8:00 am
more on this coming up. we will talk with mary agnes kerry, she is with kaiser health news. she will talk about the law and the debate over subsidies. around this time, we talked to about our student documentary competition. the goal is our annual competition to challenge middle and high school students to think about issues that affect them and their community. the 2015 for students this year is the three branches and you certainly ask students to tell us a story that demonstrates how policy, law, or actions has affected them or the community. in addition to telling it through video, we asked them to use c-span programming in their video and explore alternative points of view. before we meet one of the grand
8:01 am
prize winners and watch a portion of their grand prize video, let's take a little bit more of a background on the competition. there were five top themes among the many entries you received this year and they were education, health, the economy equality, and immigration. we received more than 2200 entries from 45 states out of the district -- and the district of columbia. students could enter as a team up to three or individually. there were four categories in which they could enter. they were broken down by region's at the high school level, high school of eastern states, high school of central states, and high school of central states -- western states. little schoolers competed separately. in the end, 150 students were awarded totaling $100,000. now it is time to announce the grand prize winner. a team of eighth-graders from lexington, kentucky, were named the grand prize winners in 2015 for their video on the minimum wage titled "artificial wage." their cable providers time warner cable. here is a small clip from the
8:02 am
winning clipped by anna kendrick and, katie the most, and michael is a boy. >> she is a single mother with a four-year-old child and she has to make tough choices every week. she has to make ends meet on the minimum wage job at $7.25 an hour. she says that is not enough for her to get by. >> it is hard because sometimes i have to decide, like, if my son needs underwear or i have to be late on a bill. or i need to ask people to borrow money. so it is hard. >> sydney is not alone. according to the bureau of labor statistics, 3.3 million americans make minimum wage or below. that is 2.6% of all u.s. workers. most minimum wage workers are employed in fields like food service, retail sales, personal care, such as day care, and --
8:03 am
she makes minimum wage as a custodian. >> it is difficult to pay for our bills and housing, and we cannot do that on minimum wage. we just cannot. so you have government programs like food steps. and people ask why i am on food stamps. well, because you have to eat. you don't make enough to feed yourself and they are your bills. he just don't. >> the push is on to raise the federal minimum wage from 7.20 five dollars an hour to maybe $10.10 an hour. it would provide a little over $21,000 a year. that is if the individual works 40 hours per week. it has been six years since the minimum wage was raised. some in congress say now is the time to raise it again. >> things are getting better. the problem is, they are only getting better for some. we know that corporate profits have continued to break records
8:04 am
while americans are working harder and getting paid less. >> but some, like kentucky congressman andy barr the state raising the minimum wage will cost jobs with a nonpartisan study by the congressional office. >> is the mandate a higher minimum wage in those jobs, then we would lose $500,000 to one million -- 500,000 to one million jobs immediately. that is the last thing we want. we do not want to create more unemployment, we want higher employment. >> the representative says more education and better worker training are the keys to improving the lives of minimum wage workers like sydney and rose marie. not an artificial ways. -- not an artificial wage. greta: it is time for us to win one of the students. her name is anna gilligan. hi, congratulations to your team. anna: hi, thank you so much.
8:05 am
greta: where were you when you learned that you won the grand prize? anna: i was in my principal's office with my team and a few teachers. i got the call and for the first time, i did not have anything to say. greta: isn't that terrific question mark were you surprised that you want? anna: well, my team and i, when we were first making it, we would joke around, oh, let's show so and so. we just wanted to get the word out and let people know. we had no idea. i mean there is always somebody better out there and we did not know that this was a possibility. greta: how did you choose the topic, "artificial wage," which is on the minimum wage? anna: well, we were looking to the clips you had available and we are passionate about human rights. i was like, oh, let's look at this. minimum wage, you know? give them more money, help them out.
8:06 am
right there, we were like, yeah, that is what we are going to do. we want to help people. greta: it is interesting, when people watch a video, and i hope they take time to find it on our website, you have a decided point of view, the three of you in your documentary. was it your opinion when he started out the piece? anna: no. our opinion change. when we first started researching, we saw the top layer. if you give people more money they will be happier and they can buy more things. but, you know, we started to dig a little deeper and found out that the cost of inflation and people can just send work elsewhere and put people out of the job. so, we decided no, it is not best for the workers in our community. >> how do you find the people that you interviewed. particularly those working on minimum wage for your piece? anna: my father had a job connection and he found them to a job there.
8:07 am
we were able to coordinate those interviews through a live -- through a program called jubilee jobs. they were like, all right, we have three people if you would like to interview them and they are happy to tell your story. >> were you surprised they were so willing to share your -- share their lives with you? anna: absolutely, absolutely. we had one interesting view during one of the gentleman said, no, i do not think this is a good idea. and that just shocked us. just everything about it, it was very interesting. absolutely. >> having worked with video before or is this the first documentary project? anna: this is my first time. my goal is very experienced and he held out the technical aspect. quite how did you put your team together? anna: well, it was originally katie and i since we have been friends since fourth grade during and then i was like, hold on. how are we going to put this together? who will help us put this into a
8:08 am
news story and not just facts or shark i was like, michael. he said, sure, that sounds great. we all worked well together and we are friends. we are on this 18, so we get along very well. >> how will you celebrate your wind and what will the three of you do with your prize money? anna: oh, gosh. starting out, we did not think it would happen, so i have not made any plans. invested in the stock market, do something worthwhile and maybe learn a little bit. >> do you know how your school will celebrate? anna: well, we will watch this on tv and we will have an assembly and all sorts of fun stuff. >> i'm sure all the other students will be really happy to share you one. congratulations from c-span to all of you and your school for your big win this year. anna: thank you so much. >> in addition, there were other
8:09 am
winners. here they are, high school east went to a team of ninth graders from sandy springs maryland. they produced a video of school lunches. their cable providers comcast. first private high school central went to a senior from jenks, oklahoma. her topic was public access to natural resources. fox communication is their local cable company. and another city won first prize in high school west. a team of three high school is from phoenix arizona during focus on the individuals with disabilities education act. efinally, here is our first prize in middle school. it wanted to delve young ladies from silver spring, maryland, with their cable service provided by comcast. they chose medical research funding for their vehicle just for their video. one more price, at first prize winner in the high school central region from jenks high school and jenks, obama, one the first man ever -- first-ever fan
8:10 am
favorite price. it allowed the public to preview and cast their votes for their favorite documentary. you should know that all would hundred 50 main prizes were to decided independently of public vote, but during the week of voting with 325,000 votes cast. mckinley's documentary received 119,000 votes. she will be recognized as this year's fan favorite and in the next of $500 of cash prize. congratulations to kelly. congratulations to all of the student winners and to all of the students who entered this year. you can watch all of the winning entries on her website at "washington journal" continues. greta: welcome back. outside the supreme court were the justice prepares to hear arguments today in the case of king david burwell. -- came -- king v. burwell.
8:11 am
they will be deciding the meaning of words congress chose when authorizing the government to provide tax credits for insurance purchases by middle and low income individuals. we will continue with our cameras outside of the court this morning after today's "washington journal." we will bring you the sights and sounds of the case and reaction to oral arguments. when the audio is released on friday, we will be airing that at 8:00 p.m. eastern time here on c-span. now back in the studio. we are joined by mary agnes carey to talk a little bit more about this subsidy issue and the health care law in general. let's begin with why did congress include subsidy in the first place? anna: mary: we wanted to help people afford health insurance. if you look at the bridge between income levels for 100 to
8:12 am
400% of poverty with subsidies are aimed at, for an individual that is about 11,700 to 11 -- two around $7,000. family sized, that amount will grow. the thought is, if you help provide subsidies at a financial assistance, you will get more people involved and more people covered, which was one of the main goals. greta: who are we talking about? who gets the subsidy? mary: many of these people are people who purchased and could not get insurance on the individual market. they are out there buying on their own. if you get health care coverage at work and it is deemed to be comprehensive and affordable, you cannot apply to get a subsidy. most of these people, the people buying their own health insurance, maybe they do not get more care coverage at work or they have their own business and want to start their own business, but they are out there buying policies. greta: how do you qualify? what does your income have to be? mary: when individual, the ranges around 7000 -- that is
8:13 am
between the 100 and 4000% of poverty for a family of four, the top of it is forming a percent of poverty that is around 92 or $94,000. the laura linney you make, the less of the subsidy you receive. another key factor it you do still have to pay some of your own money before the subsidy kicks in. that lower level of poverty is around 2% or the percent of your income. greta: even if you get a subsidy, your premium could be a little bit higher. what goes into that factor of having -- i have the same income is somebody else, but my subsidy is not as large as somebody else who is getting it? mary: health insurance, like politics, his local. what you pay for health insurance really don't plans on where you live -- really depends on where you live. i colleagues at kaiser have done a lot of great work at this. they look at price variances
8:14 am
between states and sometimes within counties. it depends on how many insurers are participating and how competitive the market is. typically if you live in an urban market, you have more competition. in a rural area, less competition. it is linked to the second lowest cost. coverage on the affordable care act is based on three tiers. gold silver, and bronze. -- platinum, silver, and bronze. there is a lot of factors that help determine how far the money goes for you. greta: each plaintiff in this case in king v. burwell, what kind of subsidies where they getting? mary: i think they were fairly generous on income levels, but has you noted they have an objection to being required to purchase health insurance, even with subsidies and from there perspective, the subsidy amount did not matter. greta: why could they get a subsidy?
8:15 am
mary: because of income levels. he is a limousine driver who had a subsidy -- big your pardon, and income level that all 541. the same is true for the other plaintiff. it is based on income. the less money you make, the more generous of a subsidy you get, not only for a premium, but if your income is at 250% of poverty around looking at hundred thousand dollars, you can also get some subsidies on your deductible. there is additional help therefore people with certain income levels. greta: there is hazardous exemption, how does that play into this subsidy debate? mary: if the purchase of health insurance costs more than 8% of your income, you would not have to buy it. that is where the part of this case is. if subsidies were taken away insurance would be unaffordable for many people. it would cost be on a percent of
8:16 am
their income. which means they do not have to pay the irs a fine for not having health insurance. another related issue is for the employer mandate. it requires that employers 50 or higher have to provide health insurance. if they cannot get a subsidy then there goes the employer mandate. greta: the employer mandate in justice states that have federally run exchanges or across the country? mary: across the country, but if the subsidies were struck down, they would still be there in the states because -- as they are federal, they would be gone for federal, but it was still be pertained in state changes because subsidies would continue to flow. greta: mary agnes carey here to take your calls. this is how we have divided the lines. if you are receiving a subsidy from the affordable care act down at (202) 748-8000.
8:17 am
coverage at work, (202) 748-8001 . if you decided to remain uninsured, here is the line for you, (202) 748-8002. all others not 202748 8003. let me go to vernon in missouri. he receives a subsidy. tell us what kind of subsidy you are receiving. caller: i don't know if it is state or federal, but i pay $155 and they pay over for something. i'm a $22,000 a year approximately. greta: what are your thoughts on this? caller: well, i am up in the air because if they take this out, i like to have a question to the young lady here.
8:18 am
do you think this will open up another can of worms because i have been paying in my premiums and if this gets kicked out and i am not sure if missouri has a subsidy and the stop pain, and i was the insurance, all the money that i have paid in since december because i did not have it in 2014, is a waste. then i no longer have it. what will we do about that? it is hard to make these premiums. mary: i think the caller raises several good points. it is difficult to make the premiums. it sounds like it is been a struggle for him. if the subsidies were thrown out, i do not think you would get your premium dollars back because you received coverage for the months which you had the premium. if the coverage -- did the subsidies are no longer there people cannot afford health insurance. it becomes much more difficult for them to be able to pay for
8:19 am
it. the fear is that the only people who can stay in this federally-based exchange, we are talking around three dozen states the only people who was they are the ones who are really sick, costly, their premiums are expensive, and that will become a death spiral, if you will. instead of having that healthy and sick people balance, you will primarily have the sickest people and those premiums -- obviously they will be sicker and costlier to ensure. premiums will skyrocket. greta: vernon was asking about his state. take a look at the map. missouri is one of the black states here. these are the states that have a federal or partnership exchange. you are talking about a total enrollment around 7 million people or so. maybe a little bit more. the blue states are the states that have set up their own exchanges, including the d.c. government. they would not be impacted by this court decision. in westchester, venture --
8:20 am
westchester, pennsylvania. caller: i think it is interesting that they talk about subsidies, but where does the money come from? you have to remember that there are people like me that because of the law, we got thrown off our insurance and premiums doubled. like your previous guest, it is great that he can afford insurance, but somebody is helping of paper that insurance. that person is me. my question to you is, what about the people who have really been hurt by this law? and secondly, you should probably tie and how the employer mandate plays into the lock because if there is no subsidy in the state or no employer mandate, those two are tied together. thank you. mary: what is interesting, i wonder what rich's premium policy covered.
8:21 am
one reason they have gone up is because they have had a policy -- their old policy was perhaps limited in coverages and did not comply with something called the essential health benefits in the affordable care act. some people do not with the benefits. they include things like maternity coverage, pediatric coverage, and so on. some folks and maybe rick is one of them, he had a policy that was smaller and more tailored to him. and he could not keep it. in part because of the affordable care act. that is one factor. if your policy was more limited and became more comprehensive then it costs more money. he raises again, the employer mandate. the link is that if the subsidies went away and the federal market places, that means coverage is no longer affordable and they cannot get subsidies to buy the coverage. as an employer, the employer mandate, again these are employers with 50 or more workers, if your worker gets off the coverage and gets a subsidy
8:22 am
that have to pay a fine, well, that goes away because they cannot get the subsidies. not only would the individual mandate is up there, the federal exchanges, but so would employer mandates. greta: when the health care law was being drafted and on the floor, what -- was this issue established by the states ever brought up? mary: i know that members of congress wanted them to take the initiative and to establish exchanges, but i never heard any link or anyone to stay that if they do not establish one they do not get subsidies. i never heard that as an intent or purposeful got among the people who drafted the law. this was never our intention. we never fully intended to have that. greta: of course, there are republican lawmakers that say that was not the intent of congress. and this administration has overreached. if you take a look at a brief
8:23 am
filed by republican lawmakers to the court, they say -- especially improper given the nature of the compromises that were required in order to pass the caaca. mary: right, you do not get into over. you cannot change it now. you cannot adjust your interest. i mean, one interesting thing here, typically in congress, the senate passes a version of the law. the house passes a version. that never happened here he cuts of a lot of political issues
8:24 am
around the affordable care act. it was done in a way called reconciliation in the senate hearing in had no republican support in either chamber. you never had that house-senate conference to make sure to fix the issue. greta: we are talking about king v. burwell, at target this discussion at the supreme court today. what did congress intended when they wrote those words? the justices will be asking questions and hearing from both sides. our coverage on c-span continues after "the washington journal." when audio is released from today's argument, cameras are not allowed in court on friday at 1:00 p.m. eastern time, we will air them on friday evening at 8:00 p.m. jenny, go ahead. caller: yes i am very unhappy with the affordable care act. as rich has said, my deductible has more than doubled. it is not a basic plan. i have -- i had cadillac
8:25 am
insurance for many years through my company. they can no longer afford to put that out there with the tax braces that the obama plan has put on it. and then, we used to have substituted insurance where you could pick up your money. now we are picking through two possibly three insurance plans. as i turn 55 this year, it has gone way up. i am just not going to go because i am too busy paying for everybody else be able to go to the doctor or because by the time i reach my deductible and i pay six: -- $6.50 a month for my insurance -- $650 a month from a insurance, i cannot keep going. mary: you are saying you had cadillac coverage before, did your employee explained? caller: he said taxes would go up on it. greta: hold on, jenny.
8:26 am
she said the employer said taxes would go up. ok, jenny. caller: he said it would go up on it to a huge amount where they are a big company and there is no way they could afford it for everyone. so some of us got cut on that obviously the higher up, the less likely. as far as the price of insurance, it is ridiculous now. guest: i find this interesting that it is the tax on the planet would go up. i would think it is the premium increase and i wonder why your premium went up if you had cadillac coverage. it is hard to compare what you had before and what you have now. one trend that has happened before the affordable care act was continuing, is that employers, and i am not saying this is what is happening to you, but employers are shifting more of the cost to health care onto employees. sometimes even if the same
8:27 am
amount of coverage, they have employees pay a higher premium -- share of the premium or more co-pay or deductibles. i wonder what is happening in your market. did you have some leave for some reason? again, this is one of those difficult but very important conversations to have about the affordable care act looking at coverage people had, how is that changed, how is that increased? we have had two callers who talked about their coverage going up because of the affordable care act. we need to really look at that and plan office market effects and that is incredibly important. not everybody gets a subsidy and gets to keep the plan that they liked. some of these plans were extended in certain markets in certain once prevailed. the thing to remember, too, is some leave the market which change plan offerings. i think we are all incredibly important. host: ron is next in massachusetts. he also gets coverage at work. caller: hi, thank you for taking
8:28 am
my call. before the affordable care act insurance companies, especially if it was direct pay and not through a group, they could cancel someone's coverage for getting sick. i have a friend of mine whose sister had developed cervical cancer. she was getting direct pay and her insured dropped her. there was nothing she could do. a few days ago on a public plan, we have something called mass health. you can get direct pay coverage that is best covered through mandates and she would be protected by the mandates we had here. i wanted to put that out here that is that had been that way since forever. if no one -- and no one was doing anything during this might not be a perfect plan, but for her, it is a perfect resolve to issues she had in her life. guest: we are talking about people in the individual market. much more standardization now
8:29 am
what policies sold, can you cancel if people get sick, sick of it fraud or light on your application. no more lifetime limits. we are talking about the covered benefits that the thought was -- if you standardize the coverage and benefits and everybody plays by the same rules, that it would be better for individuals who were out there purchasing their own health insurance. i certainly think it is fair to say that many people take comfort in these provisions who were on the individual market before and they could afford the coverage and they cannot keep their kids up to age 26 on their policies. all these sorts of things. they need to look at the provisions and say, this is a good thing because of the circumstances that the caller just explained. host: keri, riverview, florida. you are on there with mary agnes carey with kaiser health. caller: thank you. i am irish, also.
8:30 am
i have blue cross and blue shield for 10 years. when the affordable care act or obamacare came into effect, i was told that i could keep my plan. last february last month actually, i got a letter saying i was no longer eligible and i would have to go on the affordable care act plan, which i refuse to do. i have never taken any subsidies. i have always played -- paid my own way. i am on medicare anyway. this so-called affordable care act, i know you are just doing your job but it is not working for the average american person. that is all i wanted to say. thank you for taking my call. host: keri says it is not working. guest: on medicare as you mentioned, you are not impacted by the affordable care
8:31 am
subsidies. there are changes with the affordable care act and the closing of the gap in coverage for prescription drugs were used to be on your own. cap and coverage is getting narrowed. -- that gap and coverage is getting around. as far as the blue cross and blue shield plan pulling out, if this were one of your medicare choices, again, every year insurers and aside if it is in the medicare program, the employer-based market, individual market, whether they are in or out. what drove that decision of blue cross and blue shield to leave your particular portfolio of medical choices is unclear. the broader issue for the under 65 market, in some cases, if a plan did not comply with the central health benefits offered in the affordable care act or state commissioner, if they had that power decided they did not what plans with all these aca
8:32 am
requirements, or they say, you know what? i am not making enough money, i am not. there are a lot of factors that drive to stay in or out. host: earl is next in baltimore. caller: yes, i have questions as to whether or not the legitimacy of the affordable care act were actually being looked at. if you take the insurance industry as an onion and start to peel away the layers, you will find that the insurance companies actually are lobbying against the affordable care act so they can maintain their higher premiums on the individuals that don't have -- that have insurance. my question is, is it really congress or is it the lobbyist that congress is actually now working towards that has helped
8:33 am
to determine whether or not the affordable care act is working? guest: well, you cannot have a conversation without discussing lobbyists. lobbyists of all political persuasions and categories of concern are on capitol hill every single day to try to get whatever they want done. of course, insurers are part -- -- are definitely part of the affordable care act. there is a tax right now on insurance plans that they would like to get pulled out. they would like to get tax taken away, for example, they have lobbied really heavily on that. whenever you have any law including something as comprehensive and sweeping as the health care law, affordable care act obamacare, you will always have lobbying pressure to change it or modify it. look no more than the medicare
8:34 am
program. we have hospital lobbyists and health-care lobbyists. they are every day on capitol hill trying to get it shaped to their likings. lobbying, legislation, there is a total intersection. host: we will go to florida. he decided to remain uninsured. why is that? caller: the think is, i have been homeless for quite a while. i have a pre-existing condition from 1978 with a broken ankle and i have developed ra --rheumatoid arthritis. i have torn rotator cuff now carpal tunnel syndrome, and i have to see a specialist or something like this. i wondering, i'm in florida and i come from massachusetts, so i know i would have been better to stay there, but my mom had passed away and i am stuck without medical coverage. i am pretty much homeless.
8:35 am
i have a lot of problems developed from this and i am curious, what is my next move? if you could help me with something like that and maybe there are people who have the same problem out there. host: i will have mary agnes carey answer. turn off your tv and listen. guest: i apologize for the loss of your mother. i have gone through that myself. i also want to express my concern about the various medical injuries you have and how difficult those are for you. it sounds a few definitely need some medical treatment. here is the difficulty -- if you are homeless, my sentient is you do not have incomes or if you do, it is low. florida did not expand the medicaid program under the affordable care act. this was made optional for states. with the affordable care act does is take the medicaid expansion and they expand medicaid expansion of two 130%
8:36 am
of poverty. again, that was optional. if you make less than 100% of the poverty line and that is around $11,000, and my feeling is that is your category, you cannot even qualify for of subsidy to get covered in the federal exchange. florida is a federal exchange. here is my advice. there are many community health centers throughout the country that received additional funding was affordable care act. they might be able to help you on a sliding scale to get some of this medical care with debt. you are talking about you have to see a specialist. that is trickier to achieve, it depends on who sees which patients and what the composition is. i would urge you to go to a community health center to get some care. you can go to the library, if there is a local library with computer access, you can look for community health centers at, or google it in my
8:37 am
county or my city. that is what i would try to get those conditions look that because it sounds like you do need medical help. host: we are talking with mary agnes carey of kaiser health news. in about one hour and a half, they will pick up the issue of king v. burwell. what did congress mean when they put in language to provide subsidies for those in the affordable care act? do they only apply to state exchanges or across the nation to those that have been set up by the federal government? mary agnes carey joining us. i want to talk about the ramifications of what the court decides. if the court rules against the white house, what will the administration do? guest: silvio burwell, she keeps getting that question on capitol hill. republican memos -- republican members said they heard there is
8:38 am
a 100 page plan floating around hhs. she said she was not aware of that document. a couple of things in that category. secretary burwell has written to congress speaking on behalf of the administration saying they have no administrative remedy. there is nothing they can do to step in and help people get covered. that is really a big focus. i think what is unknown, how does the court rule? typically, they take in effect about a month. do they say, these subsidies can exist for 90 days so congress can have a transitional. with the hopes that congress will act? you are talking about 7.5 million people that can lose their subsidies at some point. all the resulting impacts on the insurance market, the death spiral we talked about individual mandate disappears,
8:39 am
employer mandate disappeared there is a domino effect and it is unclear whether or not congress will step in. republicans were talking about alternatives. they are looking at the idea of some kind of tax credits for both, but they are not saying to what extent. in their world, they would not want to happen in individual mandate or employer mandate. they would allow some kind of coverage for people with pre-existing coverage. if we think about it, the court rules at the end of june and we are not -- and we are barely in march. they are looking at it and they have time. in recent days, we have seen these stories and announcements on the house and senate side saying they are looking at it because i think they know there is a phenomenal amount of political pressure on them to do something. the key will be, whether you can get consensus in the party to do it. will conservatives, who really hate the law say, we can try and kill this thing for five years and now we are going to turn around and give some release if the supreme court gives us a victory?
8:40 am
those are some arguments and we have a presidential election next year. there is a lot of interest about -- within the republican party. host: the majority leader, kevin mccarthy, tweeting this out -- echoing what paul ryan's had to say, along with his colleagues in the house. and offramp from obamacare. they have outlined without a lot of specifics, what they will do if the court rules against the white house. if the consensus with republicans in the house and senate no? you will have to split what the tea party republicans, conservative republicans, what they would want. guest: what would not be acceptable to democrats.
8:41 am
they would like to have a subsidies to stay just the way they are and that is not acceptable to a lot of republicans. at the heart a philosophical debate on the direction of health care. we have had it for years. with the affordable care act, it comes to the forefront. the proposal that coming out now, they do not think they need it. we have had a couple of callers say they like it -- like their own coverage but they cannot get it anymore or cost too much money. why is washington setting any kind of restrictions on out-of-pocket coverage when it is this sort of thing? we just had a collar talking about individual markets and the perils, that is what the law was intended to deal with. there is great debate between republicans and democrats on the right solution. host: republicans saying they will have a plan b if the court rules against the white house in king v. burwell. arguments to start around 10:00
8:42 am
a.m. eastern time. as mary agnes carey said, they will make a decision in june and announced the decision in june. let's go to the next caller. take a look at what the urban institute put together on the impact of a potential supreme court decision against these subsidies. let's go to rob in oxford, new york. good coverage at work. caller: it is bob. my work -- my wife works for new york state and i retired. this has not affected us. her premiums are the same. we pay in the health remedies from that. my question is, i heard mary's say that of two possibly $10 billion will be spent on this affordable care act. if the government would just put
8:43 am
$3 million in the health saving process account for every citizen, which is around 300 and 10 million, that would be less than $1 billion and we would all have a health saving plastic count that we could buy our own insurance anywhere we want. if the president really wanted us or congress really wanted us to have insurance, would they not have created a health saving's account for all of us? guest: number one, we have not talked about the amount of money in federal subsidies and sent -- being spent. i would direct everybody to the congressional budget website because that is the scorekeeper in congress. it is safe to say that there are billions of dollars being spent in subsidies. the caller is talking about a health savings possible. that is popular with a lot of people -- a health savings accounts. that is popular with a lot of people especially republicans, and some democrats. you use it for medical expenses.
8:44 am
this is something where you would pair it with a high deductible plan, so your premium would be lower but there is more out-of-pocket to get your health insurance. that is one part of the question. secondly, he makes an interesting point. his wife said -- he said his wife was a state employee and she is probably covered by a state or union plan. they were not affected. medicare, he is not affected. all of the focus and discussion there are millions of people out there who have not seen a big difference in their coverage. they have not lost their coverage. the premiums have not increased. in fact, they may look at, for example, keeping an adult child up to 26 on their health insurance plan. or normal -- or no more lifetime benefits. there are things that people in
8:45 am
the employer market or other markets have looked into the affordable care act and say that they think it is something that appeals to them. host: john in indianapolis. you are receiving a subsidy? caller: yes i am. host: how much? caller: my subsidy is, i believe, about 700 and something dollars a month. what has happened is that last year, to the marketplace, i was with and the -- with anthem, and i did not have to pay anything. this year, i found another plan that has set up with premiums that would be more effective to me and before the first of the year, i had actually paid all the premiums for the entire year of 2015.
8:46 am
then i got a notice with the indiana health indiana plan, 2.0 , that program it is a state thing, and it said i might be able to work for that and i had to fool out the questionnaire for my help -- for my health and they determined that i do fall in that category and that they have to make a determination. i still have insurance with this and i have some offices paid for, but one other thing, to my 1095 tax form came in incorrect. i have to it for that before i can do taxes. i'm involved in everything, so i have to wait and i am sure things will pan out, but i do not know when i can get my taxes done and it has not been a real convenience for it.
8:47 am
i did not have insurance before, so who knows? i might be better off than i was before. guest: i think you have introduced a lot of complexities that are unfolding with the four double care act. for example, if you have the wrong 1095 tax form. the department of health and human services is saying they are going to fix the problem and get runs out to people. for example, you obviously are wondering, when will i get this form to file my taxes? it sounds to me that you are shifting from private insurance in 2014 to medicaid in 2015. i believe that is the indiana medicaid program. this is not unusual in the health insurance market. they call it the churn. your income decreases and you leave private insurance to go into medicaid. it looks like maybe that is what is happening.
8:48 am
this is a consumer who sounds very involved and very on top of it. very knowledgeable and i can still be very confusing. host: he gets his insurance through work in lebanon, pennsylvania. on the air. caller: hi. i guess my comment at first is, it appears that mary is pro-aca .may and talk about the pros and cons all day . who gets subsidies, who doesn't, who is paying more? my question for mary is, the way the affordable care act was passed it was using a process called reconciliation. i want to know her thoughts on how that was done and whether or not -- this is about controlling -- the government control of health care rather than making it affordable because as one caller said previously, a lot of
8:49 am
people are getting subsidies, but there are other people who are paying for that. i just wanted to talk about the fairness in the way it was passed. guest: personal, if you listened to the whole broadcast, i try to explain the good, bad and ugly. please do not leave the broadcast taking that i have a political point of view one way or the other. believe me, i got a handful just trying to explain it and understand it. that's into reconciliation. a procedure that can be used in the house for matters that deal with budget issues. the reason both parties like to use it, republicans and democrats, it means you can pass something with 50 votes instead of the usual 60. a filibuster proof, right? that is why democrats went that route. you might remember after the death of tech kennedy, the senator of massachusetts, passage of the affordable care act was up in the air. republican got elected and things went haywire on capitol
8:50 am
hill. the senate decided to use reconciliation to pass it. to me, as i look at the health laws, here is one of the biggest problems for the democrats. they had no republican support. when you implement something this big and you do not have any republicans with you, you are going to have a lot of angst along the way. we have been seeing this over the last years with the health law. when congress passed the prescription drug act, back in 2003, very few votes in the house -- they kind of held democrats back and told they passed it with their own books. you had a little bit of support in the senate, but there was a whole different field as the law went forward and implemented. you had some democratic opposition, do not get me wrong. they do not like the fact of the way it was set up with insurance companies. but you do not have any accommodation now. it has been political opposition all along.
8:51 am
the caller raises an interesting question. if we had democrats here who passed it at the time and the president with us, could we asked the question, was it worth it? was reconciliation worth it? when you did it with no republican books. i have a feeling they might say yes. it is important to know that democrats and republicans whoever has majority control they use reconciliation if they need to. they can come some -- they can come with some peril. host: saying it was not sure of the best thing for democrats to do out of the gate. get a majority in both the house and sent it -- house and senate. guest: exactly. has it been worth a question mark again, that is the big question. host: john in north carolina. though ahead. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i just wanted to make a comment that i am a retired and my premiums did not change.
8:52 am
or not that much. there was a slight rise this year. the amount we pay on co-pays and things like that, they really went up drastically. the think i think is, the trust factor between the people and the government. and the fact that it seems like there is this game being played out there and we are somehow being manipulated. it just does not sit well with a lot of people. i meant independent -- insulin independent diabetic. one example, my premiums for insulin went up from $10 to $80 in one swoop. that is just one thing. i am on a fixed income, but anyway, i appreciate the call.
8:53 am
i am concerned about this trust thing because i worked for government for a lot of years and i just think that that trust is vital. guest: well, it sounds to me -- you are in a big risk group. i want to say you are in a group of 13 million people or 14 million people who are independence and get coverage through -- or getting them props for yourself. the bigger the group, the more the insulation. you talk about your co-pays and out-of-pocket going up. that is happening all over the place. it started before the affordable care act and continued since then. no matter if it is federal or private, you are managing your costs. you are asking your employees to take on more of the cost. i'm not saying that is a bad
8:54 am
thing, but it is happening. host: that brings up the insurance industry and the health care industry. how do they feel about this? guest: they would like those subsidies to continue. if you think about it, the subsidies that allow you to purchase health insurance, if you are a hospital, the subsidies that people covered. instead of uncompensated care and providers and insurance companies have said to the courts in breeze that they believe the congressional intent was that everybody gets those subsidies and that is the way it should say. host: mary in connecticut, those who decided not to get insurance. caller: i just wanted to let you know that i do not plan on getting the insurance. i am 56 years old and i had an awesome insurance policy for years ago. my husband passed away. i do not have the money. you know, i called the state and they said it was going to be
8:55 am
around 300 something dollars a month. and my alternative will not be covered. it is cheaper for me to just walk into a clinic down the street, go in, and get treated. i want to the doctor to years ago and was told i was borderline diabetic and i need to lose five pounds. well, i lost 56 pounds and i am not a diabetic. i am healthy and take care of myself. i do not know where you guys expect me to get this money from. host: mary, is the penalty a lot less for you then to pay insurance? caller: there is a $1000 penalty -- my income is $26,000 a year. so it would be what? maybe $2600 would be my penalty. another thing, the court, the supreme court, just because they said it is ok -- they change the
8:56 am
law, the bill. it was supposed to be a penalty and they cannot charge a penalty but taxes. congressman on the no taxes, we will not increase taxes, but you know what? they did. guest: connecticut has their own exchange. why don't you want to take a subsidy to get coverage? is she still there? host: she is off. sorry. she's such a makes $26,000 a year, i'm wondering if she would qualify for the hardship exemption? guest: here's my first thought. if it is $300 a month with or without a subsidy in the state of connecticut, i do not know the answer. four doing the math on live television is scary. here is my concern, $95 or 10% of income, the greater of the two. that is for 2014. for 2015, that is going to jump to $325 or 2.5% -- or maybe 2%
8:57 am
of your income. you may be paying more in 2015 than you paid in 2014. this is going to increase again in 2016. you need to sort of look at that because it is only, as you mentioned, when i go to the clinic and pay out of my pocket to get coverage, wouldn't that out-of-pocket payment be less if i had health insurance? now, if you just do not want to have health insurance, you do not like the law, that is fine, but i am trying to figure out all the angles on how you came to that decision. there are certainly people who dislike the law and think government should not be in the business of telling me i need health insurance or need a subsidy. they certainly have a right to do that. host: we are seeing that message outside of the supreme court today. protesters looking at the live scenes of protesters out side of the court. guest: the internal revenue
8:58 am
service is part of treasury and treasury is part of the three agencies implement a lot. the internal revenue service -- we are going to interpret the slot to meet subsidies apply to everyone and that is where the irs comes in. host: roland in salem, new hampshire. caller: yes, my question is like the gentleman said, i'm dependent on insulin. they told me that within six months i would be in a donut hole and i would have to pay over 240 something dollars for one vial of insulin. i tried to find out what is the cost of this insulin and nobody can answer me. this is not the only medication that i am on. i am on other medicine, which when this obamacare started, all of the tears went up from two to three. already out-of-pocket, in two months, i spent over $600. i am on disability, my wife is
8:59 am
on disability, i do not know how i'm going to pay for this insulin. last two, i wait six months without any insulin and took a chance. my doctor said, roland, you are playing russian roulette with your life. guest: this is very interesting. he is talking about two years. he is talking about them on of money you have to pay out of your pocket to get a certain drug. the insurance plan is something called a formulary. that is how much they will cover for drugs and how much you will have to pay to get them. he goes in different tears -- tiers depending on it. he also talked about the doughnut hole. this is a gap in coverage and medicare where the beneficiary picks up the entire frame. that is being reduced. it sounds like it is not quick enough for roland. a couple of ideas i have for you
9:00 am
i would try to find out, has a one 800 number. could you find out if there is any kind of relief for you? especially since both of you are on -- are both on disability. is there anyway you could get some assistance with the price of those drugs. if cannot do it for you, some of the drug manufacturers have those programs, and it would vary by manufacturer and you would have to do some homework. i know none of us really want to go through that kind of paperwork, but it might be worth your while to inquire about that to help reduce your, which it sounds like you need some help, because you do not want to go without insulin for six months. host: one more call for you mary agnes carey. you receive a subsidy, donald? caller: i do, and i am happy for it. i am so disappointed with this country the way the republicans have done this whole thing, even
9:01 am
when the law was being formed. they did everything they could to overturn it -- to turn it over and mess it up for people. most of them call themselves a christian. i am telling you, i have worked 30 years as a truck driver. i am retired now and i retired last year at the age of 62. i was able to get health care, and that is the reason i retired. who wants a 62-year-old driving an 18-year-old -- driving an 18 wheeler? nobody is getting killed because i am out there driving a big truck like that. at an older age. and i am getting good care, good coverage. they call that obamacare. that is the worst thing obama did, put his name on that. host: can i ask you something? caller: i am sick of the way they do this in this country.
9:02 am
people need health care. host: we got that point. let me ask you this. if the subsidy goes away, will you continue to get insurance? caller: i will probably lose it. i have a disorder in my blood. the premium that i pay, when i got put on last year, is almost double because i -- but i do not care because i am not paying the sky high prices i was paying when i was working. every time i go to the hospital with the blue cross and blue shield, what i had all my life when i was working, they acted like i did not have any insurance at all. host: let's talk about who remains in the risk pool if these subsidies go away? guest: chances are it is the sickest people who absolutely have to have health insurance and cannot live without it. if you have no healthy people in the risk pool, premiums will
9:03 am
skyrocket. there are estimates of premiums going up 35% or more because you do not have your healthy people. you might say i do not have a subsidy, now i do not have to pay that individual mandate penalty, so i will take a chance. host: mary agnes carey, what are you listening for today in these oral arguments lack of what do you think is the key here? guest: it will be interesting to see how the justices work through what congress intended and how literally do they take that phrase established by the state, and how much room if any do we have in determining their views about the federal government establishing an exchange, equivalent to that of the state? i have to tell you people who know the court better than i do, i have been told several times that what the justices ask may have nothing to do with a final ruling, but nonetheless it will be fascinating. host: mary agnes carey -- you
9:04 am
can find her reporting online. thank you for your time. we can keep this conversation going as the supreme court starts to take up his oral argument in about an hour. you can weigh in on that next in open phones or any other top news after the short rake. -- after this short break. >> the c-span cities tour takes booktv and american history tv on the road. this weekend we partner with comcast for a visit to galveston, texas. >> the rising tide, the rising wealth certainly drew them. they watched in amazement as
9:05 am
both of these factors battered the beach structures. at the time we had wooden bathhouses on the gulf of mexico, and we also had peers -- we also had piers. as the storm increased in intensity, these structures literally were turned into matchsticks. the 1900 storm struck galveston saturday, september 8 1900. the storm began at noon increased in dramatic intensity, and finally tapered off toward midnight that evening. this hurricane was and still is the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the united states. >> watch all of our events
9:06 am
saturday on booktv and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: you were looking at a live shot of the supreme court. the justices will be hearing the case of king v. burwell. whether those enrolled will get a tax benefit or will congress -- is it an incentive for states to set up their own insurance exchanges? the justices will hear arguments for and against that today and "the washington post" features those lead lawyers, michael carvin, at a 2011 senate hearing pictured in "the washington post." he will challenge a facet of the affordable care act, featuring the lead plaintiff in this case.
9:07 am
those oral arguments getting underway in less than an hour. the audio will be released by the court on friday at 1:00 p.m. eastern time, and we will bring you that audio that evening friday 8:00 p.m. eastern time, of what the justices heard, what questions they ask, and the comments by the justices as well. you can weigh in on that. we are in open phones. democrats, 202-748-8000. other headlines for you, the front page of the papers featuring the israeli prime minister's speech before a joint meeting of congress yesterday. telling lawmakers that this deal will and power iran, and that it is a bad one.
9:08 am
the israeli prime minister had to say, "the leader of the republican party and the senate majority leader said as early as next week he will advance a measure that will give congress the ability to approve whatever deal is negotiated between the white house and those other p5 countries and iran." democrats are saying they will fight that, that they will not let that will advance. that is the latest in the papers on that. we told you at the top that the homeland security standoff, two months, has been averted. house republicans along with 182 democrats voted for a so-called clean homeland security funding bill. that means the agency will not shut down. it is being funded through the end of this fiscal year, september 30. they voted for the senate bill. headlines in the paper saying republicans capitulated. house speaker john boehner casting a rare vote for the
9:09 am
clean dhs bill along with his other leadership, kevin mccarthy, the majority leader, and the whip, also voting for the clean dhs bill. tension in the republican party on the house side between, as "the washington post" says, the speaker and hard-line conservatives. the paper this morning is saying that the speaker of the house is not so far being threatened by a replacement for that position. that in the papers this morning on that. we are in open phones and you can weigh in on any of these top stories. let's go outside the supreme court where c-span's pedro echevarria is talking to those outside the court. pedro: if you go outside the supreme court, there is a line that has formed of people hoping
9:10 am
to get into watch the proceedings of king v. burwell. as you can imagine, law students are also hoping to get a look at it. what is your name? >> my name is brian. i go to american university. pedro: tell us about your legal interest in this case. >> a couple of weeks ago we studied the first ruling in the affordable care act in constitutional law. several of us have been following some of the challenges to the aca. when i realized oral arguments would be today, i thought it would be a good opportunity to see the legal things we have been learning in class in action. pedro: what are you hoping to kind of discover for yourself? >> i am familiar with the government's position in this case, but what i am less familiar with is the case of the four gentleman from virginia their challenges and the overall
9:11 am
challenge to this part of the aca, so i'm interested to see what they have to say and whether or not it is persuasive. pedro: what is your area of specialty? what do you want to go into? >> i am hoping to go into litigation, and possibly stay here and work in d.c. pedro: you should know that he hopes his teacher gives him a pass today for coming out here. not only our law students present, there are folks from in and outside d.c. we met one from oklahoma. tell us why you are standing in line. >> we are in support of the affordable care act. we think it is important to help the working poor have health insurance. it has been successful and we would hate to lose those subsidies. pedro: how is oklahoma affected by the possible loss of those subsidies? >> there are approximately 125,000 people enrolled in the marketplace, at almost 80% are receiving some subsidy.
9:12 am
it would be devastating for those people. they would lose their insurance. pedro: your attorney general's here, supporting the king position. what do you think of that? >> i am not in support of what he is doing. that is very harmful to the people in the state of oklahoma. pedro: are you familiar with the proceeding? what are you most interested in seeing, should you get in? >> it is a part of having the opportunity to be a part of history. in the years to come, this will be an important part for our country, and to witness a small part of it is very exciting. pedro: even on this cold wet day, people excited to be standing outside. host: pedro aishwarya -- pedro echevarria on the supreme court steps. people are lined up to try to get in to hear the oral arguments. there is a limited amount of public seats, and the tickets
9:13 am
will be handed out shortly. you will see folks start filing in there. we go to anita in character -- we go to anita in north carolina. a republican caller. what is on your mind? caller: good morning. i feel the american people whether they are right wing or left-wing, -- right wing or left-wing, we want to do what is rational for our country. it is not rational to allow another country to tell us when to go to war and when not to go to war when we have disabled seniors and children that need our funding and our budget to take care of that, and we have gone through a lot of bankruptcies because of the wars. to jump into wars because another country think so, i think -- because another country thinks so, the right wing needs to think about that is not necessary to keep the financial situation for ourselves in the world. we should not be blackmailed. host: that is anita weighing in.
9:14 am
here is a tweet showing kathleen sebelius the former hhs secretary, outside the court today, ahead of this case, king v. burwell. it was king the -- it was king v. sebelius before burwell took over her position. hi, dan. caller: i have a couple of questions and comments on the affordable care act. i think it is great, for one, but i want to make a comment on the representative -- i think it was mccarthy who tweeted in while you had your last guest on. he said the republicans are going to put the choice back in it for the people.
9:15 am
are the republicans that out of touch? i don't know out of the choices who it is affecting, but the problem is the cost. it might be the choice for the rich. they might have problems with that, but the problem with health care is the cost, not the choice. you have a few people who do not like their doctor, and there are many doctors in their networks that insurance offers. i was blessed with insurance all my working life, and many times the corporation -- i worked for a large corporation -- would say we are dropping this doctor and you have to find a different doctor. i was thankful for the ability to still have insurance. for the republicans to say we want to put the choice back in that is fine if you cannot afford it. -- well, that is fine. if you cannot afford it, what is the point of the aca anyway? everybody's insurance is going
9:16 am
to rise if you get rid of the subsidies. right now linked into everybody's premiums is for a -- is about $1000, and that is for the uninsured. host: dan, i thought you were done. are you still there? finish your thought. caller: in the last two years was the first time that my corporate policy did not jump as high as it did every year, the costs that i pay. i have a daughter who gets a raise every year but it is sucked up by the increase the employer passes on to her. it is an issue of affordability. the republicans have to learn, it is affordability. host: jeremy, dayton, ohio, independent caller. caller: i just want to comment on my general disappointment in how republicans and democrats are using these serious issues as wedge issues, using the
9:17 am
american public pretty much as piñata's -- and the reality is americans is not have an appetite to go to war. we got out of two major wars and the president is looking for the authorities to fight isis. the real solution that we had in our position is to either increase the sanctions against iran or to negotiate with iran. we are hearing a lot of rhetoric and criticism of the democrats and obama opposed to netanyahu's speech, but america does not have the appetite for war. we saw this same situation this past summer with the race issues, where we understand there are major issues with race on both political sides and they try to use this to shore up their base but not realizing how it is affecting everyday americans. i am an african american who lives in a primarily white
9:18 am
community. i have daughters, children, and they are directly affected eye the political rhetoric that goes on -- that are directly affected by the political rhetoric that goes on. our leaders take in absurd -- our leaders taken absurd stance. host: let's listen to a little bit of what the israeli prime minister had to say yesterday before congress in his joint meeting, his third before congress. here is what he had to say about this pending iran deal. >> i have come here today to tell you that we do not have to bet the security of the world on the hope that iran will change for the better. we do not have to gamble with our future and our children's future. we can insist that restrictions on iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.
9:19 am
[applause] before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that iran do three things. stop its aggression against the neighbors in the middle east. second -- [applause] second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. [applause]
9:20 am
and third, stop threatening to annihilate my country israel, the one and only jewish state. host: the israeli prime minister before a joint meeting of congress. republicans and some democrats listening to his speech, senate and house members, and "the wall street journal" with a headline that despite the speech, the u.s. and iran pushed ahead with new deals and talks in place yesterday. secretary of state john kerry in switzerland with his iranian counterpart's, trying to hammer out these details that the state department says, "optics were considered, but the decision was made to not waste time." the president says he did not get to see the speech, but here was his reaction yesterday to what the prime minister had to say. >> i did not have a chance to
9:21 am
watch prime minister netanyahu's speech. i was on a videoconference with our european partners with respect to ukraine. i looked at the transcript, and as far as i can tell, there was nothing new. the prime minister i think appropriately pointed out that the bond between the united states of america is unbreakable , and on that point i thoroughly agree. he also pointed out that iran has been a dangerous regime and continues to engage in activity that is contrary to the interests of the united states, to israel, and to the region. on that we agree. he also pointed out the fact that iran has repeatedly threatened israel and engaged in the most venomous anti-semitic statements. and no one can dispute that. but, on the core issue, which is
9:22 am
how do we prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon which would make it far more dangerous and would give it the scope for even greater action in the region, the prime minister did not offer any viable alternatives. host: that was the president at the white house yesterday reacting to what the israeli prime minister had to say. today in washington, the supreme court will take up health care the latest case against you for the care act, and that is king v. burwell, the case about subsidies, whether or not people enrolled in the exchanges should get this tax benefit, or did congress mean the tax benefit for those that have enrolled in state exchanges. i want to go to the editorial pages. many of you with opinions about the israeli prime minister's visit. while those opinions were echoed
9:23 am
in the editorial pages as well. "the post" saying, "what the prime minister said is worth the -- is worthy of a response. the "london financial times," their editorial about prime minister netanyahu's speech saying his brazen challenge to obama -- they write that he described mr. netanyahu's speech as a bad deal that would give iran the ability to build nuclear warheads. only a complete gloving would -- only a complete gutting would prevent this. from "the wall street journal," the israeli prime minister takes apart the looming iran deal. they say given mr. obama's reaction, the prime minister knows his real audience is congress and the american people. his speech raised serious doubts
9:24 am
about an accord that has been negotiated in secret that mr. obama wants americans to accept without a vote in congress. by the way the majority leader, mitch mcconnell, saying he will bring forward legislation next week that would allow congress to approve or disapprove of the deal that is being negotiated. "the new york times" saying mr. netanyahu's unconvincing speech. that is what they call it in the editorial pages. from troutdale, oregon, a republican. we are on open phones. caller: i wanted to respond to that article about netanyahu. the one thing none of those people are talking about is that israel, it is right in their garden. basically, iran has been wanting to destroy israel, and i do not
9:25 am
blame him for going to congress. somebody needed to. host: ok, an independent caller from north carolina. what do you think? caller: i am calling to comment on the concerns of the callers who say their premiums have increased under the affordable care act. their premiums have increased because they are paying for others. i have been a nurse for two years, and we already pay for the uninsured. people skipping preventative care, and simple conditions become debilitating and they are not able to be useful citizens and help pay their share of taxes. so the health care system itself is broken, and no one has wanted to fix it. while i do not particularly care for obama or obamacare, at least it was an attempt to do something. host: let's go back up to the supreme court. pedro echevarria with more outside the court chamber.
9:26 am
>> -- pedro: those opposed are here as well. tom miller with the american enterprise institute is joining us. talk about your organization's role. >> back in december of 2010, i organized the forum which started the analysis of the statute. established by a state means what it says in the law. this is the important one in front of the court right now. pedro: what about the critics that say you would get the sense that the subsidies were meant for everyone and not just a select few. >> nice try. they are trying to manufacture ambiguity where it is not there. when it comes to what type of exchanges get subsidies, it is clear-cut in section 1401.
9:27 am
it does not mean the hhs bureaucracy, it means the state governments. pedro: what would you say if the justices decide that these subsidies are not supposed to happen. what do you say to the states that would have to pick up that burden? >> some of them would try to weasel and become state exchanges. but it will be a fix for congress. they will have to work out a compromise and provide subsidies to people. they are going to free people from the employer mandate, the individual mandate, which are not well supported and are not good ideas. we can still have good health care reform, that this administration took a law and turned it into something else. pedro: are you talking about that offramp proposal? >> sometimes it is using a different type of subsidy through the federal government, but it would also provide a much wider range of flexibility for people to get the health plan that they want, the one they were promised that they could
9:28 am
keep as opposed to what the administration has tried to dictate to them. pedro: do you believe the republicans can offer a fix? >> i believe it will be ready to go the day after the court decision. pedro: thank you for your time. host: that court decision could be coming in june. that is likely when you will hear how the court has ruled in king v. burwell. oral arguments today put a lot of eyes on the supreme court this morning. you can see the line for the public, those folks hoping to get into here the case for and against these health care subsidies. in other news, i want to share the front page of "the new york times" with all of you. it is a similar story to what they had on the front page yesterday. it is about former secretary of state hillary rodham clinton. it said, "in 2012 congressional
9:29 am
investigators asked the state department for a wide range of documents related to the attack on the united states diplomatic compound in the ghazi -- diplomatic compound in been ghazi. she had maintained a private account which shielded it from such searches, department officials acknowledged on tuesday. it was only last month that the house committee appointed to investigate and ghazi was provided with 300 of mrs. clinton's e-mails related to the attack. that was shortly after mrs. clinton turned over a state department request, some 50,000 pages of government related e-mails that she had kept on her private account. you are looking at a shot yesterday of hillary clinton in washington. she received a lifetime achievement award from emily's list. she did not address the story in the papers this morning. "the washington times" have an article this morning. they write this -- "there is a
9:30 am
ruling that may impact what the private account -- that may impact the private account of hillary clinton. a judge said agencies cannot be forced to find e-mails sent from personal accounts. a federal judge ruled tuesday that federal agencies cannot be forced to track down e-mails sent by employees from the personal accounts in a case that could shield the former secretary of state conducting business from private accounts rather than a government e-mail address. the government's ruling -- the judge's ruling stems from a case where conservative group had sought records from the head of the white house office of silence and technology." "usa today" with clinton's response -- "when conducting official business, clinton e-mailed fellow colleagues on their government accounts with every expectation they would be retained. when the department asked the former secretary's -- we
9:31 am
immediately said yes and she turned over 50,000 pages of her e-mails. richard, from arkansas, we are on open phones. what is on your mind? caller: give me a moment here. i have been on long-distance and you have taken three calls. number one respect. respect is something you earn. you are not on with it, you are not voted into it. waving your pen around is disrespecting the american people. going behind closed doors and making deals with a country that is out there bombing your aircraft carriers is disrespecting the american people. point 2 -- dhs. homeland motherland. dhs. gestapo. does anybody see this?
9:32 am
they are trying to disarm us now . how must longer is it going to be before we are not asked to turn in our neighbor but told to turn in our neighbor? we are becoming a police state, and it is frightening. thank you. host: mickey, milwaukee, a republican. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am a republican, but i have to say that prime minister netanyahu's speech to the u.s. congress -- this spat between him and esther obama has been going on for many years now. -- between him and mr. obama has been going on for many years. absent of the regime change in iran, there will be no solution to this . -- there will be no solution to this nuclear program.
9:33 am
we attacked iraq, and we know the results. i wish there was a regime change in iran, but there will not be. host: anna in hayes, virginia. caller: how are you this morning? i am calling with reference to the health care issue we discussed in congress. host: before the supreme court. caller: they need to stop what they are doing and let the supreme court settle this issue and let people that need the exchange to get that. there are so many people out here that need that sort of help. everybody cannot afford to pay and that is the problem we had before. there is a little solution. let it work out.
9:34 am
this will also work for everybody. if those young people that say they do not need it today, they might need it tomorrow. let us all work together as a state. we are the united states. let us stay strong. it is not perfect, but let it work out and let us all get the help that we need. for those who are older that say we do not need health care or we don't need the exchange, we get medicare. where did that come from? thank you so much for taking my call. host: as you are talking, we are showing our viewers the folks that have gathered outside the court ahead of the supreme court decision. you can see somebody talking from the tea party patriots to those who believe the united -- who -- to those who believe the irs should not have ruled the way it did. you can hear a little bit of what he had to say. >> thank you very much.
9:35 am
[cheers] >> thank you. host: you can hear a little bit more. i think louie gohmert does come up to the mic to talk to those gathered there as well. our coverage will continue after "the washington journal" on c-span. when the oral arguments, the audio for that is released, which is friday afternoon, we will air that friday evening at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. you heard that caller talking about that the american people like these subsidies and they want them to remain. she is echoing a labor poll that the majority of voters want the supreme court to save the aca subsidies. lakewood, california, a
9:36 am
republican. good morning. caller: good morning, greta. thanks for taking my call. i have tried to read the affordable care act. it is written not in layman's terms, it is written in terms were mostly lawyers can understand the lingo. i think it is totally wrong. out here in california, if you work for a living, the affordable care act is not for you. if you are an illegal alien, you get health care completely free, no questions asked. that is wrong. if i am going to work and pay taxes, i should be able to get some type of subsidies for free at least something. but if someone wants to come to this country and not having worked a single minute in this country -- host: many have said, democrats and others, that if you are an illegal immigrant, you do not have access. you cannot get the benefit. caller: but they do. i have seen it firsthand.
9:37 am
i have been in front of it. i have been through the social services system and asked questions about it. so many illegal aliens get so many programs for free, and when i try to put my wife on it to get medicare, california health insurance, she is not eligible. she has to pay for it. host: reggie, nashville tennessee, a democratic caller. what is on your mind? caller: i have a couple of general things to say. first of all, when the democrats lost the election to george bush when they stole that election when the supreme court ruled on it the republicans told the world who is on fire. go back to who set the world on fire and start from there. the prime minister of israel -- great speech. i understand his point of view
9:38 am
but how can a prime minister of a foreign country come in here and undermine the president of the united states? that is not protocol and that is not right. my last point is this. the republicans no matter what president obama does, they try to attack his legacy. they need to come up with a commonsense approach, and he has been consistent with his common sense approach. he wants to provide you health care and provide you a job, and at every angle they try to undercut this man. have a great day. host: brian, south texas independent. caller: there is a report out that al jazeera cut this -- cut the spy cables. israel's own intelligence has disputed what netanyahu has said. they have come out. there were 200 x military
9:39 am
intelligence officials that came out in israel and were trying to get netanyahu not even to visit here. it is a little more controversial than we hear here. it is called the spy cables, and it was picked up by "the guardian" german news, etc.. host: you saw it on al jazeera? caller: yes. it was picked up by "the guardian," all over the world except the united states. in 2012 when netanyahu was saying before the u.n. that they were 90% nuclear ready immediately -- the ex moussad
9:40 am
chief said it was 20% and it has expanded since then. host: next caller, what is on your mind? caller: i am a vet from the iraq war, so i do not have to worry about health care. i have an insurance license with the aca. but i think it is obnoxious that in a country like america, which as much -- with as much wealth as it has and as much wealth it has spent on these obscene wars that we cannot provide basic health care for the working people. the working people have provided so much wealth for this 1% of our population, but yet we have to pay for college educations, which many of our allies are providing for their people and health care that they are providing for their people. it is really an embarrassment, and i am embarrassed to say that
9:41 am
i was part of the iraq war and what they did. to call myself an american, it is obscene. host: the supreme court will be hearing arguments for and against these subsidies. if the supreme court were to rule against those subsidies about 8 million people or more will not then have the subsidies. what will congress do after that? we go back to the supreme court with pedro echevarria with more on this case. pedro: people who are members of the rallies and participating in the rallies today are members of the medical profession. one from new jersey. tell us your name. >> i practice internal medicine. pedro: tell us about the medical perspective you bring to this decision. talk about this from a medical perspective, especially the treat you -- especially the people you treat. >> it is so important that the
9:42 am
justices have pulled this part of the law. so many of my patients who were not able to afford health care are now regular to -- are now able to come see me on a regular basis. pedro: the percentage of your patients who depend on subsidies -- would you know that, or have at least a guesstimate? >> i am a third-year medical resident, so the vast majority of my patients are on medicare -- or -- are on medicaid or can get subsidies through the medical care act. pedro: it subsidies were to become an issue, how would they prepare? >> currently we are unprepared. our governor, chris christie, is only halfway engaged with the affordable care act, so if this were to fall through it would be very dangerous for most of my patients. pedro: tell us what you were hoping to see the court do. i assume you want to see them
9:43 am
uphold the government's position? >> absolutely. this will allow comprehensive care for my patients as well as peace of mind. pedro: thank you for your time. host: you heard there from a doctor outside the supreme court that his patients would be several of the 8 million that could lose their subsidies if the court ruled in june. we will know that decision against the subsidies that were set up, the exchanges set up by the federal government. status changes would not be impacted by this. that is about 13 states and the district of columbia, that have set up their own exchanges. we have about 20 minutes left on "the washington journal". david, hi. caller: i am doing everything
9:44 am
not to just be pulling my hair out by the roots this morning. as i listen to and see some of these protesters outside the supreme court. the reason being like the other gentleman right before me mentioned, here we are -- first point, israel gets free insurance for all of their citizens. i am listening to susan rice and the president of the united states about what kinds of moneys we are spending to keep israel afloat, militarily and socially. and the subsidies that we are sitting over here going crazy about, given to fellow americans -- i mean, what is going on here? the insanity of this is that i do not get it. other than fear and racism. because those are the highest forms of distorted realities insanity known to mankind.
9:45 am
host: joe, augusta, west virginia, a republican. caller: i wanted to comment on some of the responses that i heard to netanyahu. i am a little nervous, so forgive me. some of the responses were so absurd, that anybody with years should have heard it. when they said that netanyahu was like a kid who wanted to go to disneyland every day -- they only have to face bombings and enemies every day. is that really disneyland? and the person speaking imply that netanyahu did not really understand the situation as well as our administration and his cronies do. he lives there. another one said that obama was elected to make these kinds of decisions, and we should let him do it. my question is, what about the hundreds of men and women in congress. why did we elect them, just to pay the bills for this man who really is like someone who wants to live in disneyland 3?
9:46 am
host: dana in chico, california. a democratic caller. caller: yes, i am calling because i am utterly outraged completely, by the republican party. from the very beginning, the republican party has never really acknowledged barack obama as president. i think the bottom line is it is just a totally racist, bigoted thing that they are doing. from the very beginning they have fought every single thing that obama has tried to do, and then yesterday when they invited the president, the prime minister of israel, to come and speak to them, they gave that man and applause and a welcome better than they ever gave obama. why doesn't this congress just moved to israel, or why don't
9:47 am
the republicans -- host: why do you say that? caller: it is a totally, utterly -- it is a crazy insult to our president to invite the leader of another country, that we pour millions of dollars to, to invite that guy to come and speak to congress. host: duncan in new york independent caller. caller: it all goes back to the founding of this country founded by wealthy landowners. they did not want to pay the brits tax. they got their independence, then they did not want to pay their own government tax. fortunately my son has been saved. he married an english girl, and he is in england, under national
9:48 am
healthcare. there are countries in africa that have national healthcare. the united nations, the states of america want their own game to run, and it is a plutocracy. hundreds of millions of dollars have been given to israel. they have plenty of money. they make money selling weapons to apartheid south africa, yet -- host: where did you read that? selling weapons? caller: it is common knowledge back during the days of apartheid. it was in "the new york times" and all over the place. host: let's go back out to the supreme court, pedro echevarria. pedro: standing only in a t-shirt. tell us about the organization. >> we do taxes, spending, health
9:49 am
care, regulatory policy. we are on the air at american pedro: what concerns you most about this case? is a what the justices will look at today? >> it is a system of government that the regulatory agencies cannot ignore the clear tack of a statute. that is what has happened here. the federal government can create and exchange established by the state. that is frightening. taxes are going to be levied against people whose states have opted out. pedro: do you think the justices will be swayed by that kind of argument? >> unfortunately, i think the liberal journalists -- i think the liberal justices will gloss that over. there will be a strong argument for the five justices that will listen to the merits here, and i hope they will rule with supply death. pedro: what about the states
9:50 am
that will have to focus in take of the burden? >> they will be the winners here. the states that have opted out do not just get out of the subsidies, they also get out of the penalties. there is no employer mandate in those states, a huge advantage for businesses. they do not have to cut people to 30 hours a week. the people who lose their subsidies, that will be a challenge, but a much smaller number of people -- and i am convinced congress will do something for them. pedro: thank you for your time. host: phil kirkman, with american commitment. the justices will hear from that perspective as well as those that support this idea of subsidies for all americans enrolled in the affordable care act, whether it is a federal run exchange or a state one. we are on open phones for the next 10 minutes. today's "washington journal."
9:51 am
the front page of "usa today," "the feds find racially biased policing in ferguson." "the population of 67% african-americans, 95% of african-americans are issued tickets, and 90% of people are arrested in that area." more in "usa today." above that headline in "usa today" is a story about retired general david the tray us. "sex lies, and the tray us -- and general petronius -- general petraeus' little black book. it brings an end to an arc in
9:52 am
which he rose to be the nation's most famous general from the iraq war, then was reduced to a fallen idol because of a high-profile extramarital affair. andrew in springfield, missouri, a democratic caller. what is on your mind this morning? caller: i am calling after that gentleman from arkansas who said that it took him 20 minutes to get on the line. i am following up your general to tray us comment. i don't understand how he can only receive a misdemeanor for the offense. at the same time, if you are in a listed serviceman -- if you are an in listed serviceman and found guilty, he must serve time in prison. lose his pay. his benefits. most times, received a dishonorable discharge. i ask you -- will david the tray us -- will general petraeus get
9:53 am
his retirement, his benefits? and don't ask me about ferguson. caller: i would like to make a comment on subsidized health care. i am a retired teacher from north carolina. we always had to have blue cross blue shield. here is what people do not think about with that. i paid $649 a month to ensure my wife. a person that has a wife and 10 kids pays $649 a month for health insurance. if that is not a subsidy, i do not know what is. secondly, there is a very simple solution to this problem and it is everybody call their health insurance and cancel. if nobody has health insurance then the field is leveled. host: if you and others are
9:54 am
interested, the oral arguments of today's case, the audio will be released on friday in the afternoon, and we would air it at 8:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span. back up to the supreme court. pedro echevarria has more. pedro: what brings you here today? >> actually, this hearing brings us here today. pedro: you are directly affected by health care and subsidies. tell us your story. >> i am a single parent and i have my two daughters here. we receive a subsidy, but we were affected because my husband had cancer and it makes a difference. we did not have health insurance. i remain and keep health insurance so that i can be around to take care of my children. pedro: if i can ask how much in subsidies do you receive and how much do you pay? >> i pay $184 a month in health
9:55 am
care, and i received $385. pedro: what do you receive as far as your payout? >> i have a zero co-pay. my did a double is $4000 annually out-of-pocket expenses. but as far as my premium, it works for me. pedro: what happens if subsidies are not part of your health insurance plan? >> i lose my health insurance and my children go back to the state program for a child health care. pedro: is texas set up to help you if the subsidies go away? >> not me. as far as the kids keeping health care, they will ensure the children, but i will stay -- i will still payout the premium and it is not great. but myself, i will be a cash patient not seeing a doctor basically. pedro: thanks for your time. host: pedro echevarria talking
9:56 am
to that woman there. texas is one of several states -- look at the map here, the states in black -- that have federal or partnership exchanges. you are talking about 7 million to 8 million people. matt in concord, new hampshire an independent caller. go ahead. caller: good morning, greta, and good morning, america. i do not want to get into the supreme court. we have congressmen who want to stop the supreme court and they are preaching whatever they are preaching. we have soldiers who are overseas who are fighting for our freedom, and our congress is too ignorant and too derelict in their duty to even put a vote for an authorization of use of military force or a declaration of war. congress is obligated by the
9:57 am
constitution to do this. they are negligent. they should not receive their pay, and no soldier's benefit should be cut in any form or way until they resolve these issues. host: mark, wilbur, south carolina. a democratic caller. caller: this is my first time calling, and i just wanted to say how much i appreciate what you and your staff do every day. and from the bottom of my heart it gives me reassurance that we are moving in the right direction. that is what i wanted to say. host: thank you, mark. appreciate you watching. susan in hampton, virginia, a republican caller. caller: i am sitting in my house just screaming. the cadillac tax you acted surprised about the cadillac tax, and that is what unions are
9:58 am
debating and arguing about, how they have these nice health care plans that the government at aca taxed. they do not want to pay the tax. the treasury just made a $3 billion in obamacare payment and they will not ask why. the whole aca was set up on a scam. it is a scam great for a doctor to get up there and speak well of it is because he is getting paid from it. it is a sweet deal. as far as the prime minister of israel, he was invited. john boehner has the authorization to invite. he did tell the president and one thing that the american people are not told is that obama's former presidential election campaign guy is over there now, running a campaign to get rid of netanyahu.
9:59 am
host: william baldwin, new york. a republican caller. caller: i am calling about the aca, mainly against it because it was passed by one party and it really is not working, i don't think. i feel that today mr. gruber should be in front of the supreme court and testify about what he said about the affordable care act. i keep wondering why mr. obama is running around helping all these foreign countries -- went to the sky and so forth -- and i really think he is still on a campaign mode and he is running toward after his presidency, the presidency of the world. host: i am going to get tony on the line. if you can make it quick, the
10:00 am
house is about to gavel in. caller: i think the national health care act is a good thing. the problem here is, where are we going to get the money to fund this? when it began in the beginning, it was supposed to be free for everybody like these other countries. at least that is how we perceived it. why not just legalize marijuana? your forefathers grew it. host: i apologize for cutting you off early, but the doors have opened to the house. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room washington, d.c., march 4 2015. i hereby appoint the honorable earl l. "buddy" carter to act as speaker pro tempor