other way people -- you deny medicaid expansion, people die. you deny a living wage, and people die. i'm suggesting we ought to look at all of these issues. we can't say the flag is just a start in this honors them. this does not fully honor these steps. if we're going to start and be political -- lee atwater said in an infamous radio interview, he said, we stop talking about race in a very open way usually -- we started talking about policies like tax cuts, states rights, forced busing. he said they found the nine, but they actually have a negative impact on african-americans and they promote this idea that southern whites, the problem of southern whites are rooted in the advances of black people. that is what this young man was in essence saying. in essence he was saying, summit is taking over his country. i'm calling on democrats and republicans, the naacp if you really want to honor these vicious deaths, then like we have had to do with other deaths in the country, let's have some substantive policy change. why not name the voting rights re

and then you've got medicaid expansion which 29 states and d.c. have participated in the medicaid expansion and it pays insurance or health care costs for up to 138% of those -- those and 138% of poverty level. so unlike traditional medicaid for disabled beneficiaries nursing home patients with children, the aca is for able-bodied working-age adults and my question is do you know the split on the numbers of aca participants in the exchange and those in the medicaid expansion and also the budget impact for each population? >> i don't offhand but i can follow up with you. >> okay. i happen to have looked at some of that data and i believe there are more people in the medicaid expansion population than those affected by the exchanges than were anticipating the court ruling in the "burwell" case that would affect those under the exchanges but would do very little to affect the larger population of those in the medicaid expansion population. and since you don't know the number, you probably won't know the answer to this question but i'll ask it anyhow.

about 30 states in the union have adopted the medicaid expansion. this law was meant to take care of people with higher income and the medicaid expansion was to take care of the lower to middle-income people. that hasn't happened. back in 1965 when they first developed medicaid and medicare it wasn't until 1980 that arizona first adopted it. so this takes time. right now we do have two separate systems when it comes to lower-income americans. but today what we have is a system that is at least not bifurcated with those higher income americans. >> and the debate will continue. >> absolutely. >> thank you, david. let's bring in a civil rights and criminal defense attorney. sir, there are several other cases that were pending that have challenged the affordable care act, what happens to those? >> well as of now, those cases haven't come before the supreme court. the challengers in those cases could choose to appeal the ruling of the lower courts to the supreme court, but it's a question now whether the supreme court would even choose to hear them. havi

participated in medicaid expansion. it pays insurance or health care costs up to 138% of those 138% of poverty level. unlike traditional medicaid for disabled beneficiaries for nursing home patients and children the aca medicaid expansion is for able bodied working adults. do you know the split on aca par par 'tis pants in the exchange and budget impact for each population? >> i don't offhand but i can follow up with you. >> i happen to have looked at some of that data, i believe there are more people in the medicaid expansion population than those effected by the exchanges and we are anticipation a court ruling in king versus birdwell case that would effect those under the exchanges, but would do very little to effect the larger population of those in the medicaid expansion population. and since the don't know the number, don't know the answer to this question i will ask it anyhow, would you say it would be fair to say medicaid expansion under aca is costing more than the exchanges, if there are more people in the medi

and then you've got medicaid expansion, which 29 states in d.c. have participated in the medicaid expansion and it pays up to 138% of those in 138% of the poverty level. so unlike traditional medicaid and for disabled beneficiaries for nursing home and children, the aca is for abled bodied working age adults. my question do you know the wit on the numbers of aca participants and the exchange in the medicaid expansion and also the budget impact for each population? >> i don't offhand, but i can follow up with you. >> okay. i haven't looked at some of that data and i believe there are more people in the medicaid expansion population and those effected by the changes. we're anticipating a court ruling in the king versus burwell case would effect those under the exchanges but do very little to effect the large population of those in the medicaid expansion population. since you don't know the number you probably won't know the answer to this question but i'll ask it anyhow. would you say fair to say medicaid over the aca is costing more than the exchan

and it has to do with medicaid expansion. i don't recall sort of chapter and verse about his interaction but one of the points i made at the summit was loaded, isn't medicaid expansion simply an expansion of welfare? and isn't medicaid a terribly broken system? and if you have a terribly broken system why would you make that a foundation upon which you build a whole health care reform movement? a couple of minutes ago you made to you said at one of the reasons it's working in washington state is because of medicaid expansion. that i think is a problem. i think it's a problem long-term. i am from illinois. our medicaid system is really a mess. you've got huge access issues on the one point, and you've got, okay, medicaid is basically cost shifted in a lot of ways. i know it is slipped but it is cost shifted onto the federal taxpayers. isn't there a little bit of a cautionary tale in just medicare expansion as being part of this remedy? and isn't that almost a structural weakness to the affordable care act? >> tricky one of the

medicaid expansion. let me show that. >> if we can get some governors that have been holding out and resisting as expanding medicaid primarily for political reasons to think about what they can do for their citizens who don't have health insurance but could get it very easily if state governments acted, then we could see even more improvement over time. >> if state governments acted, jared, now that we have the supreme court ruling will we see a shift in the politics at a state level with some of these governors? >> i certainly hope so. and my guess would be that we're going to see some of that. you know in some states you've got governors who want to do the right thing, take the medicaid expansion, cover millions of workers with a very important health coverage under medicaid and the states themselves don't even have to pay for it for the initial few years. after that they never have to pay more than 10%. so this is a program that is a huge and important benefit for their citizens. now, i thought your c

they've been two of the loudest when it comes to medicaid expansion in my state and other states and obamacare in general. look at the hospitals. i'll give you louisiana's example. if we had done medicaid expansion in louisiana -- we won'ting a loss, a i'm governor -- 250,000 louisianans would be moved from private insurance to medicaid. my point to hospitals is, that's more than the number of previously uninsured people moved into medicaid. so you'd actually have -- for every previously uninsure person in medicaid you'd have more than one person be prevented to be in private insurance now on medicaid. so if you're a hospital you're no longer getting blue cross or blue shied or, you're getting medicaid rates for the 250,000 people mitchell point is be careful what you ask for. because the reality is that over time medicaid is increased as a percentage of almost every state's budget and the way states respond is they reduce rates, and before, hospitals could -- when medicare wasn't paying their full share. they won't be able to do that when method okayed becomes 30, 40% of the hospita

the governor and the house in florida have rejected the medicaid expansion. today, florida would be able to expand the program with 100% funding from the federal government paid for by taxpayers across the country. florida today has a medicaid program which has been operational for close to 50 years. florida, currently with its medicaid program, gets $.60 out of the dollar from the federal government. florida has decided to do that. now they are being offered 100 cents on the dollar for expansion and the governor is saying no. i don't understand, it seems like a no-brainer. there are so many things the state gets out of this in addition to being able to get federal dollars coming in and set of just going to california or new york or kentucky. they now get those federal dollars. in addition, states often pay for what we call uncompensated care, when somebody is uninsured and goes to a public hospital and it picks up some of those costs. perhaps, even more importantly in every state, we have seen reports and analysis about what it means in terms of jobs. that i

that is on the medicaid expansion itself north on the exchanges. but i think you'll see-- you see in polling today, the vast majority of americans would like to see how we can improve upon the law but not engage in these legal maneuverings. >> ifill: since it's very confusing for people, you said most american want this law rolled back and you said most want it fixed. is there a fix? is there a common ground? >> i think what american people want is health care that is better and more affordable and more secure. the problem i think the centerpiece of this law, guaranteed issue of community rating provisions or preexisting provisions, make health care less secure for people we care about the most, which is the sickest americans. the problem is that you can't make health care more secure for them until you get rid of that centerpiece of this law so i think the debate gl for a long time. >> i just disagree with that. justice roberts recognized this. you can have preexisting conditions requirements, making sure that people no longer face-- you know, fac

the government in florida has rejected the medicaid expansion. today, florida would be able to expand the program with 100% funding from the federal government, sure they paid for by taxpayers across the country. florida today has a medicaid program which has been operational for close to 50 years. florida, with his current medicaid program gets $.60 per dollar from the federal government. florida has decided do that. now, they are being offered 100 cents on the dollar. i don't understand. it seems like a no-brainer. there are so many things that a state gets out of this, in addition to being able to get federal dollars coming in instead of just going to california texas or new york. in addition to that, states often pay for what we call uncompensated care. when someone goes to a public cost no, the state picks up some of that cost. perhaps even more important the in every state, we have seen reports and analyses about what this means for jobs and employment. that means more revenue coming into the state without increasing tax rates. florida woul

john kasich, the governor of ohio, it is not uncontroversial that he accepted the medicaid expansion money. jeff toobin can talk more about this, both in terms of the decision today and also where we go from here, politically and legally. jeff? >> well, the -- this is really, now, a political matter. it is up to the states to decide whether they want to establish exchanges, the ones that haven't done it. it is up to the states to decide whether they want to accept the medicaid expansion, which is essentially of no cost to the states for the foreseeable future. but it is not, really, a legal question anymore. sure, the supreme court will continue to address issues around the edges of obamacare, and there are going to be lots of difficult questions to be resolved. but the core issues about health care in america now are going to be up to congress and the state legislatures and the governors. because the legal issues about the existence of obamacare are now resolved, and this whole matter is for the voters and for the elected officials. >> although, of course, as we've noted, there is a

one thing that the supreme court decision does not change about obama care is medicaid expansion. in 2012 the court dealt a defeat to the president, ruling states did not have to expand the health care programme. 18 states chose not to do it while utah, alaska and florida are considering the expansion. for the states that opt in, the federal government is picking up the cost of the expansion until the end of next year. in five years that funding drops to 90%. david ariosto has been covering obama care from the get-go. how does the ruling play into other part of the affordable care act, including medicare. >> it doesn't. this was about an individual mandate and subsidies in the 34 states. updirectly it's a different bowl of wax. the political momentum, many analysts say has a potential to shift in terms of whether the states will stop fighting the expansion of medicaid. some of the other components of the law that have been unpopular in republican-dominated states. medicaid is one of those parts of the law that is essentially been bifurcated system. we had 29 states, the district o

we have more many states that have not made the medicaid expansion here now but i think as they look at it as they see the affects, one on the rates inside the exchange but also the affects on their citizens who would be eligible for medicaid and effectively locked out right now, we need to do something about it. >> i know that that washington has a state exchange but if the supreme court were to decide against a government, would you please describe the possible impact on those people living in states with a federal exchange? >> we actually had some experience with that and mr. mcdermott will remember this. he was in congress then so he was away from it but in the late 1990s we actually had health care reform that had passed in 1993. it was repealed in 1995 but it left in place that you could get health insurance after a three-month preexisting waiting period. what the net result was, we effectively what would be left with the affordable care act is guaranteed issue and you would wind up with the healthy people dropping out as rates started to rise, the sick people staying and you c

senator greg's response was basically to redefine obamacare and say the medicaid expansion should not count as part of obamacare. the chart reflects the expansion of medicaid which sin dependence of obamacare and could have done without it. even though i think that's nonsense, let's accept the premise. let's look at just the states that have not expanded medicaid. here's what that looks like. the uninsured rate drop from 21.4% in 2013 to 14.4% in the first quarter of this year. that means the uninsured rate dropped by a third even in the states that have no medicaid expansion. now, say what you want about obamacare. the one thing you're really can't say is that it is not reducing the percentage of inin uninsured. the one thing that is true is it is reducing the amount of uninsured. by the way, in all 50 states and all adults the rate dropped to 10.1% this new survey raising the possibility according to forbes the uninsured rate could reach the single digits for the first time ever. with royal caribbean's wow sale. our biggest sale of the summer ends today. get a 50% reduced deposit. p

the governor and the house in florida have rejected the medicaid expansion. today, florida would be able to expand the program with 100% funding from the federal government paid for by taxpayers across the country. florida today has a medicaid program which has been operational for close to 50 years. florida, currently with its medicaid program, gets $.60 out of the dollar from the federal government. florida has decided to do that. now they are being offered 100 cents on the dollar for expansion and the governor is saying no. i don't understand, it seems like a no-brainer. there are so many things the state gets out of this in addition to being able to get federal dollars coming in and set of just going to california or new york or kentucky. they now get those federal dollars. in addition, states often pay for what we call uncompensated care, when somebody is uninsured and goes to a public hospital and it picks up some of those costs. perhaps, even more importantly in every state, we have seen reports and analysis about what it means in terms of jobs. that i

why are people opposing the medicaid expansion for fellow residents? >> to the question of monuments and not just the symbols but the ways in which this country celebrates the confederacy, this debate over the flag inevitably leads you to what does the confederacy mean to you and what is the legacy? which is an almost unanswerable question for conservatives at this point. for those supporting the legacy of the confederacy. >> right. it is amazing. it is shocking to some of us that we need to debate a about the civil war or a debate about slavery. but we apparently do. so this is a good thing. i want to agree with what jamel jamelle said though. selma led to the voting rights act five months later. if we applaud and stop at the charleston massacre leads merely to doing something 50 years late, then we can't be satisfied with that. >> the argument you are going to get from republicans is expanding medicaid has nothing to do with the confederate flag. voting rights -- >> rights act -- >> we have had legislative solutions to the problem of segregation. so

they say medicaid expansion is ruining the country. they say the president is a communist, socialist, not born here, ruining the country. more money in public education, ruining the country, attacking our gun rights, ruining the country. saying we can't fly our confederate flag, ruining the country and in fact causing problems with our freedom. more attention paid to the second amendment than the 15th amendment that says we have the right to vote. the district that he was in was produced by the voting rights act. it is under attack now. it's been gutted. he stood against voter suppression. there are those saying there is fraud in this country because more blacks and african-americans are voting. >> you look at this and the history you mention, this risk, the threats, the danger that these church and political leaders is not new when you think of martin luther king. do you feel as a politically active reverend right now given this there's a threat facing -- an active threat facing this kind of clergy? >> we are in a dangerous climate. d

when we talk about medicaid funding and medicaid expansion in the southern governors, like nikki haley, who fought against medicaid expansion because they did not want to give something to undeserving people who they see as black people. when you talk about voter id laws, trying to keep a group of people from having power, almost like literacy tests and knowing how many bubbles are in a bar of soap. they talked the game now about reconciliation, but everybody uses this code language, here and across the country, to deny black people and people of color rights. this whole idea -- go ahead amy: heavy governor said when asked about which she support taking down the confederate flag, she said she would want to introduce politics in this time of mourning. i want to go to the issue of the massacre being terrorism. speaking at a news compass on friday, the fbi director james comey refused to label the charleston massacre as a terrorist act. >> i wouldn't because of the way we define terrorism under the law. terrorism is an act of violence done or threatened in order to try to influence a publ

expansion, and i think you'll see more of the state's expanding the coverage, it makes economic sense to do that. there'll be pressure from the hospitals, for example in the states that have not expanded programs to do that because they can generate more revenue from the government. if they do and there'll be fewer uninsured people showing up in the emergency rooms. so you'll see, i think, considerable pressure continuing and intensifying in the states. >> when that happens, when a law that's been the subject of controversy, when the combatants put down their weapons, does it take on a momentum that it didn't have before. does it harden institutionally and does that make it really harder to mess with down the road? >> i think it makes it harder to mess with down the road. it is becoming more of the fabric of the way things are. now that we are five years in to this being a law of the land and more certainty that it will continue. it will be harder. >> it will be harder to sustain the opposition from a political point of view. it will still - we'll hear criticism of it. i think after t

host: what about medicaid expansion? some states have been eyeing whether or not, no they're not going to expand medicaid. guest: secretary burwell said she remains committed to working with states to get them to expand medicaid under the affordable care act. if income comes up to about $60,000, it's 138% of the poverty level. the felleae fell -- federal government would puck up 100% of the cost. so the thing we have to think about is in many states, almost every state in the union, you get sick you go to a hospital. they take medicare money. they have to abide something called atolla. many hospital have pushed their state legislatures, even the conservative ones to expand medicaid because when these folks come in, there's no health insurance. it's uncompensated care that we pay for. you have about 29 states that have expanded medicaid 21 have not. secretary burwell said she's committed to working with them providing flexibility. she pointed at the state of indiana where they cut a deal with the republican governor mike

in another media outlet that i'm for medicaid expansion. but if somebody threatened my life to vote in favor of medicaid expansion? you know what, i'd say no. because we can't legislate that way. we can't be pushed that way. >> he had a meeting with a group after they essentially forced themselves into your office. >> yes. and if you look at the timeline there, i think after i was on your show a couple of months back, or right before that they had threatened our lives. not just mine, but everybody's. and it was maybe a couple two or three days after that this same gentleman walks into the lieutenant governor's office to talk about this issue. he even tweeted a selfie of himself there. and to me that's obscene that they would allow him in there after he does that. to me that's just -- it's a lack of spine in my opinion. >> texas state representative month poncho nevarez, thanks for joining us again. >>> up next shocking new data showing just how many people were killed by police this year and who they were. ich saves money. their customer ex

>> no, we're not part of the medicaid expansion. we won we can not be coerced expanding medicaid. here in florida since twix. we have the -- 2006. low income pool, lip. it helps poorest families in florida. now the administration comes in and said basically, if you don't expand medicaid, we're going to pull your low income pool funding. to use the funding and our families a bargaining chip for something our state lawmakers need to decide whether or not we stay in part of medicaid. neil: you're also suing the administration with other states on the president's executive orders on delaying deportations for millions of illegals. second quarter, as you know, an attorney general blocked that. the president still issues this stuff. >> he did. neil: so, as a litigator, when does it ever stop for you? do you keep challenging this stuff in the courts? >> absolutely, we will. as you said on immigration, we had two favorable rulings. it shows as fast as the president can violate the law by signing that pen, we were able to mobilize 296 states, practically as fast as he signed it. that shows

look at medicaid expansion here this is going to take time. >> and there are still groups that are trying to disassemble the law. >> absolutely. to reform the healthcare system even as comprehensive as this bill was, it is going to take time. >> david thank you. i want to go to fellow and deputy director of the manhattanist ought to for policy research. he is still looking for changeings in the aaffordable care act and doesn't agree with it, in its current form. give me your take on today's supreme court decision. >> you know, i was always a little bit on the fence on this issue. i didn't find myself completely agreeing with the plaintiffs or the administration. i'm glad to be over this hump to be honest because i think now we can start focusing on making changes to the law that really need to happen. i think focusing on these court challenges for people who want to reform the aca has been a bit of a mistake. you can't wait for the court to overturn a law, or give an opportunity to make changes, you have to pursue them. >> because it make it more difficult to make changes to the aca? >> a

the court upheld the core part of the three-legged stool i described, but in the medicaid expansion that was mandatory under the affordable care act the court struck that down. so what i fear is that the pendulum and the court has long suffered untold wingnut heaven activist courts does look at social ills of drug abuse the law to address them but is all with the opposite extreme, standing in what efforts by publicly elected officials to name and address social problems. ari: well, and you you are also putting your finger on a looming inconsistency which in the first obamacare case the notion of having high demands on states to get the money was considered coercive, right? and in this case they could potentially read rate interpret the statute to deny funds, which if it was the theme would also be -- that's a lot of hypothetical. elizabeth: that's a problem for down the road. ari: that's what we do. we look for more problems in our nature as attorneys. i want to talk to you guys for three cases. it's been really wonderful. you guys are just really wonderful that this. let's go to the mic

part of naifb didn't get as much press but the court struck down the medicaid expansion piece of the -- >> you're talking about the first obamacare case? >> yes, sorry. so, the court upheld the core part of the three-legged stool that i described but in in the medicaid expansion affordable under the affordable care act the court struck that down. what i fear is the pendulum in the court has swung so not only do we not only have an activist court looking at social ills and trying to figure out how to use the law to address them, but it-s on the opposite side of extreme. it is standing in the way of efforts by publicly elected officials to name and address social problems. >> you're also putting your finger on a looming inconsistency, which is in the first obamacare case, the notion of having high demands on states to get the money was considered coercive, right? in this case, they could potentially reread and reinterpret the statute to deny funds which if that was the scheme, would also seem to be coercive. but that's a lot of hypotheticals. >> that's a -- that's, you know that's a pr

the court upheld the core part of the three-legged stool i described, but in the medicaid expansion that was mandatory under the affordable care act the court struck that down. so what i fear is that the pendulum and the court has long suffered untold wingnut heaven activist courts does look at social ills of drug abuse the law to address them but is all with the opposite extreme, standing in what efforts by publicly elected officials to name and address social problems. >> you are also putting a finger on a limited inconsistency which in the first obamacare case the notion of having high demands on states to get the money was considered coercive, right? and in this case they could reread interpret the statute to deny funds, which if it was the theme would also be -- that's a lot of hypothetical. >> that's a problem for down the road. >> that's what we do. we look for more problems in our nature as attorneys. i want to talk to you guys for three cases. it's been really wonderful. you guys are just really good at this. let's go to the mic. as i said at the top please introduce yourself, c

expansion. what we have seen is that in many states where there -- where you have governors and lawmakers who oppose the affordable care act, they are turning down free money, literally, in fact, their state does not even have to contribute to the expansion at all because they have an objection to all things obama care. so i don't think there is any question in regards to the politics that there will be many states where the supreme court does the wrong thing. subsidies it wouldn't caught off and that means there's a brief that was it summit by several public health advocates that have predicted that 10,000 people will die every year if the tax credits are cut off. that is a lot of mothers who do not get to hold their sons again , if this goes the wrong way. >> i want to go to closing comments, which can be whatever you want to wrap on. it we will go down the line. or a response to a paradox of the court that i want to close on, as we think about so many of these issues that the court is potenti

coverage under medicaid. i mean it's very obviously that the republicans, all of them the whole lot of them are focused on obstruction. i mean you had the statements released by the candidates running for the republican nomination all of the major candidates sent a statement out, saying that they support full repeal that this decision means nothing to them. >> let me play a clip by the house speaker, john boehner, reacting very negatively to the supreme court decision. listen to this. >> the problem with obamacare, is still, fundamentally, the same. the law is broken. it's raising costs for american families it's raising costs for small businesses and it's just fundamentally broken. and we're going to continue our efforts to do everything we can to put the american people back in charge of their own health care or not, the federal government. >> congressman from indiana basically saying the same thing. he said people in indiana, they're complaining to him about the rising cost of health insurance. >> you know

in his budget he is proposing over $3 million in cuts, but if he took the medicaid expansion it would bring into the state $350 million over the next two years. it seems to be basic math and his denial of that, not only denying people who are tough to cover to begin with but also getting that money into the state where it can do some good in wisconsin. i know you, especially, and hhs, have been working closely with many other republican governors throughout the nation to figure out a path forward on waivers and modifications and sl÷that, and i would encourage you to continue those lines of communication because we need help in wisconsin. he rejected the ability for us to form our own exchange so we are in the box and we could have created our own health insurance exchange, and if we get an adverse decision 166,000 wisconsinites would lose their insurance. there is a lot riding on this decision, and hopefully we will be able to continue to work with the states and convince them to do the right thing especially in wisconsin where we need the help. i appreciate your focused on the payme

we reached back out to judd gregg to show him the chart and he says that it reflects medicaid expansion which is independent of obamacare and could have been done without it. perhaps he forgot that obamacare was part of medicare and that it's since been blocked around the country by republican governors. this kid makes stains like crazy so we got our new he washing machine but it took forever turns out it wasn't the machine, it was our detergent. so we switched to tide turbo clean. now we get way cleaner clothes way faster he turbo clean. 6x the cleaning power in ½ the time >>> right now on an island less than a thousand miles off the coast of florida, a government is constructing what amounts to modern day concentration campes and preparing for what could be an act of massive ethnic cleansing. hundreds of thousands of haitians living in the dominican republic now face being round up in so-called welcome centers and deported if they aren't registered with the dominican government before tomorrow's 7:00 p.m. deadline. long lines and red tape have complicated the registration complex and

pursued medicaid expansion under the law. we know that a lot have also seen more protections through thin insurance, for example, the law did away with preexisting conditions restrictions, so now if you get cancer, never in the future unless the law is repealed will an insurance company be able to not sell you health insurance because you had cancer. >> so after the decision today -- excuse me for interrupting but after the decision today those states that didn't set up an exchange, what do you think they are going to do. >> i think some of the states will now look very seriously at abandoning the motion of having their own state exchange. >> why. >> and move to healthcare.gov. >> for a number of reasons. one is that it is expensive you have to finance it somehow, and the only real way most states are looking at doing this is taxing health insurers. number two, it isn't clear you get that much more out of running your own exchange in your state. healthcare.gov had a lot of problems when it started up, but it is working pretty