You're watching...
Health Care - Supreme Court Showdown: Despite High Court's ruling, Democrats are hesitant to call health care law provision a tax, make quick comparis...
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
-- -- -- -- tax.
Now the Supreme Court and the White House disagree -- what to call the health care law's individual mandate that justice is ruling it's that tax but the White House insists it's a penalty.
So do other Democrats agree.
We asked -- and congressman Chris van Holland.
He's acted to see you I know that day you have always said that the mandate that was constitution now in the supreme court's recent decision with the issue at.
As a legitimate taxing power of capital we surprised that the decision went that direction.
Well I wasn't sure which direction or what basis -- decision would be made but I'm happy with the result because the result means that.
Millions more Americans will get more affordable health care act it affects.
How you can call whatever you want -- what I can tell you is its designed exactly like.
Mitt Romney designed the -- program up in Massachusetts.
And the idea behind it is that everybody should pay something.
For health care because everybody is using the health care system.
Mitt Romney understood at that time that if some people don't pay.
It means everybody else pays more when they get sick when they tax in marathon coming up around Massachusetts and attacked in Massachusetts yes absolutely that was the.
Method they used for making sure everybody ultimately participated.
And as governor Romney said at the time if some people don't pay something.
Everybody else has to pay more higher premiums.
Higher uncompensated.
Care at hospitals hospitals don't eat that month.
Tax payers help provide.
The funds to the hospitals and so the idea is it -- the irony here is that all of a sudden Republicans are arguing in favor of the people who want a free lahood.
And free ride on the system and on everybody else.
Well I think though that if you look at the the chief -- opinion that we talk about really is sort of the congress constantly specifically said.
Allegedly that we have a Federalist system of government the states and the federal government he wasn't denied that the state has -- right to do that within it's confines.
But he said specifically that and having the federal government.
Do it for the states that's where cross the line with the federal that was or in the states.
What -- with the Chief Justice sent along with the majority is that the federal government.
I can use this power just like Mitt Romney used that -- Massachusetts again that the dollar accidentally hit payments also made.
It's unusual though I mean everyone is sort of an up on the fact that that the politicians naturally -- -- -- that was passed.
The lawyers and they got to court -- -- -- -- attacks because they realize that that was AM that are legal argument.
But my point is whatever you want to.
All the device is the saying in the Massachusetts law that governor Romney passed as it is in the in the federal law and the idea behind both of them is that.
Everybody should participate in -- something and health care system because everybody.
Has some interaction otherwise.
If you get sick and you haven't paid for your health insurance.
We end up paying them that they -- -- everybody else's premiums go up across the whole idea about getting everybody into the.
In the pool with the fact that the Medicaid expansion aspect was shut down there it is -- state elects not to be part of -- Medicaid expansion there is a group of people.
Who won't have health insurance is great well that's a possibility.
The reason I think that's a very unlikely.
Events.
Is that right now every state participates in the Medicaid program even though under the current Medicaid program the match is.
Six dollars of federal money to four dollars of state money.
Whereas under the new Affordable Care Act provisions that matches a 100% federal money for five years.
And then it -- down and nine dollars of federal money.
For every dollar statement which -- segment doesn't seem very costly to actually look at the number of people in the mind that it does it could be huge numbers for the states not know what's happened five years -- -- dignity of the -- these different states.
But if -- if you if you put it you.
Frame it as you did it doesn't seem as significant if you actually look at the dollars and a number of people that participate it's a significant in my mind the states -- -- -- but the alternative courses -- those people are not covered at all.
They show up in the hospitals.
And and and state and federal taxpayers and that -- a lot for them anyway.
How is it different and if we're gonna end up painful at what -- curious to me if if everyone's gonna end up -- these people anyway.
Whether we -- Pay through Medicaid expansion I would pay to increase premiums because they show but hospitals and hospitals raise the prices mean it's -- -- would.
Will we see new -- for no matter what am I wrong.
Well there is no.
Free lunch and that's part of the reason Affordable Care Act says.
Everybody should put something in because otherwise you have free -- and Frerotte -- writers on on the system.
But there's there's no doubt that there is that this is not a cost free system now.
Is a much more rational approach to say that you get health insurance up front so that you can go see.
Your doctor.
When you get sick rather than not -- -- to the doctor and waiting to you get a lot sicker and have to show.
Hospital.
To take care of -- and because that's -- that is a broken system and that's not the best use of taxpayer dollars -- resources.
Why can't we have a national exchange via wireless analyst -- what's the -- which we have -- all these different state exchanges I can't they want exchange.
Well actually do law does create an opportunity.
To try and create.
-- national exchange and that may be possible move toward.
That I think the thinking was originally that we should establish its exchanged the state level but there are provisions of the law that would allow that to -- -- what that seem to be the be cheaper.
And I am more efficient to win one rather that was that a redesigning his owner decided sound well I think that the the other side of the argument is administratively.
In the concern was.
You know you have it being.
Bureaucracy potentially dealing with the entire health exchange so so that's the other side of that argument let's chat let's start at the state what.
