Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Supreme correlation decision on president Obama's healthcare law on Thursday now for the year from the High Court let's hear from our very own.
-- -- Fox News senior today's -- Analysts jet engine of Montana right -- in love that you're here and I love that you said this activities unconstitutional.
-- its core.
Why was it passed originally.
What was passed originally because the president's and this is -- original goal was to have single Payer.
-- basically wanted to do away with private insurance on personal payment of health care.
And and wanted Medicare for everyone from cradle to grave when they were unable to get that even from Democrats they came up with a -- march.
And I caught a -- much because very few persons have read it.
From beginning and the -- the notorious 2700 pages do you think it's.
It was a give back today their constituents at all look calculated effort on -- part.
I think it was it was create about political reality.
It was eventually pushed for by big pharma and the and the big insurance companies because it requires.
Let everybody have insurance that the insurance companies or the government will pay for the pay for the medications so that they didn't do this alone.
They they did this with the support that compelling support of aspects of our society.
But of course remember not a single Republican voted for this in either house of congress right so super -- political OK let's play out Thursday what happens.
Well you know what I -- -- these things but we're within forty hours of -- Tracey my view is that the court will invalidate.
The individual mandate that is the requirement that everybody have health insurance as a condition of living.
Here a -- and I think it will also invalidate the order to the states.
That they -- raised taxes and spend the taxes on an expansion of Medicare.
If chief Justice Roberts writes the opinion.
He has the belief that when they Cortes invalidating a statute it should do so on the narrowest grounds deferring to congress and everything else so he writes the opinion.
I believe will only invalidate the mandate.
And the order to the states if Justice Scalia or Justice Kennedy writes the opinion I think -- will be a broader and more sweeping and validation.
So insisting that just that -- -- there -- Could change in the lives of everybody.
Well -- Yes and no I mean remember the author of the opinion has to -- an opinion.
That has at least four other justices agreeing whether that there could be much scare people but there could be given take going on.
Even as we speak in order to retain.
A group of five or perhaps enhance -- 26 or maybe even seven so last perhaps to enhance the credibility of the decision because of the larger -- Because that was a thought in you know we -- we're getting as -- on Monday now here we are waiting for Thursday and and many -- speculating that you know what maybe they just don't know which way to go they they need more time.
Well it frequently very say a corps -- justices who agree.
And then there's one -- two justices at the fringe who will only come along with the majority if certain concessions are made -- we don't know who that is or if the concessions are made.
On the other hand this may have been written a month ago yes and and of course -- listed in drama drama the likes of which we haven't seen in years which we will all see here.
On on Thursday morning yes that's quite control says estimates are telling -- last -- -- -- -- -- about a critic Joanna how yeah I learned side effect yeah.
Thank you grabbing.
Filter by section