This is a transcript of the Real Politics clip in the above post:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Outstanding.
All right, I think that we’re going to take a question from each press delegation. So I’ll start with Julianna.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. After last week’s arguments at the Supreme Court, many experts believe that there could be a majority, a five-member majority, to strike down the individual mandate. And if that were to happen, if it were to be ruled unconstitutional, how would you still guarantee health care to the uninsured and those Americans who’ve become insured as a result of the law?
And then a President for President Calderón and Prime Minister Harper. Over the weekend, Governor Mitt Romney said that the U.S. used to promote free enterprise around the world, and he said, “Our President doesn’t have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do, and I think over the last three or four years, some people around the world have begun to question that.” My question to the both of you is whether you think that American influence has declined over the last three to four years.
And, President Obama, if you’d like to respond to that, too.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, on the second part of your question, it’s still primary season for the Republican Party. They’re going to make a decision about who their candidate will be.
It’s worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic Convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism, and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism. But I will cut folks some slack for now because they’re still trying to get their nomination.
With respect to health care, I’m actually — continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional. That’s not just my opinion, by the way; that’s the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case.
I think it’s important — because I watched some of the commentary last week — to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People’s lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of preexisting conditions.
The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law. Parents don’t have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can’t be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That’s part of this law.
Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law.
So that’s just the part that’s already been implemented. That doesn’t even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014.
And I think it’s important, and I think the American people understand, and the I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care. So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.
Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.
Q You say it’s not an abstract conversation. Do you have contingency plans?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sorry. As I said, we are confident that this will be over — that this will be upheld. I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And, again, that’s not just my opinion; that’s the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they’re not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency.
1) Notice the use of the "many experts believe" by Julianna, the alleged journalist.
2) O'bama's assinine statement that " in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional.
" Incredible statement. Utterly meaningless.
3) Notice O'bama sinks into the generic experts usage, "...that’s the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case.
Again, unnamed and a lie...attempting to convince you that almost all the "legal experts" agree with him. The two judges, out of how many? Guess what, another slick employment of deceptive argument.
4) This one just jumps off the page! O'bama actually wants you to believe that: in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care.
Hmmm, let's see...what if Congress passed a one page law that created an assigned risk health insurance policy that pooled all the folks that had preexisting conditions into a directly subsidized and clearly labeled system, you know like the assigned risk auto insurance, home owners, flood insurance programs that already exist in every state in the union.
Would that maybe accomplish covering the pre existing condition issue without an unconstitutional individual mandate and 2, 699 pages of subversive administrative legislation? Yeah, it would.
Well, in every state in the real union, not including the other seven (7) states that O'biwan thought existed that he was going to campaign in in 2008.
Oops, sorry, I think that has been eliminated by the O'bama speak media.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."