Jan Crawford on The Supreme Court

with Jan Crawford
in Current Affairs
on Tuesday, March 27, 2012 * * * * *

E-mail this video:

Distribute this video:

Share on:

Close
Description

Jan Crawford, political and legal correspondent for CBS News on the Supreme Court's second day of hearings on the health care reform law

Video Share Options
Share
Buy Amazon DVD
Keywords:
law
health
reform
Supreme Court
Obama
review
health care
United States

In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:

itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/12259

Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.

Close
  • Comments 2
    Post new comment
    1. SharkswithfrikingLazers  03/29/2012 02:42 AM Report

      We spend 17% of our GDP on health care. No other nation spends more than 12% of their GDP on health care.

      It seems like with so much economic security at stake the matter is more like keeping America safe rather than about cell phones or broccoli.

      So it is not an individual mandate. It is a draft.

      We will now draft our citizens to protect our country. They will have to have a physical exam and if they do not pass the physical they will be inducted and serve until they can pass every month for six months.

      There--not an individual mandate--a call to arms to protect our country. The relationship of the government to its citizens has been restored.

      Then again perhaps the 5% who are effected can just buy some health insurance just like they probably have to buy their car insurance--which is required by the government.

    2. REMant  03/28/2012 12:23 PM Report

      I was happy to see that the import of this has not been totally lost on the Court, but Ms Ginsberg's comment that were some people are allowed to opt out, then medical care would be more expensive for the rest, tho certainly true, is still the same as observing that healthier ppl are being forced to pay the expenses of those less healthy, and thus this is being made a public good like defense, which, however, we no longer consider a social obligation aside from the cost of it. That's possibly because soldiering is unpopular and receiving welfare is not. Nevertheless, it's not the issue here; regulation of commerce is.