>> and it's also a policy that came out of the heritage institute a long time. so it's actually a right-leaning policy that has been contorted for liberal purposes. so they've been boxed in in terms of this usage of the word "tax". but there's a conversation we should be having over the supreme court decision, and that's the implications of the medicaid ruling. what does it mean to curb federal power? what are the long-term implications of that? we don't really know, but that's the conversation we should be having. >> and ezra, this was the piece that i thought had to constitutional problem at all. because we've done so many changes, expansions of medicaid over time. but this time, they said, no, no. this is a change in the nature of the program, which i don't think it is. but this is a possibly much bigger impact in terms of what the coverage might end up being, than even the mandate was going to be. >> and they did, to be fair, they only changed the way of an enforcement penalty. what they said, the federal government couldn't take away all the state's pre-existing medicaid money if it didn't go with the expansion. it doesn't change the way --