defend the affordable health care act being sued by several states in court and try to let it wither on the vine. the wall street journal says well, you know, it s withering on its own. the new york times says this is going to be a big issue for democrats to use against dana: if you watch the daily briefing, we are on it every day. can hollywood help the democrats? kimberly: a big loss. that s the plaook. it did not work for hillary clinton. it s not going to work forhem. i am praying, please rely on hollywood. not going to go anywhere for them. no one relates to them. it is so ironic and hypocritica hypocritical. the democrats are going to rely on hollywood. they make a living selling sex, drugs, violence movies. wait a second. how is it going to work?
result of the health care act being passed by congress, being signed by this president and now being affirmed by the highest law in the land. patrick, really quickly, last question, and this is for folks who don t follow this as closely as we all do here. tax penalty. why is that language so important? well, let s be very, very clear here about what the supreme court said last week, craig. the supreme court affirmed that this law is constitutional and that the penalty can be assessed to the tax provisions in the u.s. constitution. and this penalty applies to 1% of all americans who can afford health care but refuse to get it. and as a result, you and i are paying for the health care costs. so it s really important that we understand exactly what the supreme court affirmed. it s clear what was in the president s plan. and it s also clear that this is a plan that was modeled on the tax penalty that was leveed in