This Sunday, we’ll have the latest on the Trump transition and Thursday night’s heated forum at Harvard with Clinton aides-- with Trump Senior Advisor Kellyanne Conway.
Exclusive: Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, James Capretta on ObamaCare launch; Sen. Graham reacts to ongoing Benghazi investigation
Written by Chris Wallace / Published November 03, 2013 / Fox News Sunday
Special Guests: Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, James Capretta, Sen. Lindsey Graham
This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," November 3, 2013. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
CHRIS WALLACE, ANCHOR: I'm Chris Wallace.
The president and his team apologized for the troubled start of ObamaCare.
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: There is no excuse for it and I take full responsibility for making thorough it gets fixed ASAP.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, HHS SECRETARY: Let me say directly to these Americans you deserve better. I apologize.
WALLACE: A new report: just six people enrolled on day one.
And the president broke this promise.
OBAMA: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.
WALLACE: But is the initial debacle a sign of things to come?
Today, a debate over how ObamaCare will affect you between one of the architects of the plan, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and the leading critic, James Capretta.
Then, one senator threatens to block all federal nominees until survivors of the Benghazi terror attack appear before Congress.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: How can the Congress conclude an investigation if we don't have access to the people?
WALLACE: Senator Lindsey Graham, only on “Fox News Sunday.”
Plus, with Election Day two days away, we'll ask our Sunday panel how much trouble both parties are in.
And our power player of the week --
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I knew from the second what had happened, why it happened, and what it meant for the future.
WALLACE: Charles Krauthammer opens up about his life changing accident.
All, right now, on “Fox News Sunday.”
WALLACE: And hello again from FOX News in Washington.
Well, it's been another tough week for ObamaCare, with continued problems on the government Web site, and growing outrage over the hundreds and thousands of people whose policies are being canceled. In fact, Healthcare.gov was down again for repairs overnight for at least 12 hours.
And are these bumps in the road or signs of fundamental problems?
We brought in two experts to debate what's really going on.
James Capretta is a health care expert with the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is one of the architects of ObamaCare and vice provost at the University of Pennsylvania.
And, gentlemen, welcome to “Fox News Sunday.”
EMANUEL: Thank you for having me.
CAPRETTA: Thank you.
WALLACE: All right. So, let's start with that pledge from the president when he was trying to sell ObamaCare. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: We will keep this promise to the American people: if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: But it turns out millions of Americans are not able to keep their plans, they're losing them. Florida Blue has canceled 300,000 people. In California, 280,000 policies have been canceled. In Oregon, 150,000.
Mr. Capretta, the White House now says -- its explanation is, well, that pledge only counted until the health care law was signed? In March of 2010, only for policies that were in effect before then, and anyway, these policies are lousy.
CAPRETTA: Yes, there's two things to it. There was no extenuating circumstances when he said you can keep your plan. He didn't add a clause, with period. In fact, he said, clearly, you can keep your plan. He said it once. He said it a thousand times. This wasn't a minor pledge. It was central to passing the law.
It's sort of like President Bush saying no new taxes. The first President Bush saying no new taxes back in 1990 and 1988. He broke that pledge. And at least he had the honesty to tell everybody he was breaking the pledge.
The president actually pledged this and has never really admitted he was going to break. There's millions of people that are going to lose it, at least 15 million, including people in the small business community. They're talking about the individual market now. Many small business people are going to lose their plans, too.
WALLACE: All right. We're going to get to that. But let's stay with the idea of the pledge.
Because, Dr. Emanuel, "The Wall Street Journal" reported this weekend that you, in fact, were part of a debate inside the White House at the time about whether or not this claim -- you can keep your plan, you can keep your doctor -- was misleading.
This week --
EMANUEL: No, I was --
WALLACE: Let me ask the question, it will be a question mark, and you can answer -- whether it was misleading.
On Megyn Kelly's show this week, you blamed the insurance companies. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EMANUEL: If an insurance company decides its changing how it's going to structure its plan, that's not the law doing it. That's the insurance company deciding for business reasons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: But, Doctor, the ObamaCare law demands that the insurance companies change their plans.
EMANUEL: Let's get to what happens in the individual market. First of all, I want to say the president takes very seriously and this he said over and over when I was working for him. What I -- let's go back to what I said and make sure we're consistent with this. When we passed the law, we said any plan that existed before the date the law passed would be grandfathered in unless lots of changes were made.
Now, you know, we have to imagine ObamaCare not against the black slate, but against what insurance companies regularly do --
WALLACE: I would -- I --
EMANUEL: -- against what the insurance companies --
WALLACE: I have to ask you, does ObamaCare mandate that insurance companies change their plans to meet certain standards?
EMANUEL: Yes, it brings it up. But those -- look, we grandfathered in all of the pre-existing plans. If you want to change plans or you want to buy a new car, you have to meet safety standards. That was the rule and --
WALLACE: But wait, wait. Wait a minute. Your grandfathering is so narrow. For instance --
EMANUEL: It's not so narrow.
WALLACE: Let me give you an example. For instance, if an insurance company changes the co-pay by more than $5, over the course of three years since 2010, it's no longer grandfathered in.
EMANUEL: That's a 25 -- usually, a 25 percent change. That's a big change. You have to --
WALLACE: A $5 change in the co-pay, now, it's not grandfathered.
EMANUEL: You have to ask the question: how many planks do you change in a boat before it's a different boat? And that's the same thing here. We had a plan, we argued about it. We tried to come up --
WALLACE: You didn't tell the American people.
EMANUEL: We tried to come up with -- no we, did. We grandfathered in the plans and we tried to come up --
WALLACE: You're saying -- you said, now, if this plan is in effect of March 2010, you can keep it.
EMANUEL: That's what it says. It says, grandfathered --
WALLACE: Mr. Capretta?
EMANUEL: Grandfathered plans were allowed and if they change --
WALLACE: I didn't hear the president mentioned the "grandfather" in those pledges.
EMANUEL: That's how we fulfilled his pledge.
WALLACE: Mr. Capretta?
CAPRETTA: People who knew the law as it was being written knew the president wasn't telling the truth. The grandfather provision written in the law itself was too narrow and frankly they wrote a regulation intentionally trying to get people out of the individual market.
EMANUEL: Look --
CAPRETTA: They want the people to go into the exchanges because there's a lot of people in the individual market. The whole point of the exchanges is to close down the individual insurance market overtime.
EMANUEL: The insurance company, wait a second --
CAPRETTA: They wanted to move millions of people into the exchanges --
EMANUEL: The insurance companies don't like -- the insurance companies don't like the individual market as it's constructed. They see the future. That individual market is going away. They don't want to invest in it.
EMANUEL: No, the insurance companies are making that choice, not the president.
EMANUEL: The law does not require that.
WALLACE: Maybe I'll tell stop calling you gentlemen because I'm not sure -- this raises a bigger question, which is, who gets to decide? You said, well, we improved the policies, right? With the ObamaCare coverage mandate.
Who gets to decide what's a good policy or not? Our college John Roberts did a story --
EMANUEL: Well --
Did a story about a woman named Betsy Tadder who is losing her policy. Let's take a quick look at that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BETSY TADDER, LOSING HEALTH INSURANCE: I was very happy with my plan and then I got a letter saying it was no longer available and I would need to choose a new one.
JOHN ROBERTS, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): To replace the coverage she has, her premiums would go up from $454 a month to $871. Her options on the ObamaCare Web site weren't any better.
TADDER: The deductible with that plan is $12,700. I can't afford a deductible of $12,700.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Dr. Emanuel, simple question -- why does Betsy Tadder need you or President Obama telling her what insurance she needs?
EMANUEL: For two reasons: first of all, if she goes in and that insurance doesn't cover enough, and -- which is typically what happens with these very low cost plans, and she gets sick and it exceeds, typically, we who are insured pay the difference. That's call cost shifting.
WALLACE: But she likes her plan.
EMANUEL: But we're cost shifting.
The second thing is, just as we have safety standards for cars, you can't buy a car without a seat belt. You can't buy a care without an air bag. You can drive them, we're not going to take you off the road. But if you're going to buy a new car, you have to have safety --
WALLACE: Wait, wait --
EMANUEL: Same thing with ObamaCare.
WALLACE: But let me ask you this.
EMANUEL: Can I finish?
WALLACE: I agree with you about the airbags and I'll agree with you about the safety belts.
She is a woman who has a 24-year-old son. She is not going to have any more children. ObamaCare includes maternity services, pediatric services, substance abuse services. That's not the air bag.
EMANUEL: It is the air bag. We all --
WALLACE: No, for her, it isn't. She's not going to need maternity services.
EMANUEL: We all share in the costs so that everyone can get it. She will need another high cost service, like cancer care or like a stroke care, God forbid, or her kid might be hit by a car or her kid might father a baby. We have to make sure that people are covered for those things.
WALLACE: Whether they want to be covered for the things or not?
EMANUEL: If they don't want to be covered and they don't end up, they're uninsured, or they have very low insurance, they transfer those costs to the rest of us. That's the whole point of part of ObamaCare, to eliminate this cost shifting. So, people assume individual responsibility.
EMANUEL: When you have a low cost, when you have a low cost --
WALLACE: I get your point, cost shifting.
Mr. Capretta, go ahead. Get in here.
CAPRETTA: There is lot of insurance plans out there today covering hospitalizations, doctor services, drugs, they're in the individual market, they're regulated by the states. They don't need the federal government telling them what they need to get.
Many people --
EMANUEL: Remember the individual --
WALLACE: Let him finish, please.
CAPRETTA: The high deductible plans, they're perfectly happy with. You're going to hear stories all over the country of people who got just perfectly fine coverage today, they're going to lose it.
EMANUEL: Wait a second. The individual market before ObamaCare, insurance companies could throw you up when you got a disease. Insurance companies --
CAPRETTA: That's not what we're talking about here.
EMANUEL: That is the comparison. What the --
WALLACE: Dr. Emanuel --
EMANUEL: Let me finish.
WALLACE: Let him finish.
EMANUEL: What's the individual market before the insurance companies, before ObamaCare --
WALLACE: Mr. Capretta, don't talk while he is interrupting.
Mr. Capretta, the White House response to all this, is look, we're just talking about the individual market. We're just talking about 5 percent of Americans. Here is how it was explained by Jay Carney.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The universe that you're talking about here is 5 percent. That's the whole insurance market, 5 percent of the population.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: First of all, that 5 percent represents 15 million people. I mean, the whole ObamaCare is to get 30 million uninsured insured, and that's the Holy Grail. But 15 million is only.
Secondly, is it just the individual market that's going to lose their policy?
CAPRETTA: No, small business plans are also being forced under the new regulations to pool their workers with a larger pool of other small business workers. So, if they buy in the fully insured market in the states, regulated by the states, their insurance rates can go up quite a bit. They're going to lose their plans. Lots of small businesses are being faced with this right now and are dropping their coverage maybe to go into the insurance --
WALLACE: Dr. Emanuel --
CAPRETTA: -- exchange.
WALLACE: Dr. Emanuel, it isn't just small business or the individuals -- forgive me, sir -- there are big companies, Time Warner, IBM, Sears, Wal-Mart -- or K-Mart, Walgreens, they're all saying they're going to take people off their coverage and put them into exchanges. None of them are going to be able -- of those people are going to be able to keep their current policies.
EMANUEL: Those are companies making decisions of how they want to insure people. Remember --
WALLACE: Because of the way ObamaCare works.
EMANUEL: Before ObamaCare, those companies could drop coverage at any time. Before ObamaCare, companies didn't have to offer insurance to their people and many didn't. As we know, we have 50 million uninsured people -- so, plenty of people -- and most of those are workers who didn't have coverage. Before Obama --
WALLACE: Simple question --
EMANUEL: Wait a second. Before ObamaCare, we were having lots of those people --
WALLACE: Simple question, are those going to be able to keep their coverage as the president?
EMANUEL: The president -- look, the law does not say Sears dropped coverage. Sears decides what's good for Sears. The law doesn't say to the insurance industry, you drop coverage. The insurance industry decides how it's going to make money.
When the private companies decide that they're going to drop people or put them in the exchange, you blame President Obama. He is not responsible for that.
WALLACE: Mr. Capretta?
CAPRETTA: He is responsible for this. They've set up incentives that penalized companies with a very large fine if they don't have insurance to comply with the ObamaCare standards. So, they pay a big penalty if their workers are getting inadequate coverage. They put them --
EMANUEL: If you're under 50, you pay no penalty. And if you're over 50, it's $2,000. It's not a big penalty.
CAPRETTA: Large incentives in the health care law. They're forcing companies and encouraging companies to do exactly what they're doing. This is not accidental.
EMANUEL: Under 50, there is no penalty whatsoever, and you don't have to offer insurance.
WALLACE: I want to get into one last area here. Thank you.
One of the problems so far is that many people are signing up for Medicaid that are signing up into the private insurance plans in the marketplace. Let's put up some of these numbers which were astonishing. These are the latest numbers out this week.
In Maryland, 82,000 people have signed up for Medicaid, 3,000 for private plans. In Oregon, 62,000 for Medicaid, and, believe it or not, this was the number that came out this week, zero for private insurance.
Mr. Capretta, explain why that is significant and how it could lead to what folks like you call the death spiral for ObamaCare?
CAPRETTA: What's happening is these people who go on to the Web site and actually enter their personal income information, if it's low enough they automatically sign them up for Medicaid. They just put them into Medicaid program. There's no premium. They say your income is very low, you're on Medicaid.
And the other people, people who have to pay private insurance, they actually owe a premium. So, if anyone goes on actually can make it on and through the Web site, figure out what is going on, they find out, hey, I might owe $100 a month for a premium.
WALLACE: And what's death spiral is the impact this could have if you have people that either don't sign up or in something like Medicaid, and therefore aren't paying into the system.
CAPRETTA: Look, the system will never work unless there is 5 million to 7 million people in the private side of this exchange, not the Medicaid. They are nowhere near that. There at dead stop zero at this point. They haven't signed up hardly anybody. So they're going to have a huge undertaking to try sign up several million people just from December 1--
WALLACE: OK --
EMANUEL: We've got some agreement here. We both agreed that you need to sign up 5 million to 7 million people in the private market for it to be viable. That's the first thing.
The second thing is, you would expect at this stage of the game, from everything we know about the exchanges, that not a lot of people would sign up. That's why I called for, it's got to be fixed by November 30th, because at that point, people are going to begin buying. We have all the way until March 31st to get 5 million to 7 million and we would expect naturally -- I don't pay attention to those numbers, by the way, because we would expect naturally, people will put off --
EMANUEL: Let me finish. People will put off buying until the end, and therefore, those numbers are irrelevant.
WALLACE: I've got your point, Dr. Emanuel.
Here's the question, though, you also agree that if they don't sign up, and I agree, this is early. But if you don't sign up, that you agree it's going to be very bad for the system. That in fact, the premiums are going to go up. If the young, healthy people don't sign up, you said this in an article --
EMANUEL: No, no, look, I agree with that point. There is a potential death spiral if we don't get enough people sign up. But, by the way, it's not just in six months, we have a couple of years to get this thing up and running and working.
And my firm belief, in everything we know from Massachusetts, is that we will get those people --
EMANUEL: -- when you have very good rates like you have in California, $50 for a 30-year-old.
WALLACE: Here's my last -- we've got it. Here is my last question -- with all of the problems with the Web site, more than a dozen Senate Democrats, not Republicans, Democrats, are now saying put off the penalties, even delay -- in one case, Manchin is saying delay the entire individual mandate a year.
And we heard this week from Max Baucus, a senator who helped write ObamaCare. Here he is.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
SEN. MAX BAUCUS, D-MONT.: Maybe we should start thinking about penalizing the penalties. It's not right to penalize people for mistakes that the government's made because the exchange isn't working.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
WALLACE: Should the penalties be delayed beyond March 31st?
EMANUEL: No, they should not be delayed beyond March 31st. The Web site is working by November 30th, people then will have a full four months to sign up and that's no reason to delay them, and I don't think you can prejudge now. If it's not adequately working by November 30th, that's a whole new question. But it's way premature to talk about it.
I think it's going to be up and running by November 30th, and then if it's not, we can have a renewed debate. But to call for it 30 days before it's debuted I think is a mistake.
WALLACE: Mr. Capretta, you've got the final 30 seconds uninterrupted.
CAPRETTA: They debuted this on October 1st, no November 30th. We were told all year long that it was going to be ready to go and don't delay the individual mandate.
At this point, you've got millions of people losing their coverage based on the promise that they're going to have something that isn't working today working in just 30 days. The window is closing very rapidly. We should be delaying the whole thing for a year to make sure the thing works. This is health care after all --
EMANUEL: Delay is (INAUDIBLE) to kill ObamaCare, which is why I don't agree with it.
CAPRETTA: This is health care after all. This isn't a minor matter. We shouldn't be playing fast and loose with people's health insurance.
WALLACE: OK. Mr. Capretta, Dr. Emanuel, it wasn't always pretty. I have to say, I learned a lot. It was interesting. I hope both come back to continue this conversation because this story is far from over.
Thank you both, gentlemen.
EZEKIEL: Thank you.
WALLACE: Senator Lindsey Graham is threatening to block all the president's nominees until he gets to talk to the survivors of Benghazi terror attack. He drops by next to talk about his latest call for action.
WALLACE: Senator Lindsey Graham has been known to work with President Obama on some issues. But this week, he laid down a clear marker: give Congress access to the survivors of the attack on the U.S. consulate Benghazi, or he will block all the president's future nominees.
Senator Graham joins us now.
Welcome back to “Fox News Sunday.”
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C.: Thank you.
WALLACE: You have been trying for more than a year to talk with the Benghazi survivors. How many have you talked to?
A year later, only one survivor in Benghazi has been interviewed by the Congress, and that person was subpoenaed.
Why do I want to talk to them?
I want to know from their mouth, not anybody else, no spokesman, no British contractor, Americans on the ground in Benghazi -- did you see a protest? Did you ever report a protest? Did you complain before the attack that al Qaeda was growing in strength in Libya? Did you make security request that anybody try to help you enhance security?
WALLACE: OK. So, when you and other senators -- because you're not along in this -- asked to talk to the survivors --
WALLACE: -- or to read the interviews that the FBI conducted within hours after the attack --
GRAHAM: Exactly, yes.
WALLACE: -- what does the administration say to you?
GRAHAM: They say it's an ongoing criminal investigation, which is stunning. Under that theory, we would not be able to look at 9/11 and to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was prosecuted. He's still not even going to trial. I'm not trying to solve a crime. I'm trying to find out from the mouths of the people who are on the ground, did you ever report to Washington or anyone that there was a protest? Because how could the president, Jay Carney, Susan Rice, and all of them claim this was a process created by video if nobody on the ground who lived through the attack ever said there was a protest?
So two days after the attack did they say there was a protest? If they did not, how did this story of a protest start?
WALLACE: All right. So, now, because you have not gotten satisfaction, you have not gotten the interviews, or to talk to them, you are now threatening no block --
WALLACE: -- every new presidential nominee, which has a member of the Senate you can put a hold on them until you get access to these folks. Is that over the top?
GRAHAM: I don't think it's over the top to find out what happened, four dead Americans. I don't think it's over the top for the Congress to be able to challenge the narrative of any administration when an ambassador is killed.
I don't think it's over the top for us to be able to talk to the survivors. They were talked to the Accountability Review Board. The State Department picked a team to look into what happened in Benghazi. They interviewed these survivors to tell us, as member of Congress, who has to explain to the families, are they being straight and honest with you from the Obama administration, is not too over the top.
I shouldn't have to do this. I shouldn't have to make these kind of threats. They should provide in a responsible way those who lived through Benghazi to be interviewed separate and apart from the Obama administration to find out exactly what happened before, during, and after. And I'm so sad to be -- to say to the families, this is the anniversary of the election. A year later, the Congress really doesn't know anything about what happened to Benghazi from those who lived through it.
WALLACE: All right. But we are talking about someone like Jeh Johnson --
GRAHAM: Yes, sir. Yes.
WALLACE: -- who is the president's nominee to be the new secretary of homeland security, or as you can see, Janet Yellen, the new chair of the Federal Reserve, big jobs.
Question: How long are you prepared to hold up their nominations and everyone else's -- people who are doing and need to do important work for the country?
GRAHAM: The only way this will work is if my Republican colleagues get behind and say to my Democratic friends in the Senate and the administration, we support Lindsey's request to be able to talk to the survivors, independent of the administration, to look at the evidence, to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi, before, during and after.
How did the secretary of defense know about a cable coming out of Benghazi in August from our ambassador to Washington, State Department saying, we can't defend this place against a coordinated al Qaeda attack and al Qaeda flags are flying everywhere -- how can the secretary of defense know that and not the secretary of state?
So, here's the way this will work -- I'm hoping that they will relent and allow us to interview the survivors, appropriate congressional committees --
WALLACE: And if they don't?
GRAHAM: Well, and I will ask my Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues to stand up to the Obama administration. Don't let them get away with this.
Can you imagine if this was George W. Bush and he told the Congress after 9/11 -- you can't talk to anybody because there's a potential criminal investigation, we're not going to investigate how 9/11 became the failure that it was?
WALLACE: OK, "60 Minutes" ran a story last Sunday in which they talked to the British supervisor of local Libyan security around the consulate before the attack. Here's a clip of that story.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was saying, "These guys are no good, you need to -- you need to get them up here.
REPORTER: You also kept saying, "If this place is attacked, these guys are not going to stand and fight"?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I used to say it all the time. You know, in the end, I got quite bored of hearing my own voice saying it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: But the Obama administration is now going after that guy, saying that his report right after the attack to his employer, he was a private security contractor, directly contradicts what he told "60 Minutes".
GRAHAM: Right. I don't want to hear from anymore British people about Benghazi. I want to hear it from Americans who were there.
But back to this contractor -- they claimed that an incident report that he apparently did not sign, that he never went to the compound and never went to the hospital as he claims in this book, to find Ambassador Stevens.
But what they're not telling you, that he was interviewed by the FBI the next day and twice three or four days later. I want those FBI interviews.
Here is what this administration is doing. They're taking part of the file to leak it to try to impeach the critic and they're withholding information. The FBI interviewed this gentleman in Wales and in Doha, and he claimed he told the FBI and the Department of State everything that he told "60 Minutes." So, now, I want to know if he's lying. I want to know that.
But give to me and the Congress the full information he provided to our government. I want the FBI interviews.
WALLACE: We've got a couple minutes left. I want to ask you about another question on another matter.
You plan to introduce a bill this week that would ban all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. But even some other pro-life advocates have backed off because they worry that it's not constitutional, noting that the Supreme Court protects a woman's right to abortion until a fetus is viable at 24 weeks. You're talking 20 weeks.
GRAHAM: Yes, at 20 weeks, you feel pain. At 20 weeks that they do surgery on a 20-week fetus, they provide anesthesia to the fetus because the fetus can feel pain.
We're trying to make the following arguments to the Supreme Court -- the state, the government, has a legitimate interest to protect the child after 20-week period of development, because they can feel pain. That's what a rational humane society should do, protect the child that can feel pain from an abortion, unless there's a life of the mother, rape or incest involved.
WALLACE: Now, some of your critics in South Carolina say, hey, look, Graham is up for reelection in 2014. He is worried about a Tea Party challenger, and you ticked off a lot of conservatives with votes on immigration reform, to confirm liberal Supreme Court justices --
WALLACE: -- this is your way to get back in their good graces.
GRAHAM: I have been pro-life member of Congress since day one. I was the author of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that we passed several years ago, making it a crime to attack a woman. And if she loses her baby, you can be charged with two crimes not one -- crime against the mother and the unborn child.
My record on being a pro-life senator or member of Congress is clear. I'm proud to lead this charge. This is a debate worthy of a great democracy -- when do you become you at 20 weeks of a pregnancy? What is the proper role of the government in protecting that child?
WALLACE: Senator Graham, thank you. Thanks for coming in today. It's always a pleasure to talk with you, sir.
GRAHAM: My pleasure. WALLACE: Next up, how serious are the problems with Obamacare? Our Sunday panel assesses where we are one month into the troubled rollout.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If you're getting one of these letters, just shop around in the new marketplace. That's what it's for.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: President Obama this week offering his advice to the potentially millions of people who are being notified there are being dropped from their current health insurance plan. And it's time now for our Sunday group. Former Republican Senator Scott Brown. Julie Pace, who covers the White House for the Associated Press. Republican political guru Karl Rove, and former Democratic Senator Evan Bayh.
Karl, we talked about this at great length in our opening debate. How much trouble is ObamaCare in? The Website, these cancellations? The whole deal going forward?
KARL ROVE, FORMER BUSH WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: Big trouble. In fact, the president's job approval rating is now tied for the lowest of his term and his disapproval rating is at its highest and the law has gotten far more unpopular in the last week or so. And these problems are going to continue. I mean let's put this in perspective, the individual market is being affected, but let's just remember about -- there are about 150 million people who get insurance through their employer. 90 million of them are going to unaffected, because those plans are not subject to ObamaCare, those are self-funded plans that are governed by another law called ERISA. So, there is about 60 million plans there, 15 million in the individual market, so a total of about 75 million. In 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services said at least 14 million people are going to lose their coverage. That would be 20 percent of the people in America who are governed by ObamaCare, who today have health insurance, would lose it. Other estimates are as high as nearly 50 percent of people who have health coverage subject to ObamaCare are going to lose it. That is -- and that's going to be rolling out over the next year.
WALLACE: All right, the "New Yorker" had one of its classic covers this week. And let's put it up on the screen for those of you who haven't seen it yet. You can see President Obama armed with a 1980s mobile phone, Secretary Sebelius with her fingers crossed. And a tech guy with a floppy disk. My guess, Julie, is, that folks back at the White House are not laughing. How concerned are they at this point about this continued -- not just a website, but the whole deal. And what's their biggest concern?
JULIE PACE, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS: So, the biggest concern, I think, for the White House right now, is that they're really in this holding pattern. No one expected the website is going to be fixed over the next couple of days, November 30th seems like a fairly conservative estimate by some accounts. And all we're seeing now is more website problems and more problems with the actual policy. And if the conversation switches to the policy away from the website, then that becomes even more dangerous. And there is nothing that they can really say to refute that right now. Because people can't log on to the website. They can't see what kind of payments they are going to be making, and all they are having to deal with is criticism, not just from Republicans, but increasingly from the Democrats, and that becomes ...
WALLACE: What about this, the promise that wasn't a promise?
PACE: They feel like, you know, that was maybe a risk that they took at the time, and now they are acting to take a hit for it, but it was worth it, given the amount of criticism that they were taking for the law early on, and they need to pass it. It has certainly -- and it certainly come back...
WALLACE: It's OK to mislead the public...
PACE: It has certainly come back to haunt them and you know, you do hear them say oh, reporters, you are the ones that should be providing more contacts. Any time you are (inaudible) the blame on reporters you've gone down a bad road.
WALLACE: Secretary Sebelius said that even with all of the testing problems that they had to go on October 1, because that's what the law mandates. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: I think that there -- in an ideal world would have been a lot more testing. We didn't have the luxury of that with the law that says, it's go time on October 1.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: But it turns out, that is just not true. Take a look at this. "According to the law, the enrollment period shall be, "as determined by the secretary." Secretary Sebelius. Nothing about October 1. So, she decided to go ahead with this plan of October 1ST.
Senator Brown, Republicans have apparently decided instead of their earlier policy around the government shutdown, to defund or delay, that instead they're going to sit back, they're going to have oversight hearings, and they're going to just let ObamaCare happen. Is that a smarter strategy?
SCOTT BROWN, FORMER U.S. SENATOR (R-MA): Well, I think it is. I don't think anyone wants to shut down the government and go through what we went before, but I'll tell you what, when the president was in Boston, it made my blood boil thinking he's comparing the Massachusetts plan to the federal plan. Two different plans. Ours is passed 198 to two. I voted on it, I worked on it. This plan -- our plan didn't raise taxes, didn't cut Medicare as this one does. And it's not really about even a website. It's about more than that. It's about can you imagine the government providing a hip or knee replacement, if they can't even get the website right, what makes you think they are going to be able to actually get the health care itself correct?
WALLACE: The ones that are calling for delay now are not the Republicans; it's the Democrats, Senator Bayh. And there are at least a dozen Senate Democrats who are saying, let's push back the mandate, let's push back the penalty, some saying a few weeks or months. Joe Mansion of West Virginia saying delay the individual mandate a year. We're going to talk about GOP problems in the next segment, but how big a burden could ObamaCare be for Democrats in 2014?
EVAN BAYH, FORMER U.S. SENATOR, D-IND.: It could potentially be a very significant burden, Chris. And I would be -- I would imagine most of the people calling for delay are many of the members who are up for election next November, because they are worried about all this. The rollout was a real calamity, not question about it. Even the administration has admitted that. I think the political impact next year depends on two things. Number one, the behavior of the Republicans. Do we have another government shutdown come January, do we have another year of default. If that was the case, that will, you know, shift attention away. (inaudible) this last time. Assuming they don't do that, then that is going to turn to the substance. And if there are many more cancellations, that's a big problem. I think the next shoe ready to drop are cost increases. If you look at what the American people who have coverage really care about, it's having lower cost increases for the insurance that they currently have. If this causes the price to go up across the minimum benefit package is very rich, or because of other factors, that politically is going to be a real problem.
BROWN: Chris, can I ask something really quick?
BROWN: The people are asking for the delay for a year right now. They did nothing during the government shutdown. That was one of the proposals to delay it for a year. So, then they did the whole dog and pony show with the government shutdown, and would not budge on that issue. Then we actually re-instated and started the government again. All of -- we have to do -- we have to hold back for year, and that implemented it. It's hypocritical and it's typical...
WALLACE: That's a very good point because if -- with their votes, there would have been enough to actually delay it for a year and to reopen the government. BROWN: So, the American people deserve better. They are frustrated at the lack of attention to the people's interest in dealing with this issue. Everybody is doing the blame game, and no one is getting down and doing business.
BAYH: In fairness to them, a lot of these problems did not come into full focus until after the calamity of the rollout. And now that they've seen what the problems are, they are saying, hey, if the government can't get its act together, how can we possibly fine private citizens for basically the same thing? It's just not fair.
ROVE: Yeah, look. These problems were known in advance and they hoped to skate by them. The employer mandate, for example, they knew that was going to be a huge problem if it came into force in 2014 because a lot of people would lose their coverage as the employers had a significant fine, $2000 per person for having a plan that was not in compliance. So, what did they do? They delayed that for a year. Because they knew it will have an immediate impact on the election. They did not delay the individual mandate because the penalty doesn't hit -- it doesn't hit you until you file your 2014 taxes in April, the 2015. So, this is -- they knew all of these problems.
WALLACE: Quickly, and I know it's crazy to foresee or predict a year in advance, how big a deal will Obamacare be in the 2014 election?
ROVE: I think it will be a big issue and you are going to see the White House do what Dr. Emanuel did today. I thought it was very (inaudible). He said, oh, it's going to be not seven million, it's going to be five to seven million and those numbers are irrelevant. The numbers are going to be important ...
WALLACE: Of people who are signing up.
ROVE: They are signing up. And these numbers are going to be -- these numbers are going to be significant because you're right, they earlier said we're going to have a lot more people on Medicaid. They were anticipated, a lot fewer people with private insurance, the cost of the program is going to be upside down. A lot fewer healthier and younger people subsidizing the coverage of older and less healthy people. Can I say one other thing?
WALLACE: Real quick.
ROVE: They're also playing again with the numbers with another misstatement. You talked about going to Boston. The president said, well, look there were six people who signed up in essence under the Affordable Care Act, but there are only 128 people who signed up in Massachusetts in a comparable period. Well, Massachusetts is 2.1 percent of the population. That means in the comparable period there should have been 5800 Americans who signed up. Massachusetts has one quarter -- the uninsured rate of the United States. If you adjust for that, they should have 23,000 people signed up in that initial period and they had six.
(LAUGHTER) ROVE: How bad is it?
WALLACE: The only thing is you didn't have the whiteboard here to explain all of that. All right. We have to take a break here. When we come back, Election Day 2013 is this week. What are the lessons for both parties?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It changes, you know, the details of the day-to-day life. Getting around is harder.
WALLACE: Charles was quick to accept his fate. (inaudible)
KRAUTHAMMER: But I would say, if you were to look at my story ...
WALLACE: Stay tuned. Our panel will be right back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: He's force a survivor of rape or incest in Virginia to carry a pregnancy caused by her attacker. He even opposes the emergency contraception they need to prevent pregnancy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Republican candidate Ken Cuccinelli is running for governor of Virginia Tuesday, and he is taking heavy fire for his record on social issues. And we're back now with the panel. Well, a governor's race in Virginia is one of the biggest and there is several on the docket on Tuesday. Let's take a look at the latest numbers in Virginia. The Real Clear Politics average of recent polls shows Democrat Terry McAuliffe beating Republican Cuccinelli by 7.5 points. And women are the big reason. Cuccinelli trails among female voters by 13 points in one poll, and by 24 in another. Senator Brown, for all the talk in the GOP about learning lessons from November 2012, when it comes to single women, when it comes to Hispanics, are you guys making the same mistakes all over again?
BROWN: I thought that ad was actually against me. I thought that was my ad that they were running against me. And, you know, it's the blueprint that they use against Republicans. It's something, obviously, we have to try to deal with more effectively, but I look at obviously Cuccinelli's race and Governor Christie's race. We have a purple and a blue state, and it looks like Governor Christie, the more modern of the two, who's approached things in a bipartisan problem solving manner appears he's going to win potentially in double digits, high double digits. And you have Mr. Cuccinelli actually going back to the Tea Party fiscal and social conservative base and really catering to them, so in a purple state, and he potentially may lose. It's not over, obviously. So we have to figure out what approach is better. I personally like the Christie approach. I think we need to be problem solvers. We need to work together. There is room for me, and Sarah Palin, and Ted Cruz and everybody in our party. Then we have to come forth with a real positive messages to what we're going to do to solve problems. And obviously, dealing with women's and other issues is an important factor.
WALLACE: You know, Virginia used to be -- you called it purple, which it is now, it used to be reliably Republican. But in fact, if you believe the polls, it's possible that on Tuesday that the top five statewide positions, governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and both U.S. Senators will all be Democrats for the first time since the 1970s.
Julie, and obviously Virginia was a lynch pin of their campaign both in 2008 and 2012 for Obama, what do they see when they look at a state like Virginia?
PACE: Democrats feel really happy about what they are seeing in Virginia right now. There had been some discussion after 2008 and 2012 that the reason that the state went for Obama was because he is a different type of candidate. The demographics tended to favor him, and maybe if another Democrat went to run there, that they wouldn't be able to have the same results. Terry McAuliffe is not a perfect candidate. Terry McAuliffe causes a lot of drawbacks. But he has raised a lot of money. He has really focused on the social issues with Cuccinelli, appeal to women, and so you're seeing this coalition come together that Democrats believe can be a model in the future.
WALLACE: As Senator Brown pointed out, there is another governor's race on Tuesday and that is New Jersey, where in quite a liberal state, Republican Chris Christie is running for reelection. And at this point, it looks like he's going to sweep the victory running an aggressively inclusive campaign. Take a look at one of his ads.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: Chris Christie -- an example of what it means to be bipartisan for the good of the people. His leadership led to real property tax relief. And the best job growth in a decade. With both parties, Christie balanced every budget without raising taxes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Karl, when you look at New Jersey and you look at Virginia, and I want to pick up on what Senator Brown said, what's the lesson for Republicans? What works and what doesn't?
ROVE: Yeah, first of all, I want to dispute your analysis of Virginia as being reliably Republican. Think about these recent governors two of whom, you know, Kaine and Warner, both are now serving in the United States Senate. The Republicans only took the legislature in the last few years for the first time since reconstruction. So, this state has -- this state has been in play for a while. It's been reliably Republican at the presidential level, but underneath it's had a lot of Democratic characteristics, particularly when it came to elect the statewide officials. I'd say this about New Jersey. Chris Christie had Real Clear Politics average as of this morning. This 59 percent for Christie and 34.7 percent for his Democrat opponent. A 24.3 percent margin. I don't think it's going to be that big, but Christie has had the success of being an incumbent governor, who's done a lot of positive things, and has worked assiduously at prying away elements of the opposition's base. He's going to be rewarded, I think, with a big victory. On the other hand, I want to update your numbers. As of this morning, the Real Clear Politics average for Virginia is 45.3 to 40.3. A five point gap. And just like as the Christie's race is not going to be as lavish as 24, and the state is going to be sort of drawn back to its roots, my sense is that Virginia race is not five points, it's going to be closer than that. 15 percent of the voters in Virginia are either undecided or say they're committed to the libertarian candidate, but half of those libertarian votes are going to go to someplace else. And by comparison in New Jersey, about five percent of the voters say
WALLACE: Do you think Cuccinelli is going to win?
ROVE: I think he's at right state, McAuliffe has the advantage clearly in the polls, and he had -- and Julie was right, the money is astonishing. $34.4 million spent by McAuliffe to 19.7 million spent on behalf of Cuccinelli either by his campaign or by the Republican Governors Association. You'd have to -- If you are a betting person, bet on McAuliffe, but he's underneath 50 percent of the vote, you have got one out of every six voters up for grabs and we'll see.
WALLACE: All right. Senator Bayh. You used to run and win -- now, forgive me, I'm going to say this again, and now you can correct me, in reliably Republican Indiana, do you agree with that?
WALLACE: So, a free lesson to the Republicans. How do they need to run if they hope to do better in 2014 and 2016?
BAYH: Look, we had a similar program with the Democratic Party in the '70s and the '80s, when we had, you know, far left wing element that just was very dominant in primaries and caucuses. But it made it very hard for us to win general elections. You see the mirror image of that in the Republican Party today. So the basic question they need to ask themselves, is what are they all about? Are they here to win elections and to govern or they are here to send a message, in which case they don't compromise. They just let the most conservative developments control the outcome. And we're seeing that in these two governors' races. You had a governor of New Jersey who responded to Hurricane Sandy. Who's seen with the president, seen as a maverick, a problem solver. And in Virginia you have a situation where they actually changed the rules for nominating their candidates to try to ensure that the most conservative candidate won. You're not going to ...
WALLACE: And they ended -- they took out the primary and did a state convention?
BAYH: Correct. And so, in a state like Virginia, which is now, you know, more purple, you've got to appeal to women, you've got to appeal moderates, you've got to appeal to independents. That's what the Republican Party is going to need to do if they are going to win the presidency and have a majority of both Houses of Congress.
WALLACE: Senator Brown, I know you don't like this, but I'm going to do it again to you.
BROWN: What about Evan?
WALLACE: But it's come up again, there is another ...
BROWN: It's going to come up all of the time.
WALLACE: Well, all right. Then I've got to bring it up. People are wondering what this is about. There is another political rumor about Scott Brown. Supposedly you put your house in Massachusetts up for sale.
BROWN: It's too big. I have kids, the good thing ...
WALLACE: All right. And ...
WALLACE: And we've got 30 seconds here. So, let me get my question.
BROWN: You're talking.
WALLACE: You started at Political Action Committee in New Hampshire.
WALLACE: In New Hampshire.
BROWN: Yeah, by law...
WALLACE: Are you going to run for the Senate in New Hampshire?
BROWN: Listen, by law everybody knows that you need to form a PAC in order to give one dollar to anybody. That's the law. It's this the way it is. With regard to my political future, listen, there is a roll for me. This is not about me. It's about what Evan and Carl are saying, about letting people know who we are as a party and how we can move forward with a positive message to convince people how to vote for us.
WALLACE: I'll take that as a definite maybe.
WALLACE: Thank you, panel. See you next week. Remember our discussion continues every Sunday on "Panel Plus." You can find it on our website, Foxnewssunday.com. And make sure to follow us on Twitter at Fox News Sunday. Up next our power player of the week, Charles Krauthammer on how he didn't let a life altering accident all turn his life.
WALLACE: This week we continue our special two-part profile of our colleague Charles Krauthammer. Charles shares his political views in his column on a special report, and not it is new book "Things That Matter." But he rarely opens up about his remarkable private life, which has confined him to a wheelchair. Here is our power player of the week.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, AUTHOR, "THINGS THAT MATTER": It didn't change the trajectory of my life. That's the vow I made to myself when I was in the hospital afterwards.
WALLACE: Charles Krauthammer is talking about his terrible accident 41 years ago. The devastating injury he sustained and his determination not to let it define him.
KRAUTHAMMER: Getting around is harder, it takes a little longer, a little more effort, but I would say if you were to look at my story it has not changed it.
WALLACE: These are the last pictures of him standing. On spring break in Bermuda in 1972 during his first year at Harvard Medical School. Two months later he was back at school diving into a pool one day. When he hit his head on the bottom and severed his spinal cord, instantly paralyzing him.
KRAUTHAMMER: I knew from the second I was hurt because I was a medical student. What had happened, why it happened, and what it meant for the future.
WALLACE: He set two books by the side of the pool. One, on the anatomy of the spinal cord. The other, "Man's Fate" by Andre Malroux. And Charles was quick to accept his fate.
KRAUTHAMMER: The best thing I had going for me, is from the first day I had no hope. And no hope is a relieving thing. I knew what life would be like. And either accept it, or you don't.
WALLACE: But his idea of acceptance is not like most people. While recovering for the next year in the hospital, he continued his studies and he finished med school near the top of his class right on time.
KRAUTHAMMER: 11:30 ...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.
KRAUTHAMMER: Giving directions.
WALLACE: These days Charles drives around Washington in a specially designed minivan. He accelerates and breaks with his left hand and steers with his right. He writes columns and essays, and, of course, offers opinions almost nightly on special reports.
KRAUTHAMMER: Who said if you have your plan, you keep your plan. Period is absurd.
WALLACE: And after the show he goes to watch his beloved Washington Nationals.
(on camera): Is there anything that you ever get sad about that you don't? That you can't do?
KRAUTHAMMER: I would like to play tennis again, or water ski, or the things, but yeah, you know you also grow up. There are elements of life that I miss out. But there never was sadness.
WALLACE (voice over): And that may be the most remarkable part of the story. More than all Charles is accomplished and all he does in a wheelchair, there is not a trace of self-pity, not a bit.
KRAUTHAMMER: Everybody has their cross to bear. Everybody. The cross I bear is pretty obvious. But on the scale of things it ranks somewhere way below the top. You have got two choices now. You either are going to live a good life, or you are going to live a miserable life. And that to me was a very easy choice.
WALLACE: Although his accident has kept him off water skis, Charles was able to pursue another passion, chess. That is until he became so addicted to the game, he says he forced himself to give it up. And that's it for today. Have a great week. We'll see you next “Fox News Sunday.”
Content and Programming Copyright 2013 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
Chris will sit down with Green Party Presidential Nominee Dr Jill Stein, to discuss her controversial push for a presidential election recount in several states.