BRET BAIER: What I'm finding interesting is the different tone here. You know, when all the questions were about the health care plans that were -- that people lost because they were told that their plans didn't match up. It was about 6 million or more, and the administration at that time said that is a small sliver. It is only 5% of the population. But now, at 7 million, it is this bring out the balloons and cheer in the Rose Garden, but that 6.2 was a sliver. You understand?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I understand. It's a sliver if it hurts you, and it's gigantic if it helps you. Look, and it's also -- look, this is a phony number and it's wonderfully precise. You know, these guys go six months without any idea what the numbers are, and all of a sudden, it's to a decimal point. 7.1, not 7.2. But of course, it's meaningless because, a, we don't know how many of them have paid. And it's an enrollment number that's not enrollment, but the more important one is how many were previously uninsured?
The point of the plan, the point of revolutionizing a sixth of the economy, the point of kicking off a program that's going to cost $2 trillion over a decade, was to insure the uninsured. If it turns out that the overwhelming majority of the so-called 7.1 were people who had health insurance, liked their health insurance, were renewing their health insurance and got kicked off their health insurance, whose lives are disrupted, premiums are raised, deductibles are raised, and lost their doctors are now among the 7.1, it's a net negative, but they won't tell us the number.
And the real issue here for the political impact, will the media still pursue the real numbers? Are they going to say 7 is done and they're not going to revisit how many have actually paid, how many were previously uninsured, and of course, how many are young and healthy?