White House press secretary deflected questions about President Obama’s relative low profile on the two year anniversary of his landmark health reform law.

Republicans were quick to note that Obama didn’t make any public statement in commemoration of the law, but the White House rejected the idea that it considers the law a political liability.

When asked by a reporter during the daily briefing whether the White House considered health care reform to be a “political liability,” Carney exclaimed, “No!”

He referred the reporter to a documentary-style video, posted by the president’s re-election campaign, which goes through a brief chronology of the legislation and features testimony from the president and Vice President Biden.

Carney also noted that the White House issued a report Friday detailing the aspects of the law that have already been implemented, peppered with testimony from individuals who say they’ve been helped by some of its provisions.

That report was accompanied by a written statement by the president: “Today, two years after we passed health care reform, more young adults have insurance, more seniors are saving money on their prescription drugs, and more Americans can rest easy knowing they won’t be dropped from their insurance plans if they get sick. The law has made a difference for millions of Americans, and over time, it will help give even more working and middle-class families the security they deserve.”

But while the president did appear publicly today, he did not make a live comment on the law, instead announcing the nomination of Dartmouth president Jim Yong Kim to be World Bank president, in addition to commenting on the Trayvon Martin shooting case.

Meanwhile, some of the Republicans seeking to unseat Obama said the absence of a public event commemorating the law’s signing proved the White House was seeking to distance itself from a politically unpopular policy. (A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that Americans oppose the law 52-41 percent overall, with 67 percent believing the law, or at least the individual mandate portion, should be repealed.)

Campaigning in West Monroe, Louisiana today, Rick Santorum said of the law’s birthday: “There's a reason he's not saying anything about it. It's a horribly unpopular bill, because it robs people of their economic freedom and forces them to do things that are against their own religious beliefs.”

And Mitt Romney, whose Massachusetts health care plan the Obama re-election campaign has characterized as the basis for the president’s plan, penned an op-ed in USA today called “Why I’d Repeal Obamacare.”

Speaking in Metairie, Louisiana at an event titled, “Repeal & Replace Obamacare,” Romney said that the president was not making public statements on the law “for a reason: Most Americans want to get rid of it and we’re among those Americans, I want to get rid of it too."

The Republican National Committee has also been staging a weeklong messaging campaign against the law, hanging a banner on their Washington D.C. headquarters that said, “Happy Birthday Obamacare!” And RNC spokesman Sean Spicer wrote in an email Friday that the president “doesn't want to defend” the law.

Carney today said the bill was not more popular because its benefits have been obfuscated by big-dollar ad campaigns against the legislation, and that the administration was more focused on implementing the law than it was countering attacks.

He lamented “the amount of money spent in the propaganda PR wars on this issue, 3-1 at least spent against the affordable care act and efforts to mischaracterize and mislead Americans about what it is.”

As First Read wrote earlier, a Kantar Media Campaign Media Analysis Group study found that supporters of the health care law had in fact been outspent 2-1 by opponents of the law, not 3-1 as Carney asserted.

Health care’s two-year anniversary, but White House is quiet on the subject. … Supreme Court takes it up next week and will determine its fate by June. Whatever the outcome, it will have a big impact on the president’s legacy. If it’s upheld, it’s good for him; if not, it’s bad. It’s as simple as that. … Dems still have a message problem on it … But so does Romney despite his efforts today … Did Santorum go too far with his criticism of Romney? … Biden will again name names when he talks to seniors in Florida about Social Security and Medicare … Previewing the Bayou battle Saturday … Plouffe on Meet the Press.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Republican Conference Chairman Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, and fellow GOP House members meet with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, March 22, 2012, after the House voted along party lines to repeal a Medicare cost-control board that's part of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law. From left are, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, Hensarling and Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-La.

*** Health care takes center stage: Two years ago today, surrounded by legislators and cameras, President Obama signed the health care act into law. Today, there won't be a commemoration but the real action is NEXT week. The fate of the president's signature legislation will be in the hands of the Supreme Court, which begins oral arguments in the case Monday. The country remains split to slightly more unfavorable on the law, and how the Supreme Court will decide is anybody's guess. But it's clear whatever the court decides in June could have a big impact on the presidential race. There are a lot of different ways to slice it and speculate what the various potential outcomes could mean, but no one's EXACTLY sure how it will all play out. Certainly, if the mandate is struck down, that will be a major black mark for the president. Anything other than it being upheld is bad for the president. It’s simple: The court upholds it, it’s good for the president. If it doesn’t, it’s bad for him.

*** Public will likely still be swayed by outcome: While the public’s views of the Supreme Court have become slightly more polarized again, there’s still a good chunk of folks who don’t view it as ideologically as partisans do and how they rule will probably sway them. This case will draw a ton of interest across the country. It’s one of the reasons why this is the hottest ticket in town. Bloomberg/Business Week looks at efforts by everyone from congressmen to lobbyists to think tank fellows trying to get in and work any contact they can to snatch one of the 400 tickets available to WATCH oral arguments next week. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), very enthusiastically on TODAY, announced she had gotten a ticket.

*** Still a message problem for the Democrats: This fight over health care is not just an ideological and rhetorical one; it's also about big money. And a war has been waged on the TV airwaves with more than a quarter billion dollars spent -- $262 million -- on health-care-related TV ads since its passage, according to an analysis by Kantar Media Campaign Media Analysis Group. Opponents have outspent supporters 2-to-1 and have focused their advertising in swing states. Supporters have spent their money on national TV and California markets. But look at that ratio again. Opponents have outspent supporters 2-1 and supporters want to know why the public is slightly unfavorable toward the plan? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that health care wasn’t communicated well by this White House – and it’s doubling down lately by not selling it. Though his campaign is using health care to try and appeal to women, the president is not selling himself very much or very well. It’s clearly one of those things they don’t want a discussion about, but with Romney as the nominee, maybe they’re banking on the fact they won’t have to have a long discussion about it.

*** Romney in focus, too: Romney, who signed his own health law in Massachusetts with a mandate, will be in focus today, too. He’s trying to keep the focus on President Obama with an op-ed today in USA Today, entitled, “Why I’d repeal ObamaCare;” his campaign sent out a press release this morning called, “Two years of broken promises from ObamaCare;” and his event today in Metairie, La., is called: "Repeal & Replace Obamacare.” Rick Santorum has said that if Romney is the nominee, then health care is off the table as an issue, and for the most part, he’s right. One reason, as National Journal points out today: “It was in 2009 that Romney penned a now-infamous op-ed in the same paper [USA Today] suggesting that President Obama would do well to follow Massachusetts’ model in creating a national health plan, even going so far as to mention that his state used ‘tax penalties’ to encourage the uninsured to buy insurance.” And NPR points this out: “Perhaps it's ironic that one of the most articulate spokesmen for the individual mandate is someone who is currently campaigning for the repeal of the federal health law — GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.”

*** Did Santorum take it too far? But did Santorum go too far on another criticism of Romney yesterday? He said, reelecting Obama would be BETTER than electing Romney. “If you're going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk with what may be the Etch-A-Sketch candidate of the future,” he said. Gingrich, who also continued to use Etch A Sketch (showing up with a pink one and using a toy gator to chomp one), fired back at Santorum, saying any of the candidates running would be better than Obama. And Romney, whose campaign yesterday penned a memo calling Santorum Obama’s “most valuable player,” said on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show that Santorum was “desperate.” “Desperate polls call for desperate pols,” Romney said. On Etch A Sketch, by the way, he said the timing was “not ideal,” coming right after a win in Illinois and he labeled it a “gaffe.” “This wasn't me speaking,” Romney said. “This was Eric. And you know, everybody's going to make a gaffe now and again. I've certainly made my share of them, and I'm sure others will.” Ouch. He again said the context of what aide Eric Fehrnstrom was talking about was “organization.” But the questioner asked about ideology. Did Fehrnstrom not hear the question? Unlikely.

*** Biden and third rail: In Florida today at 12:20 pm ET, Vice President Biden delivers the second of his campaign speeches framing the general election for Team Obama (the first was in Toledo, Ohio, on the auto bailout). Today’s topic in senior-citizen-rich Florida: Medicare and Social Security. As the Obama campaign previewed in a memo yesterday, “Biden will discuss the importance of protecting Social Security and Medicare in Florida, a state where Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries make up about 20 percent of the population.” Biden will say, according to excerpts: “The American people won't be fooled. They know there's a fundamental difference between us and the Republicans. We believe in strengthening Medicare. They don't.” And he will again name Romney, going after him for supporting “Cut, Cap, and Balance.” Biden will say, “”Let’s cut through it and say it in plain English. The ‘cut’ is cutting Social Security. The ‘cap’ is putting a cap on what we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay in taxes. And the ‘balance’ is balancing the budget on the backs of seniors and middle class Americans.”

*** Louisiana cookin’: Louisiana Republicans go to the polls Saturday, where Rick Santorum is the favorite, and Gingrich concedes that he’ll likely come in third. Per NBC’s John Bailey, 20 of the state’s 46 delegates are at stake Saturday. Polls close at 9:00 pm ET. It’s a closed primary, meaning only registered Republicans can vote. Louisiana allots its delegates proportionally with candidates needing at least 25% of the vote to get delegates. But all of the votes for candidates receiving less than 25% will go toward delegates designated as uncommitted; those delegates do NOT get reallocated to those that DID received 25% or more (it’s a delegate blow to the winner). So if Candidate A gets 40%, Candidate B gets 35%, and no other candidate exceeds 25%, then Candidate A will get 40% of the delegates, Candidate B will get 35% of the delegates, and 25% of the delegates will be designated uncommitted. Of the state’s 26 remaining delegates, three are RNC delegates and the other 23 will be elected at the party’s state convention in June. All 26 are unpledged.

*** What to watch: In 2008, Louisiana’s primary took place on Feb. 9, just days after Mitt Romney withdrew from the race, Bailey reports. Mike Huckabee narrowly won with 43%, a one-point margin over runner-up John McCain. Turnout topped 160,000 (161,169 to be exact). Louisiana reports its results by parish and had only four parishes with more than 10,000 GOP voters last cycle – East Baton Rouge (31,343), Jefferson (16,279), St. Tammany (13,364), and Caddo (10,612). These four parishes accounted for 44% of the vote and broke mostly for McCain despite Huckabee’s statewide victory. East Baton Rouge (Baton Rouge), Jefferson (New Orleans), and St. Tammany (across Lake Pontchartrain from New Orleans) went for McCain and Caddo Parish (Shreveport) went for Huckabee. The state broke down roughly along geographic lines, with McCain winning Baton Rouge, Lafayette, New Orleans and the rest of the state’s southeastern portion. Huckabee won the middle and northern block of the state, including Shreveport.

*** In case you forgot about him, Paul is back: After a weeklong absence, Paul holds two campaign events today in Louisiana. Also on the trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez, Paul isn’t the only one in Louisiana: Romney hits Metairie and Shreveport… Santorum stumps in West Monroe, Shreveport, and Pineville… And Gingrich visits Port Fourchon and Kenner.

*** On “Meet the Press” this Sunday: NBC’s David Gregory interviews White House adviser David Plouffe.

Countdown to Louisiana primary: 1 days
Countdown to DC, Maryland, Wisconsin primaries: 11 days
Countdown to Election Day: 228 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower

Updated 1:25 p.m. -- The release of the new Republican budget on Tuesday puts their party’s presidential hopefuls in a potentially difficult spot, forcing them to embrace or reject proposals that have little chance of becoming law, but could carry some political risk.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis, released his second official budget as the chairman of the committee overseeing fiscal matters; the plan contained proposals for sweeping reforms to entitlement programs, along with other cuts in spending.

Related: House GOP unveils budget blueprint

That means, for a second year straight, the field of GOP candidates should expect questions about their positions on the plan, which could prove problematic to their own campaigns.

“I would tell them to support it,” said Gretchen Hamel, the executive director of the right-leaning Public Notice, of her advice to the GOP hopefuls. “I think that they have a lot to gain by supporting a bold proposal on Capitol Hill. They also find a way to speak to the base through this.”

She added, “I would just be honest when it comes to the stickier parts. Maybe you don't agree with the whole solution, but you agree it has to be addressed."

Ryan consulted and spoke with each of the Republican presidential hopefuls in the days leading up to his budget announcement. Those conversations may go a way toward reprising the events from last year, when Democrats tried to make Ryan’s first budget, released a year ago, politically radioactive for Republicans. They charged the Ryan plan would “end Medicare,” and had even gained a degree of traction with that messaging until the scandal involving New York Rep. Anthony Weiner engulfed the 24-hour news cycle.

So potent was the issue that Romney hedged for months on the plan. "I appreciate what Paul Ryan has done," Romney said last May, per an Associated Press account. "I'm going to have my own plan."

While Romney didn't fully embrace Ryan's plan, his eventual proposal was largely simpatico with it. What's more, the two met on Capitol Hill last fall for about an hour. Press accounts at the time indicated the pair's conversation centered on reforms to Social Security and other entitlement programs.

Romney eventually said he would sign the Ryan budget if he were president, and his campaign embraced the plan more fully last fall as a means of attacking Newt Gingrich.

The former House speaker had famously decried the Ryan budget at first as “right-wing social engineering,” precisely because of its bold changes to entitlements. Gingrich backtracked on that criticism after Ryan publicly quipped, “With friends like that, who needs the left?”

Democrats will be attentive to how Romney and the other hopeful nominees react to the new proposal, though they believe Republicans had already made their beds with support for last year’s budget.

“There’s a reason they call them the third rail of politics,” said Eddie Vale, a spokesman for Protect Your Care, a group dedicated to promoting the president’s health reform law. “After the backlash they faced last year, even from Newt Gingrich, it’s amazing that they’re going to take another whack at it.”

Ryan argued Tuesday on "Morning Joe" that it was incumbent on the GOP to offer a contrast with Obama on major spending programs in this fall's election — a kind of referendum on the reforms he and other Republicans have proposed.

"Let's give the country the choice of very clear two futures, let the people of this country decide in the fall and whoever wins that referendum gets to implement that plan," Ryan said.

He added later at a press conference on Capitol Hill that he expects the eventual nominee to speak boldly on budgetary issues.

"Whoever our nominee is going to be owes the country that choice of two futures; we’re helping them put this together," he said. "And each of these people running for president have all given their various ideas and reforms with perfectly jive or consistent with what we’re proposing here."

Liberal groups will largely wrap the new Ryan plan and any of its proposed changes to Medicare into their overall defense of the president’s health care law during the next two weeks, which features the anniversary of President Barack Obama signing that bill into law, and Supreme Court arguments challenging the constitutionality of its reforms.

A firm embrace of the Ryan plan would also carry some political benefit for any of the GOP hopefuls.

Ryan is considered one of the GOP’s rising stars, and his name is on many short lists to become the running mate of the eventual nominee. And he's one of the few Republican figures of note yet to make an endorsement in the presidential race, and his support would help any of the candidates firm up their fiscal conservative credentials.

WOODLAKE PARK, Colo. -- In what was billed as a major address on health care, presidential hopeful Rick Santorum took a hard line on Wednesday against government getting involved in offsetting the cost of drug prices.

Before exiting the stage, Santorum was prodded by members of the 300-person crowd to take one last question from a young boy standing in the front row. The child asked what the candidate would do to lower the cost of medicine. But the former Pennsylvania senator said it was the cost of drugs that allowed for the innovation that keeps Americans with life-threatening illnesses alive.

"People have no problem going out and buying an iPad for $900. But paying $200 for a drug they have a problem with -- that keeps you alive. Why? Because you've been conditioned in thinking health care is something you should get and not have to pay for. Drug companies, health care companies need to have a profitability, because if they don't, then how are we going to regulate costs?  We're going to ration care," said Santorum. "And you may be someone who gets that care, but this little boy, because of his condition, or because of his life expectancy may not. Why? Because it's not cost effective."

While some of in the audience applauded Santorum's tough stance against government involvement in drug prices, others protested. The mother of the child yelled out that she was going bankrupt just to pay for her child to keep breathing. It wasn't clear what the boy's condition was.

"I hear these and sympathize with these very passionate cases," Santorum responded to the mother. "Look, I want your son and everybody to have the opportunity to stay alive on much-needed drugs. But the bottom line is, we have companies with the incentive to make those drugs. And if they don't have the incentive to make those drugs, your son won't be alive and lots of other people in this country won't be alive. We either believe in markets or we don't."

Santorum is the father of a special needs child with a genetic disorder.  He was off the trail last week after rushing his daughter, Bella, to the hospital in critical condition on Saturday. Today, he said his 3-year-old will be released from the hospital within the next day.

On the campaign trail, the GOP hopeful talks about how he pays more for the health care of his youngest child, saying it's fair because it is more expensive to take care of her.

When members of the crowd protested what they called the exorbitant cost of the medicines they need, Santorum maintained those prices are what is keeping Americans alive longer.

"You have that drug, and maybe your life today, because people have a profit motive to make that drug," he said. 

The Obama administration announced today that a rule requiring “non-profit religious employers” to comply with the federal health-care law and fully cover contraception would stand -- albeit with a reprieve.

“Non-profit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in a statement released today.

This rule does not apply to churches or other places of worship. However, it does affect employers like religiously affiliated hospitals and universities that in the past have not included contraception as part of their health coverage. Such institutions were hoping for an exemption to this rule -- with groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbying the Obama administration forcefully on their behalf. 

The Bishops released a scathing statement that said in part: 

“The Catholic bishops of the United States called ‘literally unconscionable’ a decision by the Obama administration to continue to demand that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans.”

And Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York was quoted as saying: “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.”

Sebelius said that the concerns of religious organizations were taken into account in the decision, and that the rule has no impact on existing conscience clauses. 

“This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty,” said the Health and Human Services Secretary. 

She continued, “I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.”

Non-religious employers are required to fully cover contraception in their health insurance plans by August of this year.

URBANDALE, Iowa -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Wednesday warned that President Obama's health reform law could result in the death of ill patients, relating the story of a cancer patient he met Tuesday at a campaign stop in Creston, Iowa.

"She came up to me and she said 'Governor, if you don't get rid of Obamacare, I'm dead," he recounted. "She said they will never take care of me. And that's a powerful testimony by that lady."

The governor, who won cheers for his promise to use an executive order to gut the law, though most of the health reform law's major components haven't gone into effect yet. Perry spoke to a packed house at the biweekly breakfast meeting of the Westside Conservative Club at the Machine Shed Restaurant in Urbandale.

Perry, a veteran who served in the United States Air Force, also unveiled a new swipe at Obama for failing to schedule a "simple parade" for soldiers returning from Iraq.

"It really disturbs me that nearly after 10 years of war that this president wouldn't welcome home those heroes with a simple parade," he said, briefly appearing to become emotional. "Maybe it's because this war is unpopular with the Democrats, I don't know. But Mr. President, our soldiers come first."

The Texas governor, who has been haunted by a memorable debate gaffe from the CNBC debate last month, found himself in a refreshing position at the start of the event: correcting someone else's oops.

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a top surrogate for Perry, especially on the issue of immigration, introduced the candidate at the breakfast meeting, beginning his remarks with a shout out to the "Buckeyes."

The home team for fans of the University of Iowa is the Hawkeyes; the Buckeyes are the mascot of Ohio State University. The crowd laughed and booed as Arpaio joked, "It's 3 o'clock Phoenix time."

Taking the microphone minutes later, Perry leapt in for the save, referencing another college team with dedicated fans in the state.

"Actually, there's probably some Cyclones in this crowd," he said, referencing Iowa State's team, after teasing Arpaio for the error.

A 2006 memo penned by Newt Gingrich praised the health reform law Mitt Romney piloted as governor of Massachusetts, and threatens to undercut the former House speaker's criticism of that plan.

A memo (first unearthed Tuesday by the Wall Street Journal) distributed through Gingrich's Center for Health Transformation credits Romney and his state's health reform law as a positive development.

"The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system," Gingrich wrote. "We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100 percent insurance coverage for all Americans."

That would seemingly temper Gingrich's criticism of the Massachusetts plan as the "forerunner of Obamacare."

Gingrich has similarly criticized the individual mandate contained both in Romney and President Obama's health reforms, despite having supported a similar model for health reform in the 1990s. He's since disavowed such a plan.

NBC News Justice Correspondent Pete Williams joins Mark Murray and Domenico Montanaro to discuss the anticipated time frame for the Supreme Court to hear the case regarding health care reform.

Transcribed by NBC's Jordan Fraiser.

TRANSCRIPT:

DOMENICO MONTANARO: Alright Mark, well we have another question from DaNoid, another loyal commenter and he says -- I don't know what my blog handle would be anyway, but a, -- "What is the anticipated timeframe for the Supreme Court to hear the case regarding health care reform and what can either side do to accelerate or delay a review by the Supremes?"

MARK MURRAY: Wow, that's a great question, and in fact for more information on that we're going to go to our justice correspondent Pete Williams who knows everything that you need to know about the U.S. Supreme Court, Pete take it away.

NBC NEWS JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT PETE WILLIAMS: Well, first we don't know whether the Supreme Court will take up the health care case, though it seems very likely it will.  If it does, it probably would not be aruged until late February, because the court's oral argument calendar is pretty much filled up until then. Now, in a complicated case like this, the court's decision would probably come at the very end of the term, that would be the last week of June. So far, none of the parties in these health care cases have asked the court to put this on a fast track - not the Obama Administration, not the states or business groups who are challenging the law. So we'll assume it would happen on the kind of schedule that I just mentioned.  Now I suppose we have to consider the possibility that the Supreme Court might actually take this case and then decide that it's too soon to get to the crux of the matter -- whether it's unconstituional to require virtually all Americans to buy health insurance.  Some lower courts have said any such challenge would have to wait until that provision actually kicks in, in 2014. But the Justice Department and the opponents of the law will urge the court not to put that off and decide the big question and those procedural issues all at once. 

DOMENICO MONTANARO: Well thanks Pete, we really appreciate that.  You know, Mark, I mean it really is an important distinction, the fact that we have a lot of time to until this election, health care has been a real, you know, big issue and the administration had a decision to make on whether or not they would do this now, wait until next year.  Supreme Court takes it up-- what do you think winds up happening here?

MARK MURRAY: You know Domenico, I actually think this is a savvy move by the Justice Department and the Obama Administration, so even if they end up losing this fight, so say the Supreme Court in a 5-to-4 decision, the Robert's Court knocks down, … they hold the hearings this term but then they have their decision some June of 2012.  Well the Robert's Court knocks it down, well then there's a decision really to fire up the Democratic base.  We've already seen after the Citizens United decision, the Democrats don't like this Robert's Court and so the Obama Administration could actually kind of turn this into getting their folks fired up.  On the flipside, if somehow the Obama people end up winning this, then that's actually a shot in their arm. So in a way, you could actually look at it, it's win-win.  Now of course, it would be a huge blow to President Obama's historical legacy, for this to go down, but at least short-term politics this could be a win-win situation.

DOMENICO MONTANARO: Well it could be, but the other part of this though, you know, I know there was one election law blog post which made this point that Obama could run against the Robert's Court again, but does that appeal to independents or moderates to say, you know, look at the Supreme Court, this was a wrong decision, it made a bad--you know, I think there might be a lot of people who would look at it as whining, and they would think you know, yes it would fire up the base, it might help with that, but there's going to be some damage control that the administration would need to do if they are to lose this.  But if they were to win a couple of months before, Obama could say, well let's not even talk about this anymore guys, it's settled law.

MARK MURRAY: Right.  Well look it's going to be a great story on top of everything.  It's going to be a story we're going to be following, it's certainly one Pete's going to be following too.

President Obama’s health-care bill was signed into law one year ago today. So what provisions have already taken effect? And what’s still to come?

Here's the link for the the full video. For more, check out our expanded post on health care one year later.

Video edited by Domenico Montanaro and Ali Weinberg.

/

President Barack Obama signs the health care bill in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, March 23, 2010. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Health care -- one year later ... A nation still divided … and confused … Who’s left in Congress who voted for and against it … Where it stands in the courts … What’s ACTUALLY in effect … What will be and when … Bet you didn’t know … By the numbers

From NBC's Chuck Todd, Domenico Montanaro, Ali Weinberg, Carrie Dann, and Kevin Hurd
*** Health care -- one year later: Today marks the one-year anniversary of President Obama signing the health-care overhaul into law. That debate, the town halls, the process, and the late-night votes consumed every bit of the political oxygen for a year and were the subject of heated political rhetoric and spin (see: “Death panels,” pulling the plug on grandma, “government takeover,” socialism, and the public option). But look at what’s happened since (in order): the BP oil spill, the Greece riots, Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, floods in Pakistan, Democrats’ “shellacking” in the midterms, Republicans take control of the House, Rahm Emanuel becomes Chicago mayor, Bill Daley replaces him at the White House, a new press secretary, no more Michael Steele, Tucson, Tunisia, Egypt, Japan, and Libya.

*** A nation still divided…: Back to the health-care anniversary … the needle hasn’t moved all that much on the health-care bill’s popularity. In the most recent monthly tracking poll conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 42% of respondents said they had a favorable opinion of the bill compared to 46% who saw it unfavorably. In April 2010, just after the bill was signed, the numbers were a similar -- but more favorable -- 46%-40%. In November 2010, when the midterm elections put the politics of health care front and center, those numbers were 42%-40%. The 2010 exit polls, which reflected an electorate that voted to sweep Democrats out of power in the House, showed an equally split country -- with 47% saying it should either be expanded or left as is and 48% saying it should be repealed. Kaiser’s numbers are similar to the ones shown by our NBC/WSJ poll. In March 2010, right before the legislation passed, 46% said they supported passage, 45% opposed. That’s exactly the same breakdown as NBC/WSJ found 10 months later in January 2011 on a DIFFERENT question -- on whether they supported or opposed its repeal.

*** …And still equally confused: Polling indicates Americans continue to be confused about how the bill will impact them, what’s actually in it, what’s been implemented, and whether it’s been repealed. Kaiser shows that, as of March, 53% say they are “confused” about their feelings on the law. In April 2010, 55% said they were confused. That dipped to 42% by June, but then spiked back up to 53% by September, dipped again to 43% by December and ticked back up at the beginning of this year; 52% say that they don’t know enough about the legislation to understand how it will affect their lives. That’s about the same as April 2010, when 56% said so. Incredibly, almost half in February of this year said INCORRECTLY either the bill had been repealed (22%) or weren’t sure (26%).

*** Congress -- who’s left: Of the 219 House Democrats who voted for the health care bill, 171 remain. The four House Democrats who voted for the health-care bill and ran for Senate all lost. Of the 34 House Democrats who voted no, 14 remain. One, Charlie Melancon (LA-3) ran for the Senate and lost. Of the 56 Senate Democrats who voted for it, 46 remain, 11 of whom won re-election in 2010. Of the three Senate Democrats who voted against it, two remain. Only one -- Blanche Lincoln (AR) -- was up for re-election last year. And she lost. (Republicans point out that NO Senate Democrats voted against the bill the first time around on the Christmas Eve vote.) *** UPDATE *** Republicans also point out that "six of the last eight Senate Dems to decide whether to support the health care bill will either not run for reelection or have been beaten. The seventh will be in a dogfight this year and the eighth will likely be reelected barring something dramatic in Vermont: Lincoln – lost; Ben Nelson – will likely lose; Lieberman – retire; Bayh – retire; Webb – retire; Conrad – retire; Feingold (because it wasn’t liberal enough) – lost; Brown (D - OH) (because it wasn’t liberal enough) – ??; Sanders (because it wasn’t liberal enough) – ??"

*** Where it stands in the courts: Nearly two dozen legal challenges have been filed in federal court over the law, NBC’s Pete Williams reports. And while most have been dismissed on technical grounds, five resulted in decisions on the central issue -- whether the law’s requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance is unconstitutional. The five cases are pending before federal appeals courts, and one may reach the U.S. Supreme court during its next term. In three of those cases, filed in Virginia, Michigan, and Washington, D.C., judges said the law is constitutional. In the other two, brought by the states of Virginia and Florida, judges said Congress exceeded its powers in passing the law. The lawsuit filed by Florida was backed by 25 other states. Adding Virginia, that brings to 27 the number of states challenging the law’s constitutionality. Six more cases are pending in the lower courts.

*** How is the law affecting you RIGHT NOW? There were cries of, “Have you read the bill?” and “What’s in the bill?” which led to a lot of the confusion. Well, here’s some of what’s ACTUALLY in the bill that’s taken effect already or will this year, per NBC’s Betsy Cline and others:

- Children allowed to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans until their 26^th birthday.
- A 10% tax on indoor tanning services. (Sorry, Snooki.)
- Seniors receive a $250 rebate to help cover the so-called “donut hole” in Medicare drug coverage
- Free preventative care covered by Medicare and private plans. (So, when your company says, “Good news, you now get free health-care screenings, child well visits, physicals and other preventative care,” that comes from the health-care bill.)
- Nursing mothers to be allowed lactation breaks
- Insurance companies no longer allowed to discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions
- Government-run insurance plan set up for adults with preexisting conditions who are denied coverage
- Government-run long-term care program set up. For those who participate, people pay premiums for five years and then will receive benefits if they need them -- “whether they are 20-somethings in snowboard accidents or 80-somethings with Parkinson’s disease,” the New York Times wrote.
- Insurance companies barred from placing lifetime caps on benefits
- Insurance companies barred from dropping patients’ coverage when they get sick
- Insurance companies must prove they spend 80% to 85% of premium revenue on medical services.
- Insurance companies required to disclose rate increases (and the reason) of 10% or more
- Small businesses (with fewer than 50 employees) begin receiving tax credits covering 35% of premiums to help them buy coverage. (This credit jumps to 50% in 2014.)
- States receive billions in funding for community health centers
- Drug companies face $2.5 billion in fees (rises in later years)
- Creation of a government research institute created to examine the effectiveness of medical treatments
- Establishment of a Medicare Independent Advisory Board, which will be tasked with trying to keep Medicare spending down and submitting legislative proposals to do so. It will first submit recommendations in 2016.

*** How will it affect you IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS? If most of that sounds good (that is, unless you’re Snooki), Republicans will rightly argue the law was front-loaded with many of the positive parts. In 2013, new taxes and fees go into effect for individuals making more than $200,000 a year (and families making more than $250,000 a year), on dividends and interest, and on sales of medical devices. By 2014, the individual mandate goes into effect -- if you don’t have insurance, you have to buy it or face a fee. By 2016, that fee will be 2.5% of your income or $695 a year, whichever is more. (Kaiser has a helpful interactive timeline here.)

*** Bet you didn’t know…: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office yesterday passed around a quote from Starbucks’ CEO, who said, “I think as the bill is currently written and if it was going to land in 2014 under the current guidelines, the pressure on small businesses, because of the mandate, is too great.” It’s true that by 2014, businesses with more than 100 employees will have to contribute to buying health insurance for their employees or face hefty fines (if at least one of their employees qualifies for tax credits, but not Medicaid). But, we bet you didn’t know that businesses with fewer than 50 employees NEVER have to buy health insurance for their employees, per the White House.

*** By the numbers: For all your quick facts needs, here’s a health care, by numbers (gathered from published reports, the Kaiser Family Foundation, government health-care Web sites, the Department of Health and Human Services, and White House “fact sheets”):

- $2.8 billion: Dollars distributed so far to states to implement the law.
- $241 million: Dollars given so far to six states and a “coalition of states” in “Early Innovator” grants
- $50 million: Dollars to go out this year for five-year medical malpractice grants to go out this year to states to “develop, implement, and evaluate alternatives to current tort litigations”
- $50 million: Dollars in grants sent to states to establish exchanges
- $46 million: Dollars in grants so far to states to address insurance rate increases
- 4 million: People received $250 because they hit the Medicare “donut hole” since the law passed
- 12,000: People who were denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions since the law was passed and were added to the government-run Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan
- 1,040: Waivers granted that allow companies to cap annual payouts at lower levels than the original law orders
- 219: House Democrats voted for the health-care bill
- 171: House Democrats remain in Congress
- 63: House seats Democrats lost in the 2010 midterms
- 56: Senate Democrats voted for the bill
- 53: Percent who say they’re still confused by the law
- 48: Percent who say they think the law has either been repealed (22%) or aren’t sure (26%)
- 46: Democrats who voted for the bill remain in the Senate
- 38: States whose legislatures have proposed measures opposing elements of health reform
- 27: States have challenged the constitutionality of the law
- 26: Percent who say they’re not sure if the health-care law has been repealed
- 22: Percent who say incorrectly that the health-care law has been repealed
- 6: States -- Nevada, Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, and Iowa -- all have applied for waivers and are being reviewed
- 6: Cases pending in lower courts challenging the health-care law
- 5: Health-care lawsuits taken up by the courts out of the dozens of cases that were filed -- most centered on the individual mandate, which requires all Americans to buy health insurance
- 3: Steps the Small Business Administration created for small businesses to apply for or see if they qualify for government subsidies. The SBA claims, “Four million of the nation’s six million small businesses that employ workers could be eligible for these credits.”
- 3: Court decisions in court in favor of the administration
- 2: Court decisions against the administration.
- 1: State -- Maine has undergone the full process to get approval for a waiver on the 80%-85% provision of the health-care law. It got the provision adjusted to 65% through 2012. The reason for approval, per HHS: “The main insurance company that provides coverage for about” one-third of the 37,000 people on the individual market “said they may leave the market if they are required to meet the higher standard.”
- 1: Other state -- New Hampshire -- is farthest along in its waiver process and has a hearing set for Thursday.