You're watching...
Former Florida attorney general who started legal challenge to president's health care law says Supreme Court ruling may be a blessing in disguise
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Leading challengers to president Obama's health care -- started the day it was signed on March 23 2010 then Florida attorney general bill what column filed the first lawsuit he vowed to pursue litigation to the highest court if necessary and many did so now the highest court has ruled what does attorney telecoms say he joins us -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- I as lawyers -- doing lawyer a lawyer actually -- member of congress as well as well as a -- attorney general filed the first case I'm curious did a postmortem would you have done anything differently are treated any differently.
No I really wouldn't have done anything differently I think this case was well briefed and well argued.
And well presented but I was shocked and disappointed that she's Justice Roberts in the -- concluded that the individual mandate was attacks and not only that it was a tax Greta.
But that it was not covered and prohibited by the direct.
Tax restrictions of the constitution.
Anyone into an elaborate discussion in the opinion about his reasoning about why this was a case which sets a lot of precedent for the future with which.
Scalia and Kennedy and Alito and others disagreed.
And I certainly don't see where gets it from even pointed out that portion wasn't fully briefed -- -- briefed by the government.
But he went into a great I think very contrived way of finding the individual mandate to -- attacks -- warning -- -- he said.
To show absolute deference to that congress sent to the constitutionality of the statute and he thought this was a quote reasonable.
Interpretation which again we would disagree with but he did go through our argument he went through it explicitly.
A point by point and there's nothing more we could say we just didn't convince him of that apparently.
Would -- issue and moments ago we we mentioned -- Medicaid expansion which is another issue in which the states did prevail.
That the whole issue about whether or not the federal government could essentially force you force the states expanded Medicaid would could have some cost.
For the states down the road and of the State's one that explain that decision by that by the decision well well.
Let me let me -- -- Greta there are two big victories in this for the states and for our case one of them was the fact that.
The interstate commerce clause was held by a majority the court including -- Justice Roberts not to be able to be used it to force somebody to buy a product or service so.
A limit was placed on the expansion and use interstate commerce clause by this court that will be very important in the future the second thing.
Was the decision by the court to uphold our argument for the first time a very big precedent.
That 88 Medicaid requirements -- that you have to you have to follow that the rules of the game and and adopt a new Medicaid provisions.
-- or you'll lose your existing right to have the Medicaid -- you've already contractor for is a state.
And that that's unconstitutional -- that lever that's in that was in the law given to the secretary of health and human services.
Is unconstitutional so it means now that states can't opt not to participate.
In this very onerous new Medicaid provision.
And they can opt out and that's very important it's a very expensive proposition also.
Well has a lot of implications to undermining the ability of this longer function.
As a coherent package as was intended apparently by its authors so I think of the debate has just begun.
On health care reform now let -- This decision is now.
It's a state -- out of the Medicaid expansion which covered more people had covered a certain segment in those people -- -- very poor and -- on Medicaid are ready and covered and those people who buy a health insurance or at least could buy health insurance or -- individual mandate.
Now I'm not appears of that group who would have been would have received coverage under the Medicaid expansion.
What they just without insurance and we're backed him in a huge segment of our society who are will have no alternatives are what's the provision for them if Fannie.
There's no provision for them there wasn't any to begin with until -- was pass this time.
You know originally Medicaid was designed for the elderly for the disabled for that children the -- And then it was his chief Justice Roberts went into great detail explaining.
Expanded especially in this -- to a very high percentage of above the poverty level for everybody regardless of means or -- or what ever self.
Cuts as well but regardless of age or disability and done it is because the states flexibility is taken away.
By the new law new provisions I suspect many states will not embrace the new provisions now that they don't have to.
And and it's a very important distinction is they simply can't afford to do it.
That it's very this -- very expensive for a lot of reasons but for the state switches.
The reason in large measure we brought this suit is a state interest in state individuals.
It is is a very favorable ruling with respect to the extra cost and and burden that they would have to have.
So that was a win for the states in this case individual mandate was a loss for individuals -- -- for freedom.
A loss for a lot of things you and I believe and then.
I wish the whole -- have been taken down which by the way before dissenters said.
And -- opinion not only as individual mandate and constitution with they would not -- -- -- they would have taken a whole lot out of justice chief Justice Roberts and voted with him which course you didn't.
Is there it -- -- that this is repeal have realizes that there's a vote coming up in the House of Representatives which will be as large at the ceremony -- -- -- are really taken up in the senate but the house arrest presents to make a statement.
If if if visit national health care for whatever reason for repealed come January if there's a new president.
What is the plan and it is their plan by the Republicans.
Well I think there are a number of different viewpoints about that I've been -- of -- plan for some time that.
I don't believe the Republican leadership's been willing to embrace yet or governor Romney's been willing to alive still -- and -- -- will.
There's been dropped his rather comprehensive that would turn most of this back over to the state senate to regulate insurance is -- other things.
But it would cover preexisting conditions they would cover a lot of things -- -- she's been through a refundable tax credit Greta.
And that itself hasn't been fully vetted out there but I think it is -- good good good conservative position to take.
It cost a whole lot less than this law and it allows the states to.
To exist as the principal regulator and in that process as you know -- the premiums would be paid for a basic insurance policy with a very large deductible.
You would either do that through a tax credit literally if you're paying income taxes and if you are not eligible for any other -- coverage.
Then you would get a refundable tax credit of the amount necessary to -- the basic policy.
That is not however been introduced.
It's my own and one -- that's a good provision and a good way to go yet.
I thank attorney -- thank you for joining us.
You welcome to the Supreme Court --
