Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Wake -- federal court and Virginia struck down as unconstitutional.
The individual mandate of the new Health Care Reform law that compels Americans to buy health insurance.
Joining us now from Richmond Virginia one of the men leading the fight against Obama care Republican governor Bob McDonnell.
Governor three federal judges have ruled so far on this issue the two appointed by democratic presidents.
Voted to ruled to uphold.
The individual mandate judge Henry Hudson a federal judge in Virginia this last week was appointed.
By president George W.
Bush voted of course to strike down.
That the individual mandate have all the judgment so far by these judges in effect and political.
No I don't think so I think there's differences of the federal judiciary about interpreting the United States constitution this is day.
A novel question -- -- question is whether or not the United States congress under the tax and spend -- for the commerce clause.
Can force a citizen in Virginia or any other state to buy a good or service in this case -- health insurance policy and if you don't.
To exact a penalty of fine and judge Hudson and this is the first.
Case brought by a state Virginia the other cases were private sector -- abruptly actions.
He said that no you're choosing to not participate in commerce that is to not buy an insurance policy.
Is not commerce and in fact the fine that's an act that is a penalty.
Not a tax and so congress can't -- I think judge Hudson is is right.
And I certainly hope you'll be vindicated by the US Supreme Court as this moves along the many other cases.
But I think this is the first one that got it right we're.
We're gonna get the practical effects and in them in a moment.
Up judge Hudson ruled against as we say that key provision.
Other Health Care Reform and Republicans are promising ones.
They take control of the house so they're gonna do everything they can.
The implementation spending for the implementation of Health Care Reform.
Given all of these different fronts how much trouble is Obama care -- right now.
Well I think it's in a fair amount of trouble but the big trouble right now honestly is fervor of the governor's.
In the faith Chris we've had provisions we've already had implement over the last 45.
Months we've done that because that is the law of the land but over the next three years getting ready for the major implementation in January 24 -- There's three years plus -- war that we need to do to implement.
Health care exchanges and all these other things that cost of tens of billions of dollars millions of dollars -- the states so.
That's why I think this thing needs to get done I am strongly in support of having this fast track the United States Supreme Court.
Let's great finality for businesses for citizens.
And for everybody about is that constitutional or not for everybody knows how to govern themselves up that's the big issue for -- is is get it resolved quickly by.
Fast tracking it the United States Supreme Court Robert letters -- governor in the country asking them to join.
-- in the fast tracking this and any the other cases so we can get it to the Supreme Court everybody knows they're the final are -- the constitution that's what's gonna end up.
I mean we we -- what appoint a sovereign people who have not been following it closely you are pressing to -- going to the intermediate step that the fourth circuit court of the pails.
And go straight to the Supreme Court which would speed us up by a matter of year is the Justice Department announced however is right after they wanna go to the normal process and go to the fourth circuit.
Is this really.
A battle about whether or not you're you're gonna be able and other opponents are going to be able.
To kill Obama care before it gets rolling.
No I think this is a question about whether or not there we should have certainty and finality of predictability for the American people.
-- white tie this up with three years of litigation.
If we can have a joint motion between the Justice Department the commonwealth of Virginia and the other cases.
To have the US Supreme Court resolve those as the final -- -- the United States constitution.
Because it's gonna take a tremendous amount of money that could be wasted.
In the states and by the federal government and setting things up that ultimately might be stricken so this should not be political it's about.
Finality that everybody wants first because there's disagreement about the underlying policy.
Let's let the US Supreme Court -- is a constitutional or not I think that's fair and I hope most people would like to get this done and not.
Tie it up and another year and a half or two of litigation that could be avoided yet governor let's talk about the.
Optical a fact now the White House says -- -- and the individual.
Because that would provide for a lot more customers that would would obviously give money to the insurance company.
If you any individual mandate than -- than insurance companies will not have the money they need.
To stop things like denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions are charging different rates to people who have different states of health.
Do you really want to block those kinds of reforms of a lot of people support.
This legal case Chris is not about the underlying policy it's about.
Whether or not when you adopt a policy can you do it in a way that unconstitutionally.
Clearly now listen we know everything a governor I think support these ideas of finding a way to increase access reduced cost.
And do something about the one search for the American people that have.
Have no insurance but you can't do it in a way that violates the tax and spend -- to the commerce clause.
Of the constitution so that's why the Republicans in congress to say let's go back and repeal and then.
I'll reauthorize and a way that makes sense and that's up to the congress to figure out how to do that we've got other initiatives were working at the state level that would make ultimately got to follow the law.
But but let me ask you I -- I I take your point the constitution as the constitution but let me ask as a practical matter.
So it's about a million people in Virginia are uninsured that's about 15% of your State's population.
If you kill what is called Obama care how did you get those million people coverage.
-- the numbers are actually when you strip it down -- it of people that choose not to do it or have individual medical savings accounts.
Or on other types of all programs on Medicaid are different things like that the numbers actually go down.
Quite a bit where you are working on a number of free market solutions that we can use to.
Improve -- a number of people individual medical fitness you know we think the congress ought to pass a bill to allow more portability across state lines what have more flexibility in the Medicaid.
Help program a third of all these mandate so Obama -- -- gonna cost -- Two billion dollars -- -- -- -- unfunded -- same thing with other states significant and I think myself you know -- flexibility for the states.
But if I may -- the governor that the CBO the Congressional Budget Office talked about with the does this basic Republican plan -- talking about.
Would only extend coverage to three million people as opposed to the thirty million.
Under Obama care.
The fact is a lot of people that don't have insurance -- getting it right now they're not denied an emergency rooms are generally not denied.
By doctors it's not a pretty system.
But the idea that people are not getting out health care particularly for a vertical needs is just.
It's just not the case I think we do need to improve the system but what's there -- more free market decisions and not with.
Federal mandates on the states the -- our flexibility and violate the constitution that's the problem and I think that hopefully congress going back with a new congress -- the split.
Legislature can find a bipartisan way to get this done that a better way.
I finally let let's talk about the legal issue the underlying legal issue that's that's involved here you argue and justice rather judge.
That that the government can't force an individual to buy a private product that you can't -- -- -- or or mandate.
In in activity if you well right and supporters of Health Care Reform though say that nobody is a bystander when it comes to healthcare reform.
Because eventually everybody is gonna need it and so goal by going without.
Health insurance and having either eventually to pay -- out of pocket -- -- the cost -- uncompensated care to all the rest of us.
That is in fact an economic activity.
Yeah with a flat wrong Chris is if this.
Decision doesn't go away I think judge -- -- -- there are no limits I think left the federal power.
If you say that you must by the federal government could tell us that -- some of the United States you must buy a product of insurance or car watermelon or whatever happens -- -- And if you don't we're gonna find you.
But what are the limits left on the commerce clause I think judge substance got it got it correct.
The irony also with the Justice Department is now saying well it's a tax.
Which of course the president and the congress said no it's not a tax it took it say it's a penalty.
And of course now they argued in the legal -- that it's -- tax for purposes of political argument.
Judge had to say about it's not it is in fact.
Penalty if I think it fails on both of those arguments and to -- -- the laudable goal of expanded coverage at lower cost.
Let's just do it in a way that's bipartisan and it's constitutional.
And not -- -- billions unfunded mandates on the states that's the problem.
Governor McDonnell gonna have to leave it there we want to thank you so much for coming in today and we will stay on top of the stories there.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Filter by section