Virginia’s Health Care Lawsuit Expedited by Fourth Circuit (Updated)
By Krystle Weeks | Thursday, February 3rd, 2011 | PolicyThis morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals granted a joint motion by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and the Federal Government to move Virginia’s lawsuit against the health care law forward. The case is tentatively scheduled for a hearing between May 10 and 13. The decision to move this case forward came at the request of Governor Bob McDonnell, Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling, and House Speaker Bill Howell.
Cuccinelli made this statement, in light of the court’s decision:
Right now, there is a great deal of uncertainty for states, individuals, and businesses. Major decisions are already being made and money is already being spent to comply with a law that may not be around two years from now. We need this suit resolved as quickly as possible, for the good of our citizens and our economy.
This could not come at a better time, since the U.S. Senate voted against repeal of the health care law. Voting against repeal was Sen. Jim Webb, and Sen. Mark Warner did not even bother casting a vote. Webb’s decision to vote against repealing the health care law has attracted the attention of his re-election opponents, George Allen and Jamie Radtke.
Allen released the following statement regarding Webb’s vote against repeal.
Jim Webb has once again ignored the voices of Virginians outraged by the federal health care law to side with his liberal friends in Washington. By voting against the repeal of the government run health bill he has ignored the concerns of the courts, the American people and Virginia’s job creators who believe this bill needs to be repealed and replaced with common sense reforms.
“Virginians and Americans would be better served by reforms that will deliver on the promise to make health care more affordable and accessible, including personal health savings accounts, and expanding competition to allow health insurance to be acquired across state lines. As it stands now, the health care law and its odious mandates exceed the constitutional bounds of the federal government and subjects citizens to higher costs, limits their choices and restricts their access to quality health care.
Radtke also released a statement regarding her disappointment in Webb’s vote, saying:
Today Senator Jim Webb voted against Virginians’ wishes and against his own previous statements when he failed to support the repeal of Obamacare.
In January Senator Webb said that the Obama administration ‘did a really terrible job handling health care reform’ – that it made a mistake relying on Congress to draft the plan. In addition, 58% of Americans support repeal of Obamacare and 28 states have filed suit to stop the legislation.Senator Webb had the chance to back up his words with action and to vote the will of Virginians by repealing Obamacare, and instead Senator Webb let Virginia down.
Obamacare is a disaster for the country and for our healthcare system. What we need are health care reforms that are patient-focused, market-oriented and avoid heavy-handed bureaucratic decision-making.
Webb’s decision to vote against repeal will hurt him in 2012. On the other hand, if the Court of Appeals decides in Virginia and Cuccinelli’s favor, this could be another victory for repealing Obama’s health care law after all.
Update: The attorney general is actually pursuing two tracks. The first is for the case to be heard directly by the Supreme Court. According to the Office of the Attorney General:
Normally, appeals of decisions of United States district courts are first heard in the federal courts of appeals. But Rule 11 provides that an immediate review in the U.S. Supreme Court is permissible “upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in” the Supreme Court.
Cuccinelli justifies this approach by saying “Presently, 28 states have filed suits challenging the authority of Congress to enact this law. That, in and of itself, is exceptional and makes the cases excellent candidates for immediate review in the Supreme Court.”
The second approach, as noted above, is to fast tract the case through the 4th District.
See http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/012611_HealthCare_Hearing.html
and http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/020311_HealthCare_Expedited.html
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Growing up in Maryland typically does not yield a Republican. Fortunately, Krystle Weeks was one of the lucky few booted to the Commonwealth for her staunch conservative views. From an early age, she has been debating politics, and since 2006, she has been involved here in the Commonwealth helping Republican candidates to victory. Aside from politics, Krystle is a runner and a dynamite cook. You can email her here. Krystle also blogs at Crystal Clear Conservative and Charm Offensive Cooking.
Comments
13 Responses to "Virginia’s Health Care Lawsuit Expedited by Fourth Circuit (Updated)"
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Fiona B, Bearing Drift. Bearing Drift said: Web: Virginia’s Health Care Lawsuit Expedited by Fourth Circuit http://bit.ly/fNWZl6 [...]
Health care reform was long overdue. Ironically, the plan finally adopted is based on the concept of private insurance which has been the hallmark of republican positions in the past. However, that support evaporated as the party’s position became “defeat the President.” Frankly, they are now placed in a position of defending the past system that has resulted in a throughly dysfunctional health system which is both expensive and ineffective. So go ahead, try to take away health coverage, make it more expensive, let insurance companies go back to cancelling insurance if you use it too much, let them deny you for preexisting conditions. Let’s go back to double digit increases every year from the private health insurers. You call that progress?
What I have heard is not the Republicans defending the past system, but suggesting going in the opposite direction of the Obama administration. What previous Republican position do you think has any resemblance to the individual market? Free market principles include the freedom to leave the market.
I think the health care bill is so bad I would pit today’s system against its long-term effects, but I think the actual Republican proposals of being allowed to purchase insurance across state lines and tax reforms so that insurance can cost-effectively be attached to the individual instead of the employer and actual tort reform are much better than either. I don’t think putting the government into the individual decision-making process, limiting choices even further, and trying to cheat doctors is actually good health care reform.
Fine, how do you propose to deal with the folks who opt out until they are sick?
I do not object to certain insurance benefits not kicking in for a month or two. I really think it’s something the free market can handle; that’s only a problem when the government steps in and starts treating insurance companies like the bad guys. The insurance companies, left to their own devices, will not use a model that doesn’t make money overall, and will therefore come up with something more sustainable than the federal government is likely to. They will not let people cheat the system that way if the government does not force them to. I think the social security problem is kind of exactly what we get when we trust the government to make a sustainable system.
I also think that allowing purchases across state lines and whatnot will address niche markets better, causing companies that are developed to serve the needs of people with existing conditions or families with severe disabilities far better than they do now. (I think the Internet did a lot for niche markets and in some ways is a good example.) I bring this up because I think “existing conditions” is the argument that would most likely be brought up against letting the insurance companies having the flexibility to determine who gets benefits.
However, when insurance companies are required to cover things based on politicians’ decisions, that makes niche markets harder to develop. Everybody has to lobby for their individual problem to be allowed to address it because their personal resources are going to address ten or twenty other problems that they may not have or may personally have a better way to address or may just be less urgent to them.
You have much more confidence in private insurance companies that I do. They are chartered to serve private investors, ie, to make a profit, and the result of dependence on this system is a large predominance of people who are obese, pre disposed to diabetes, who eat a diet designed to kill them off early, to need high cost interventions, to then be removed from the roles of the insured for exceeding their lifetime cap. In other words, a totally dysfunctional system well designed to insure their return on investment, but not the health of their customers nor the nation. There is a better way.
I would rather have our system than the systems in Canada and Great Britain. I don’t think it’s a good idea to make our system MORE like the ones people flee to get to ours.
I don’t believe I once accused the insurance companies of altruism. Competition breeds improvement and lower prices. Competition is severely hampered by the current rules. When the insurance companies have to lower their prices or improve their services to get people to buy their products, they will. If people are forced to buy insurance, there will be no escape from whatever the insurance companies do. Right now, the system is warped-there needs to be a more direct relationship between customers and insurance companies, as opposed to a relationship between employers (even the most benevolent) and insurance companies. Instead of removing the employers, the new law jams the federal government in in addition to employers. The tax system change would be designed to allow the more direct relationship between consumers and insurance companies.
We need to empower people to choose the best health care payment method for them, not hamper their ability to do so.
I’m not trusting the insurance companies to do anything more than try to get people to pay them for their services. By force of law, as the health reform bill does, is completely the wrong way to do that, and it’s oppressive.
You trust the federal government a great deal more than I do. I see no reason to believe they would do a good job managing health insurance, nor to believe that they wouldn’t abuse the amount of power that gives them. I think the individual mandate is a demonstration of abuse of power in and of itself. They have absolutely no right to force people to buy health insurance.
I am forced to pay higher premiums because millions do not buy insurance and we payers have to pay that bill. How any judge can fail to see the effect on payers by those who are freeloaders is beyond belief to me.
[...] “Virginia’s Health Care Lawsuit Expedited by Fourth Circuit,” Krystle Weeks, Bearing Drift [...]
Saint Sarah in Heaven, I actually agree with Mr Barrett. At least about the problem, not about the cure.
Scrap Obamacare and start over with health care reform. Need to scrap Bush’s medicare part D disaster too.
Virginia CAN require all of its citizens to have health insurance.
I really enjoy watching Cuccinelli’s brilliant legal mind at work. Just outstanding!
The system does not need to be forced to support freeloaders. People need to be free to make their decisions and accept the consequences. Lack of health care is a potential consequence of some decisions. If we decide for humanitarian reasons to provide health care anyway, we need to accept the consequences of our decision to do so. We do not need to have the government start making decisions FOR us “for our own good.” You could use the same logic to justify the government making decisions on our behalf for virtually anything. “If I decide to wipe someone’s windshield without their permission to do so and they don’t pay when they get out of the store, they’re being a freeloader.”
If you say “but people don’t really need to have their windshields wiped,” then that’s either “The government only needs to make decisions for us when it’s really important” or “the majority should decide what is really important for the minority.” Neither is acceptable. I believe in freedom.
I do not agree that Virgina has any moral right to require we buy health insurance.
If the government can make this decision for us, where does it stop?
People have the moral right and need to make decisions for themselves, including important ones. Nobody has any moral right to take that away.
If you don’t feel what your insurance company gives you is worth what you’re paying for it, why are you purchasing their insurance? Serious question.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.