You're watching...
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi on why the federal health-care law is unconstitutional and health-care reform should be dealt with by the states.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
-- future everybody's talking about that it's on the line today is the debate continues at the Supreme Court.
The controversial individual mandate part of it whether you be required to buy insurance that product questions of the government's power in today's hearing.
That was topic number one just one more day remains the Supreme Court arguments -- the case against the health care law.
Is Florida's attorney general Pam Bundy and she joins us now thanks so much for coming in good to see again.
Thanks -- good to see you on the list so a lot of people think that they had that some of these swing voters like Justice Kennedy kind of tip their hand today -- Justice Kennedy said the government.
The Obama administration has a very heavy burden of proof -- to show why its answer to force consumers annuity to and that he said that mandated.
Actually changes the relationship.
Between citizens and the government in a fundamental way.
-- good juicy do you think you'll actually carried -- largely through to his vote.
What's interesting about the -- you gave because out of all of an anti tip today sitting in the front -- That's the one that I had circled that it creates an affirmative duty of a person to act.
So we feel -- I'm not really Justice Kennedy but all the justices asked.
Very intelligent very thoughtful questions.
Any candidate they ask very tough questions as they shut it.
When -- in the top court in this in the -- and so we feel we felt confident we feel that it was a very very.
Good day and you know we as the 26 states have been involved in this along with the national federation of independent business for a very long time now.
We have -- believe that restricting our liberty in the name of commerce will not be tolerated.
And I think today was a very good indication.
As to what we believe the Supreme Court justices will hopefully do.
One of the issues becomes that if you don't require people to buy insurance of that part of it which is so emotional and really at the forefront of this argument.
Then the government IE the taxpayer will end up footing the bill for it the worst cases that end up on the front steps of the hospitals.
Putting that aside let's say it doesn't go through let's say they say it's not constitutional.
Do you some attorney general who has fought this that would be a success for you do you have a better idea on solving this part of the issue where.
All of taxpayers who pay and get insured end -- having to pay for those who don't and it is stressing this nation's finances.
Well -- any analyst -- has got to be done on a state by state basis.
We as -- -- we will we have to work with the federal government we have to come up with a law that's constitutional.
We do not disagree that we need tremendous Health Care Reform.
But this is not the way to do it and if you just look at Florida alone what the federal government is telling NASA's -- Florida if you don't participate in this.
We're gonna pull every single cent -- -- Medicaid funding and that Medicaid funding.
Is cut comes from hard earned Floridians tax dollars since that time as they're gonna pull all -- Medicaid funding.
Do an after 28 -- it will cost us at least.
This Obama care.
At least a billion dollars a year and that is not sustainable for our state and that's why we're fighting it.
-- also fighting it because it's unconstitutional.
But certainly we're gonna work to come up with a a health care plan that works for everyone but that's also constitutional.
And affordable for our -- OK now forces opposed to the mandates say that we consumers individuals have never been forced to buy a service.
By the federal government in history and Justice Alito alluded to that today he said the law forces young healthy people quote to subsidize services that will be received.
By somebody else that doesn't happen anywhere.
Well I would argue let me just brought an argument here for argument sake but about Social Security.
Doesn't Social Security force consumers.
To buy a pension fund isn't that the federal government as bad as Social Security might -- is that the federal government demanding.
That we as consumers purchase a pension plan.
Well people participate in Social Security not voluntarily.
If I had a choice I would.
I have had attacks.
That people who are employed participate in Social Security we all have a taken out of -- mandate again it is a mandate it's not a voluntary purchase.
But this.
Is different because this is not an act they and then there also is saying this is not a tax if you were call that.
We just by -- police sitting here sitting here and talking to you the federal government is telling us that we have got to purchase the product.
And -- can not do that.
It aren't they -- I was Social Security health care if they are why aren't they doing that with social security and -- have that call that attacks would do that have gone through this whole legal fight.
-- it's interesting because yesterday Justice Alito of course we went through the anti injunction act yesterday.
Which was that which was an important issue because we -- we at that time we're on the same side -- the federal government.
Because of course President Obama has had multiple times this is not attacks this is not attack.
-- yesterday the federal government of course argued it's a penalty.
As well as well as -- that -- -- paralyzing us.
And ordered Intel and -- action means that if you're disputing attacks.
You cannot even challenge that -- until it's fully pay.
So that would mean we -- couldn't even challenge this act until way after 2014.
When it's fully implemented -- C yesterday they were calling -- the penalties tied into this adjustment -- said to the federal government yesterday that he said.
So many of the straight today are calling -- a penalty.
Yet tomorrow you're calling it -- tax.
Even even a lot of liberal justices noted that as well.
Yeah -- absolutely because under the commerce clause.
That that the only way that they can force us to do this is by saying that -- participating.
In commerce.
That were actually purchasing something which clearly we discussed were not.
-- under their taxation power.
So you know they're trying to flip the argument I can tell it's a twenty year prosecutor you can't argue a case in the alternative.
And have credibility we will be watching this says -- -- yet the front -- today we'll see what happens tomorrow Pam Bobby Florida attorney general thank you so much for coming in.
Thank you.
