Federal court decision on health care is a big win for Ken Cuccinelli

Today a federal court in Richmond struck down the federal mandate to purchase private insurance as unconstitutional. The mandate is a central feature of President Obama’s health care law. From the ruling:

“An individual’s personal decision to purchase — or decline purchase — (of) health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach” of the U.S. Constitution, Judge Henry Hudson wrote. “No specifically constitutional authority exists to mandate the purchase of health insurance.”

This news comes on the same day that ABC News is reporting that public support for the new health care law dropped to a new low of 43 percent.

Leading the constitutional charge against this mandate is Virginia’s attorney general. Said Kathryn Lopez, “Needless to say a big winner in the VA health-care ruling is Ken Cuccinelli.”

Ken Cuccinelli

Indeed. One has to think that George Allen is fuming at all the attention that Cuccinelli is getting today. The former Senator wants his old job back and it looks like Jim Webb (who defeated him) might not run for reelection. People had suspected that Allen would be first in line for the Republican nomination so he could try and return to the Senate.

But perhaps now, Republicans in Virginia will try to convince Ken Cuccinelli to continue his fight against Obamacare from the United States Senate.

Cuccinelli has solid pro-life and pro-family credentials. As attorney general, Cuccinelli concluded that the Commonwealth of Virginia could hold abortion clinics to the same standards as hospitals.

I’d reserve my judgment on Cuccinelli until I learn more about his record, but one thing is for sure: He would make a much better candidate than a recycled George Allen (famous for his bone-headed ‘macaca’ moment.)

1,269 views

Categories:Uncategorized

12 thoughts on “Federal court decision on health care is a big win for Ken Cuccinelli

  1. Jan says:

    Just curious: Does anyone happen to know the faith/religion of the Federal Judge Henry Hudson in this case concerning the HealthCare bill?

  2. Andy K. says:

    Didn’t Cucinelli make some sort of “birther” comment? I don’t think we need that kind of man representing Virginia in the US Senate any more than we need a pro-abort like Jim Webb.

    Also, I’ve heard Cucinelli professes to be Catholic, FWIW.

    1. Scott W. says:

      Uhhh…we’re gonna need something a little more substantial than “Didn’t Cucinelli make some sort of ‘birther’ comment?”

      1. Andy K. says:

        “You know, the speculation is Kenya. And that doesn’t seem beyond the realm of possibility.”

        -VA AG Ken Cuccinelli

        1. Scott W. says:

          Link please. Even if it all checks out, this is pretty thin gruel.

  3. Rick S. says:

    Ken Cuccinelli is a great pro-life warrior. I volunteered for him in his State Senate campaigns in 2000 and onward. He stands for principles no matter the consequences. He has fought against expansion of the death penalty and for pro-life items like you describe. I’m not sure why Greg Smith would imply that Cooch is a shrill of the insurance companies. They lobbied for the mandate so they are probably unhappy now.

  4. greg smith says:

    Oh Josh – I don’t think we need to be in the business of withholding or granting judgement on Mr Cuccinelli,we have a Jewish carpenter who handles that for us. However given his $50 haircut, I’m pretty sure he’s got a healthcare plan that will meet the Vatican’s standard of social justice. Being late middle aged (3.5 years from Medicare) I just found out that if the healh care reform package is repealed, and I move to from SF to San Diego in retirement, Kaiser, which has cared for me since I was in my 20′s, will refuse to take me, what my being a cancar survivor and all. Thus I hope you’ll understand why I’m not joining Mr Cucinelli’s fan club. Oh – Out of charity, we ought to assume s the smile on his face doesn’t reflect a joy that insurance compoanies can continue to declare pregnancy a “pre-existing condition”. Pregnant Woman’s Support Act? Needs to be introduced in the 111th Congress Anyone? Repiublicans? Anyone? Democrats?

    1. Amanda says:

      Greg,

      Wow, there are so many things in your comment that I could hit on I’m not even sure where to begin, nor would I have the time to correct all of them. But I will start with the biggest first, pre-existing conditions, pregnancy is only consider a pre-existing condition if you are pregnant during the time of enrollment into a plan. For example, you find out you are pregnant on March 11th and decide you need health care and go and get it on March 15th. There is a good reason insurance companies do this, it is expensive to have kids (OBGYN’s have the highest insurance rate of all doctors because if you mess up someone’s kid, you will be sued). Because of the expense it would only make sense that an insurance company would not want to knowingly put that on their claims list. Because I don’t know what kind of health care plan you have in place or what is going on I can’t talk to your personal situation, although I’m not completely certain everything you say will happen, actually will. Normally if you are in a plan, you are covered except for pre-existing conditions. Whether you like it or not, insurance companies are not there for some altruistic purpose, they want to make money. Yet despite what people think they don’t make that much, the two biggest insurance companies over the past 3 years have only made on average 4% profit. Before you go off the government requires it MWR’s to make at least 7%, the reason to help maintain the buildings and equipment and insurance and cost increases if a facility can’t meet this requirement 3 years in a row…someone is getting fired. Hope this helps you understand at least a little of the other side of the coin. Peace, Amanda

      1. Michael says:

        Amanda you better check your numbers again.

        Wellpoint increased profits 91 percent from 2008 while it chopped 3.9 percent of its total enrollment.

        United Health’s profit increased 28 percent from 2008, while enrollment dropped by 3.4 percent.

        Cigna’s profit increased 346 percent and enrollment dropped 5.5 percent.

        Humana’s profit increased by 61 percent while enrollment decreased by 1.7 percent.

        1. Amanda says:

          Michael,

          Thank you, I re-checked and you are right it isn’t 4% it is 5%. I think the confusion is how we are both arriving at our numbers. You are saying the numbers by looking at just the profit amount each year. For example, if I made a $100 last year and this year I made a profit of $200 dollars you would say I increased in profit by 200%. This is correct, but when you compare it to my revenue, which we will say is $10,000 each year, then when you consider my profit towards the revenue, I made 1% last year and 2% this year. Another problem is you are comparing the numbers to 2008, which was a bad year for all industries, most saw their profits go down significantly during this year and those who were lucky at least maintained what they did the year before. Yes CIGNA did increase their profits from 2008, however if you compare their revenue to their profit from 2008 you would find they only made 2%. So those jumping up again are only to be expected…at least if you don’t want them going out of business. I also understand your point about enrollment, but in tough times enrollment is going to go down, especially among the healthy, it is going to be those who need the insurance that will stay, which drive up the cost of doing business. Now please don’t think that I feel the insurance companies are perfect, trust me in past they have made insane amounts of profit at our expense, and it has finally caught up to them. Consumers are starting to be more careful and paying attention to health care costs, which in turn mean so do the companies.

      2. GREG SMITH says:

        Amanda: First, the Pregnant Woman’s Support Act would (would have? )prohibited the insurance industry from making pregnancya “preexisting condition” to encourage women not to have abortions.It is (was) bi partison and suported by the USCCB. I don’t know how the big insurance companies do thier accounting, but in my little firm “profits” come at after operating expenses such as facility maintenance, equiptment, insurance and saleries and bounuses. For the last three year staff bonuses were smaller than in past years and I don’t take one at all. Our profit was 3%. A preexistinly pregnant woman gets coverage, doesn’t feel pressured into an abortion and some insurance exec get’s fired. OK in my book. He’ll have plenty of folks to comiserate with

        1. Amanda says:

          Greg, From everything I read on this not the WHOLE Health Care bill was declared unconsititional, just the part that said EVERYONE had to buy insurance or pay a fine. So the part you are referring to, to my understanding, is still part of the bill everywhere including CA, and technically speaking in CA it is still consider consitutional to force everyone to buy insurance or pay a fine. So I’m not sure why you are upset. This is just one small portion in one state who has declared it unconstitutional, I don’t even think CA is on board with the trying to repel it so I’m sure you are safe and your state will be like MA in no time and have more financial worries than you do now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.