PENSACOLA, Fla. - A federal judge in Florida ruled Monday thatPresident Barack Obama's entire health care overhaul law isunconstitutional, placing even noncontroversial provisions under acloud in a broad challenge that seems certain to be resolved only bythe Supreme Court.
Faced with a major legal setback, the White House called theruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson - in a challenge to thelaw by 26 of the nation's 50 states - "a plain case of judicialoverreaching." That echoed language the judge had used to describethe law as an example of Congress overstepping its authority.
The Florida judge's ruling produced an even split in federalcourt decisions so far on the health care law, mirroring enduringdivisions among the public. Two judges had previously upheld thelaw, both Democratic appointees. A Republican appointee in Virginiahad ruled against it.
The Justice Department quickly announced it would appeal, andadministration officials declared that for now the federalgovernment and the states would proceed without interruption tocarry out the law. It seemed evident that only the U.S. SupremeCourt could deliver a final verdict on Obama's historic expansion ofhealth insurance coverage.
On Capitol Hill, Republican opponents of the law pledged toredouble pressure for a repeal vote in the Democratic-controlledSenate following House action last month. Nearly all of the statesthat brought suit in Vinson's court have GOP attorneys general orgovernors.
Vinson ruled against the overhaul on grounds that Congressexceeded its authority by requiring nearly all Americans to carryhealth insurance, an idea dating back to Republican proposals fromthe 1990s but now almost universally rejected by conservatives.
His ruling followed the same general reasoning as one last yearfrom the federal judge in Virginia. But where the first judge'sruling would strike down the insurance requirement and leave therest of the law in place, Vinson took it much farther, invalidatingprovisions that range from Medicare discounts for seniors with highprescription costs to a change that allows adult children up to age26 to remain on their parents' coverage.
The central issue remains the constitutionality of the law's corerequirement that Americans carry health insurance except in cases offinancial hardship. Starting in 2014, those who cannot show they arecovered by an employer, government program or their own policy willface fines from the IRS.
Opponents say a federal requirement that individuals obtain aspecific service - a costly one in the case of health insurance - isunprecedented and oversteps the authority the Constitution givesCongress to regulate interstate commerce.
Vinson agreed that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizensfor not doing something. He compared the provision to requiringpeople to eat healthful food.
"Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli atregular intervals," he wrote. "Not only because the requiredpurchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but alsobecause people who eat healthier tend to be healthier and are thusmore productive and put less of a strain on the health care system."
Defenders of the law said that analogy was flawed. Insurancecan't work if people are allowed to opt out until they need medicalattention. Premiums collected from many who are healthy pay the costof care for those who get sick. Since the uninsured can get treatedin the emergency room, deciding not to get coverage has consequencesfor other people who act prudently do buy coverage.
"The judge's decision contradicts decades of Supreme Courtprecedent that support the considered judgment of the democraticallyelected branches of government that the act's individualresponsibility provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollarsof cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance whocannot pay for the health care they obtain," White House adviserStephanie Cutter wrote in an Internet posting.
Vinson, who was appointed to the federal bench by PresidentRonald Reagan in 1983, said in his 78-page ruling that requiringpeople to buy health insurance marks a break with the nation'sfounding principles.
"It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at leastin part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving theEast India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all teasold in America would have set out to create a government with thepower to force people to buy tea in the first place," the judgewrote. "If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing toengage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitutionwould have been in vain."
It would be difficult to recognize any limits on federal power,he added. Defenders of the law said the founders couldn't haveenvisioned Medicare or Social Security either.
Vinson did side with the administration on another major issue inthe case, the expansion of Medicaid to cover more low-income people.About half of the more than 30 million Americans who would gaininsurance through the law would be enrolled in Medicaid. However,striking down the law would also invalidate the Medicaid expansion.
Opponents of the health overhaul praised the decision. HouseSpeaker John Boehner said it shows Senate Democrats should follow aHouse vote to repeal the law.
"Today's decision affirms the view, held by most of the statesand a majority of the American people, that the federal governmentshould not be in the business of forcing you to buy health insuranceand punishing you if you don't," he said.
Democrats just as quickly slammed the ruling.
"This lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt by those who wantto raise taxes on small businesses, increase prescription prices forseniors and allow insurance companies to once again deny sickchildren medical care," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Former Florida Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filedthe lawsuit just minutes after Obama signed the 10-year, $938billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court inPensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The nation'smost influential small business lobby, the National Federation ofIndependent Business, also joined.
Officials in the states that sued lauded Vinson's decision.
"In making his ruling, the judge has confirmed what many of usknew from the start: Obamacare is an unprecedented andunconstitutional infringement on the liberty of the Americanpeople," Florida Gov. Rick Scott said.
Other states that joined the lawsuit were: Alabama, Alaska,Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana,Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio,Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington,Wisconsin and Wyoming.
No comments:
Post a Comment