Spokane7
55°
January 31, 2011 in Nation/World
Florida judge strikes down health overhaul
PENSACOLA, Fla. — A federal judge ruled today that the Obama administration’s health care overhaul is unconstitutional, siding with 26 states, including Washington and Idaho, that sued to block it.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson accepted without trial the states’ argument that the new law violates people’s rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.
Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed.
The next stop is likely the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement, but a federal judge in Virginia also ruled the insurance provision violates the Constitution.
In his ruling, Vinson went further than the Virginia judge and declared the entire health care law unconstitutional.
“This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution,” Vinson wrote in his 78-page ruling.
At issue was whether the government is reaching beyond its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.
Attorneys for President Barack Obama’s administration had argued that the health care system was part of the interstate commerce system. They said the government can levy a tax penalty on Americans who decide not to purchase health insurance because all Americans are consumers of medical care.
But attorneys for the states said the administration was essentially coercing the states into participating in the overhaul by holding billions of Medicaid dollars hostage. The states also said the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing money to pay for it.
Florida’s former Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida’s most conservative cities. The nation’s most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, also joined.
Other states that joined the suit are: 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.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Stocks plummet as outlook in Europe dims 
berrybestfarm on January 31 at 12:24 p.m.
Unconstitutional to require us to give money to a private for profit company with no way to opt out without being fined—ya think?! It may be that the states don’t have standing to bring the challenge but we sure as H@@@ do as individuals. I do support a public option
Dazzeetrader11 on January 31 at 12:28 p.m.
In the end, the US Constitution will prevail. Get this to the Supreme Court as soon as possible.
DHF on January 31 at 12:40 p.m.
Why do we need Judges when you have two for and two against the health care law. It looks like they are just guessing.or because there is no Stare Decisis to follow. Maybe they want the Supreme Court to make the decision. They are susposed to know and follow the law. Educated Idiots.
Dazzeetrader11 on January 31 at 12:43 p.m.
Obama’s done great things for the US. I’m having trouble finding one.
MrNatural on January 31 at 12:45 p.m.
Fix it!…There are many many people in this nation that need help.
Calvin_Hobbes on January 31 at 12:47 p.m.
“Unconstitutional to require us to give money to a private for profit company with no way to opt out without being fined—ya think?!”
oh! you mean like car insurance!
Scoutster on January 31 at 12:54 p.m.
Rep Ryan said he was going to give us a plan that “expands coverage and lowers costs”.
I’m looking forward to that!
cdspokesreader on January 31 at 1:09 p.m.
“Unconstitutional to require us to give money to a private for profit company with no way to opt out without being fined”! So if this case goes through, then we should not be penalized for not having car insurance and I’ll take it a step further - we should no longer be a union state with no right to work laws. I can be fired if I don’t pay a union a portion of my salary. This will be interesting in months to come. I think a good health care plan needs to be available, but will be interested in seeing if anyone challenges the Washington state law requiring car liability insurance or the law that forces us to join a union if the job we want is a “union” job. If the conservative mantra is no goverment regulation for health care, it should also be extended to car insurance and right to work laws.
hawken on January 31 at 1:28 p.m.
That the judge ruled there is no “severance” clause in the bill, thus making the whole law unconstitutional is significant.
There’s more to this than just the “Constitutional” issue. Just as important is the “political” issue which we must not forget.
This Obamacare boondoggle was shoved down our screaming throats, unilaterally, by the Democrat party, on a party line vote.
The fact that the Obama administration has been sued by more than half of the states in our nation, makes the point more profound.
Even Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, didn’t read the bill before it was passed. As she said, “We have to pass it before we know what’s in it.”
According to Pelosi and Democrats, we should accept as normal, the madness, that our elected representatives are authorized by the electorate, to blindly pass legislation, on a party line vote without even knowing what’s in the bill!
Arrogance, misfeasance and malfeasance fall short in describing the actions of the President and the 111th, Democrat, Congress.
Obamacare was largely responsible for the Democrat “shellacking” last November. They deserve a repeat of the same in 2012. This time including Obama.
Charlie on January 31 at 1:30 p.m.
Why do people confuse the need for health insurance with car insurance? States, not the Feds require you to purchase a minimum amount of insurance to protect others property damage. If you do not drive or own a car, you don’t need insurance. Most of the people in big cities, like NY don’t have a use for a car so according to the logic,they should be forced to purchase car insurance. Obamacare is nothing but a power grab plain and simple. Question why almost 800 businesses have “opted out” of Obamacare to date.
valleyman on January 31 at 1:31 p.m.
The car insurance argument is a red herring…
Driving is a privilege not a right… As such, the government can legally attach stipulations to such a privilege such as requiring emissions testing, vehicle registration, and yes, insurance…
The argument being attached to healthcare is that it is not a privilege, but a right. Thus, they are MANDATING that people, who already have this RIGHT, pay or be fined. This is not the same thing at all…
hawken on January 31 at 1:32 p.m.
Owning a car is a matter of “choice.” If you don’t want to own a car, you are not required to by auto insurance.
Let’s require that everyone who doesn’t own a car, who takes a cab or the bus, MUST also buy auto insurance.
Can you imagine how that would bring down my auto insurance! Obamacare is just as absurd.
SarahF on January 31 at 1:33 p.m.
Calvin_Hobbes, cdspokesreader…
You *choose* to buy a car. That’s an active choice on your part. Therefore, the state, not the federal government, has stated that you must purchase insurance.
Two *really* big differences to this healthcare law. That’s the crux of the issue. Stop confusing a state mandate involving active participation with a federal mandate that penalizes you for being inactive.
eagleproducer on January 31 at 1:34 p.m.
This decision from this court was automatic.
Conservatives never seem to have problem with judges legislating from the bench when the decisions reflect their ideology.
eagleproducer on January 31 at 1:44 p.m.
The state has a compelling interest that its citizens have health insurance. Those without insurance, if they suffer catastrophic injury, cost other purchasers of insurance more money in premiums, drive up costs for hospitals, and rob taxpayers to pay for their irresponsibility.
I thought conservatives were about personal responsibility? Why shouldn’t the government encourage such behavior and penalize non-compliers? Government uses all sorts of methods and mechanisms to encourage people to act in certain ways and to NOT ACT in others. This law is no different.
eagleproducer on January 31 at 1:45 p.m.
bestberry: So it would be okay if the insurers were non-profits?
eagleproducer on January 31 at 1:46 p.m.
hawken: Thanks for admitting having all people insured lowers the costs for everyone.
cdspokesreader on January 31 at 1:49 p.m.
I still say the car insurance example is valid. Let’s say I have a car, but do not drive it because I don’t want to pay for liability insurance - premiums are too high. Now one day I decide I missed the bus and have an important meeting, so I drive my car without insurance. If I have an accident, and I am at fault I should be liable for the costs associated with that accident. My son does not have health insurance - not offered at work and premiums are too high. He doesn’t go to the doctor because he has no insurance. Let’s say he gets sick. Using the same logic, he should be liable for all the costs associated with going to the doctor. So I think both scenario’s are comparable. Unfortunately many of the people in this country don’t have insurance, visit emergency rooms and don’t pay for the cost so that cost is passed on to all of us.
goshock on January 31 at 1:51 p.m.
You are actually not required to have auto insurance. You may also have a certificate of deposit of 60,000 or a liability bond of 60,000.
hawken on January 31 at 2:20 p.m.
Actually, you can drive a car without a bond or insurance. Just get your driver’s license, borrow you daddy’s car, or your neighbors,,, you can drive on their insurance. In WA state like most others, the insurance goes with the car.
I just had an epiphany! Let’s also require that all bicyclists, age 12 and above be required to buy liability insurance on their bicycles! Tri-cycles should be excluded as they usually remain in the driveway.
After all, they ride those bicycles in our cul-de-sacs, on our neighborhood streets, county and state roads.
Dazzeetrader11 on January 31 at 2:34 p.m.
What about the basics? I don’t want to buy your insurance? Not yours or yours or yours! I will buy my own! If I don’t want any, I can do that too!
If I need a kidney transplant, I’ll buy it myself..not yours!
Dazzeetrader11 on January 31 at 2:37 p.m.
Or what about this?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
hawken on January 31 at 2:46 p.m.
Thank you Daisy… I’ve not seen that one. I’ve bookmarked it for future use.
It makes one of my points above….. The Obamacare boondoggle was shoved down the screaming throat of the American people, by a Democrat, house, senate and president……. who didn’t even read the bill before they voted “yea!”
jddavis on January 31 at 2:53 p.m.
Don’t see this as legislating from the bench, rather protection with our system of checks and balances.
Anyone know of a non-profit insurance company? I can’t imagine an organization taking on huge risk without the high probability of reward.
How about a system that provides medical for the uninsured that requires recipients to “work off” their received services with the state? That way, everyone has a stake in the system…
misjustice on January 31 at 3:28 p.m.
Hopefully, this recent decision will put the case on a fast track to SCOTUS. Right now the count is 2 to 2; seems like a tie to me.
I highly doubt that the corporatist Roberts’ court will overturn the mandate, and predict that they will fall back on the ‘commerce clause’ to defend their decision. Why would they rule against giving their masters over 30 million new customers?
Love all the screaming (and lies) about the bill being shoved down your throats, good visual.
hawken on January 31 at 3:33 p.m.
58% of Likely Voters Favor Repeal of Obamacare. As of today.
Monday, January 31, 2011
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 47% who Strongly Favor repeal. Thirty-eight percent (38%) oppose repeal, with 29% who are Strongly Opposed.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
How much more clear can the point be made?
Orange on January 31 at 3:36 p.m.
Didn’t your Gov oppose our AG for filing this lawsuit stating he was out of line?
Loudin on January 31 at 3:50 p.m.
And the anonymous bickering about healthcare continues…
Seriously: Didn’t another federal judge rule the same thing two weeks ago? So what’s news about this? The only “new” part of this ruling is that the judge has opened the door to lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Social Security & Medicare. As a 30-something, I don’t see how the government can mandate that I contribute transfer payments into a general pension fund that pays the elderly (and their healthcare). I think it would be funny if a Republican AG filed a suit to rule both of those welfare programs unconstitutional; they both fit the “broccoli” dictum.
Of course, that won’t happen…Republicans are hypocrites: They don’t want to lose their elderly constituents. But still, it would be fun to watch! So, who here has the integrity of their conservative convictions to call for an end to SS & Medicare? Anybody?
mikeln on January 31 at 3:56 p.m.
Misjustice is right, this is all subterfuge. In the end, the requirement to have health insurance will prevail. The only thing that will dissapear are the items that benifit the consumer. If a buisness needs to be ran above the law that you and I have to obey, it needs to be ran by the people…our government.
hawken on January 31 at 4:10 p.m.
Another example of the failure of Obamacare,,, waivers given to unions and business…. representing 2,189,636 enrollees. Did you get yours?
“As of today, a total of 733 waivers have been granted for 2011.”
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html
More to come, as I said, when the number was just recently at 222.
Blondscence on January 31 at 4:20 p.m.
SCOTUS will revere the Constituton. Conservative court as of now. Get this over there as quickly as possible. It’s a political law.buying votes. America opposes it. What don’t the politians remember about Novermber when the country said NO to everything Obama.
Novemeber is coming again. 23 Dem Senate seats and only 11 Republicans (all safe). I’d be worried if I was a Dem Senator if I was continuing the Obamacare issues. First time in years I’ve seen the US public overturn a President’s bill. It looks like it’ll happen.
In the end though, it’s just not affordable. Not now…not ever.
johnclarke on January 31 at 7:10 p.m.
Hawken, are you enrolled in Medicare?
johnclarke on January 31 at 7:17 p.m.
Blondesilence - really odd how every other industrial nation on the planet can afford higher quality health care than in the US.
johnclarke on January 31 at 7:20 p.m.
Yes Hawken, we’ve all heard your blathering about .007 of the the population being granted one year waivers while they transition to “Obamacare”. Do you have anything useful to add, or just the same old Hawkenspeak ?
Charlie on January 31 at 7:21 p.m.
This case should be expedited to the SCOTUS, but it probably will languish in the lower courts. If I understand it correctly, both parties need to agree to fast track the case. We will see who is the impediment here, the citizens or the administration.
mdriftmeyer on January 31 at 8:18 p.m.
Regarding the polls: Every poll that has come out after several in favor of extending Health Care has its polling in heavily Republican districts.
Thanks for playing.
By the way The US Supreme Court will not hear this case and will leave it up to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
greenlibertarian on January 31 at 9:04 p.m.
“By the way The US Supreme Court will not hear this case and will leave it up to the Circuit Court of Appeals.”
-mdriftmeyer
Have you NO understanding of the federal court system? TPTB (on both sides) WILL take this to the Supremes, and it’s better odds than 50-50 that they will grant Cert.
I will not speculate on how they might rule until I see what case(s) (and arguments of such) make it to their purview.
nslopeofw on January 31 at 9:31 p.m.
Rather than making everyone change to Obamacare (except those exempted), why not just insure the 20 million people that are not, and want to be insured? Set up a minimum program (the basics. not “elective” stuff), outlaw emergency room non-emergency visits with accompanying fines, and offed basic services to all who dont have insurance? Require a payment of 5% of their monthly income regardless of whether its a job, or ss, welfare, etc. Leave the rest of the people alone.
If individual laws need to be made to keep insurance companies from gouging, then deal with them.
This whole program stinks, and is not necessary. It is good that judges are using common sense to judge, and hopefully this huge, wasteful, monster will be removed.
Ask yourself:
If Obamacare is so great, then why are the government, and all the exempted groups not required to have it?
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on January 31 at 10:21 p.m.
So.
The Republicans killed the Public Option, and now the thing they forced Democrats to adopt in its place is being called unconstitutional and appears to be headed for the Supreme Court where it is likely to die.
In other words, consumer choice was killed, and the replacement is being killed because it gives consumers no choice.
Am I missing something? Because it looks like “somebody” wants things to stay the way they’ve been.
I’d love to hear (seriously, I would) what alternative Obamacare’s opponents have to offer.
misjustice on January 31 at 10:48 p.m.
Really the count here, at the district court level, is 2 to 2; a tie.
This case should be fast tracked to SCOTUS, let the corporatist Roberts’ court use the ‘commerce clause’ to determine that their corporate masters have every right to demand that 30 million plus new customers MUST buy the crap that the for profit health insurance companies are peddling.
Or, repeal the entire mess and start over. This time with a public option and/or universal health care. Kinda like the rest of the civilized world has.
Oh, that’s right, we are “exceptional”; meaning that here health care is only for the rich.
And for you folks kvetchin’ that you don’t want to pay for anyone else, guess what? Ya already do that! Who do you think pays when a poor person uses the ER for their primary health care provider, and then they don’t pay the bill? WE ALL DO, with higher costs/premiums, etc…geez some of ya’ll don’t have the good sense that gawd gave hogs. Really.
I like Loudin’s suggestion. Let the Rs ‘privatize’ SS and Medicare. Then let’s see the up in flabby arms T Bag Party out in the streets with their funny misspelled signs, goofy hats, and guns, demanding that gubmint keep their hands offa their health care.
Really, folks?
; )
herewegoagain on January 31 at 11:17 p.m.
18,000 TO 20,000 Americans die each year because they didn’t have health insurance. Does this seem right in a country as great as ours? We’re way behind other countries when it comes to health care.
Dazzeetrader11 on January 31 at 11:39 p.m.
Here….nobody dies because of having or NOT having health insurance. Nobody has ever shown health insurance cures any disease or trauma. It’s a myth.and a good deal of marketing that might make us believe insurance saves lives.
Even the New Eng Journal of Medicine article didn’t prove that. It showed that disenfranchised people die because of more trauma and guns or other violence. Further though, even obesity didn’t matter unless accompanied by hypertension and diabetes. That latter didn’t conribute to mortality any more than those in the insured groups. Why? Both were treated irrespective of insurance.
In America these days everyone can be treated. It’s illegal to NOT treat. Hospitals and physicians alike must treat. The uninsured usually unaware so they might not seek treatment. All this Obama care is just political transfer of money and control. It’s too expensive and provides less care.
Still though, there is no mandate for it as is shown in the table I proved above. Nobody should have to pay for something they don’t want. What Obama doesn’t want you to know is that his political plan won’t work unless everyone has to pay in. Also, he doesn’t want you to know that a full third of the plan’s funding doesn’t go to health care. It goes to administering the plan via buildings, clerks, computers, etc.just like Medicare.,which is a disaster. Plus it’s administration is fully union.which runs the standard cost up by a full 25-30%.
misjustice on February 01 at 12:18 a.m.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah….did ya notice the guy in the Whitehouse is black?
Hate unions, hate union workers, blah, blah, blah, blah…did ya notice that the guy in the Whitehouse is black?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, socialist, maoist, taoist, communist, nazi, commie, muslim, did ya notice that the guy in the Whitehouse is black?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, Medicare is a disaster, and the guy in the Whitehouse is black.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, we have the best health care in the world because I said so, and has anyone noticed that the guy in the Whitehouse is black?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I don’t want to pay for anyone else even though I already do, buy hey, has anyone noticed that the guy in the Whitehouse is black?
Blah, blah, blah, blah, hate me some Obamacare, that lil’ prentender to the throne, lil’ boy, peacock, hey, has anyone noticed that that guy in the Whitehouse is black?
Obamacare, Obamacare, Obamacare, rammed down our throats, liar, liar, pants on fire. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Hatin’ on the Obamacare.
Hey did anyone notice that the guy in the Whitehouse is black?????????????????????????????????????????
herewegoagain on February 01 at 8:21 a.m.
@Daisy:
I believe your opinions and assumptions to be outside the actual real realm of health care and it’s lack of not attributing to deaths in the US.
I apologize my previous figure were not up to date, this latest study puts the figure at 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health care. Not a myth nor a ploy the facts are presented very plainly in this research study
www.pnhp.org/news/2009/september/harvard_study_finds_.php - 21k
http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeaths
johnclarke on February 01 at 9:01 a.m.
Misjustice, I think he is only half black ha ha.
Orange on February 01 at 5:00 p.m.
This group has gone off the deep end.
eagleproducer on February 02 at 5:47 p.m.
Orange: Bring us back to your usual shallowness!