Health Care Bill

[macrockett]

Maybe they should have read the bill before they voted for it...

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-health-20100923,0,2339857.story
chicagotribune.com
Lower costs? Forget it.

7:01 PM CDT, September 23, 2010
Advertisement

"The nation's health care tab will go up — not down — as a result of President Barack Obama's sweeping overhaul."

–Associated Press, Sept. 9, 2010

That verdict on the cost of the new health legislation was the conclusion of a government forecast released this month. Well, duh. You can't expand coverage by 32 million Americans and figure that will hold costs down. The Democrats sold health care to Americans with a lot of fuzzy accounting and shaky assertions about how relatively inexpensive all this would be.

No wonder at least 34 House Democrats are campaigning on health care reform — not extolling their grand accomplishment but touting their "no" votes, as Politico recently reported. In fact, Democratic candidates are spending more than $3 deriding the new health law for every $1 their fellow Dems are spending to brag about it.

A trio of Democratic pollsters recently advised Democrats to stop saying the big health care reform law passed last spring will reduce costs and curb a raging federal deficit. What the Dems should say, the pollsters suggested: "The law is not perfect … now we'll work to improve it."

The law does need to be "improved," if by improved, you mean profoundly scaled back in expense and complexity.

There are some good ideas in Congress about how to do that. There's a smart but so far unsuccessful move to change or repeal a tax reporting provision that would be onerous for small businesses.

And there's a proposal to deep-six a panel that most Americans never heard about and that hasn't even been formed yet. It's called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The board of experts is supposed to have broad powers to cut Medicare spending if Congress doesn't have the gumption to do so. Scratch that. Make it when Congress doesn't have the gumption to do so.

Sen. John Cornyn wants to abolish the panel before its members are even appointed. "America's seniors deserve the ability to hold elected officials accountable for the decisions that affect their Medicare, but IPAB would take that away from seniors and put power in the hands of politically appointed Washington bureaucrats," the Texas Republican said in a statement.

We're no fans of more federal bureaucracy or the ridiculously expensive new health care law. But on this point we differ with Cornyn. The independent Medicare panel he opposes "represents the first time that the Medicare program will be subject to spending limits," according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Spending limits for the first time. Sounds good to us. Medicare is on a fast and certain path to insolvency. It's also gobbling ever-larger shares of federal dollars.

The panel will recommend cuts if Medicare spending exceeds targets that account for inflation and other economic factors. Those cuts will kick in … unless Congress finds its own way to achieve the same savings elsewhere in Medicare.

Cornyn's beef is that the panel will be too powerful. We disagree. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a sober bunch of nonpartisan number crunchers, suggests that the panel's authority will be narrow and tepid: It can't change Medicare benefits or eligibility. Or increase beneficiary premiums. Or increase cost-sharing requirements. Nor can it hike taxes.

One problem: The panel can recommend cuts mainly to doctors' fees and private health insurance drug reimbursements. Not until 2020 would hospitals and other providers also face the panel's budget ax. But first threatening doctors' fees will encourage more physicians to stop treating Medicare patients.

We hope Congress doesn't kill the panel. Rather, give it muscle to recommend cuts anywhere in Medicare from day one. Force Congress to vote up or down on those cuts or find better ones.

Congress would have to make tough decisions about Medicare spending … or get out of the panel's way.

Some pols see that as meddling. We call it fiscal discipline. Lawmakers ought to try it sometime.

Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune

[macrockett]

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 Wall Street Journal

ObamaCare's Hotel California

The state moves to impose price controls you can never leave.
California, the novelist Wallace Stegner famously wrote, is like the rest of America, only more so—meaning that wherever the country is headed, the Golden State is probably there already. So the state's ObamaCare advance planning deserves closer scrutiny, given that it mirrors the regulatory and ideological model that the White House favors for everyone else.

In a matter of days, California will set a precedent for the future of the U.S. individual and small-business insurance markets via ObamaCare's "exchanges," where people will purchase coverage at heavily subsidized rates. The exchanges don't start up until 2014, but the states were given wide bureaucratic latitude in how they're run, and Sacramento is using this flexibility to convert them into a pretext for imposing de facto price controls on the insurance industry.
video

Jerry Seib and Gerard Baker discuss the renewed furor over health care, including the war of words between House Minority Leader John Boehner and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

That may be what Democrats had in mind when they passed the bill, but it's particularly unfortunate because in principle exchanges could be a useful reform. States could sponsor transparent, neutral clearinghouses that compare costs and benefits among plans, encouraging insurers to compete to offer the products that consumers find most valuable. An exchange could operate much like travel websites such as Expedia.com, and a good one along those lines started in Utah last year.

California looked further east for inspiration—to Massachusetts, which has the only other exchange in the country. Known as the connector, it's the centerpiece of the ObamaCare beta test that Mitt Romney passed in 2006 and is now the power center of the state's public utility-style insurance regulation. In the daisy chain of "expertise" that is the health policy world, California's regulations were shaped by Jon Kingsdale, a devout White House ally who used to run the Massachusetts connector and is now a consultant.

The most dangerous precedent in the California plan is known as "selective contracting." Under ObamaCare, all benefits will be mandated and standardized at the federal level, so all individual and small business plans will be essentially identical except at the margins. Those margins include their brand names, the hospital-doctor networks they've set up, the size of their book of business as pricing leverage and so forth.

In theory, then, all plans that meet ObamaCare's minimum standards should be allowed onto the exchanges. But in California, a five-member board of political appointees will pick winners and losers. If an insurer wants entrée to the pool of subsidized individuals and businesses with fewer than 50 employees—and of course all of them do—they'll have to genuflect to whatever dictates this board happens to decree.

Selective contracting will allow the state to "negotiate" more favorable terms, the preferred euphemism for industrial policy. The result in practice will be submarket price controls. As a condition of admittance insurers will also have to justify their premium levels and rate changes over time. Plans will still be allowed to sell outside the exchange, but in practice almost all consumers will gravitate to the exchange because of the subsidies.

This is clearly the template the Obama Administration favors. Heath and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently warned the insurance industry that there would be "zero tolerance" for political misbehavior or "unreasonable" premium increases, which means anything Ms. Sebelius deems too expensive. To run the HHS exchange department, Ms. Sebelius has tapped Joel Ario, formerly the Pennsylvania insurance commissioner and a caustic industry opponent. Mr. Ario was last heard demanding that Keystone State insurers "cleanse"—that is, lower—their premiums as a kind of pre-ObamaCare indulgence for purported sins.

The California plan passed the legislature in August with the support of soon-to-depart Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who will sign them before the end of the month. The overwhelming sentiment among the authors we spoke with is that the brute force of limiting the number of plans will lower costs. "The only way to drive price, to drive value, is the power to say no," as one of them told us.

In other words, less competition is the best way to drive down costs. The irony is that the California insurance market today functions reasonably well because consumers have plenty of choices. By historical accident—the political left that dominates Sacramento is preoccupied with single payer and has killed incremental proposals—state regulatory authority is divided between two state agencies, one loaded with mandates, and the other loosely regulated. Naturally, the second group has climbed to 91% of the small-business market and 48% of the individual one.

In April, the lame-duck Mr. Schwarzenegger cheered on this process, claiming that "California always leads the way, we all know that . . . California is the incubator state. It provides the ideas and the hard work. It all starts right here." Alas, he's right.

[macrockett]

I haven't looked at the decision in detail at this point.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100707223_pf.html

Judge: Health-care law is constitutional

By N.C. Aizenman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 8, 2010; A2

A federal judge in Michigan ruled Thursday that the new health-care overhaul law is constitutional, rejecting an argument that Congress lacked the power to create the legislation's "individual mandate," which requires virtually all Americans to purchase health insurance.

Other federal courts have already dismissed some challenges to the law on technical grounds - ruling, for instance, that the plaintiffs lacked standing. However, the decision issued Thursday by Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan is the first to reject a claim based on the merits, marking a notable victory for the Obama administration.

The plaintiffs, three people and the Thomas More Law Center, a nonprofit public interest law firm in Ann Arbor, had objected to being compelled to choose between buying health coverage that they do not want or paying a tax penalty that, they argued, would go into the nation's general fund and could end up paying for abortions.

They further argued that because the decision not to buy insurance is a form of inactivity rather than an economic activity, it is not covered by the clause of the Constitution that grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

However, Steeh found that "far from 'inactivity,' by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health-care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance, collectively shifting billions of dollars . . . onto other market participants." Therefore, Steeh ruled, regulating this decision falls well within the scope of Congress's authority to regulate the health insurance market.

The judge also echoed the administration's contention that unless young and healthy people are required to purchase coverage, the pool of those who are insured would be skewed toward the sick, making it impossible for insurers to comply with protections such as the law's prohibition on discriminating against those with preexisting conditions.

"The court found that the minimum coverage provision of the statute was a reasonable means for Congress to take in reforming our health-care system," said Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department. "The department will continue to vigorously defend this law in ongoing litigation."

Robert Muise, the law center's senior trial counsel, said he plans to appeal. But he added that despite the loss, he is pleased that Steeh sided with him and the other plaintiffs on their standing to file the suit, the ripeness of their claim and whether they have a right to a court determination of Congress's authority to write the legislation.

"The case is framed quite nicely since the judge ruled in our favor on [those issues]. So really the main question is whether or not Congress has exceeded its authority under the commerce clause, and I like our chances before the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 6th Circuit," he said.

The case is one of 15 to 20 lawsuits challenging some aspect of the health-care law, according to a Justice Department estimate.

Among the most prominent are a suit filed by 20 states in federal court in Florida and a similar suit filed by the state of Virginia before a federal judge there. They raise similar arguments as those in the Michigan suit but also mount additional constitutional objections to the law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last Updated: October 08. 2010 1:00AM
Federal judge upholds health reforms
Ruling is nation’s first in cases challenging law’s constitutionality
Robert Snell and Kim Kozlowski / The Detroit News

Detroit — A federal judge on Thursday upheld key provisions of President Barack Obama’s Health Care Reform Act of 2010 and dismissed part of a lawsuit challenging the legislation. U.S. District Judge George C. Steeh issued a 20-page order — believed to be the first federal court decision nationwide — addressing claims that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring most people to obtain insurance coverage or pay a penalty by 2014.

Similar challenges are pending in courts nationwide, and the plaintiff in this case, Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center, vowed to appeal the judge’s order.

Advertisement

For SALE: Apple iPad for $17.82Naperville: Auction site to give away 1,000 iPads for $17.82! www.consumertipsdaily7.com Naperville: Mom Discovers $5 Wrinkle TrickDermatologists DON'T want you knowing about this Skin Care Secret! Get details... Naperville: New Debt RegulationsSimple Form Allows You To Erase Up to 70% of Your Debt. Fill It… More info... Free Penny Stock PicksGet up to 600% Potential Gains in Days. Free Email Sign up. No… Explore now...
Quantcast

The lawsuit filed in Michigan requested a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the reform. The plaintiffs included four individuals who lack health insurance and object to paying a financial penalty to the government that eventually could fund abortions.

Steeh, who was appointed by President Clinton in 1998, concluded Congress is empowered to legislate how people pay for health care services.

He also said Congress had a rational basis for concluding that decisions about how to fund health care services have an impact on interstate commerce and are within Congress’ powers under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, a national Christian public interest law firm, vowed to challenge the judge’s order.

“ObamaCare is one of the most oppressive measures in the history of our nation,” Thompson said in a statement. “And it was passed by Congress, despite overwhelming opposition of the American people. It was not about reforming health care, but government seizure of unprecedented power over our lives.”

The federal legislation, passed in March, included provisions to expand coverage to millions of Americans, control spiraling health care costs and improve health care delivery in the future.

The effort was spearheaded by activists working to provide health coverage to uninsured Americans, numbering nearly 50,000 as of September, but opposed by those who feared an increase in taxes and decrease in quality care. It requires those without health insurance to purchase it or face an annual penalty.
Commerce clause important

The judge’s order is not surprising, said John Freeman, Michigan director of Health Care for America Now, a national coalition of individuals and organizations working to reform health care.

“Almost every single learned scholar who has a reputation in constitutional law knows that this law is constitutional by virtue of the commerce clause, which was decided in the 1930s that the federal government has jurisdiction over economic matters that cross state lines and are significant to the national economy,” Freeman said. “It is obviously clear, with health care representing one fourth of the economy, that this is going to meet that standard.”

But if Congress has the authority to be able to regulate decisions affecting economic activities, then it literally has the authority to regulate virtually every aspect of our lives, countered Robert Muise, senior trial lawyer at the More Law Center.

“If the commerce clause is so broad, then our Constitution provides no limits on Congress’ authority,” Muise said. “Congress could then tell us we could join a health club or you have to exercise so many days a week or take certain vitamins — any number of things that involve affecting economic activity is not beyond Congress’ reach.”

Calling the arguments in the lawsuit “ridiculous,” Freeman and other health care advocates have been calling on Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox to stop a separate lawsuit that has he joined to challenge the constitutionality of the health care law. Though Freeman acknowledged that it is a different lawsuit, essentially it poses the same argument.

“It’s a waste of taxpayer’s dollars, and (Cox) only did it for political purposes,” Freeman said. “The health care system by anyone’s measurement was broken in this country and it had to be addressed. It took a long time but finally they have and over the next four or five years we are going to see fundamental, positive change to help people obtain health care coverage.”

A Cox spokesman could not be reached immediately for comment.
Hopeful for appeal

Steven Hyder, who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit along with his wife, Salina, said he hopes they will win on appeal.

“With all due respect to the judge, I think he missed the boat on this and that’s why we have the appeal process,” said Hyder, 40, a Monroe resident. “The government should not be able to force me to purchase something that I don’t think or feel that I need as long as it is not detrimental to anyone else.”

Hyder, a solo practicing attorney, pays for his health care out of pocket. He hasn’t made a decision whether he will not buy health insurance and pay a penalty tax.

He also is concerned that his tax dollars could go to the general fund and go to organizations that perform abortions.

“A union member can forbid his or her union dues from going to a political action committee,” Hyder said, “so I think I should be able to forbid my tax dollars from funding any type of abortion.”

[e-mail]

[phone]

Detroit — A federal judge on Thursday upheld key provisions of President Barack Obama’s Health Care Reform Act of 2010 and dismissed part of a lawsuit challenging the legislation. U.S. District Judge George C. Steeh issued a 20-page order — believed to be the first federal court decision nationwide — addressing claims that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring most people to obtain insurance coverage or pay a penalty by 2014.

Similar challenges are pending in courts nationwide, and the plaintiff in this case, Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center, vowed to appeal the judge’s order.

The lawsuit filed in Michigan requested a preliminary injunction that would have stopped the reform. The plaintiffs included four individuals who lack health insurance and object to paying a financial penalty to the government that eventually could fund abortions.

Steeh, who was appointed by President Clinton in 1998, concluded Congress is empowered to legislate how people pay for health care services.

He also said Congress had a rational basis for concluding that decisions about how to fund health care services have an impact on interstate commerce and are within Congress’ powers under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Law Center, a national Christian public interest law firm, vowed to challenge the judge’s order.

“ObamaCare is one of the most oppressive measures in the history of our nation,” Thompson said in a statement. “And it was passed by Congress, despite overwhelming opposition of the American people. It was not about reforming health care, but government seizure of unprecedented power over our lives.”

The federal legislation, passed in March, included provisions to expand coverage to millions of Americans, control spiraling health care costs and improve health care delivery in the future.

The effort was spearheaded by activists working to provide health coverage to uninsured Americans, numbering nearly 50,000 as of September, but opposed by those who feared an increase in taxes and decrease in quality care. It requires those without health insurance to purchase it or face an annual penalty.
Commerce clause important

The judge’s order is not surprising, said John Freeman, Michigan director of Health Care for America Now, a national coalition of individuals and organizations working to reform health care.

“Almost every single learned scholar who has a reputation in constitutional law knows that this law is constitutional by virtue of the commerce clause, which was decided in the 1930s that the federal government has jurisdiction over economic matters that cross state lines and are significant to the national economy,” Freeman said. “It is obviously clear, with health care representing one fourth of the economy, that this is going to meet that standard.”

But if Congress has the authority to be able to regulate decisions affecting economic activities, then it literally has the authority to regulate virtually every aspect of our lives, countered Robert Muise, senior trial lawyer at the More Law Center.

“If the commerce clause is so broad, then our Constitution provides no limits on Congress’ authority,” Muise said. “Congress could then tell us we could join a health club or you have to exercise so many days a week or take certain vitamins — any number of things that involve affecting economic activity is not beyond Congress’ reach.”

Calling the arguments in the lawsuit “ridiculous,” Freeman and other health care advocates have been calling on Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox to stop a separate lawsuit that has he joined to challenge the constitutionality of the health care law. Though Freeman acknowledged that it is a different lawsuit, essentially it poses the same argument.

“It’s a waste of taxpayer’s dollars, and (Cox) only did it for political purposes,” Freeman said. “The health care system by anyone’s measurement was broken in this country and it had to be addressed. It took a long time but finally they have and over the next four or five years we are going to see fundamental, positive change to help people obtain health care coverage.”

A Cox spokesman could not be reached immediately for comment.
Hopeful for appeal

Steven Hyder, who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit along with his wife, Salina, said he hopes they will win on appeal.

“With all due respect to the judge, I think he missed the boat on this and that’s why we have the appeal process,” said Hyder, 40, a Monroe resident. “The government should not be able to force me to purchase something that I don’t think or feel that I need as long as it is not detrimental to anyone else.”

Hyder, a solo practicing attorney, pays for his health care out of pocket. He hasn’t made a decision whether he will not buy health insurance and pay a penalty tax.

He also is concerned that his tax dollars could go to the general fund and go to organizations that perform abortions.

“A union member can forbid his or her union dues from going to a political action committee,” Hyder said, “so I think I should be able to forbid my tax dollars from funding any type of abortion.”

[e-mail]

[phone]


From The Detroit News: www.detnews.com/article/20101008/METRO/10080403/1409/Federal-judge-upholds-health-reforms#ixzz11pEmwofD

www.mied.uscourts.gov/News/Docs/09714485866.pdf (The Court's ruling)

[macrockett]

Fresh off the presses. Florida District Court says 20 State challenge to the health care law can continue. Should the States win, this will definitely end up in the Supreme Court. This decision also gives the Michigan case ammunition in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/health/policy/08health.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print (Michigan case) (Michigan decision is posted above)

blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/10/florida-judge-rules-health-care-challenge-can-continue.html (Fl case)

online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/101410healthcareruling.pdf (Florida decision)

------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2010-10-14/florida-challenge-to-obama-health-care-overhaul-can-proceed-judge-rules.html

Florida Lawsuit Against U.S. Health-Care Overhaul Can Proceed, Judge Says
By William McQuillen - Oct 14, 2010

A legal challenge to President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul can proceed, a federal judge ruled, turning aside Justice Department arguments that the lawsuit led by the state of Florida is at best premature.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola today allowed portions of the claims by 20 states to go forward, as he forecast he would after a day of oral arguments last month. The requirement to purchase health insurance is “simply without prior precedent,” Vinson wrote, allowing the suit to proceed.

“People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it,” Vinson wrote in the 65-page decision. “Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized.”

Vinson previously scheduled arguments for Dec. 16 on whether the law, signed by Obama in March, is constitutional.

The judge threw out Florida’s claims that the law interferes with the state’s sovereignty as an employer and that the individual mandate violated the right to due process of law.

The focus of efforts to undo what the administration considers a key legislative achievement now shifts to Richmond, Virginia, where a similar lawsuit by the state survived a bid for dismissal in April. A judge there scheduled an Oct. 18 hearing on the law’s constitutionality.

The states contend that the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance exceeds the constitutional power of Congress.

Government’s Argument

The government counters that the mandate is covered by its authority to regulate interstate commerce, since billions of dollars a year in unpaid medical bills are absorbed by the market.

Joining Florida in the suit were Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington. The National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business lobbying group, also joined.

The Florida and Virginia suits were filed within minutes of Obama’s signing the legislation.

Besides its effect on individuals, the legislation puts an unconstitutional burden on state budgets by expanding Medicaid, the federal-state program that provides health care for the poor, the states say.

Defining Activity

In a Sept. 14 hearing, Vinson questioned whether people who don’t buy health insurance can be considered actively participating in commerce and taxed for it. The U.S. previously claimed that the possibility of being injured and unable to pay medical bills is enough to draw a link between commerce and taxation.

“They are attempting to take inactivity and are making it activity,” said Randy Barnett, a constitutional-law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center said in an interview before the ruling. “The question of whether something is activity, and you don’t make inactivity into activity by saying is has an effect.”

The case is State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 10-cv-00091, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

To contact the reporter on this story: William McQuillen in Washington at [e-mail].

To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at [e-mail].



----------------------------------------------------------------

Florida Judge Rules Health Care Challenge Can Continue

October 14, 2010 3:56 PM
ABC News' Ariane de Vogue reports: In a blow to the Obama administration, a federal judge in Florida today issued a ruling allowing parts of a lawsuit by 20 states challenging the recently passed health care legislation to proceed.

The two parts of the law that will proceed to trial are expansion of Medicaid and the individual mandate that requires qualifying individuals to obtain health insurance by 2014.

Of all the challenges to the health care law, this is one of the most interesting because of the numbers of states that have signed on. At issue today were mostly procedural issues not the core constitutional questions. The office of Judge Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida who issued today's ruling, said the trial is scheduled to start in early December.

Attorney General Bill McCollum, who has spearheaded the effort against the federal government, released a statement saying: “This ruling is a victory for the states, small businesses and the American people. It is the first step to having the individual mandate declared unconstitutional and upholding state sovereignty in our federal system.”

In his ruling, Judge Roger Vinson explained: “I have not attempted to determine whether the line between Constitutional and extra constitutional government has been crossed. ... I am only saying... the plaintiffs have at least stated a plausible claim that the line has been crossed.”

Conservatives are praising the ruling. Carrie Severino, policy director and counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network released a statement saying: “Obama, Harry Reid, and company were hoping for something to brighten up their otherwise gloomy election season. But their hopes were dashed by Judge Vinson today because Obama's signature ‘achievement’ remains under a cloud of constitutional suspicion. In the fight between Obamacare and principled, limited government, round one goes to freedom.”

A federal Judge in Michigan, in a different case, recently ruled on the bigger question and upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

[macrockett]

www.legalnewsline.com/news/229148-feds-virginia-make-arguments-in-health-care-reform-lawsuit

Feds, Virginia make arguments in health care reform lawsuit
BY JESSICA M. KARMASEK
Cuccinelli
RICHMOND, Va. (Legal Newsline) - A federal judge in Virginia could rule by the end of the year whether the Obama administration's federal health care reform package is constitutional.

Judge Henry E. Hudson, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, heard oral arguments in Virginia's case against the federal government's health care law on Monday. Each side was given an hour to argue its case.

Virginia's is the first state case to be heard on the merits of its arguments.

The law requires that nearly all Americans purchase health insurance beginning in 2014.

Deputy U.S. Assistant Attorney General Ian H. Gershengorn, for the federal government, argued on Monday that Congress has the authority to enact the mandate because if individuals do not buy insurance, doing so could affect the economy and affect others because those individuals will inevitably use publicly funded health care.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has argued that state law prevents individuals from being penalized for not purchasing health insurance.

Virginia Soliciter General E. Duncan Getchell Jr., who argued for the State Monday, said Congress overstepped its constitutional authority by enacting such a provision.

Cuccinelli, who held a press conference following the federal district court hearing, said the law requires consumers to buy a product and that they are being punished for doing nothing.

"The individual insurance mandate represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional exercise of federal power because it penalizes Americans for not engaging in commerce," the attorney general said following the hearing.

"This case is not about health care. This case is about protecting our liberty. This case is about the states providing a check and balance to the federal government, which is exceeding the power we,
the people, gave it through the Constitution.

"If we lose this fight and the federal government is allowed to cross this line, Congress will be granted a virtually unlimited power to order you to buy anything. That is not rhetoric. That is reality."

Cuccinelli blasted the federal government's reasoning, saying it also could be used to claim that the government has the authority to force you to buy a car.

"Because if you do not buy a car, you are making an economic decision that will affect others because you will inevitably use publicly subsidized busses later," he said. "And the government will not only have the authority to tell you to buy a car, but what kind of car and what features are required."

The attorney general filed the lawsuit shortly after President Barack Obama signed the legislation in March.

His office argued in court on July 1 against the federal government's motion to dismiss the suit and won that round when the judge returned his decision on Aug. 2 saying that the case could go forward. The hearing Monday focused strictly on the constitutionality of the health care law.

There are more than a dozen other lawsuits challenging the same "individual mandate" in President Barack Obama's bill.

In fact, Virginia's lawsuit is one of more than 15 that have been brought across the country challenging the requirement.

The state's suit also is separate from a case filed in Florida jointly by 20 other states and led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum.

A Florida judge, just last week, allowed the suit to move forward, ruling that the states could have a case.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson issued a 65-page ruling on the federal government's motion to dismiss the challenge Thursday. He dismissed four of the lawsuit's six counts.

Proceeding, though, is a group of 20 states' main argument -- that requiring individuals to purchase health insurance or face a $695 yearly penalty is unconstitutional.

Earlier this month, a judge in Michigan upheld the requirement to buy insurance, saying that Congress acted within its authority.

If Hudson rules that the mandate is unconstitutional, Cuccinelli is asking for an injunction against the entire health care act.

From Legal Newsline: Reach Jessica Karmasek by e-mail at [e-mail].

--------------------------------------------
www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2010-10-18/federal-judge-weighs-whether-obama-s-health-care-reform-is-constitutional.html

Bloomberg

U.S. Judge Pledges Constitutional Ruling on Obama Health-Care by Yearend
By William McQuillen - Oct 18, 2010

A federal judge in Virginia said he’ll rule by yearend whether President Barack Obama’s health- care overhaul is constitutional, adding that his decision will be a “brief stop” in the case on its way to the Supreme Court.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, heard arguments today over whether the law’s requirement for individuals to buy health insurance is overreaching by Congress. Justice Department lawyers have argued that failure to have health insurance is an active decision with broad economic effects that can be regulated by the government.

Already, a U.S. judge in Michigan has found the law falls within the framework of the Constitution, while a federal judge in Florida last week, in allowing a case in Pensacola to proceed, said it’s not even a “close call” that Congress may have overstepped its bounds.

“This court is just one brief stop on the way to the Supreme Court,” Hudson said at the close of 2 1/2 hours of arguments today.

Hudson acknowledged that any decision will be quickly appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond. With courts in Michigan and Florida appealing, the conflicting decisions could improve the chances the high court would review the case.

“I don’t know how it will all come out,” said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law. “There’s likely to be some differences -- the Supreme Court will have to decide if there are differences that need to be reviewed.”

Right to Sue

Hudson in August had given approval for Virginia’s suit to move ahead, rejecting the federal government’s arguments that the state had no right to sue. Virginia said the requirement to buy insurance exceeds Congress’s powers regulate interstate commerce.

In that decision, he said there is authority supporting each side’s arguments and noted the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t squarely addressed the issue.

Virginia and Florida each filed lawsuits within minutes of Obama signing the bill on March 23. The following day, Governor Bob McDonnell signed legislation making it illegal to force the state’s residents to buy health insurance. Florida’s suit represents 19 other states.

The law is “unprecedented, unlimited and unsupportable in any serious regime of delegated, enumerated powers,” Duncan Getchell, an attorney for Virginia, told Hudson.

Congressional Authority

Virginia claims in its lawsuit that the federal mandate to buy health insurance goes beyond Congress’s authority. The U.S. said the provision is allowed under its power to regulate commerce because of the $43 billion in unpaid medical bills absorbed by the market each year.

Hudson pressed U.S. Attorney Ian Gershengorn over whether the federal government should be allowed to force people to enter a market or whether choosing not to buy health insurance is actively participating in commerce and can be governed by the Constitution.

“It’s absolutely not passivity,” Gershengorn said. “They are in the market, they are using those health-care services.”

The parties disagreed whether the law is based on a tax or another penalty, with the U.S. lawyers arguing it was a tax, which allows federal oversight. Gershengorn said it was a tax, and not a punishment, while Hudson questioned why lawmakers publicly denied there was a tax involved.

‘Without Prior Precedent’

“They denied it was a tax,” Hudson said. “Was the president trying to deceive the people?”

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola last week allowed that case to proceed, finding the government’s expansion of powers is “simply without prior precedent.” He also allowed Florida to proceed on its claim that Medicaid would be expanded dramatically and the states cannot realistically opt out. He threw out Florida’s claim that the law interferes with the state’s sovereignty as an employer and the mandate for individuals to get coverage violates the right to due process of law.

Further arguments on the merits of the lawsuit have been scheduled by Vinson for Dec. 16.

Vinson’s decision countered a U.S. judge in Michigan who on Oct. 7 upheld the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul, rejecting an argument by a self-described Christian law center in what was the first court victory for the new law. The ruling denied the Thomas More Law Center’s request for an injunction and said the group failed to prove the statute is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

Uninsured Costs

Lawyers for the U.S. said Congress has a right to regulate people who hurt the economy when they become sick or injured and seek health care without insurance. Because the federal government covers some costs of the uninsured, it has authority to require them to get health coverage even if they don’t want it, the lawyers said.

Virginia said the law’s purpose is to ensure that people buy health-care coverage and not to raise revenue. That means it shouldn’t be classified as a tax, and that puts it outside the realm of Congress’s recognized power to tax and spend, the state’s lawyers argue.

The U.S. said the law is within Congress’s authority to tax and to regulate interstate commerce. The possibility of people being unable to pay medical bills is sufficient to draw a link to their insurance coverage and those powers, the federal government said.

Even knowing the case will ultimately be decided by higher courts, Hudson is likely to take his time with a decision. With the first decision on the merits in a precedent setting case, Hudson knows his ruling will be closely watched.

“It may give a judge pause, a judge may be cautious,” said Tobias. “He has to be diligent. That’s what makes it lonely when you’re a district judge.”

The case is Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius, 10-cv- 00188, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond).

To contact the reporter on this story: William McQuillen in Richmond, Virginia, at [e-mail].

To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at [e-mail].

[macrockett]

Welcome to the beginning of Obamacare: Do you have flexpay with your employer? Do you use over the counter drugs? Well you can no longer expense them in your employee flexpay account without a note from your doctor... (even though they are ...uh, over the counter). There are a few exceptions, if you dig though the below release from March 2010.

Here are the mind numbing details: www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-10-59.pdf effective 1/1/2011

And it's right there in the Act...section nine thousand and three!
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ148.pdf

Welcome to the future of "stream lined" healthcare, the government way!

[macrockett]

November 5, 2010, 4:18 PM ET Wall Street Journal

AARP Raises Insurance Costs for Employees

The AARP’s health insurance costs are going up next year due to rapidly rising medical costs that are partly fueled by the health overhaul, the AP is reporting.

Premiums for the group’s employees will rise by 8% to 13% next year, the story says. The association is changing co-pays and deductibles to avoid a 40% tax on high-cost health plans that goes into effect in 2018, according to the AP. About 4,500 people are covered by the group’s plans.

In an Oct. 25 email, Jennifer Hodges, the AARP’s director of compensation and benefits said, “Plan value changes were necessary not only from a cost management standpoint but also to ensure that AARP’s plans fall below the threshold for high-cost group plans under health care reform.”

The endorsement of the seniors’ lobby helped get the law passed back in March. According to the AP story, the association stands by that move and says the health law is a “small part” of why its employee health costs are going up.

“The impact on AARP employees is not a factor at all in our policy making, which is directed at the impact on our membership and on all older Americans,” the group’s legislative affairs director, David Certner, told the AP.

Other companies have cited the new law in making changes to their health offerings, including Boeing and 3M, which the WSJ wrote about here and here.

[doctorwho]

Nov 5, 2010 20:34:34 GMT -6 macrockett said:

November 5, 2010, 4:18 PM ET Wall Street Journal

AARP Raises Insurance Costs for Employees

The AARP’s health insurance costs are going up next year due to rapidly rising medical costs that are partly fueled by the health overhaul, the AP is reporting.

Premiums for the group’s employees will rise by 8% to 13% next year, the story says. The association is changing co-pays and deductibles to avoid a 40% tax on high-cost health plans that goes into effect in 2018, according to the AP. About 4,500 people are covered by the group’s plans.

In an Oct. 25 email, Jennifer Hodges, the AARP’s director of compensation and benefits said, “Plan value changes were necessary not only from a cost management standpoint but also to ensure that AARP’s plans fall below the threshold for high-cost group plans under health care reform.”

The endorsement of the seniors’ lobby helped get the law passed back in March. According to the AP story, the association stands by that move and says the health law is a “small part” of why its employee health costs are going up.

“The impact on AARP employees is not a factor at all in our policy making, which is directed at the impact on our membership and on all older Americans,” the group’s legislative affairs director, David Certner, told the AP.

Other companies have cited the new law in making changes to their health offerings, including Boeing and 3M, which the WSJ wrote about here and here.

better than the 18% increase in my medical plan at work -- and we got a 'sales pitch' on the impact of covering kids until 26.

Ironic for me because my child is 26 now- but at 23 they cut my arse off and I paid $485/month COBRA for 2 years while she finished her education - and then looked for employment -- now I get to pay more yearly AFTER it would have actually benefitted me..

day late and a dollar short on this one

[macrockett]

How is that new health care law working for your company? Well according to 111 (and counting) organizations, not so good. Yes 111 organizations covering over one million employees have now been granted waivers to the new law for the first year. Some of the companies that have been granted waivers include McDonald's, Darden Restaurants (owners of the Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurant chains), Aetna, the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund in New York, and Dish Network.

That can't be true, must be some right wing conspiracy. You be the judge:

www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

What is the waiver for? www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/11-05-2010annual_limits_waiver_bulletin.pdf

If you want a waiver for your business, like many unions appear to, see: www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/patient/ociio_2010-1_20100903_508.pdf

Here is what the NYT said last week:

November 9, 2010
Health Rules Are Waived More Often
By REED ABELSON

As Obama administration officials put into place some of the new rules that go into effect under the federal health care law, they are issuing more waivers to try to prevent some insurers and employers from dropping coverage and also promising to modify other rules because many of the existing policies would not meet new standards.

Last month, federal officials granted dozens of one-year waivers that were aimed at sparing certain employers, including McDonald’s, insurers and unions who offer plans that sharply limit the coverage they provide. These limited-benefit plans, also known as “minimeds,” fail to comply with new rules phasing out limits on how much policies will provide in medical care each year.

Concerned about the potential disruption that would be created by enforcing the new rules, the administration has granted dozens of additional waivers and also made clear that it would modify other rules affecting these policies. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services issued more guidance, saying it would use a different method of calculating spending for these plans so they would be able to meet new regulations dictating how insurers should use the premium dollars they collect.

While critics say these moves could water down the new law, the administration says it is responding to concerns from employers and others that many workers have no other alternative. The new rules also require that the policies clearly say how much coverage they provide and that they do not satisfy the law’s new standards.

“This new guidance helps improve transparency so that consumers know the value and quality of the plan they have,” said Steve Larsen, the director of oversight in the agency’s office of consumer information and insurance oversight. “In 2014, higher-quality coverage will be offered at an affordable price in the new exchanges. Until then, the annual waiver process preserves limited benefit plans offered by employers, preventing significant premium increase or loss of access.”

But a spokesman for Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, a West Virginia Democrat who favored strict rules on insurance company spending, said he planned to hold a hearing on the issue.

Among the waivers recently granted were for employers like Darden Restaurants, which operates the Red Lobster and Olive Garden restaurants, for 34,000 of its workers. Federal officials have granted 111 waivers to employers, insurers and union plans, who are responsible for covering about 1.2 million people.

Darden said the waiver would allow it to offer employees access to affordable coverage as the health care law is started.

In addition to granting waivers, the administration also said it would establish a different way of calculating the spending for these plans for the first year that “takes into account the special circumstances of minimed plans.”

[EagleDad]

Nov 5, 2010 22:18:24 GMT -6 doctorwho said:

better than the 18% increase in my medical plan at work -- and we got a 'sales pitch' on the impact of covering kids until 26.

Ironic for me because my child is 26 now- but at 23 they cut my arse off and I paid $485/month COBRA for 2 years while she finished her education - and then looked for employment -- now I get to pay more yearly AFTER it would have actually benefitted me..

day late and a dollar short on this one

Yep, I was the recipient of this 18% increase for that exact same coverage as last year as well also.

Aren't these "savings" from Obamacare wonderful? He is going to "save" us all on to welfare, which I'm sure there will be another grand plan to save us all with.

This was just bad legislation forced through with no debate all-around. It needs to be repealed and re-done.

[macrockett]

We now have the first federal district court rule that the new health care law, in part, is unconstitutional. This is the third ruling on the law. First in Michigan, Second in another Virginia District (both ruling in favor of the government) and now this case, with many more to come. Two pending cases to watch are the Florida case and the Missouri case (in light of the citizens of Mo rejecting the law when bought to a vote recently putting pressure on any Mo Federal District Court ...) Like most speculate, this will almost certainly end up in the Supreme Court.

December 13, 2010, 12:12 PM ET WSJ

Virginia Federal Judge Shoots Down Part of Health Care Law

This just in: Richmond, Va., federal judge Henry Hudson has issued a ruling finding part of President Barack Obama’s health-care law unconstitutional, according to early news reports. Click here for all LB coverage of challenges to the health-care law.

Judge Hudson invalidated the part of the landmark healthcare law that requires individuals to buy health insurance.

The ruling represents the first major setback for President Barack Obama on an issue that will likely end up at the Supreme Court. Two other courts have shot down challenges to the law.

Judge Hudson, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2002, supported arguments by the Virginia that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring that individuals buy health insurance.

We’ll update the post when we get more information.

[macrockett]

Here is the text of the ruling: documents.nytimes.com/health-care-law-ruled-unconstitutional?ref=policy

[macrockett]

The last time I wrote about the number of companies that had been granted waivers it stood at 111. Now it stands at, oddly, 222 per the Department of HHS: www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html (covering over 1.5 million enrollees)

[macrockett]

I personally believe the issue of whether the health care law will be declared unconstitutional will hinge upon the Supreme Court's determination of whether the Federal law goes too far in solving the issue of the uninsured.

It will weigh the ramifications of a Federal Government that can rationalize anything with the power that it will ultimately have over many aspects of our lives, such as whether we can smoke or not, or eat fatty foods, for example. These and many other things are conceivable if we are forced to buy health insurance to subsidize those who refuse to or who cannot afford to buy health care insurance.

Ultimately I believe the Court will decide this is a dangerous precedent and that there are less intrusive alternatives to solve this issue.

www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2010-12-16/obama-administration-states-take-defense-of-health-care-fight-to-florida.html

Obama Health Care Law Should Be Completely Thrown Out, States Lawyer Says

By Andrew M. Harris and Duwayne Escobedo - Dec 17, 2010 Bloomberg

The Obama administration’s health- care reform should be thrown out because it overreaches the federal government’s authority, opponents argued in a Florida lawsuit three days after a judge in Virginia ruled part of the law unconstitutional.

“The entire act has to fall,” Deputy Florida Attorney General Blaine Winship told U.S. District Judge C. Roger Vinson in Pensacola yesterday. Vinson heard arguments from lawyers for 20 states and the U.S. government on whether the act exceeds legitimate federal power.

Led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, the states sued the day President Barack Obama signed the legislation in March, arguing it burdens state budgets and unconstitutionally compels people to buy coverage.

A federal judge in Richmond, Virginia, on Dec. 13 invalidated the mandatory coverage portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that Obama signed into law on March 23, while leaving the remainder of it intact. The administration won prior rulings from federal judges in Detroit and in Lynchburg, Virginia.

The government has called the minimum-coverage provision the linchpin of the reform effort because it would push younger and healthier people into the insurance pool.

The individual mandate and expansions of Medicaid and employer-based coverage would extend health coverage to 32 million more people by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Mandatory coverage would start in 2014.

‘Alternative Ways’

“There are lots of alternative ways to provide health care to the needy without imposing on individual liberties and freedom of choice,” Vinson said during yesterday’s hearing.

The sweeping 955-page law -- its table of contents alone requires 13 pages -- bars insurers from denying coverage to people who are sick and from imposing lifetime limits on costs. It also includes pilot projects to test ideas like incentives for better results and bundled payments to medical teams for patient care.

Winship and outside counsel David B. Rivkin sparred with U.S. Justice Department attorney Ian Gershengorn over whether the government’s constitutional authority to regulate commerce includes power over the “inactivity” of not buying insurance.

“Inactivity cannot be regulated under the Commerce Clause,” Rivkin said. “Supreme Court law is perfectly consistent on this over the decades.” Otherwise, under the government’s logic, “every inactivity is economic,” he said.

‘Innocent Bystanders’

“The uninsured are not inactive,” Gershengorn countered. “This is not a situation of innocent bystanders standing to the side,” he said, adding that those who weren’t purchasing insurance were making the economic decision to pay later or shift the cost.

The $2.5 trillion national health care market is unlike the market for anything else, said the attorney for the U.S. government.

Medical care providers will not refuse to treat those who cannot pay “because that would be barbarous,” Gershengorn said.

Vinson asked Rivkin whether the government’s theory would allow regulation of any behavior with an economic impact.

“They can decide how much broccoli everyone should eat each week?” Vinson asked.

“Certainly,” replied Rivkin, an attorney in the Cleveland-based law firm Baker Hostetler LLP.

Government’s Lawyer

“We’ve always exercised the freedom whether we want to buy or not buy a product,” Vinson told the Obama administration’s lawyer.

Gershengorn said health insurance is “a financing mechanism,” not a product. “It’s not shoes,” he said. “It’s not cars. It’s not broccoli.”

The states said in court papers that they would be forced to accept costly changes in Medicaid -- the state and federal partnership program to provide health care for the indigent -- which under the act would be expanded to cover everyone under age 65 with an income as high as one-third above the federal poverty level.

Dropping out would be a practical impossibility, they said.

“No federal program besides Medicaid funds health-care services for the states’ poorest residents, and the states plainly are unable to establish, fund and implement a Medicaid- like replacement program, much less to do so immediately,” the states said.

States “have no real choice but to accept this new Medicaid regime,” Winship said yesterday.

“Congress knew perfectly well it was not the states’ choice,” he said. “They knew they were wielding a stick and not a carrot.” He called the expanded program “Medicaid on steroids.”

Offsetting Benefits

The administration argued in court papers that the states’ higher Medicaid costs would be offset by other parts of the law.

U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson in Richmond ruled Dec. 13 that requiring people under 65 obtain coverage or pay a cash penalty was unconstitutional.

The government lacks the authority to “compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market,” wrote Hudson, who was named to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush.

Vinson, named to the bench in 1983 by Republican Ronald Reagan, told Gershengorn that he paid out of pocket for the delivery of his first child, at a rate of about $100 per pound.

Law’s Linchpin

In Washington, debate over the law is turning toward the U.S. Supreme Court, which advocates on both sides say probably will decide its future.

Judges in the cases decided in favor of the Obama administration, George Caram Steeh in Detroit and Norman K. Moon in Lynchburg, were appointees of Democrat Bill Clinton.

More than 15 friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed in the Florida case.

They include submissions from U.S. Representative John Boehner, an Ohio Republican slated to be speaker of the House in January; caucus member Michele Bachmann of Minnesota; 62 of her colleagues; and 32 Republican senators including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona.

Organizations including the retiree advocacy groups AARP, Gray Panthers and American Academy of Pediatrics submitted a memorandum supporting the act.

Defending the administration’s stance in their own brief are almost 40 economics scholars including Nobel laureates Eric Maskin, George Akerlof and Kenneth Arrow.

Commerce Regulation

Timothy S. Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, said the universal need for medical care makes it unlike any other commodity, putting it within the purview of congressional regulation.

“The decision not to purchase health insurance has a profound effect on interstate commerce,” he said in a Dec. 13 phone interview.

More than $40 billion in health-care costs for the uninsured is shifted annually to providers, insurers and taxpayers, Jost said, citing the economists’ brief.

Joining Florida in the suit are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Utah.

State Attorneys General

The attorneys general of Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Washington also joined in the Florida suit. The governors of those states filed a brief in support of the administration.

The chief legal officers, Colorado’s John Suthers, Michigan’s Mike Cox, Pennsylvania’s Tom Corbett and Washington’s Rob McKenna, are Republicans. Their respective governors, Bill Ritter, Jennifer Granholm, Ed Rendell and Christine Gregoire, are Democrats.

“I have a decision to make, and I will make it as quickly as possible,” Vinson said yesterday after hearing nearly three hours of argument. The judge offered no specific timetable for his ruling.

“This is ultimately about freedom,” Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott told reporters outside the courthouse. He said that if allowed to stand, the legislation would lead to a “giant expansion” of Congress’s power to regulate Americans under the Commerce Clause.

“Liberty and freedom are being fought for in this courthouse today,” he said.

Ron Pollack, executive director of the consumer advocacy group Families USA, supports the healthcare act. Addressing reporters outside the court, Pollack said it isn’t the threat that Abbott and others say it is.

‘Outlandish’ Comment

Winship’s “Medicaid on steroids” comment was “outlandish,” he said.

“The attorney generals want us to believe this will bankrupt their states,” Pollack said. “The states do pick up some costs but it is only a tiny portion. Most of the states will save money when this legislation goes into effect.”

The case is State of Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 10-cv-00091, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Florida (Pensacola).

To contact the reporters on this story: Andrew M. Harris in Pensacola, Florida, at [e-mail]; Duwayne Escobedo in Pensacola, Florida, at [e-mail].

To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at [e-mail].

[macrockett]

Once again, Illinois is out of step with it's neighbor states. Michigan, Indian, Iowa and Wisconsin are part of the 25 states joining with Florida. Independently, Missouri has it's own lawsuit.

26 states to be part of Obama health care lawsuit

(AP) – 2 days ago

PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) — Six more states said Tuesday they would join a lawsuit in Florida against President Obama's health care overhaul, meaning more than half of the country will challenge the law.

The announcement was made as House members in Washington, led by Republicans, debated whether to repeal the law.

The six additional states will join Florida and 19 others, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

"It sends a strong message that more than half of the states consider the health care law unconstitutional and are willing to fight it in court," she said in a statement.

The states claim the health care law is unconstitutional and violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

Government attorneys have said the states do not have standing to challenge the law and want the case dismissed.

Lawsuits have been filed elsewhere. A federal judge in Virginia ruled in December that the insurance-purchase mandate was unconstitutional, though two other federal judges have upheld the requirement. It's expected the Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve the issue.

Meanwhile, the White House dismissed an expected vote on repealing the law, saying the Republicans' push was not a serious legislative effort. Democrats have a majority in the Senate and they have said they will block repeal in that chamber.

In the Florida case, the states also argue the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing money to pay for it. They say the new law gives the state's the impossible choice of accepting the new costs or forfeiting federal Medicaid funding.

Florida U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson could rule later this month whether he will grant a summary judgment in favor of the states or the Obama administration without a trial.

Florida's former Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Barack 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 the suit.

Joining the coalition in the Florida case were: Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

The other states that are suing are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.