More

Health Care Law Faces Long Legal Fight That Could Culminate In Showdown At Supreme Court

Health Care Law Ruling

12/14/10 11:39 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — The White House insisted Tuesday that the implementation of President Barack Obama's landmark health care law will not be affected by a negative federal court ruling, and the Justice Department said it would appeal.

"There's no practical impact at all as states move forward in implementing ... the law that Congress passed and the president signed," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said that, as expected, the department would appeal Monday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson in Virginia. Hudson declared that a central provision of the law – the requirement for nearly everyone to carry health insurance – was unconstitutional.

The ruling by the Republican-appointed judge in a high-profile lawsuit by Virginia's Republican attorney general was a setback for the Obama administration, but not a surprise. Two other district court judges, both Democratic appointees, have found the law constitutional.

Obama administration officials noted that consultations with states on implementing the law were moving forward. Later this week officials from all but a handful of states are expected to travel to Washington to meet with the Health and Human Services Department to discuss setting up the state-based insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, required by the new law.

These include officials from many of the 20 states that are simultaneously suing to overturn the law in a fourth case which begins oral arguments Thursday in Florida. Many state officials have concluded that it's better to participate in discussions on implementing the law than not, even if they don't support it. Even so, Republican members of Congress seized on Hudson's ruling to caution states against moving forward.

Central provisions of the law including the exchanges and the requirement for everyone to be insured don't take effect until 2014 anyway. By then the Supreme Court will likely have weighed in with the final verdict on the health law.

Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell, a Republican, urged the Obama administration Tuesday to join him in seeking to take the cases straight to the Supreme Court, bypassing the appeals process, in order to provide certainty for states and businesses. Such a course is highly unusual, and the Justice Department weighed in against it.

"The department believes this case should follow the ordinary course of allowing the courts of appeals to hear it first so the issues and arguments can be fully developed before the Supreme Court decides whether to consider it," Schmaler said.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — The White House insisted Tuesday that the implementation of President Barack Obama's landmark health care law will not be affected by a negative federal court ruling, and the Justic...
WASHINGTON — The White House insisted Tuesday that the implementation of President Barack Obama's landmark health care law will not be affected by a negative federal court ruling, and the Justic...
Filed by Elyse Siegel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 683
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (11 total)
  1 of 2  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
DRaymond 11:41 AM on 12/14/2010
The bizzare thing about the constitutional challenge is that the people proposing it, and the judges going along with it, have to maintain the fiction that the individual mandate has to be justified under the commerce clause because it can't be justified under the taxation for the general welfare provision.
 
As soon as you look at the taxation for the general welfare clause it becomes completely  Read More...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
neuro doc
12:39 AM on 01/06/2011
And in other news, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
05:53 PM on 12/19/2010
The federal government is giving doctors a 25% medicare pay cut with more paperwork to do. What did Congress and the media expect to happen? These guys are small businesses. I guess you should actually read what you vote upon in Congress. Many doctors no longer take medicaid because they can't afford to do it anymore now seniors can look forward to same. I can't believe the AARP actually approved of this plan.

This problem is one of the many that will become apparent starting in 2011. Have you talked to your insurer of your health care premium increase? Are you looking forward to all new taxes on food in 2011 to pay for this plan? Finally, which of the working poor can afford the health care coverage sponsored by the states? Have you seen the premiums offered?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Welib
Peace on Earth!
07:01 PM on 12/19/2010
OMG you can't be serious. 

Do you know how many people's insurance went up 25% last year and in 2011 they talking about 40%.   Why do you think this is acceptable??? 

DO YOU KNOW THAT 1/5th OF OUR POPULATION DOESN'T HAVE HEALTH CARE???  60 million Americans can't afford health care and the ones that can will have to drop their's when premiums go up another 40%.  Man, give your head a shake.

But thanks for your comment Dr. Mengele.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:08 PM on 12/15/2010
Since the fall of 2009, economist have been warning against a double dip recession and the need for a second stimulus. The republican s and some democrats have obstructed Obama on every spending bill including unemployme nt benefits. They have even obstructed tax cuts that normally they would support. When it became clear that congress would not pass additional spending, economists including Roubini advocated a payroll tax holiday to put more money in workers' paychecks as a way to stimulate the economy. They had a variety of suggestion s for replenishi ng S.S including freezing fed. workers' pay, letting tax cuts expire, using leftover tarp. As you know Pres. froze fed workers' pay.
12:34 AM on 12/15/2010
Think America, IF we are required BY LAW to have auto insurance, how is this any different???
WE get in trouble when we do not have auto insurance so being fined for not having health insurance is NO DIFFERENT.
What needs to be done, is IF yearly wages are below 'x' then the health insurance should be available as a price based on income, it is as simple as that.

STOP BELIEVING THE TALKING HEADS AND THINK FOR YOURSELF AMERICA...
08:53 PM on 12/14/2010
Report 74% of doctors will retire, work part-time or quit if Obamacare takes effect.
This is not what Pelosi and Obama promised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsQJcK6QpGk&feature=player_embedded
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Welib
Peace on Earth!
12:00 AM on 12/15/2010
Let them!  They will be cutting their own throats.  Doctors migrate to the US from around the world so they can make obscene amounts of money.  They have nowhere else to go since the rest of the world has universal health care except for Mexico, Turkey and the USA!!!

Doctors charge so much here and it drives our costs up unnecessarily.  Drs. in Canada on average make 180 thou and that's nothing to sneeze at.  In the UK they make around 130 thou annually and they say themselves they are happy with it.  If they wanted to specialize they could make more. 

My niece just finished a Nurse Practitioner degree and works for the Cleveland Clinc.  She and her freinds are opening clinics like they have in Canada for the last year and it will help to alleviate some of the shortages. 

We also pay more than 20 times what other countries pay for drugs that are made in the US.  They says it's because they do so much R&D but Canadian, German, British and other research pharmaceutical giants do just as much as the American companies.  They charge us more because the Republicans refuse to stop it.  Insurance companies that cut off coverage when people are sick and they've paid their policies, drug companies that rip us off royally, all courtesy of the corrupt Republicans!
06:03 PM on 12/19/2010
About the Doctors, You do realize being a doctor is not like being a priest. It's a business and they deserve to make a living after spending years to be trained as doctors. It's short sighted to believe the market will correct itself. Why do business here if they can't make enough to live here?

About the drug cost things. We pay more because the world thinks we're their piggy bank (we're rich so we subsidized the price for other countries). By the way, both parties are more interested in lining their political coffers as opposed to stopping it. Plus if you talk to the pharmaceutical companies they'll tell you Americans are more likely to litigate if something goes wrong with a drug so they pad their costs to include litigation costs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
neuro doc
12:40 AM on 01/06/2011
Absurd. Let me guess, that report is from the Onion.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
circlecitynews
Enjoy Life!
03:59 PM on 12/14/2010
How ironic the Republicans always complain about too many lawsuits and activist judges. Now they want to file as many lawsuits and find as many activist judges they can.
04:15 PM on 12/14/2010
Judicial Review - This is a power that allows the Supreme Court to decide whether acts and laws are unconstitutional.

Judicial review is not activism. Actvism is when you bypass that constitution and use the court to create law, like in Roe v Wade
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
circlecitynews
Enjoy Life!
04:48 PM on 12/14/2010
Judicial Review is when the court rules in your favor. Judicial Activism is when the court rules against you.

Okay, I got it! Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
josephking
03:57 PM on 12/14/2010
There has to be HC reform...without the special interest, and B.S. politicians they paid for.
The EMTALA act has been abused to death.

On the othetr hand, the interstate commerce bit dictates that if don't have health insurance you are a detriment to the country b/c you cause HC cost to climb.

So in the interest of interstate commerce, exercise, eat healthy, and practice preventative health care. If you smoke, drink ETOH, eat fatty foods, do drugs etc...then you should have to pay a penalty, just as if you would if you don't buy health insurance in 2014.
03:56 PM on 12/14/2010
Mr. Non Commissioned Officer you have a firm grasp of the obvious not nuance. Presidents don't "appoint" federal judges. They 'nominate' them. At which point the legislative branch must affirm the nomination. The current court is a court that is composed of a majority of justices that were 'nominated' by Republican presidents. In fact the three last 'retired' seats were all also 'nominated' by republican presidents. And unless you have been in a cave the last few years unaware of their actual decisions you would realize those decisions have largely benefitted the corprotocracy. And in terms of 'branding' that would be more right than left. As to your final point I do believe that absolute power may corrupt absolutely so, yes I do believe left wing judges may very well be prone to the same diffiencies as their right wing bretheren. It's just that at least in the last decade or so, that gavel pardon the pun has been firmly in the hands of the elephantly selected justices. The Clinton lower judges are finding for the left and the Bush ones for the right. Never in history have the courts been used so much as a tool for corporate interests with judicial cooperation. Citizens United, even the 2008 Supreme Court decision to lower the award to Alaska from the Exxon Valdez disaster from 2.5 billion to $500,000. Recusal standards should be strengthened and overseen. Under the circumstances if you are on the other side you hope for more balance.
04:06 PM on 12/14/2010
Meant $500 million. Not $500,000. Still only 20% of original award
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:16 PM on 12/14/2010
It's a shame that there was no HuffingtonPost.com back in 1996.
If there were I would bet that the majority of people who are now against
the individual mandate would have said how essential it was when it was
proposed by Bob Dole
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
mikey09
Living off the grid.
03:23 PM on 12/14/2010
Only reason I opposed it then and do now is the "slippery slope".....I'm not a trusting soul.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:28 PM on 12/14/2010
The slippery slope argument? Really, the slippery slope towards what?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
SuperDW
Ask not what your country can do for you but WTF?
03:30 PM on 12/14/2010
It starts out as universal healthcare and then, before you know it, your country plays hockey really well.
03:16 PM on 12/14/2010
New Zogby poll: President Barack Obama's job approval rating has fallen again to 39%, equaling a low since he took office. Also, 63% of likely voters say Obama is a weak leader, compared to 19% who label him strong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
circlecitynews
Enjoy Life!
04:02 PM on 12/14/2010
Wow, Zogby didn't ask me my opinion. BTW, what did Zogby say about the republican leaders?
photo
murphysgirl
I prefer coffee, not tea..
07:37 PM on 12/14/2010
His approval rating was above 60 when he took office, clearly your argument is weak. Also his approval rating is higher than Reagan and Clinton during this time.
03:13 PM on 12/14/2010
As a conservative Republican, I actually support the individual mandate. It seems to me the only way that we can get a adequate dispersion of the costs of the nation's health care. This is the basic concept of insurance; spread the risk amongst all policy holders.

The problem is that when you look at the whole package, all 2000+ pages, it is rediculous. There are way too many special considerations and built-in deals, that have caused way too much confusion and pushback. Furthermore, there were too many areas where the bill did not address substantive issues (tort reform anyone?).

Therefore, I think this bill needs to be thrown out and we need to start over again in January. Maybe next time we can get something that will do what the people of the country want.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
circlecitynews
Enjoy Life!
04:06 PM on 12/14/2010
Tort Reform? Are you aware that tort reform will not reduce the cost of medical care? I'm always amazed at this republican talking point...like lawsuits are the reason healthcare costs are so high. I wonder how quick they would be to file a lawsuit against a doctor that committed malpractice and the result was their child or spouse was severely injured or died.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
frappe
Obstruct the obstructionists - Vote Democratic!
04:18 PM on 12/14/2010
AtlasShrugging said:
"...Therefore, I think this bill needs to be thrown out and we need to start over again in January. Maybe next time we can get something that will do what the people of the country want."

----------

Maybe next time?...Not with a Republican House. The only constituency that will definitely get what they want will be the corporations.

The simple solution would have been a Medicare for All approach where the risk is spread out throughout the taxpayer base. We also wouldn't have all of these "special considerations" that you spoke of.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BrightNBeautiful
03:13 PM on 12/14/2010
Taking this ruling to the Supreme Court is exactly what the Republicans want to happen! The governor of Virginia was on this morning making his case for why bother with all the appeals...just skip right to the Supreme Court...I wonder why...can't think of any reason why the Republicans want to go to the Supreme Court so fast!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
mikey09
Living off the grid.
03:18 PM on 12/14/2010
Other than then people think the Roberts Court will rule against the mandate, there is also the cost of implementing this Bill.....lots of money has already been spent and much more will get spent before all the provisions even take place......IF....its going to be a bust wouldn't it be better to NOT waste all that money now or have all of US paying higher insurance premiums NOW?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Upperleftcoast
03:09 PM on 12/14/2010
Here's an idea Obama should pursue: "Tea Party Hospitals" serving those constitutional purists and non-believers in the concept of risk sharing. Let them go without insurance, but they can't then be admitted to any hospital emergency room unless they pay cash up front. Tea Party Hospitals could emerge on the scene to provide low-cost "patriot" care that would have been available to the Founders in the late 18th century.
03:16 PM on 12/14/2010
No hospital in this country, public or private, will refuse true emergency care, insurance or not. This is the great myth argued by the left. Now if you show up to the ER with a case of the flu, then yes they will refuse, but if you show up bleeding, having a heart attack or a stroke or other life threatening issue they will not refuse you treatment. Its just bunk.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
mikey09
Living off the grid.
03:20 PM on 12/14/2010
Wasn't it Reagan who made pushed for the law making it illegal for ER rooms to refuse treatment?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
redstateblues69
08:47 PM on 12/14/2010
Yes. it used to be affordable to go to the ER.
photo
ringmaster
retired showman from Memphis, down in Dixie
03:07 PM on 12/14/2010
Overturned 5/4
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Changein2012
Awaiting the Conservative Victory of 2012
03:11 PM on 12/14/2010
LOL....5/4 upheld.....Do you know the makeup of the court?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
mikey09
Living off the grid.
03:21 PM on 12/14/2010
Kagan will not even be hearing this case.....so its only possible to have a 4/4 split.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LCLiberal
03:07 PM on 12/14/2010
This is a decision from an activist right-wing judge that usurps the authority of the people to elect representatives and have those representatives pass legislation without threat of court obstruction.
http://www.facebook.com/campaigncorner\
03:08 PM on 12/14/2010
deal with it
03:17 PM on 12/14/2010
Just like all the left wing activist judges who have thrown out voter state amendments all over this country.