iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Roger Vinson, Florida Judge Who Ruled On Health Reform, Has His Own Medical Care Story

PENSACOLA, Fla. — The judge who ruled the Obama administration's health care overhaul unconstitutional questioned whether the government was reaching beyond its power by requiring citizens to buy health insurance because everyone needs medical care.

Under that logic, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said, the government could force Americans to buy clothes or food. Vinson, who sided with 26 states fighting the much-maligned measure, revealed his own health care story during arguments several weeks ago, an example that helped shed light on his ruling Monday.

When Vinson was a law student and his wife gave birth to their first child, he paid a doctor in cash.

"It amounted to about $100 a pound," the 70-year-old jurist joked in December.

Vinson, an ex-Navy pilot appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, is known for maintaining control of his courtroom while letting everyone have their say. He loves camellia flowers and has handled cases from abortion clinic bombings to veterans rights to racial discrimination.

"I think being a former Navy officer, he is used to being in control of things but not being a tyrant," said attorney Bud Day, a Medal of Honor recipient from the Vietnam War who has tried numerous cases in front of Vinson.

The judge's ruling produced an even split in federal court decisions so far on the health care law, mirroring enduring divisions among the public. Two judges had previously upheld the law, both Democratic appointees. A Republican appointee in Virginia had ruled against it.

The Justice Department quickly announced it would appeal, and administration officials declared that for now the federal government and the states would proceed without interruption to carry out the law. It seemed evident that only the U.S. Supreme Court could deliver a final verdict on Obama's historic expansion of health insurance coverage.

On Capitol Hill, Republican opponents of the law pledged to redouble pressure for a repeal vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate following House action last month. Nearly all of the states that brought suit in Vinson's court have GOP attorneys general or governors.

Vinson ruled against the overhaul on grounds that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring nearly all Americans to carry health insurance, an idea dating back to Republican proposals from the 1990s but is now almost universally rejected by conservatives.

His ruling followed the same general reasoning as one last year from the federal judge in Virginia. But Vinson took it much farther, invalidating provisions that range from Medicare discounts for seniors with high prescription costs to a change that allows adult children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' coverage.

The central issue remains the constitutionality of the law's core requirement that Americans carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Starting in 2014, those who cannot show they are covered by an employer, government program or their own policy will face fines from the IRS.

In one of Vinson's more high-profile trials, he ruled against medical benefits for thousands of military veterans. Day, who has long known the judge, argued the veterans were promised lifetime care by recruiters when they enlisted and that military health benefits shouldn't stop at age 65. The ruling was later overturned by an appeals courts.

Vinson has also served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, which meets in secret in Washington to approve wiretaps and other surveillance requests in terrorism and other national security investigations. He graduated from the Naval Academy and Vanderbilt University Law School, and was a lawyer in private practice. He became a senior judge handling a reduced caseload in 2005 after he turned 65.

Vinson's first major case was the 1985 trial of two young couples – one married, the other engaged – who were accused of bombing and conspiring to bomb three Pensacola-area abortion clinics. Jurors found the men guilty of bomb making, damaging buildings with bombs and conspiring to make bombs and the women guilty of conspiracy. Vinson allowed the four to remain free on bond for a month before he sentenced the men to 10 years in prison and the women to five years probation.

In another notable decision, Vinson ruled a Florida county's ordinance banning the showing of the film "The Last Temptation of Christ" was unconstitutional. He also approved a 1993 settlement against the Shoney's restaurant chain for $134 million in a racial discrimination lawsuit brought by thousands of black employees.

In the health care lawsuit, Vinson ruled that lawmakers lack the power to penalize citizens for not doing something and compared the provision to requiring people to eat healthful food.

"Congress could require that people buy and consume broccoli at regular intervals," he wrote, "Not only because the required purchases will positively impact interstate commerce, but also because people who eat healthier tend to be healthier and are thus more productive and put less of a strain on the health care system."

Defenders of the law said that analogy was flawed. Insurance can't work if people are allowed to opt out until they need medical attention. Premiums collected from many who are healthy pay the cost of care for those who get sick. Since the uninsured can get treated in the emergency room, deciding not to get coverage has consequences for other people who act prudently do buy coverage.

"The judge's decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the act's individual responsibility provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain," White House adviser Stephanie Cutter wrote in an Internet posting.

Outside court, Vinson is known for his love of the flowering camellia tree. He is a longtime member of the Pensacola Camellia Club and is a former president of the American Camellia Society.

"It's become a retirement hobby," Vinson told the Pensacola News Journal in 2009. "You retire and decide it's time to do something with all those camellias growing in your yard. Then you drag your wife into it."

He declined to be interviewed for this story.

___

Alonso-Zaldivar reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Curt Anderson in Miami and AP writers Erica Werner and Pete Yost in Washington contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
PENSACOLA, Fla. — The judge who ruled the Obama administration's health care overhaul unconstitutional questioned whether the government was reaching beyond its power by requiring citizens to bu...
PENSACOLA, Fla. — The judge who ruled the Obama administration's health care overhaul unconstitutional questioned whether the government was reaching beyond its power by requiring citizens to bu...
Filed by Elyse Siegel  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,220
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (36 total)
01:47 PM on 02/03/2011
I am a progressive, but actually agree that the Government shouldn't be allowed to penalize people for not buying a product. What about this. Allow for an Opt Out Statement to be signed. It would say that if you didn't buy Health Ins. that you'd be liable for any medical bills incurred, and that by signing the statement you agree to forgo any federal bankruptcy protection. All health professionals would have to do is sue in Federal Court for payment once the uninsured person defalted, and the Feds would rule that wages be garnished or property seized as payment. This way the cost doesn't get passed on to those who have insurance, and people are compeled to do purchase a policy. All of this would include a clause for "hardship" though. Seriously, I hear single payer gets around this constitutional problem. Now, about those unwarranted wiretaps and that pesky 4th amendment. lol
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
infopro
Opinion doesn't equal knowledge.
10:47 AM on 02/07/2011
Of course, this would not be an issue had the GOP not nuked the public option. The thing they're fighting so hard against now is something they themselves created. Most intelligent & honest people would not have deliberately & insistently put themselves in that position.

Unless, of course they had a secret agenda & never intended to play honest at all. ;)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:05 AM on 02/03/2011
Fine, remove the requirement that people need to buy it, but then also allow hospitals to turn people away that don't have it, or can't prove they can pay their bill.
considerthis
I try my best
10:00 AM on 02/03/2011
Obviously the only option is the Public Option - medicare for all.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gtt
This is not your father's republican party.
09:33 AM on 02/03/2011
i know little about Judge Vinson - but I did read here that he got a federally subsidized college education at the Navy Academy and that he has had federal paychecks from the Navy and now the federal courts. I hope that he can appreciate how government resources devoted to individual needs can be a good thing.
05:05 PM on 02/03/2011
Let me see if I get this. You want judge Vinson to factor into his decision process, in lieu of interpreting the law for it's constitutionality, whether the outcomes resulting from the law produce beneficial results for individuals.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PHLSouthernJack
05:45 PM on 02/03/2011
If the judge does not take all aspects into consideration then he is doing an injustice to the people of America.

Also, being forced to have insurance by either state or national mandate is equal in the eyes of being forced to do something, that your choice has been taken away from you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gtt
This is not your father's republican party.
04:40 AM on 02/04/2011
Wow, that's a leap. What I would expect is for him to use accepted legal principals in determining if Congress has authority to enact HCR under Constitution. Rather odd political result considering there is no precedent for SS or mandatory auto insurance laws. Just plain political use of the courts by Judge who has benefited by his own position in the system. Put as simply as possible, conservative federal judges are now using the judiciary to undermine the legislative process, to derail the President - Administrative branch, for political advantage of conservatives, who lost at the ballot box and on the floor of Congress -- all without legal precedent.
photo
gwinegarden
She's an Arctic Wolf
07:14 AM on 02/03/2011
If the Constitution is so clear, why do judges constantly disagree about it?
photo
Chlowina
Why so much hate???
12:36 AM on 02/03/2011
I fail to see the relevance between the birth of his child and health care reform. And I bet after he said it, he felt the same way.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Laika
09:26 AM on 02/03/2011
I think he meant that if he could pay the doctor himself, in cash, everybody else can pay for care in cash, too. Or they could bring a chicken to the doctor. My father's oncologist could use some chickens, and maybe my dad can paint his house for him.
photo
Chlowina
Why so much hate???
11:01 PM on 02/03/2011
Thanks. Best to your dad.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PHLSouthernJack
12:07 AM on 02/03/2011
Since it is unconstitutional for the government to force people to carry health insurance, isn't it also unconstitutional for people to carry auto insurance??
They probably will ignore that since that would cut too much into the profit margins of car insurance companies.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:10 AM on 02/03/2011
They get around that since you don't have to own a car, or drive for that matter. But the argument still has merit.
05:08 PM on 02/03/2011
And the requirement for auto liability insurance is a state requirement not federal.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Pasterczyk
Banned!
11:56 PM on 02/02/2011
Gee, that Vinson was later overruled by an appeals court should bring the wrath of George Will down on this judge.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Uncle Bill
ex-lawyer and teacher
09:39 PM on 02/02/2011
This nonsense died out during the New Deal, but modern Republicans, who believe that Jefferson Davis ( not Abraham Lincoln) was the founder of their party are gung ho state's righters and want to dismantle everything after the Dred Scot decision.
07:12 PM on 02/02/2011
how much did that baby weigh and in what year was that baby born? maybe "the baby" should show the good judge his grandchild's delivery bill (that's if said "baby" has medical coverage and the good judge didn't pass on a trust fund) and one for someone without health coverage. would be informative I believe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
plaidsportcoat
07:09 PM on 02/02/2011
These are mistakes that spell check won't find. This wasn't an urgent story, so why not have an editor or proof-reader take a look at it? We need jobs, too!

"His ruling followed the same general reasoning as one last year from the federal judge in Virginia. But Vinson took it much farther,"

Farther is for specific measurements, further is correct in this instance.

"an idea dating back to Republican proposals from the 1990s but is now almost universally rejected by conservatives."

but THAT is now almost universally rejected.
Or,
but WHICH is now almost universally rejected.
Otherwise, it doesn't really make sense
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:35 PM on 02/02/2011
Thank you! I agree. :)
06:42 PM on 02/02/2011
"It amounted to about $100 a pound," the 70-year-old jurist joked in December.----

Its like what, $700 a pound nowdays and thats for a perfectly healthy birth?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:15 PM on 02/02/2011
How does the very brief story about his wife having a baby and paying "$100 a pound" shed light on his ruling?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
infopro
Opinion doesn't equal knowledge.
11:00 AM on 02/03/2011
Other than his trying to make the presentation of a "homey" warm fuzzy, just an average joe, I don't see much relevance in the comment. Then again, a lot of judges make tangential comments from the bench while in the processing of delivering a ruling. Maybe it's in their contracts to have to make X %-age of irrelevant personal sidelights, who knows?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eilish
Life ain't like a box of chocolates
05:45 PM on 02/02/2011
Can you imagine how many bankruptcies the new health care law will prevent? That alone might be worth it.

In a bankruptcy in 2008, our medical bills were all for our veteran son. Think that health care makes a difference? In our hearing it was 24 couples all due to medical bills; 65% of all bankruptcies are due to medical bills nationwide. All had had medical insurance at one point, but were terminated for various reasons such as maxing out lifetime coverage and preexisting conditions that got too expensive. Some simply couldn't pay what the insurance company wouldn't cover.

1/3 of the money collected for health care insurance is wasted in bureaucracy - much of which is billed for employees who are checking you out with a fine-toothed comb to find an excuse to terminate coverage.

Even a flawed healthcare law cannot be worse than those situations.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:15 PM on 02/02/2011
Well said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Acharn
09:16 PM on 02/02/2011
Although I hope you are right about reducing medical bankruptcies, it was pointed out during the debates that most of the people who declared bankruptcy and cited medical expenses as one of the reasons HAD health care insurance. The problem was with the insurance companies refusing to cover some expenses, or having a limit on how much they would cover, or with medical expenses which were not covered by their insurance.
photo
hempster
Let it be said, let it be written, let it be done.
05:24 PM on 02/02/2011
Two Words: Single Payer. Three more: Get 'er done.

Health Care is a taxation issue just as Social Security is a taxation issue. Issue, not problem.

The current caps on FICA and Medicare have to be removed. At present individuals pay FICA and Medicare tax on only 109K of their income. Hogwash. I demand justice. I demand equality. I as probably most everyone reading this, have paid and continue to pay FICA and Medicare taxes on 100% of our earned income. This is my contribution to the system. It is my contribution to a safety net my grandchildren may need, or the lady down the street under 65. Or anybody less fortunate then I.

Two more words: Tax Code. Three more: Get 'er done.

If we have a single payer system it would be under the tax code. Congress can do it if they want. We the middle class, who already pay on 100% of our earned income, will not get a tax hike. It is the individuals who make over 109K who will finally have to pay on 100% of their income. To me this is fair. To me this is just. To me this is Social Security in its' true sense.