White House Vows to Implement Health Care Reform, Despite Judge's Ruling
Monday 31 January 2011
by: Warren Richey | The Christian Science Monitor | Report

(Photo: takomabibelot; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)
Senior administration officials vowed on Monday to continue with the full implementation of President Obama’s health care reform law despite a federal judge’s decision declaring the law unconstitutional and void in its entirety.
“This is not the last word by any means,” a White House official told reporters in a background briefing. “We are quite confident it won’t stand.”
The Justice Department issued a statement saying it intends to appeal the decision. “We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling,” the statement says in part.
How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.
The comments came in reaction to a 78-page decision released Monday by US District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Fla. The judge ruled that Congress exceeded its power under the Constitution’s commerce clause when it required all Americans to purchase health insurance as part of the president’s health-care reform law.
The judge also declared the entire law must be struck down, because Congress eliminated a provision that would have allowed a judge to invalidate only part of the law while preserving the rest of it.
Fourth Federal Judge to Rule on Law
Judge Vinson is the second federal judge to declare a key portion of the Obama health-care reform law unconstitutional. Two other federal judges have upheld the constitutionality of the law.
Administration officials and supporters of the health-care reform law immediately criticized Vinson’s ruling. “This case will be viewed as an outlier,” one administration official said.
Democratic House leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, who once scoffed at suggestions that the reform bill might be unconstitutional, stressed that Monday’s ruling was only “one of many.”
“We strongly believe that health reform is constitutional and is consistent with longstanding precedents of the Supreme Court,” she said.
Conservatives Rejoice
Others saw Vinson’s ruling as vindication of a more robust view of constitutional limits to federal power. “Nancy Pelosi has her answer: yes, we’re serious about the Constitution,” said Carrie Severino of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network.
Help fight ignorance. Click here for free Truthout email updates.
House Speaker John Boehner praised Vinson’s decision. “The federal government should not be in the business of forcing you to buy health insurance and punishing you if you don’t,” he said.
He noted that the House had recently passed legislation to repeal the health-reform law, and he urged the Democratic leadership in the Senate to allow the repeal measure an up-or-down vote.
Vinson declined to issue an injunction blocking implementation of the new health-care law. Instead, he said he trusted that the government would follow the rulings of the courts as they emerge.
Government lawyers are expected to appeal Vinson’s ruling to the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. Appeals in the three other cases are already underway in the Sixth Circuit and the Fourth Circuit.
Decisions in those courts could be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
At Issue: Size of Government
Although the legal battle is over the constitutionality of the president’s health-care reform law, it overlaps a broader political debate between liberals and conservatives over the balance of power between the states and the national government.
The Obama administration favors a strong national government and measures – like the health-care reform law – that help expand assertions of national power.
In contrast, many conservatives argue that the Constitution calls for a national government of limited powers, with most authority in the hands of the states and the people.
“The Constitution establishes a framework of limited government in order to protect our liberty,” Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, said. “You simply can’t square constitutional, limited government with the Obama administration’s idea of forcing everyone to buy health insurance, or any other product or service.”
He added: “Judge Vinson has simply and clearly brought us all back to basics and reminded us that we do not live in a society where our lives are ordered by bureaucrats in Washington D.C.”
"Activism Run Amok"
Others warned that if Vinson’s decision is upheld it would eliminate provisions of the health-care act like the ban on withholding coverage for those with preexisting conditions or permitting young adults to remain covered on their parents’ health plan.
“Judge Vinson’s decision is radical judicial activism run amok,” said Ron Pollack of Families USA. “If this decision were allowed to stand, it would have devastating consequences for America’s families.”
Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition had a different take on the ruling. “Today’s winners? Working families, defenders of the Constitution, and millions of Americans who will have freedom to enjoy a health-care plan that best suits their needs.”
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
It is not about gov't.
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 15:32 — Anonymous (not verified)It is not about gov't. size.
That is the propaganda they use in place of their real argument, which is that they don't want gov't. services delivered by the government. They want them delivered by private companies for private profit.
Private schools
Private hospitals
Private police
Private trash collection
Private roads
Private military
"...many conservatives argue that the Constitution calls for a national government of limited powers, with most authority in the hands of the states and the people.." As the economist Dean Baker has pointed out in many columns for truth-out: politicians lie. They are not interested in "authority in the hands of the states or the people," but in the hands of private companies.
Anything that allows the dictatorship of private companies and prevents the collective action of democracies working in the public interest.
This is the downside of
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 19:07 — fred fep (not verified)This is the downside of libertarian's stupidity. Allowing total freedom to those who only want pure profit and would trample their own grandmother to get the least thing.
The problem are all the idiots who cheer their own demise.
And they are idiots, no matter how popular their idiocy may be.
Such is the power to own and dominate the media, the legislatures, the governorships. Money and propaganda haas bought them power and they will eventually crush their supporters, but at the same time will stil get them to blame others, even themselves for their own demise (demotion to 3rd world style irrelevancies)
Hmmmmmmm---maybe we are
Tue, 02/01/2011 - 19:27 — Anonymous (not verified)Hmmmmmmm---maybe we are getting an example of how to handle this corporate stuff by what is going on in Egypt? Torches and pitchfork time?
Interesting how we get so upset by the "curruption of some of these third world countries when we are essentially dealing with an equally corrupt system here--our citizens don't really have much more of a say about what goes on here due to corporation control. In some of these other countries the wealthy may more directly control things while here the wealthy own the corporations which are in charge of getting whatever they want! Pretty successful they are! Three steps instead of two. Same results. The population gets screwed while a few get rich (and richer!).
There is one major
Wed, 02/02/2011 - 04:12 — Helene (not verified)There is one major difference between health insurance and automobile insurance--driving is a privilege. I don't have to drive, but I exist, and many of us will need health care at one time or another even if it is preventative care to help keep us healthy. Also, I can choose to take public transportation; however, there is no public option in this health care plan.
I am 100% for single payer health care, but I am totally against the public mandate in the present plan. Why should I be forced to have to buy from an insurance company? Also, how does the government decide how much I can afford to pay. Is the government going to sit down and do a budget for every individual family? Often these things, like medicaid, are based on your gross income and do not take into consideration your expenses.