Florida judge strikes down health care overhaul

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge ruled Monday that the Obama administration's health care overhaul is unconstitutional, siding with 26 states, including Indiana, that sued to block it.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson accepted without trial the states' argument that the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

Attorneys for the administration had argued that the states did not have standing to challenge the law and that the case should be dismissed.

The next stop is likely the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have upheld the insurance requirement, but a federal judge in Virginia also ruled the insurance provision violates the Constitution.

In his ruling, Vinson went further than the Virginia judge and declared the entire health care law unconstitutional.

"This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution," Vinson wrote in his 78-page ruling.

At issue was whether the government is reaching beyond its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.

Attorneys for President Barack Obama's administration had argued that the health care system was part of the interstate commerce system. They said the government can levy a tax penalty on Americans who decide not to purchase health insurance because all Americans are consumers of medical care.

But attorneys for the states said the administration was essentially coercing the states into participating in the overhaul by holding billions of Medicaid dollars hostage. The states also said the federal government is violating the Constitution by forcing a mandate on the states without providing money to pay for it.

Florida's former Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after Obama signed the 10-year, $938 billion health care bill into law in March. He chose a court in Pensacola, one of Florida's most conservative cities. The nation's most influential small business lobby, the National Federation of Independent Business, also joined.

Other states that joined the suit are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.


  • Health Care Law
    You don't need to be a constitutional scholar to understand what the government's intent was. Taking over health care from insurance companies was the aim.

    Additionally, we should remember that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, especially when the few want it for free. We do not "owe" health care to anyone. If they can't get it, then that is the hand they have been dealt. If any choose to help, fine, but most of us don't want our government requiring us to subsidize someone else one more time. This is health insurance and it is not a right.

    And, no one should be told they have to play the game. Sorry to be crass, but no ticket, no laundry. We cannot afford any more giveaways.

    Keep it up and anyone with any money and sense will just move out of the US. Run off the rich and who pays the bills then?

  • Congress has the power to enact this law
    Under the commerce clause Congress can authorize just about anything, it just depends on how they achieve their end. Does it fall under the necessary and proper clause? Does it violate the enumerated powers? There are a few ways that the legislature could have written this law to unquestionably comply with the Constitution. It will be interesting to see which side the Court falls on.

    The funny part is that this law is getting most of it's opposition in the individual mandate. The easiest way around the constitutional problems with a mandate is to tax people without insurance and subsidize the insurance industry... which is much less "free market" than the healthcare law we have in its current form.

    Basically what the free market advocates received in the original bill was a compromise allowing the people to choose who they pay their money to, and thus eliminating the bureaucracy of subsidizing an industry as a whole. The preexisting condition coverage that most of the country wants does not work without everyone paying into the system. If this gets challenged on Constitutional grounds, and is found to be unconstitutional, Congress will just tax the people who do not purchase insurance, and funnel the money back to the insurance companies so they can achieve universal coverage of preexisting conditions. The only achievement of a successful Constitutional challenge would be to funnel tax dollars through the government to achieve the same end of the bill as it is currently written. Sounds pretty foolish to me. I would much rather have people pay for what they use directly and leave the bureaucracy out of it.

    It will be an interesting case to watch when it gets to the Supreme Court in the next few years. It will be a battle between Scalia and Ginsburg/Breyer. Thomas will be the swing vote... Stay tuned!

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.