PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) — A federal judge says he likely will let go to trial portions of a lawsuit by Florida and 19 other states challenging the president’s health care overhaul as unconstitutional.
But U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said at a Tuesday hearing in Pensacola that he expects to dismiss other parts.
Vinson didn’t specify which parts of the lawsuit likely will go to trial but said he will issue a ruling by Oct. 14.
The states and the administration disagree over sections of the law that will require people to have health insurance or face tax penalties. They also disagree over whether states should pay additional Medicaid costs not covered by the federal government.
The lawsuit is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.
PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) — The Obama administration hopes a federal judge in Florida will toss a lawsuit by that state and 19 others claiming the president’s health care overhaul is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson will hold a hearing in the case Tuesday morning in Pensacola.
The states and the government disagree over sections of the law that will require people to have health insurance or face tax penalties. They also disagree over whether states should pay additional Medicaid costs not covered by the federal government.
The lawsuit is likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Florida’s Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the lawsuit just minutes after President Barack Obama signed the health care bill into law.
Submitting your tip... please wait!
lady62
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 5:31pmWell I love how Mrs. Obama is telling us what to eat when our last vacation picture she was eating a big ice cream. If not stopped this gov’t will be telling us what to eat, where to work and live. I can’t wait for Nov. 2, 2010 and 2012. Then we can repeal all the radical agenda.
Report Post »Rickfromillinois
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 4:31pmWhile this is working it’s way through the courts we need a Republican Congress that can unfund this monstrosity. This is an assault on our liberties. Once it starts going into effect wait and see how the government is going to use costs to the HCP to enforce rules on how you live. They are making it mandatory for health care records to be put into a nation wide data base. The very first item on your digitized records is you weight. Could the government use that to regulate what you eat? I think Michelle would be for that. Then there is the salt content of your food, sugar, and fats. When I was in the Army we had mandatory daily PT (exercise program). Will that be something the government might want for everyone? Neighborhood PT programs. Attendance being mandatory? Think that these things are way out there? I do to, but that doesn‘t mean that some people in government don’t think that it would be a good idea.
Report Post »pboyers
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:32pmThis has got to go to the Supreme Court ASAP! The machine the OB Admin is building has much deeper roots than anyone imagines. Do we know yet who actually wrote this monstrosity? We know congress didn‘t write it because they didn’t know what was in it, as confessed by several members. How in America these bills get introduced and passed without revealing the real authors is so far from what the Founders intended. God help us all.
Anyone know how to actually trace who wrote the damn thing?
Report Post »G man
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:52pmYes, each paragraph was written by a separate room full of lobbyists and lawyers. This way nobody can ever know what the “spirit” of the legislation really is. It is exactly what they want the Constitution to be. Open for discussion, interpretation and urinating on.
Report Post »henryKnox
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:26pmOnce Americans wakeup and realize that we have the constitutional responsibility to replace the federal gov’t when it gets too powerful, we will all be better off. The first thing that is required of the federal gov’t is to cut spending in half. Once this is done, we will begin to listen to them about tax increases. A balanced budget amendment looks like a necessity since the politicians have been shown to not have any self control.
Report Post »dcart888
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:26pmMy guess part of Obama’s Stimulus $$ is being paid to loser progressives who can‘t hold down a job so they can sit home in their parent’s basement all day and post nonsense on conservative blogs. They always post on WSJ.com as well they are the only ones who are not subscribers who post their dribble.
Report Post »USAMama
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 3:21pmThe good thing is I think more and more Americans are realizing who these people are. When you go through these posts you can see who makes sense and who is just a big pain in the a**, who wants an honest debate on the issues and who is just out to ridicule and offend. So let them keep ranting and raving, eventually they will offend more people then they attract.
Report Post »The Bees
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:21pmHow quaint. Yet another Judge deciding he’s going to legislate from the bench.
We have to defeat these liberal vermin in Nov. Otherwise these liberal pansies Judges will keep this tied up in the courts for years.
Report Post »wingedwolf
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 7:55pmRight on! We can repeal it by voting. But I’m not sure we have much of a chance in the SC.
Report Post »poppopschell
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:18pmGiven my expereince wth judges over the Obama birth certicate issue, I have little hope that the forces of Constitutional small states rights government will win out. I predict that this will be stopped BEFORE it gets to the Stupid Court And if it does, that the SC will remand it back to district courts..
I found out on Jan 9, 2009 that the game is already rigged against our Constitutional Republic. But maybe things are changing with the growing power of the Tea Party movement?
Report Post »glendawashington
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:02pmGo, Attorney Generals let the Feds know they can’t tell us what to do. This is ruining our health care systems and pricing is sky rocketing already for insurance plans.
Report Post »Freelancer
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:48pmKeep that HOPE thingy alive there Obama….
Report Post »Jackson
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 11:55pmIn ‘07 & ‘08 I had no use for “Hope and Change”, but since January of ‘09 it’s all I pray for!!
Report Post »pucker
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:48pmGame On!
Report Post »Debrabate
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:47pmWill be interesting to see which parts are going to trial and which will be tossed. Wish it were the whole thing.
Report Post »DanB
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:11pmA lot of state and individual rights depend on this lawsuit. If the federal government wins, we lose.
Report Post »USAMama
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 3:15pmAmen DanB, this whole thing needs to go bye-byes. We need to not give them any more power!!
Report Post »Jackson
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 11:53pmActually, if any part is struck down, the entire legislation is struck down. It’s in the constitution. What a great document!
Report Post »danglingbags
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:46pmHey my town forces me to buy special plastic garbage cans so the truck can be more efficient.
Is this unconstitutional ???
Again……DO YOU PREFER THAT PEOPLE SHOW UP IN THE EMERGENCY ROOMS OF YOUR STATE>>>BECKIANS!!!!!!!
Report Post »danglingbags
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:53pmONE OF THE REASONS that HC PASSED was to HELP SPREAD THE COSTs>>>>>>
I HOPE PEOPLE SHOW UP IN ERs of RED STATES FROM OUT OF TOWN JUST SO YOUR OVERALL HEALTH CARE COST GO UP>
IN FACT< I HOPE THEY ARE BUSSED IN BY THE SEIU AND ACORN!!!!!!!
Report Post »sabichan
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:56pmDon’t feed the trolls, that’s how they multiply.
Report Post »Anonimouse
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:59pmYou can choose not to have them pick up your trash.
Report Post »Freelancer
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:05pmAnd the match goes to ANONIMOUSE….
Report Post »Poverty with a view
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:06pmD-Bag – Sounds like you live in one of those facist communities with power hungry HOAs (Home Owner’s Associations). I do too and I got to tell ya, the HOA loves restrict people’s freedoms. I moved to my area without doing enough research. Now that my house lost 1/2 its value (due to Democrats messing with the free market), I’m stuck with the jack-booted HOA scum unless I forclose on my house like the rest of the “smart” people. It’s a sad time for America.
Report Post »G man
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:36pmDbags, The federal government has no right to tell people they have to buy something. Have you ever read the Constitution? When you do, take a good look at the 10th amendment as well. Please keep posting. I love your stuff. Makes me believe we are winning the argument. How could we not win the argument with you on the other side? Keep it coming. You’re our best example of what is wrong with the country.
Report Post »kb1200cc
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:48pmDBAG,
PLEEEEEASE keep posting! YOU are all we need to prove our point! would you make some appearances for us? A dose of you in a very public forum would be a home run for us.
Report Post »DanB
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 3:00pmI know I shouldn’t respond to the troll.
FACT: Emergency room visits go up according to health insurance coverage. (but you might want to verify if I got this wrong–see note).
Note: This is why private health insurance may require higher co-pays/deductibles for emergency room visits. They are trying to encourage lower costs by discouraging higher cost treatment. If you do not have a deductible/copay, then the odds are greater to seek emergency room care instead of going to the clinic down the street. This is part of what drives up the cost of health care, because we swarm the emergency room with our “emergencies” that could be resolved at cheaper venues. Maybe the laws are different were you are, but the local clinic here was able to give our little girl stitches after she got a nasty cut on a piece of glass. It saved everyone money when we made that choice.
So your exclamation that they should bus more to the red States’ emergency rooms will become a reality if this law is applied only in certain States. Why? Because the blue States’ emergency rooms will become flooded with everything mundane. So you’ll have to come to our states to get those gun wounds treated…. or wait in line as you bleed surrounded by cold, flu, and everything else that could have treated at the clinics instead.
I apologize to everyone else about feeding this troll. As it is, I expect this law will really be on all or none sort of deal. The only way I see it applying on a state by state basis is if the courts uphold the state’s right to have their local laws override the federal law. And in that case, the federal law is still toast because as long as a free market exists for health care this will move the whole economy. Imagine how many businesses would relocate to States that allow them to cover only what they can afford to cover? The economy would move to freedom and the federal government would HAVE to wage economic warfare on the free States to pay for the others because the private sector and taxable income would move to economic freedom…. Sort of gotta love the irony that those who espouse economic justice still march to the capitalist tune to protect their personal own money/income.
And to our troll, here‘s something I know you won’t really read. Many of us don’t want federal health care mandates because we DO care about the health of our neighbors. We look at the future down this path and we project probable results of government mandates. And BECAUSE WE CARE, we don’t want the government mandates. We believe that as government gets more and more involved we will LOSE the right to choose to give charitably of our own free will to help victims of car accidents by drunk drivers, or shootings, or many other disasters or diseases. What would it be like having a March of Dimes if the lives it saved were deemed not worth saving according to some government agency? I know it impossible for some of you to imagine that, but under a “Total Live System” your life is valued according to your ability to return to the system. In other words, drugs and treatments are given first priority to those who are TAXABLE earners. Some of the great advances in medicine though have come from our efforts to help those who are would otherwise be a drain on society–my own father has had several diseases that could have killed/crippled him. Because of advances in medicine, not only did a PRIVATE health insurance or CHARITABLE aid keep him alive, but he has gone on to be a private investor in several businesses, retired in his late 40s because he earned enough to do so, got bored and went back and became a lawyer, and even after he lost his fortune in the various stock market crashes still provides health insurance for his children–they had their youngest child in their early 40s. So are you saying that we should have all the benefits of a government run system? My dad would be dead long ago, considered not worth the money it costs to keep him alive (even though he pays for all his medicines–and he takes quite a few).
Report Post »RickMartin
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 3:05pmStill dont have a JOB dingleberry?
Report Post »USAMama
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 3:08pmIf you don’t like it you can move to another town/ state. States have the right to do this sort of thing, thats why MA can have state wide Health Care. If you don’t like it you simply move somewhere else. Its the FEDERAL government that can not do this. They are stepping on state sovereignty. If the federal gov’t was telling you that you had to buy those trash bins, that would be different.
Report Post »danglingbags
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 4:38pmDANB
You no doubt work for health insurance industry and want to keep the status quo and want to keep tea partiers in the dark. Insuring everyone will bring down cost. Why do you think the per capita health care costs are twice as high as the next industrialized country. You fail to see the costs this places on business and to the govt. One of your right wing talking points is HC is 1/6 of our GDP.
WELL THAT IS THE PROBLEM >>>>>>>>>>>IT IS 1/6 of our GDP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This law is constitutionally safe and all these red state are doing is enriching lawyers with frivolous lawsuits.
Yes, the law mandates that healthcare insurance is purchase if not provided by govt or employer.. This was originally a Republican idea and John McCain ran on it.. YES< THE SAME JOHN MCCAIN THAT 99% of you voted for…..But, now that it is the African-American's idea…..it is bad……THIS IS WHY I WILL NEVER HESITATE TO GET IN TEA PARTIERS FACE…YOU ALL STINK OF HYPOCRISY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »mechteacher
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 6:50pmWhy is it that you bigots and racists always want to call anyone with a different point of view a racist?
Report Post »You are the ones that are always stuck on the Race Issue. Yes the issue you build. Grow up and try to use intelligent rebuttals instead of the school yard name calling and finger pointing to attach a person instead of stating you point.
Compete or Lose
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 7:16pmAmericans are concerned about the coming Obama plan to dramatically change health care. Americans sadly watched the Obama administration’s failure to understand the economy and we worry that the poorly planned Obama policy of massive deficit spending will have significant negative consequences for generations. Americans worry that like Obama economic policies, the Obama health care changes will have significant negative impacts on the quality and availability of health care in America. Senior citizens are very concerned about Obama breaking the Medicare trust fund. Every analysis of Medicare admits that it is not adequately funded before Obama took $500 billion of Medicare funds to help pay for a new entitlement for non-seniors.
Report Post »An alternative that provides universal health care coverage without the federal government attempting to manage the delivery of health care in America can be achieved if every US Citizen under age 65 received a $2,000 voucher every year to buy health insurance–$8,000 for a family of 4. By providing a fixed dollar voucher to citizens the government avoids the pitfall of creating a blank check with unlimited unknown deficit expanding liability. Base level universal coverage will unleash the competitive spirit among health insurers to freely cross state lines and capture the vastly expanded market and resulting competition would keep costs down benefiting everyone. All health insurance companies would be required to offer a “minimum coverage policy” that could be purchased with the voucher.
A national health insurance trust would be funded by the dedication of all federal alcohol and tobacco taxes and a broad based 4% national sales tax. The trust would collect the taxes and issue a National Health Insurance Voucher Card to every US Citizen that can only be used to purchase health insurance. All health insurance policies would be owned directly by the insured (not their employer) and the insurance companies would not be allowed to deny coverage to anyone for pre-existing conditions. Employers could still negotiate group plans with insurers and offer employees some level of assistance as an after tax fringe benefit. All employer or VEBA paid insurance premiums for employees or retirees would be taxable income to them and subject to FICA and Medicare taxes. Non-citizens would not receive the voucher and would be required to purchase health insurance coverage as a condition of being in the US (legally or otherwise). Any US citizen that failed to use their voucher to purchase insurance would be deemed to have purchased a minimum coverage policy randomly assigned to an insurance company doing business in their home area. The primary regulatory body for health insurance companies would preemptively exist at the federal level and would only regulate insurance companies truth in advertising and require demonstrated financial strength to honor their policies.
Imagine the impact on every employer in the US (private or public) by limiting their future health care cost increases and removing the uncertainty of the economic impact of the Obama scheme. Every state and city budget would get a significant positive impact by eliminating the cost of Medicaid. The effect on the federal budget by migrating federal employees (including congress) to the vouchers would be monumental. The capital markets would favorably respond to a national health insurance plan that would not increase the current federal budget deficit now or at any time in the future. Health care vouchers benefit Medicare too because congress would not take $500 billion from the Medicare trust fund to pay for an entitlement for non-seniors.
Medical malpractice would be moved to a special federal Medical Malpractice Court that permits actual damages but no pain and suffering and limited legal fees. However, upon a finding by the court of malpractice and damage the licensed provider would be subject to review by the Court ranging from remedial training, practice restrictions to license suspension. This change would significantly reduce costs of defensive medical practice.
One of the interesting characteristics of sales taxes is that everybody pays– people that spend more pay more. Sales taxes tap the underground unreported economy, are the easiest tax to administer and have the lowest administrative cost to apply and enforce. Some complain that sales taxes are regressive—except that in this case someone making $10 per hour would pay about $400 in federal sales tax and in exchange get a $2,000 health insurance voucher for themselves and for every other citizen family member-hardly seems unfair and is certainly an improvement over being uninsured.
The transition to this plan would be simple to understand, simple to implement, and minimize governmental intrusion into the health care system. The truthful reality (a topic not dealt with well by Washington politicians) is that there is no free lunch. If you want to cover everyone with at least minimum coverage and known fiscal cost, this program works. For Medicaid beneficiaries, their government supplied free coverage would be limited to the minimum coverage provided by the voucher, thus ending the open ended uncontrolled cost.
SamAdams25
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 10:19pmACORN and SEIU don’t dare to show up in this area. Neither will Obama. We don’t play that socialist crap around here. You’re welcome, though, Dingleberry. In fact we’ll have a special party for you ;)
Report Post »independentvoteril
Posted on September 15, 2010 at 10:46pmNO it’s not..you pay for garbage pick up either by real estate taxes or personally..IF it‘s by real estate taxes the city should SUPPLY cans if it’s personal YOU supply cans.. Now go sue it will give you something constructive to do..
Report Post »G man
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:46pmRight to the Supreme Court with this one. Before Obama gets yet another appointment.
Report Post »poppopschell
Posted on September 14, 2010 at 2:11pmwHAT i FAIL TO UNDERSTAND IS WHY THE aTTORNEY gENERALS DIDN’T USE aRTCLE 3 sECTION 2. THIS SECTION REQUIRES THAT ANY SUIT BROUGHT BY A STATE MUST HAVE ORIGNINAL JURISDICTION BY THE SUPREME COURT????
Report Post »