Latest Headlines
- Tate Showband Of The South Has A New Director
- Pine Meadow’s Cassi McGee Received Florida Outstanding Teacher Leadership Award
- Highway 168 Bridge Reopened Friday After Repair Completed
- Bicyclist Critical After Being Struck By Vehicle In Century
- Two Century Correctional Officers Charged With Smuggling Drugs Into The Prison
- More Details Released In Case Of Man Accused Of Killing Estranged Wife
- Florida Forest Service Announces $2 Million For Florida Landowners To Improve Forest Health
- Friends Of The Library Hot Summer Book Sale Going On Through Sunday
- Escambia Animal Shelter Has Free Cat And Dog Adoptions Through July 31
- Martorella’s Clutch Hit Ignites Blue Wahoos Walk-Off Win
Health Care Law Struck Down; Fight Continues In Pensacola
December 14, 2010
Florida’s lawsuit in Escambia County against the new federal health care law isn’t any less important in light of a ruling Monday by a federal judge in Virginia invalidating a key component of the law, backers of the Florida challenge said.
In statement released shortly after Monday’s ruling, Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum said the state will proceed to make arguments Thursday in Pensacola asking U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to go further than the Virginia ruling by invalidating the expansion of Medicaid to nearly 2 million anticipated additional recipients whose care would be partially paid by the state under the new law.
“The implementation of this law could add more than 1.9 million Floridians to the Medicaid program, a tremendous financial burden on our state at a time when our budget has no room for extra expenses, McCollum said. “As our lawsuit heads to oral argument this Thursday, I am hopeful we will obtain a favorable decision that will strike down the individual mandate and also halt the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars required to be spent by states to implement the Affordable Care Act.”
Ultimately, the issue is likely to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the Virginia case, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson struck down a provision of the health care insurance act that requires individuals to carry insurance whether they want to or not. The Minimum Essential Coverage Provision is critical to finance the other components of the plan.
“The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers,” Hudson wrote. “At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance – or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage – it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”
While Florida’s lawsuit also challenges congressional abiity to require coverage, the lawsuit additionally claims the sweeping reform of the $2.5 trillion U.S. health care system violates state government rights in the U.S. Constitution and will force massive new spending on already hard-pressed state legislatures.
The new health care law is a cornerstone of Obama’s domestic agenda and aims to expand health insurance for millions more Americans while curbing costs. White House officials have insisted it is constitutional and necessary to stem huge projected increases in health care expenses by providing coverage for those who don’t have it, whose care is paid for by everyone else.
The Florida case has been joined by 19 other states. Plaintiffs also include the National Federation of Independent Business.
Vinson has scheduled testimony for Thursday in Pensacola to determine whether to make a summary judgment in the case, which most observers say will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. In September, Vinson refused to dismiss portions of the case as requested by Department of Justice attorneys.
By Michael Peltier
The News Service Florida
Comments
6 Responses to “Health Care Law Struck Down; Fight Continues In Pensacola”
” use the navel hospitals ”
Now THAT’S specialization
Dear “huh” – I must take issue with your generalization of insurance companies. I worked for Florida’s largest health insurance company for 17 years and can truthfully tell you that this company does not and never has tried to determine ways to keep coverage from or limit coverage for folks. Most employers choose what coverage they want provided to their employees and what limitations are to be applied. . .also most health plans are designed based on what the market wants, not on what the insurance company wants. This company was doing good to have a 1% annual profit, and most of that came from the interest it earned on the cash reserves it must legally keep on hand to pay for any unexpected, catastrophic claims. When will folks learn that it is the total cost of medical services (like hospital charges and the price of drugs, but which also includes insurance company administrative costs just like any other business) that drive up premiums, not the insurance companies “out to get” us?
Although I agree that government should not tell us we have to buy health insurance. . .what do we do with people who CAN afford it, but choose not to purchase coverage and then rely on us taxpayers to foot their emergency room bills?
But when you make laws regulating them, people scream ” government take over of the free market!!” But, insurance companies are out of control, its not your health that they care about. They are betting on you, if you get sick or need healthcare they lose, so they drop you or find another way around the issue
Healthcare shouldn’t be a betting game between companies , a sick person with cancer shouldn’t have to worry about being dropped when they need the coverage. Or having medicines denied just because the health companies feel like.
The problem is the healthcare companies have no compassion for you, or I, its all about profit, with disregard to your health.
The biggest issue is you can’t just change to better carrier or provider , like our free market suggests. Because they are all just as bad .
I think the gov run health care program should not have subsided private providers and instead should have been an opt in program through the government. They could let people use the navel hospitals for basics to start.
REGARDING:
” its a shame that corporations have such a hold on our country”
Corporations are organizations of people even though many seem to think they are alien monsters who invaded us. They are us. Thus, when we say it is a shame they have such a hold on our country, we are really saying, It is a shame we have such a hold on our country.
Exception: Corporations owned by non citizens. They actually ARE alien creatures among us. Even then, the individuals working for them are usually American citizens. That is why we need laws to keep all of them in line with our goals as a people, whatever those are.
David thinking again
I don’t think people should be forced to pay private insurance companies. Since they were the original problem, they will just find new ways to hurt the public by denying coverage or raising rates.
The public options would have given an alternative , they could have had a public option that just provided basic care (not cover everything but most basic things)
As of now people with no insurance get sick, go to the ER, rack up a $1,000 bill for having a cold or something minor, and don’t pay it, thats passed on to the tax payer and hospital anyway right? So might as well have basic coverage. I think it would have been nice
If you have ever called a hospital and asked how much it will cost total for procedures , chances are they won’t tell you. Why does a cat scan cost $800 and up when in india, on the same machine its $300?
Public healthcare works great in the UK and Canada, plus they have a private health care option if they want to pay for that instead of the public care. People love it, of course the news media here wants you to think otherwise , and its a shame that corporations have such a hold on our country
Whenever two different federal judges come up with opposite rulings on the same matter, the only resolutions are to rewrite the law to be acceptable to all, or to take the dispute to the Supreme Court to determine which one–if either–is actually right under the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
Any law which violates the Constitution is an illegal law and null. We’ve done so many things the Constitution forbids, it’s interesting to see one pointed out this is one of them. It doesn’t matter if it is a good thing or not, just whether or not it is lawful.
If it is unlawful, it can be rewritten in some other manner but Congressional Democrats insist forcing everybody to carry health insurance is absolutely necessary for the thing to work at all. The other solution is that the United States can amend the Constitution to make it legal. This would extend the power of the federal government even more over our lives, but it is a lawful means of making the act legal under those circumstances–if the People agree.
David wondering
how they would amend
the Constitution
in this case