Supreme Court To Hear Florida Health Care Law Challenge

November 14, 2011

The U.S. Supreme Court said Monday it will take up a Florida-led challenge to the 2010 federal-health overhaul that began in Pensacola, setting the stage for arguments next year in the landmark constitutional case.

Justices will consider four major issues, including whether Congress can require most Americans to have health insurance starting in 2014 and whether it acted improperly in approving a major expansion of the Medicaid program.

Then-Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum filed the challenge in Pensacola immediately after President Obama signed the health law in March 2010.

The case also drew as plaintiffs 25 other states, the National Federation of Independent Business and two citizens, including one from Florida, Panama City businesswoman Mary Brown.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, McCollum’s successor, issued a statement Monday saying she was pleased the court will determine the constitutionality of the requirement that Americans have health insurance, which has become known as the “individual mandate.”

“Throughout this case, we have urged swift judicial resolution because of the unprecedented threat that the individual mandate poses to the liberty of Americans simply because they live in this country,” Bondi said. “We are hopeful that by June 2012 we will have a decision that protects Americans’ and individuals’ liberties and limits the federal government’s power.”

In a blog post on the White House website, the Obama administration said it also wanted the Supreme Court to hear the case “to put the challenges to rest and continue moving forward with implementing the law.” It said, in part, the law would expand health coverage to 32 million people.

“We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree,” White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said, using a commonly known name for the law.

As an indication of the importance of the challenge, justices set aside 5 and a half hours to hear arguments — a length of time that the authoritative Supreme Court tracking website SCOTUSblog said appeared to be a “modern record.” SCOTUSblog also reported that the arguments will be spread over two days in March.

The health law is a signature achievement of the Obama presidency but is derisively called “Obamacare” by Republicans and other opponents. It was a major issue during the 2010 elections and likely will be again as Obama seeks re-election in 2012.

Much of the legal and political controversy has centered on the individual mandate, with opponents contending that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority in approving the coverage requirement. People who do not have health coverage in 2014 would be subject to tax penalties.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Florida and the other plaintiffs in ruling that the mandate is unconstitutional. But courts in other parts of the country have come to a different conclusion, including in a ruling last week by a Washington, D.C., appeals court.

Florida also has focused on fighting part of the law that would expand Medicaid eligibility, which is part of the push to ensure more people have health coverage. Florida and other states argue that Congress would improperly “compel” them to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold other funding for the program — though the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the state’s arguments.

One of the other issues that the Supreme Court will consider is whether the entire law should be tossed out if the individual mandate is found to be unconstitutional. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Obama administration that other parts of the massive law could move forward without the mandate.

Another part of the arguments will focus on whether the individual mandate can even be legally challenged at this point. That issue stems from an 1867 law, known as the Anti-Injunction Act, which is designed to prevent lawsuits about taxes until after they are assessed and collected.

The individual mandate’s tax penalties will not take effect until after 2014.

By Jim Saunders
The News Service of Florida

Comments

8 Responses to “Supreme Court To Hear Florida Health Care Law Challenge”

  1. David Huie Green on November 15th, 2011 5:10 pm

    REGARDING:
    “I do not understand the logic of anyone that believes basic health insurance should not be provided to the US citizens for a reasonable fee.”

    Why worry about health insurance, go for broke: health care should be provided to the US citizens for reasonable fee — no scratch that — it should be provided for FREE. Nobody should have to pay their doctors or nurses or janitors or the power costs or for the medicines. After all, insurance is just a way to pay for unexpected expenses. If you eliminate the expenses, nobody needs insurance.

    I’m not sure why doctors would take such high stress jobs if they weren’t going to be paid, but that’s their problem until there aren’t any more doctors at which point it becomes OUR problem because we made it so affordable it isn’t available.

    Sound silly? It should. People don’t often or well work for free. Insurance won’t be cheap if costs are expensive.

    One thing is certain: if you could provide health insurance at lower rates than other insurers are and still earn enough to pay the bills, you could get all their business. If you can’t do it, it is possible they aren’t overcharging in the first place and any pretence otherwise is just smoke and mirrors.

    David for perfect health care
    starting with a cure for aging

  2. Sara on November 15th, 2011 1:58 pm

    As long as there are 47 million Americans with no health insurance, I think that Congress should have no health insurance paid for by taxes…I do not understand the logic of anyone that believes basic health insurance should not be provided to the US citizens for a reasonable fee. It will cut all costs to everyone because the majority of uninsured people falls onto the insured anyway…when people that are sick go to the ER without insurance the cost is passed onto the the people with insurance…such as overcharging for everything..($10 for a Tylenol,etc.)

  3. jp on November 15th, 2011 12:30 pm

    To huh:

    If welfare recipients have such a hard time of it do yourself, and certainly us tax
    payers I might add, a favor and get a job! There are plenty jobs in Alabama
    now that the illegals have abandoned their farm jobs to run from the state.
    Just ask the Justice Department they know all about it. A little work never hurt
    anyone and has a way of bringing pride to most who are willing to try it. I rather
    believe, however, that you like most people on government assistance, will not
    attempt a job as it may cost you your government check each month and all
    the taxpayer funded perks that go with it.

  4. SW on November 15th, 2011 8:44 am

    It would be easier and cheaper for the Florida legislature to simply nullify the law and ignore it.

  5. SW on November 15th, 2011 12:32 am

    So where does the federal government have the authority, under the US Constitution, to dictate health care for all Americans?

    Where, under this same Constitution, does the federal government have authority to force anyone to buy anything?

    There are already programs in place, public and private, to aid individuals in getting health care.

  6. The DOER on November 14th, 2011 8:48 pm

    Dear HUH,
    Obama and the government have no business making an individual mandate. Healthcare is an option, not a right. It’s the same as buying steak and shrimp. If you want to spend your money on it, do it, but don’t count on mine to buy it for you. I agree with JP. So many welfare recipients have free everything – no copays for doctor visits, prescriptions, free lunches for kids, food stamps, pell grants for college, the list goes on and on. It has to end somewhere. Enough is enough! Less than half of the people in the US are paying into the system, but way more than half are taking out. We need a change alright, and it can’t come soon enough!

  7. huh on November 14th, 2011 7:46 pm

    We really needed universal healthcare for all , rather than falling behind some of the other top countries in the world. I think Obama did the best he could, but fell short of the real universal healthcare.

    Sadly, healthcare in the usa is a for profit business . I think the obama plan is better than nothing.

    And as for “jp”
    I have worked for the same company for 42yrs. and have a fair income. I know
    welfare recepients who live much better than I do”

    Well, welfare recipients hardly make it as it is . If you have worked 42 years and others on welfare live better than you, then it sounds like its time for a better job.

  8. jp on November 14th, 2011 4:25 pm

    I sincerely hope and pray the court does the right thing for the people of this
    country. The last thing we need is some government employee a thousand
    miles away dictating the fate of sick people. That decision has always be-
    longed to the individual, or their family, and the physician. This is as it should
    remain.
    Under this law, moneys paid in by taxpayers for Medicare for the protection
    of the retired productive citizens will be deverded to programs to provide health-
    care for nonproductive recipients who have never contributed to the system. I
    don’t advocate not taking care of the poor, just not at the expense of those who
    paid for this protection for themselves and their loved ones.
    Where is the incentive to work when one is paid by the government not too?
    I have worked for the same company for 42yrs. and have a fair income. I know
    welfare recepients who live much better than I do. They already get better
    healthcare than I do thru Medicaid which is free at the expense of taxpayers,
    while my medical coverage is limited by copays and deductables and I still
    pay a very large part of my monthly premiums.
    “Change” via Obamacare is “change” we certainly don’t need

Written by William Reynolds · Filed Under News