Government Takeover of Health Care

Full Repeal of Health Care Law Fails in Senate

February 2, 2011

Politico - Efforts to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care law died a quick death in the Senate Wednesday, but the GOP got a consolation prize — a bipartisan fix to a tax-reporting requirement in the law that was widely panned by businesses.

A Democratic amendment to repeal the law’s new tax-reporting requirements passed, 81-17, with broad bipartisan support. A Republican amendment to repeal the entire health reform law, meanwhile, fell along party lines, 47-51, in a procedural vote.

Senate Republicans pledge that their first crack at repealing the health care overhaul won’t be their last.

“Yes, we were unsuccessful, but we know where everyone stands,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). “It’s not too late to start over. We should repeal this bill and start over. We may not do it today, and we may not do it tomorrow, but we will defeat this bill,” he said.

Democrats say they’re confident they can uniformly defend the legislation against additional attempts to repeal it while making repairs and improvements.

“We’ll defeat amendments offered in the spirit of ending health care or totally repealing it fairly easily,” New York Sen. Chuck Schumer told reporters.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called the vote an opportunity for health reform supporters to say,

“Yes, maybe my vote for this bill was a mistake and that we can do better.”

Just holding the vote is a political victory for Republicans: McConnell managed to force the roll call on the floor of the Democratic-controlled Senate. And some moderate Democrats are now on the record with a vote in favor of Obama’s signature legislative achievement — something that GOP campaigns are sure to exploit over the next two years.

The country is relatively split in its support for the law, particularly in states where moderate Democrats will face reelection in 2012. Republicans hope that support for the law will further erode, forcing Democrats to reconsider their support for health reform.

But Democrats say their plan is to fix the law where necessary, rather than starting from scratch.

“Republicans said they wanted to ‘repeal and replace,’ but this was a vote to repeal and replace reform with nothing but the old, broken system that punished patients and crushed businesses with soaring costs,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). “If you read the language, it’s crystal clear this isn’t symbolism. It’s a vote to take away health insurance from 32 million Americans, increase taxes on small businesses and add more than $1 trillion to the deficit.”

Democrats ended the repeal effort with a budget point of order, a procedural tool designed to highlight the fact that repeal would add about $230 billion to the deficit, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Republicans have strongly objected to that figure, arguing that the reform law would add to the deficit.

McConnell has promised to force numerous votes against the health care reform law.

“We think this is just the beginning,” he told reporters after the failed vote. “This issue is still before us, and we are going to go at it in a variety of ways.”

Republicans have a bill pending that allows states to “opt out” of the individual requirement to buy insurance, the requirement for large employers to provide coverage and the state expansion of the Medicaid program. They’re also eyeing a repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will control the growth of Medicare, and the individual mandate.

The expiring continuing resolution to fund the government could give Republicans a new opportunity to attack the law. McConnell said they might try to “delete the funding for bureaucrats to ramp up Obamacare.”

The amendment to repeal the 1099 tax-reporting requirements will now go to the House, where both parties have supported some efforts to repeal the provision.

Obama identified the provision in his State of the Union speech as one that Democrats are willing to change.

The Senate voted several times last year on repealing the requirement, but all attempts failed amid partisan bickering over how to pay for it. Republicans made an attempt to repeal the provision by taking money from the health reform law’s prevention and wellness fund, and Democrats tried to repeal it without paying for it.

The provision requires business owners to file 1099 tax documents on all cumulative purchases from individual vendors that total more than $600 per year.

It was included in the health law because it would have raised about $17 billion in previously uncollected taxes. A bipartisan collection of business groups have opposed the provision, arguing that it would bury them in paperwork.

The amendment was proposed by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.).

“This amendment is a common-sense solution for business owners who need to be focused on creating jobs, not filling out paperwork for the IRS,” she said.

Democrats blocked a similar amendment last year from Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.). He had offered the amendment this week, but Stabenow’s got the vote.

“The net effect is that, the way I look at it, my desire is to get this repealed,” Johanns told POLITICO. “It’s a victory for the business community, churches and charities and state and local governments. So I’m not creating a fuss. I’d be happy to vote for the amendment whether it has my name on it or hers.”

The repeal would require the Office of Management and Budget to use unspent but appropriated funds to pay for it.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) offered another amendment to repeal the provision, which paid for it by issuing new taxes on oil companies.

He argued that lawmakers — not OMB — have to decide where money should be spent. The Stabenow amendment, he said, would be “abandoning our role in appropriating spending.”

“We cannot pass that buck, and we should not,” Levin said.

His amendment failed, 44-54.

White House Vows to Implement Health Care Reform, Despite Judge’s Ruling

The Justice Department says it will appeal US District Judge Roger Vinson’s decision, which declared the health care reform law unconstitutional and void in its entirety.

January 31, 2011

Christian Science Monitor - 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.

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.

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.”

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Florida Judge Rules Federal Health Care Reform Unconstitutional

January 31, 2011

Washington Independent - A Florida judge has ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, a victory for the 26 states that joined in a suit challenging the law in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled Monday that the “individual mandate” portion of the health care reform, which requires people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, cannot be severed from the rest of the law, rendering the entire act unconstitutional. Vinson’s ruling does not, however, stop the law from going into effect.

Vinson’s ruling is the second against the law; two other judges have ruled in favor of the legislation. The Obama Administration is expected to appeal the decision, which likely will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

While Vinson found the individual mandate unconstitutional, he was unpersuaded by the states’ argument that the expansion of the state-federal Medicaid program is “coercive,” and ruled in favor of the federal government on those counts.

Gov. Rick Scott quickly issued a statement praising the decision and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, but made no mention of former Attorney General Bill McCollum, who filed the original complaint and lost to Scott in last year’s Republican gubernatorial primary:

I applaud the ruling today by Judge Vinson. In making his ruling, the judge has confirmed what many of us knew from the start; ObamaCare is an unprecedented and unconstitutional infringement on the liberty of the American people. I commend Attorney General Bondi and her team for their work to present the state’s case, and I will continue to work with her to protect Floridians from this overreaching federal mandate. Patients should have more control over health care decisions than a federal government that is spending money faster than it can be printed.

Vinson’s full ruling is below:

Ruling against health care reform, Judgement 1