Yesterday a federal judge in Florida ruled that multi-state challenges against the individual mandate and Medicaid expansion under the new health reform law can move forward. Florida Northern District Judge Roger Vinson did not rule that he agrees with the assertion that the law is unconstitutional, but only that it won't be dismissed outright, as the Obama administration had requested. However, four other counts related to taxation and requirements that states enforce the law were thrown out by Vinson.
The challengers argue that the individual mandates seeks to regulate "inactivity" because it would penalize people for not buying health insurance. In his ruling, Vinson appears open to this line of reasoning, quoting a 16 year old Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report concluding that "A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States." Though, Vinson added a disclaimer in which he adds, "Of course, to say that something is 'novel' and 'unprecedented' does not necessarily mean that it is 'unconstitutional' and 'improper.' There may be a first time for anything. But, at this stage of the case, the plaintiffs have most definitely states a plausible claim with respect to this cause of action."
The White House, though, remains optimistic that the law will hold. The administration's response, via The White House blog, can be found by clicking here.
Vinson's ruling can be found by clicking here.
The story, as reported by The Hill, can be found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment