The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Lawsuits over Obama’s health care law heat up

Matt Sissel of Iowa City proudly served in Iraq as a combat medic. But he objects to being “conscripted” into an overhauled federal health care system.

The uninsured artist is riled about a provision in the new health law that would require him to purchase insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014. Last July, he filed a lawsuit to have the landmark act declared unconstitutional. “I don’t want the federal government dictating my personal financial decisions,” says Sissel, 29. “It can’t even run its own budget.”

In attacking the law in the courts, Sissel has plenty of company. A number of interest groups, state officials and ordinary citizens are seeking to have the health care law struck down in federal court, and action is heating up:

•This week or next, a federal judge in Pensacola, Fla., is expected to issue a preliminary ruling on perhaps the most prominent lawsuit. Brought by the governors or attorneys general of 20 states, the lawsuit seeks to have the act declared unconstitutional.

•Any day, a judge in Michigan could act on a request by the Thomas More Law Center to issue an injunction blocking the government from taking any further action implementing the law. The non-profit law firm, based in Ann Arbor, often brings anti-abortion cases.

•On Oct. 18, the Republican attorney general of Virginia — who has compared the Obama administration’s regard for individual rights to the tyranny of King George — heads back to court for another round of hearings with a federal judge who recently turned down a Justice Department request to throw the case out.

The burst of litigation has the framers of the law and the Obama administration playing defense. Many scholars, such as Charles Fried of Harvard Law School, argue that the law is on firm legal footing. But there is no quick resolution in sight, and it may take a year or two, and a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, for all the lawsuits to get sorted out. Still, that might be a quicker route to upending the law, or parts of it, than a threatened GOP repeal effort in Congress. Even if Republicans pick up more seats in November, they’ll have a tough time getting major changes past President Obama.

Under the health care law enacted in March, more than 32 million additional Americans are expected to get insurance, either through an extension of Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor, or through exchanges where low- and moderate-income individuals and families can buy private insurance with federal subsidies.

The law’s ambitious sweep has made it a target for those who see it as an unjustified expansion of government. Plaintiffs challenging the law include a variety of religious groups, the nation’s largest small-business trade association, and a who’s who of conservative legal activism.

Sissel, for example, is represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento-based legal watchdog group that supports limited government, property rights and free enterprise.

Liberty University, the fundamentalist Lynchburg, Va., college founded by the late Jerry Falwell, has filed a lawsuit claiming that exemptions from the law for religious groups are too narrow and violate freedom of religion under the First Amendment. The Tucson-based Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which opposes government intervention in health care, also has sued.

Full story: Lawsuits over health care law heat up – USATODAY.com

WATCH: STUDY: AGE, MIGRAINE TREATMENT LINK

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Fyodor-Tarkovsky/515595940 Fyodor Tarkovsky

    There’s some good conversation going on at my forum about Obama Care, http://donkeypunchcentral.freeforums.org/okay-kids-if-you-re-healthy-enough-it-s-time-to-discuss-t200.html

    Feel free to join and give your input :) Yes, it’s called Donkey Punch. Doesn’t that make you wanna join more?

  • recovered dem

    The law is a travesty! Even if one could afford to pay for a test which Obamacare does not cover, it is illegal to do so. It all about control. Health care decisions should be between a patient and doctor, not some government worker or panel. Republicans can start by defunding it while they work to repeal it after that POS leaves office at the end of his term.

  • ojfl

    The more people learn about the bad consequences of the law the more we will see repeal gain strength. When the cost overruns start, which seems will be sooner than later, then the problem will become even more difficult to ignore, given the trillion dollars a year deficit. Repeal cannot come soon enough.

  • Pingback: Wicked Wednesday | Washington Rebel

  • rainmaker1145

    It was never about us “getting affordable healthcare” or even us getting “universal health care”; it was about: (i) getting control over something everyone needs in order to sustain their lives so that the government could control behavior and force citizens to sustain the government or suffer terribly; and (ii) allow Democratic Party and Republican Party politicians and lobbyists to access an unlimited stream of income in a scheme where one party collects money to oppose the legislation (and never really repeal it) and the other party never really implements it (successful implementation would kill their ability to control behavior).

    Make no mistake about this. The economics are pretty straight-forward and easily resolvable, but nobody inside the Beltway or on Wall Street wants a sustainable system as it would lead to an elimination of their ability to monopolize the wealth in our economic society. This is the actual historical outcome with every entitlement program we have enacted in the Modern Era since 1935. The solution for these challenges can be permanent and corruption-proof with implementation taking less than 36 months for all entitlement programs, so you know what you have and what you are going to get. The only question is whether you will believe these people or your lying eyes and the actual recorded history of these policies in the Modern Era.

  • CK4RP

    Congress does have the option to vote not to fund it unitl it can be repealed. They still control the pursestrings as far as I know…