Health law loses in court challenge

By Richard Wolf and Joan Biskupic, USA TODAYThe first judicial ruling against a key part of President Obama's landmark health care law has boosted efforts by opponents who want it repealed, stripped of funding or struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, a battle that could take years.U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson's decision in a Virginia case throws into question how the biggest revamping of the nation's health care system since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 can work if its mandate that individuals purchase insurance is ruled unconstitutional.

Hudson's opinion Monday came nine months after the law extending insurance coverage to 32 million Americans was enacted. The judge, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, didn't rule against any other part of the law and didn't block its implementation by 2014. Nevertheless, opponents were thrilled.

"We've won the first round of this particular fight," said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. "This will all end at the U.S. Supreme Court."

An appeal to the U.S. circuit court level and then the Supreme Court could take two years to decide, said Cuccinelli, a Republican— potentially leaving consumers in limbo.

Rather than waiting that long, Republican opponents of the law used the ruling as impetus to reinvigorate legislative actions and to urge an expedited Supreme Court review — an unlikely prospect.

"Republicans have made a pledge to America to repeal this job-killing health care law, and that's what we're going to do," said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio, soon to become speaker.

The ruling followed two court decisions in Virginia and Michigan and a number of procedural rulings that upheld the law. Another case against it, brought by 20 state attorneys general, is set for oral arguments in Pensacola, Fla., on Thursday. That case also challenges the law's expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health care program for the poor.

Other parts of the law were not addressed in Hudson's ruling, such as setting up state health insurance exchanges that offer a choice of policies, offering tax credits to low-income Americans so they can buy insurance, expanding Medicaid and making changes in Medicare.

Proponents and opponents agreed that without a mandate that individuals have insurance, key elements of the law could unravel. Healthy people might not buy coverage, making it impossible for insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions, as the law requires, without big rate hikes.

"We don't let people wait until after they've been in a car accident to apply for auto insurance and get reimbursed, and we don't want to do that with health care," said Stephanie Cutter, assistant to President Obama for special projects.

A poll out Monday from the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy group, found the public divided: 42% favor the law, 41% oppose it.

Guidelines: You share in the USA TODAY community, so please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack other readers personally, and keep your language decent. Use the "Report Abuse" button to make a difference. Read more.

View the original article here