Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

White House 'Not Surprised' by Health Care Ruling, but Still Confident

3 years ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
The Obama administration said it "disagrees" with Monday's ruling by a Virginia judge that deemed the federal mandate for health care coverage unconstitutional.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the White House remained confident that health care reform would move forward regardless. "Challenges like this are nothing new in terms of laws that have come before the courts in the past," he said. "We're confident that [the provision] is constitutional."

Gibbs went on to say, "Of the three courts that have rendered decisions on this question, two have ruled in our favor," and sought to put the decision made by Virginia Judge Henry Hudson into a broader, national context. "I do think it's important to keep some perspective about the fact that there are now 20 or so cases making their way through federal courts," Gibbs said.

Underscoring this point, he added that, "One hundred and fifteen miles away, the Western court of Virginia ruled on November 30th to uphold the same provision that the Eastern district and judge [Hudson] had ruled against."

Given Monday's ruling, questions surrounding the constitutionality of certain aspects of the Affordable Care Act are virtually guaranteed to make their way to the Supreme Court -- though the White House would not comment on whether the Department of Justice would seek an expedited trial.

Gibbs did not seek to downplay the importance of mandated coverage as it pertains to broader health care reform. "Without an individual-responsibility portion in the law," he said, "you could not find yourself dealing with pre-existing conditions -- because the only people that would likely get involved in purchasing health care would be the very sick. And obviously, that would be very expensive."

The White House, according to Gibbs, was "not surprised" at Judge Hudson's ruling. "The bill continues to move forward in terms of its implementation," he said, adding,"the individual-responsibility aspects [of the bill] weren't to go into effect until 2014 -- so there's some time to work this through."
Tagged: dailyguidance

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

9 Comments

Filter by:
Jamie Warren

Ok people I see alot of thumbs down on my earlyer comment.The only thing good about this bill is that a person with a prexisting illness can't be turned down by an ins.company and thats a good thing. I just don't see what else it has changed. The way I understand it is if you don't get ins.you will be fined or jailed,but if you don't have a job you have no money so if you have no money how do you get ins.

December 15 2010 at 8:25 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Jamie Warren

I could have agreed with OB health care,if it would have had anything to do with health care reform,but it doesn't.Do we need health care reform? YES! This bill did not stop Doc.offices from over charging,it did not stop the Ins.companies from raising their pricies,and it didn't stop the over charging on medicine.So what did it reform?

December 14 2010 at 11:53 AM Report abuse -5 rate up rate down Reply
3 replies to Jamie Warren's comment
dolancherryhill

I have a question regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Will this be reinstated to make COBRA more affordable I was recently laid off and the paper work for COBRA list to premium one at $1,368.23 without the ARRA reduction and $478.88 WITH the premium reduction. Is this on the table in Washington? With the number of unemployed 9.8% I find it hard to understand why this was not reinstated on 5/31/2010. I can't find anything on the web site. Please share any update you may have.

Regards,
Beth
New Jersey

December 14 2010 at 9:38 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to dolancherryhill's comment
rckinglets

Beth, here is what I found on Cobra:

"In December, as part of the annual defense authorization bill, Congress approved an extension of Cobra subsidies to 15 months from nine months originally under last year’s economic stimulus plan. The change was retroactive, so that people whose benefits expired at the end of November were able to continue their subsidized coverage. That law also expanded the eligibility period for the bigger Cobra subsidies, so that it now includes anyone who lost their job between Sept. 1, 2008, and March 31, 2010."

Full Article: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/how-the-health-care-bill-affects-cobra/

December 15 2010 at 12:33 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
rastalif

if we go with judge hudson and the gop about insurance can not be mandated...so lets do away with auto and home insurance...the government should not be able to force me to buy auto insurance...i like this new america..no mandates on any thing..lets make drugs legal..thegovernment should not be able to mandate that i can not take drugs....everything is legal in america now under no mandate laws

December 14 2010 at 9:36 AM Report abuse -3 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to rastalif's comment
Jamie Warren

The gov. does not force you to buy car.ins. your state does. Only if you have a car and you drive.

December 14 2010 at 11:59 AM Report abuse +4 rate up rate down Reply
cabo79

The Federal Government REQUIRES that I pay for , seat belts, a buzzer that sounds if I don't wear it, anti-lock brakes, air bags, A 5 mile per hour bumper and God knows what else on my car. None of which I want. I don't need a BIG BROTHER. And car insurance could be set up where you could just cover yourself, but the insurance companies wouldn't make as much money as forced insurance. Watch the cost of health insurance skyrocket when everyone is required to carry it.

December 15 2010 at 10:45 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
efleishman

this is the only country in the world where people choose sickness over health. they feel patriotic when they don't have insurance. they have no feeling of contribution or compassion for their countrymen. "i'm OK....you're ok" nobody can expect them to do anything they don't want to do. even in the name of health in the entire country. what a wonderful feeling that must be....screw everybody. George Washington didn't have insurance....I don't need it either. Even aborigines have shamans....and everyone in the tribe maintains them. But i guess we are smarter then they are and certainly more patriotic.

December 13 2010 at 9:17 PM Report abuse -7 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily

  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>