U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson Allows Lawsuit To Proceed

Florida now joins the rank of nineteen other states that oppose Obamacare. The states are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.

Roger Vinson, a Senior United States District Judge , wrote in his memorandum on the STATE OF FLORIDA v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES case:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a controversial and polarizing law about which reasonable and intelligent people can disagree in good faith.

My review of the statute is not to question or second guess the wisdom, motives, or methods of Congress. I am only charged with deciding if the Act is Constitutional. If it is, the legislation must be upheld — even if it is a bad law. Conversely, if it is unconstitutional, the legislation must be struck down — even if it is a good law.

In ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, I must only decide if this court has jurisdiction to consider some of the plaintiffs’ claims, and whether each of the counts of the amended complaint states a plausible claim for relief.

At nearly 2,700 pages, the Act is very lengthy and includes many provisions, only a few of which are specifically at issue in this litigation. Chief among them is Section 1501, which, beginning in 2014, will require that all citizens (with stated exceptions) obtain federally-approved health insurance, or pay a monetary penalty (the “individual mandate”).

The plaintiffs allege that regardless of whether the individual mandate is well-meaning and essential to the Act, it is unconstitutional and will have both a “profound and injurious impact” on the states, individuals, and businesses.

In short, the plaintiffs contend that the legislation is coercive, intrusive, and could bankrupt the states.

Previously in January of 2010, Bill McCollum, Florida’s attorney general, was asked if the mandate was constitutional or not. He responded to Fox News:

Well in my mind and in the mind of those in my staff that has looked at this, it probably is not. And the reason why is because, it imposes a penalty on an individual simply for the fact that they do not purchase or do not have health insurance. That’s where there’s the Senate Bill or House Bill. In one version is a fine, the other version is a tax.

But in both cases, there’s no activity on the person involved. In other words it’s a living tax. It’s a tax on you just for living. It just says hey, you don’t have insurance then we’re going to fine you for not having insurance, or we’re going to punish you for not having insurance.

The powers of the Constitution are enumerated to Congress. In the Constitution in the United States it says, these are the enumerated powers. And if you don’t have those powers set forth, the Congress can’t take certain action.

And it’s the consensus in our office that it’s not constitutional what is now proposed in terms of this mandate, individual mandate, on people to purchase insurance.

Bill McCollum told the Fox News reporter in January that many would be affected by this law. He said that some people could not afford to purchase health insurance, even if they were healthy. He said it was more or less a freedom issue, or an issue of liberties.

McCollum said that he would represent the people and bring a lawsuit if necessary. Obviously, he did bring a lawsuit and now we are seeing the result of that.