By This article was reported by Kevin Sack, David M. Herszenhorn and Robert Pear and written by Sack.
c.2011 New York Times News Service
States took broadly divergent approaches on Tuesday to a federal judge's ruling that invalidated the Obama administration's health care law, while congressional Republicans used the decision to build momentum for a vote on repealing the act.
The Senate's Democratic leaders answered the Republican challenge by saying they would stage a vote on the repeal measure as early as Wednesday, when they were certain it would be defeated. The House, where Republicans won a majority in November's elections, approved the repeal last month.
"We want to get this out of their system very quickly," the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said at a news conference in Washington.
But in a few states that are party to the litigation, Republican governors and attorneys general declared the expansive health care law effectively null as a result of the judge's ruling. They suggested they would suspend planning and implementation until appeals courts could rule, although they did not provide details about what precisely might change or whether they would refund federal planning grants already awarded.
"We're not going to spend a lot of time and money with regard to trying to get ready to implement that until we know exactly what is going to happen," said Gov. Rick Scott, the new Republican leader of Florida, where the lawsuit was filed by elected officials from 26 states. "And I hope and I believe that either it will be declared unconstitutional or it will be repealed."
In Wisconsin, the state's attorney general, J.B. Van Hollen, a Republican, said he was advising Gov. Scott Walker that "the federal health care law is dead - unless and until it is revived by an appellate court." He added, "Effectively, Wisconsin was relieved of any obligations or duties that were created under terms of the federal health care law."
Aides to Walker, a Republican, did not respond to a request for comment.
Jon Hanian, a spokesman for Idaho's Republican governor, C.L. Otter, said that state now might cancel a meeting scheduled for March to study the establishment of a health insurance exchange, which the law requires in 2014.
"I think it's fair to say it's an open question whether they'll do that," Hanian said. "We've had two rulings now that have struck this thing down."
But Democratic governors tended to echo Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont, who said his state was "moving ahead at full speed" to carry out the law. And in many states, even Republican officials who are party to the lawsuit chose to tread cautiously.
"We'll be required to move forward until such time relief is granted or an appellate decision is finalized," said Gov. Nathan Deal of Georgia. "It's a victory, but not a complete victory."
Judge Roger Vinson of Federal District Court in Pensacola, Fla., ruled Monday that the health care act's requirement that Americans obtain insurance exceeded Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce. Unlike a Virginia judge who invalidated that provision in December, Vinson struck down the entire health care act. Two other federal judges have upheld the law.
Vinson noted that Congress had failed to include language in the bill to legally sever portions found unconstitutional from the rest. That, the judge wrote, left him to determine whether other components could function independently of the insurance mandate and whether Congress would have approved the act without that provision.
Comparing the law to "a finely crafted watch," Vinson wrote that there were "too many moving parts" for him to "dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone."
He issued a declaratory judgment against the entire law, and suggested that the Obama administration view it as the "functional equivalent" of an injunction to suspend its implementation. The judge acknowledged in a footnote that his reasoning on the question borrowed heavily from a friend of the court brief submitted by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian advocacy group.
States run a significant risk in suspending planning for the law's implementation while awaiting a final judgment, presumably from the Supreme Court, in a process that could take up to two years. Under several major provisions, the federal government can step in if a state defaults.
Most notably, the law says the federal government will take over the operation of health insurance exchanges, where people can compare and buy health plans, if states do not make adequate progress toward establishing them by Jan. 1, 2013.
The White House has worked feverishly to emphasize that Vinson's ruling will not impact the law's implementation, at least in Washington, until appellate courts can clarify the confusion.
The Justice Department, which represents the administration in the case, is considering whether to request a stay of the ruling. Regardless, it plans to appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta.
Among other tasks, federal health officials are working to define "essential benefits" to be provided by all insurers, writing regulations for a new long-term care insurance program and weighing dozens of requests from states, employers and labor unions for exemptions from various requirements. "There has not been any effect on the work being done by this department," said Richard Sorian, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services.
In Congress, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, put forward the repeal measure as an amendment to an aviation industry bill that is now on the Senate floor.
"For all those who supported the health care law, it's an opportunity to re-evaluate your vote, to listen to your constituents," McConnell said in a floor speech on Tuesday. He added, "You can say, perhaps, 'This was a mistake. We can do this better.' Or you can continue to dismiss the majority of people in this country as not knowing what they're talking about."
Senate Democrats, however, dismissed the Republican repeal effort as futile and an unnecessary delay of work on the aviation bill. They said their willingness to consider the measure reflected both a recent agreement among Senate leaders to avoid procedural gridlock and their confidence the health law would survive.
Democrats said they still intended to work with Republicans to repeal one provision of the law that officials in both parties say would create onerous paperwork requirements for small businesses. "No one is saying that the health care bill should not be fixed in any way," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat.