Source: WSJ

A federal judge has ruled that — as claimed by the state of Virginia — the new health-care overhaul law violates the Constitution when it requires most adults to purchase health insurance.

However, the judge said the ruling applies only to the individual mandate and provisions that hinge on it, not the law in its entirety. Nor would he grant an injunction that would immediately suspend the law or the individual mandate.

Here’s the ruling itself. Here’s the WSJ story on the decision. And here’s how the WSJ Law Blog broke down the judge’s ruling.

In a blog post, the White House said it disagreed with the ruling and that the Department of Justice is considering its appeal options.

The individual mandate is one of the law’s most unpopular provisions. But a post-election poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that even among the 49% who want all or part of the health law repealed, a majority wants to hang onto the provision that guarantees insurance regardless of health status. Proponents of the mandate say it’s hard to figure out how to have universal coverage without a mandate that everyone be insured.

The White House has been pointing towards court victories of its own. Most were procedural, but a few were on the merits. Still, the end game for all of this is likely a hearing before the Supreme Court. The WSJ quotes an administration official as saying that “we are confident that this law is constitutional, and we are confident that the Supreme Court when, and if, it hears this case will agree that it’s constitutional.”

Continue Reading…