Members of Congress and economists to submit arguments in states' suit against health law

Bloomberg: "Eight U.S. senators, along with Representative John Boehner and 35 economists, won the right to submit their arguments in a lawsuit by 20 states seeking to undo the Obama administration's health-care overhaul. U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola yesterday granted requests by the eight Republican members of Congress and the economists to offer their views on the administration's bid to have the suit thrown out. Nineteen states have joined lawsuit brought by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, who claims the health-care statute is overbroad and unconstitutional. The suit was filed March 23, the same day President Barack Obama signed the legislation. The senators said in their filing that they are 'in the best position to underscore where Congress legislates without authority,' as the states allege was done in mandating individuals must obtain health care coverage. ... The group of economists includes three Nobel laureates. 'Everyone gets sick, suffers an injury at some point in their life or must address the vicissitudes of aging and seek medical care,' Nobel Prize-winning economists Kenneth Arrow, George Akerlof, Eric Maskin and their colleagues told the court" (Harris, 11/13).

The Washington Post: "Friday was the deadline for proponents and critics to ask the judge presiding over the case to let them submit briefs in the largest of several lawsuits that have been lodged across the country. ... In their legal filing, [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell and seven other Republican senators renew an argument they made during the congressional debate over the bill. Requiring most Americans to buy health insurance or risk a fine, they contend, goes beyond the power the Constitution gives to Congress under the commerce clause. It amounts to 'an impermissible federal police power' of a kind the Constitution gives only to states, they write."

"In contrast, the economists coordinated by Harvard health economist David Cutler, the campaign adviser, argue that 'reform of the health care system is essential to constraining the growth of health care spending and providing security to all Americans.' And, they write, 'broadly based health insurance is essential in any reform of the health care system in this country.' The group rejects the idea that requiring insurance is a violation of the commerce clause. Health care, they say, is different from any other facet of the economy" (Goldstein, 11/13).

Politico: "Several states that support the health law want to weigh in, too. Oregon, Iowa and Vermont argue that a ruling that the health law is unconstitutional 'would have a tremendous and deleterious effect' on the states. The opponents 'overstate the Act's costs, disregard its substantial benefits, and minimize the obstacles to expanding health care insurance coverage through a patchwork of individual state actions. The plaintiff states also paint an exaggerated and unrealistic picture of the impact of the Act on the relationship between the states and the federal government,' they wrote. In addition, the governors of Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Washington 'concluded the problems of health care costs needed to be addressed by Congress.' ... Six hospital associations, which represent nearly all hospitals in the country, filed to support the individual mandate because they have to pay to treat the uninsured population. ... Several other associations are also seeking to weigh in, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, Small Business Majority Foundation, American Civil Rights Union, American Association of People with Disabilities, Family Research Council and Young Invincibles. (Haberkorn, 11/12).