Justice Department asks judge for more clarity on health law decision

Administration officials went back to a federal judge in Florida Thursday to ask him to clarify an earlier ruling against the new health law.

The New York Times: Administration Seeks Clarity From Judge On Health Ruling
The Obama administration asked a federal judge on Thursday to clarify whether his recent ruling against the new health care law was meant to block its implementation pending appeals (Sack, 2/17).

The Wall Street Journal:  Meaning Of Ruling Is Sought
The ruling left considerable confusion because Judge (Roger) Vinson didn't issue an injunction halting the law, while suggesting that his ruling effectively functioned as one. Some states concluded that they needn't obey the law any longer. The Obama administration has continued to carry it out (Kendall, 2/18).

Bloomberg: Obama Administration Seeks Clarification on Scope of Health-Care Ruling
The federal government, in papers filed with Vinson yesterday, asked him to clarify whether that decision relieves the suing states of their rights and obligations under the act while the U.S. pursues an appeal (Harris and Schoenberg, 2/18).   

Associated Press: Obama Admin. Asks Judge To Clarify Health Ruling
At stake, according to the government's motion, are provisions of the new law that would create chaos if ignored by the states. Those provisions include 2011 changes in Medicare payment rates. Delaying those changes "could cause major delays and errors in the payment of the roughly 100 million Medicare claims processed each month," the motion states. Florida and 25 other states filed the lawsuit that said Congress exceeded its authority by requiring all citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties (2/17).

Politico: Justice Seeks Clarification Of ACA Ruling
The Justice Department on Thursday asked the Florida judge who struck down the health care overhaul to declare that the law must still be obeyed. In a motion, the department asked Judge Roger Vinson to clarify that his ruling "does not relieve the parties of their rights and obligations under the Affordable Care Act," while the case is being appealed (Haberkorn, 2/17).