DJ UPDATE: US House Pushes To Prohibit Spending On Health Plan
.
(adds background about, reaction to court challenges starting in sixth paragraph)
By Alan Zibel and Brent Kendall
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--House Republicans pushed Friday to derail the Obama administration's health-care overhaul, preparing to bar the federal government from spending money on the plan.
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R., Mont.) put the ban in an amendment to a budget bill funding the federal government through the remaining months of fiscal 2011.
"We wanted to create jobs. You wasted time on the health-care reform," Rehberg said on the House floor, addressing Democrats. A vote on the amendment by the Republican-led House was expected later Friday.
Democrats said the Republican plan would reduce health-care options for Americans, increase the federal deficit and make it more difficult to pass a budget this year.
"Instead of searching for common ground, this amendment intensifies warfare," said Rep. Sander Levin, (D., Mich). "Republicans have become a wrecking crew."
Once House lawmakers complete the budget bill, the Senate must still take up the bill or pass its own version of spending legislation. The Democratic-controlled Senate is unlikely to agree to bar the federal government from spending money to implement the health law.
Congress must pass some form of spending bill by midnight March 4, when the current temporary funding bill lapses. Otherwise, the federal government would be forced to shut down.
The House voted in January to repeal the health-care overhaul, a signature achievement of President Barack Obama, but the repeal effort failed in the Senate.
Opponents of the law are also challenging it in the courts. They won a victory last month when federal Judge Roger Vinson in Florida ruled that the law's mandate on individuals to carry health insurance or pay a penalty was unconstitutional.
The ruling left considerable confusion because Vinson didn't issue an injunction halting the law but suggested that his ruling effectively functioned as one.
Several Republican governors have said the ruling means they aren't bound by the law. Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell on Thursday became the latest to take that stand.
"The state of Alaska will not pursue unlawful activity to implement a federal health-care regime that has been declared unconstitutional by a federal court," Parnell told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce, according to the Associated Press. However, the practical effect of the governor's step wasn't clear.
Late Thursday, the Justice Department asked Vinson to clarify the immediate impact of his ruling, citing the varying interpretations by states.
The individual-insurance mandate doesn't go into effect until 2014, but other pieces of the law are already moving forward.
Already the Obama administration has mailed rebate checks to seniors with high prescription drug costs, helped set up insurance pools for people with pre-existing medical conditions and required insurers to allow children to stay on their parents' insurance policies until they reach age 26.
Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the government filed the motion "to confirm that the court did not intend to disrupt the many programs currently in effect."
Halting implementation of the health law "would pose a risk of substantial disruption and hardship for those who rely on the provisions that have already been implemented," the department said in its court filing.
So far, two federal judges including Vinson have ruled the individual-insurance mandate unconstitutional, and two others have upheld the law. Vinson, of Pensacola, Fla., ruled in a challenge brought by 26 states. Lawyers representing the states were expected to respond Friday to the latest Justice Department filing.
The cases are proceeding to federal appeals courts late this spring and are expected to end up at the U.S. Supreme Court as soon as the 2011-12 term.
-By Alan Zibel and Brent Kendall, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9263; alan.zibel@dowjones.com
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
