Published: Sat, September 08, 2018
Health Care | By Cedric Leonard

GOP lawsuit targeting Obamacare goes to court

GOP lawsuit targeting Obamacare goes to court

He has also indicated that he might go straight to ruling on the merits of the case. The department's June court filing contended that the law's provision requiring most Americans to carry health insurance soon will no longer be constitutional once the penalty ends and that, as a result, consumer insurance protections under the law will not be valid, either.

The plaintiffs also claim that this means the entire ACA - and, in particular, its protections for patients with pre-existing conditions looking to buy insurance - must be struck down because the mandate can't be severed from the rest of the law.

The California attorney general has intervened in this case saying millions of Americans would lose affordable health care if the judge strikes down Obamacare.

Presiding over the case is Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.

Who brought this latest case and why?

The state attorney general's legal team argued that once Congress ended the penalty on Obamacare as part of its tax overhaul, the Affordable Care Act became unconstitutional.

The steady outlook means the health care law won't be an easy target for Republicans this year, an election issue that's worked well for them since 2010. The Supreme Court said that the penalty for not buying insurance under an individual mandate amounted to a legal tax, but the plaintiffs argue that when that tax was eliminated by Congress a year ago, it renders the entire ACA unconstitutional.

But Congress enacted a tax bill in December, 2017 that zeroed out that tax penalty. Although Congress does not have the ability to require people to buy health insurance, or a vehicle, or a house, this was considered part of lawmakers' taxing authority, Paxton said. "Until and unless a viable replacement is created, the current law deserves defending in every court in this country and certainly by the administration charged with representing all people, regardless of their health". Nineteen other states and other plaintiffs have joined Texas.

Protester throws 'Team Putin' shirt at Papadopoulos after sentencing
The FBI canceled the meeting when it discovered that Papadopoulos had sat down for a media interview about the case. In hindsight, he said in court, he recognizes that was wrong and "might have harmed the investigation".


Hernandez says Californians will be better off without them.

Here are five questions and answers to help understand the case, Texas v. U.S. This bill aligns with an emerging trend among some Republican candidates to come out in support of pre-existing conditions protections. In other words, although people with pre-existing conditions would ostensibly be guaranteed a health insurance plan, that plan would not be required to cover services related to the pre-existing condition.

The Trump Justice Department is asking the court to invalidate certain planks of the ACA, rather than tossing out the entire law.

Sedona resident Jeff Jeans, a cancer survivor who credits the Affordable Care Act for being able to get medical treatment, at a news conference in Washington with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and others protesting a lawsuit challenging the law.

Yes, there's a lot on the line for people covered through their employers, as well as those insured through the law.

A majority of Democrats and Republicans want to preserve protections in the Affordable Care Act that make it illegal for insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, according to a new poll. Many of those losing coverage would be low-income Americans affected by the elimination of the law's Medicaid expansion provision. Insurers would also no longer have to cover young adults up to age 26 under their parents' plans. Most of the law's major provisions, however, such as the health insurance mandate, federal subsidies for health insurance and elimination of restrictions on pre-existing conditions, didn't go into effect until 2014 and mostly applied to US -born and documented Latinos. In addition, half (52%) are "very worried" they or a family member will have to pay more for coverage.

At the same time, the case is emerging as a major flashpoint ahead of the fall midterm elections as Democrats highlight Republican efforts to roll back the law and its protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions.

Like this: