Published: Mon, December 17, 2018
Health Care | By Cedric Leonard

Is Obamacare going to be repealed? Probably not, experts say

Is Obamacare going to be repealed? Probably not, experts say

"Now Congress must pass a STRONG law that provides GREAT healthcare and protects pre-existing conditions".

Representative Nancy Pelosi, who's likely to become Speaker in the new Congress, called the ruling "absurd", adding that Democrats in the House will "swiftly intervene in the appeals process" once they take control in January.

Judge Reed O'Connor, appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in 2007 by former President George W. Bush, ruled that the individual mandate is illegal and therefore the entire law is unconstitutional.

"There is widespread support for protecting people with pre-existing conditions, and there's widespread opposition to the individual mandate", Collins said.

If the appeals court - and Supreme Court - uphold Friday night's ruling, it could translate into an abrupt and disruptive turn in the health care of millions of Americans.

He has previously ruled against other Obama administration initiatives, including a nationwide injunction in 2016 that blocked a policy advising school districts that transgender students should have access to the restrooms that match their gender identity. It has "no impact to current coverage or coverage in a 2019 plan", Seema Verma, administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said on Twitter.

The American medical establishment came out strongly against the decision.

"We know what Congress' intent was in 2017 - that was to pull the individual mandate while keeping the rest of ACA intact", University of MI law professor Nicholas Bagley said. A spokeswoman for Becerra vowed a quick challenge to O'Connor's ruling.

Brexit: May rebuffed by European Union leaders in Brussels
Most Conservative lawmakers who don't have government positions voted against her during this past week's no-confidence vote. He added: "We have to bring down the temperature".


The case may not be resolved in the courts before 2020, legal experts said, which could make it a defining issue in the race for the White House and Congress.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who spearheaded the lawsuit, said the ruling "will give President Trump and Congress the opportunity to replace the failed social experiment with a plan that ensures Texans and all Americans will again have greater choice about what health coverage they need and who will be their doctor".

"There's no reason why the individual mandate provision can't be struck down and keep all the good provisions of the Affordable Care Act", Collins told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union". "It would eliminate a lot of maternal care, all kinds of women's health". Instead, the decision will proceed on appeal, and will nearly certainly end up at the Supreme Court once again, this time without the tax fig leaf.

At Vox.com, Ezra Klein also calledthe ruling a "boon" to Medicare for All, whose support among Americans has skyrocketed in the last several years, with 70 percent of those surveyed in a recent Reuters poll reporting that they approved of the proposal.

"It's an bad, terrible ruling, and we're going to fight this tooth-and-nail, and the first thing we're going to do when we get back there in the Senate is urge - put a vote on the floor urging an intervention in the case", Schumer told Meet the Press.

That view is an even more expansive dismissal of the law than the Trump administration's position in court. After Trump ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the health law, a coalition of ACA-supporting states took up the defense. But he spent the majority of the post countering the media's reporting, which accurately detailed the judge's ruling as wholly gutting Obamacare. United States, was filed in February.

Approximately 20 million people have gained health insurance coverage since the law passed in 2010, according to the Associated Press.

"This decision violates multiple precepts that guide and limit the exercise of the judicial power - and it sets a risky precedent that invites politicians to resort to the unelected, life-tenured judiciary when they can not achieve their political goals through the democratic process", the group said in a statement.

Like this: