Consumers with Pre-Existing Conditions Following Obamacare Court Case in TX
Jul 13 2019
For Black women (who studies show have higher rates of diabetes and are more likely to die from cancer and pregnancy-related complications), the removal of ACA protections could increase barriers that prevent access to quality health care including birth control, cancer screenings and affordable prenatal and postpartum care.
Republicans argue the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate was an appropriate exercise of Congress' power to tax inNational Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius, the first case to uphold the ACA. The rest of the law must be struck down because the mandate is such an integral part of it, they say in court filings.
"Why is a command not a command?"
In a complicating twist, Justice Department attorneys also argued in papers filed with the court last week that the appeals court could invalidate the health care law only in the 18 red states that are suing.
His conciliatory efforts bought him nothing except a long delay in getting a bill through the Senate, a lag that almost killed the entire enterprise.
"That argument goes against well-established legal principles", Weiser said.
"You are violating the law", Elrod interjected.
Several times, Flentje seemed to nearly beg the judges to resolve the impasse between the White House and Congress, as the Supreme Court did when Obama refused to defend the federal law denying recognition to same-sex marriages.
The lawsuit, spearheaded by the Texas Attorney General's Office, was filed after Congress, in 2017, zeroed out a tax the Affordable Care Act imposed on those without insurance.
State Attorney General Patrick Morrisey noted increasing premiums as one reason for backing the lawsuit. Texas, he said, created a new excuse to challenge a law it doesn't like, which was upheld in 2012. He pointed to lawmakers' multiple votes to keep the law despite Republican opposition.
"President Trump's reckless lawsuit to strike down the Affordable Care Act threatens the lives and livelihoods of New Mexicans everywhere, including the Richard family".
"There's a political solution here that you, various parties are asking this court to roll up its sleeves and get involved in", Engelhardt said.
Like what you're reading? "[Congress] hasn't done anything unconstitutional".
U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth, Texas, agreed in December 2018, saying the individual mandate was unconstitutional because it no longer triggered a tax.
So, if the penalty is unconstitutional, the whole apparatus of the law should be struck down, too.
In other words, President Trump and the GOP should be careful what they wish for.
"All the court has to do is look at the text of the [tax law], see that Congress zeroed out the only thing enforceable", he said. Barring this, however, one can expect Democrats or Republicans, whichever side loses the case, to appeal to the Supreme Court. "We should all work towards making quality health care accessible and affordable for all Americans - especially those living with preexisting conditions", said Heinrich.
The reason is simple: Fundamentally, they believe that the government should have as little role in providing health care to people as possible.
Cogan, who specializes in health care law, said a repeal of this size without any new health care reform programs in place would put millions of Americans in jeopardy of losing insurance, including about 300,000 mostly low-income people in CT.
Mercy Sister Mary Haddad, CHA's president and CEO, said the "effort to eliminate access to affordable health care coverage for millions of Americans is unconscionable". "And today, we want to make clear what would happen if President Trump gets what he wants".
Trump told ABC News in June that he will be unveiling a "phenomenal" health care plan within the next two months.