MESSAGE
| DATE | 2020-11-08 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Obama Care in the Supreme Court
|
wsj.com
Affordable Care Act Faces Latest Test in Supreme Court
Jess Bravin and Stephanie Armour
6-8 minutes
WASHINGTON—A week after President Trump’s electoral defeat, the Supreme
Court will hear arguments on one of the principal goals of his 2016
campaign—eliminating the Affordable Care Act—in the midst of an
intensifying pandemic.
The president and Senate Republicans never found a path to repeal or
replace the Obama-era health-care law. But by reducing to zero the
penalty for failing to maintain health insurance, they effectively
removed the piece they found most objectionable.
In Tuesday’s case, a Texas-led group of Republican-leaning states,
backed by the Trump administration, contend that change made the entire
health-care law unconstitutional. If a majority of justices agree, the
result could be loss of health-care coverage for at least 20 million
Americans.
A federal district judge in Fort Worth, Texas, ruled in favor of those
challenging the law. Last year, a federal appeals court in New Orleans
upheld most of that decision, but left open the more important question
of “severability”: whether invalidating one portion of the law—the
individual mandate—must bring the entire statute down with it.
A coalition of more liberal states, led by California, intervened to
defend the ACA, backed by the Democratic-controlled House of
Representatives.
President-elect Joe Biden ran on expanding the Affordable Care Act and
has said he wants to resurrect the law’s penalty on people who go
without coverage. That could make a decision to strike down the health
law moot. Even under Texas’s legal theory, the law would become
constitutional if Congress imposed a token penalty of $1 or declared it
wasn’t mandatory to carry insurance.
Mr. Biden would have a little time to pursue such a legislative change
because a high-court decision isn’t expected until the end of June. Even
if Republicans continue to control the Senate, two of their number—Lisa
Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine—opposed the ACA repeal
efforts and are seen as reluctant to eliminate the law without a ready
replacement, said Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor.
The Affordable Care Act passed its most serious constitutional test in
2012. Along with four other conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts
found that Congress’s authority to regulate commerce didn’t include
requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. But he joined four
liberal justices in accepting the Obama administration’s backup
argument—that Congress could penalize individuals who failed to carry
insurance by imposing a tax on them.
Texas argues that because the 2017 tax bill set the penalty at zero,
meaning it no longer produces revenue, it cannot be a tax.
Congress “removed the textual hook that allowed this Court to construe
the mandate as a tax,” the Texas brief says, and apart from its taxing
authority, Congress has no other means to direct individuals to carry
insurance.
That makes the individual mandate unconstitutional, Texas argues, and
without the individual mandate, there can be no Affordable Care Act.
Texas cites statements from Obamacare backers that the other provisions
intended to create near-universal coverage weren’t economically feasible
unless nearly everyone bought insurance.
“Six different times the ACA’s text says the individual mandate must
work ‘together with the other provisions of this Act’ as an integrated
whole to accomplish Congress’s goals,” Texas observes. California argues
that the case should be dismissed outright, because none of the
plaintiffs has been harmed by the lack of penalty and thus lack
standing. In any case, though, California contends they are wrong on all
counts, arguing among other things that the mandate should be viewed as
“a suspended exercise of the taxing power” because the 2017 Congress
left its successors flexibility to reinstate the penalty.
If the court holds that the mandate is unconstitutional as long as there
is no penalty for disregarding it, California says the rest of the ACA
should remain intact because Congress rejected efforts to repeal the law.
“It is abundantly clear that Congress wanted to keep the hundreds of
other ACA provisions that are within its power without an enforceable
minimum coverage provision,” California argues.
By 2017, lawmakers knew “that almost 12 million Americans were receiving
healthcare coverage through the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid and another
eight million were using ACA-funded tax credits to purchase insurance
through the Act’s Exchanges,” the brief says, along with “directing
billions of dollars to state and local governments, which used the funds
to expand access to healthcare and fight emerging public health threats.”
Although the GOP has long opposed Obamacare, the Texas suit, arriving as
the nation reels from the coronavirus pandemic, has garnered minimal
support from congressional Republicans. Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell of Kentucky, the nation’s highest-ranking Republican after
outgoing President Trump, hasn’t openly championed the ACA lawsuit,
saying last month that “no one believes the Supreme Court is going to
strike down the Affordable Care Act.”
Millions of people have lost their jobs during the pandemic, and with
them their work-provided health insurance. Elimination of the ACA would
inflict a shock on the health-care system, analysts say. Most states
with budgets already strapped by the pandemic would be unable to cover
the shortfall if federal funding for Medicaid expansion ends.
Moreover, the law is now firmly entrenched in the U.S. health system.
The ACA ensures coverage of preventive care, including a possible
Covid-19 vaccine, without cost sharing in Medicare, Medicaid and private
insurance.
The ACA also has spurred federal programs that pay doctors and hospitals
for patient outcomes rather than giving them a fee for each service;
guaranteed coverage for people with pre-existing health conditions; and
put limits on out-of-pocket costs for care. The Trump administration
also leaned on the ACA for part of its legal argument requiring
hospitals to disclose their negotiated rates with insurers.
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin-at-wsj.com and Stephanie Armour at
stephanie.armour-at-wsj.com
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrklyn.com
DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS - RI Safir 2002
http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software
http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Being so tracked is for FARM ANIMALS and extermination camps,
but incompatible with living as a free human being. -RI Safir 2013
_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout
|
|
