USA court to decide future of Obamacare

Leslie Hanson
July 10, 2019

He said he remains open to bipartisan talks about efforts to reduce costs of health care and especially the costs of prescription drugs. And he said Supreme Court precedent dictates that the courts should strive to uphold as numerous law's provisions as possible.

"We never heard anything about any Republican plan", said state Rep.

Congress set the stage for this challenge in the tax bill that President Trump signed into law in 2017. This lawsuit, Texas v.

Now, 20 Republican attorneys general around the country believe they have a case to have the law ruled unconstitutional.

Tuesday's arguments were the latest step in the law's sinuous path through the courts since its passage in 2010. "The former enacted the ACA".

In 2018, Democrats mainly relied on messaging that touted the Affordable Care Act and its coverage of pre-existing conditions.

California and 19 other mostly Democratic states, along with the District of Columbia and the U.S. House of Representatives, now controlled by Democrats, jumped in to defend the law after the Trump administration chose to side with the red states that want it struck down.

"Our argument is simple", Becerra said in a written statement released Friday. "Our families' wellbeing should not be treated as a political football". That year, Democrats surged back in ME and around the country, capturing the both houses of the Legislature and the Blaine House here and the US House of Representatives in Washington.

In an unusual break with tradition, the Trump administration announced about a year ago that it would not defend the ACA in court.

For all the drama, much of the presentations by attorneys and judges' questions turned on technical points, focusing largely on the matter of "severability" - whether the elements of the law can exist independent of one another - and whether the various parties to the case have legal standing to take part. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told reporters on a conference call Monday.


But Chief Justice John Roberts, joining four liberal justices, said Congress did have the power to impose a tax on those without insurance.

Bush appointee, asked how the plaintiff states how they would argue the mandate could not be considered separately from other provisions in the far-reaching healthcare law, such as restaurant calorie guidelines.

The Trump administration had initially opposed certain parts of the law tied to the mandate.

Even senior Trump administration officials, including White House economists and Justice Department lawyers, have noted in recent months the success of insurance markets and dismissed the impact of eliminating the penalty.

Now it appears the administration is shifting its opinion on the ACA again.

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. It is unclear how that would work.

In a brief filed with the appeals court, legal scholars from both sides of the fight over the ACA agreed that the Texas lawsuit's underlying claim makes no sense. Without the linchpin of the individual insurance mandate, he said, the entire law must fall. Bagley and Gluck are supporters of the ACA; Adler and Somin have argued against it in earlier suits. "Stripped of its tax status, the individual mandate is nothing more than an unconstitutional congressional mandate to purchase health insurance".

The ACA could end up in front of the Supreme Court right in the middle of the 2020 election.

Two of the three judges on the appellate panelin New Orleans - Jennifer Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, and Kurt Engelhardt, a President Donald Trump appointee - gave the appearance that they might side with a lower court judge who ruled a year ago that the whole law should be struck down.

Other reports by Iphone Fresh

Discuss This Article

FOLLOW OUR NEWSPAPER