Tweet
By Stephanie Armour - The Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON—The Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional without its insurance-coverage penalty, a Texas federal judge ruled Friday, thrusting the embattled health law’s future and coverage for millions of Americans into question.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the main provisions of the Affordable Care Act should be struck down after Republicans repealed its insurance-coverage penalty. The Texas federal judge’s decision could endanger coverage of tens of millions of Americans.
Judge O’Connor sided with the claims of 20 Republican states, which brought a lawsuit asserting the law is unconstitutional without a penalty for not having coverage. Republicans repealed the requirement last year, although it doesn’t go into effect until 2019. The Supreme Court has upheld the ACA as constitutional based on Congress’ taxing power.
The 16 Democratic attorneys general who have intervened in the case are expected to seek a stay pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case could wind up in the Supreme Court.
“Today’s ruling is an assault on 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, on the 20 million Americans who rely on the ACA’s consumer protections for health care, on America’s faithful progress toward affordable health care for all Americans,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who intervened with other Democrats in the case.
In a move that stunned many congressional Republicans, the Justice Department also asked the court to invalidate key planks of the ACA. Those provisions include consumer protections such as the prohibition barring insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
Judge O’Connor had to weigh whether the plaintiffs have standing in the case and whether a penalty-free insurance mandate is unconstitutional—and if so, what parts of the law should be struck down.
“Finally, Congress stated many times unequivocally-—through enacted text signed by the President—that the individual mandate is ‘essential’ to the ACA,” he wrote. “And this essentiality, the ACA’s text makes clear, means the mandate must ‘work together with the other provisions’ for the act to function as intended.”
Democrats seized on the request in the November election campaign to portray Republicans as threatening the health coverage of an estimated 52 million Americans with pre-existing health conditions. Some congressional Republicans have introduced legislation and a House resolution aimed at preserving some pre-existing-coverage protections.
The lawsuit, which was first dismissed as largely frivolous when it was filed in February, represents the biggest risk to the ACA since the repeal push in 2017. Led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, it seeks to undo the entire health law that has now become deeply intertwined in the U.S. health system.
It includes Medicaid expansion, subsidies for roughly 10 million people who buy health insurance on the ACA’s individual markets, requirements on employer-provided health coverage and new industry taxes. An estimated 20 million people gained coverage, mostly through Medicaid expansion and the ACA exchanges, since October 2013, according to a 2016 report from the Department of Health and Human Services.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal...d=hp_lead_pos1
WASHINGTON—The Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional without its insurance-coverage penalty, a Texas federal judge ruled Friday, thrusting the embattled health law’s future and coverage for millions of Americans into question.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the main provisions of the Affordable Care Act should be struck down after Republicans repealed its insurance-coverage penalty. The Texas federal judge’s decision could endanger coverage of tens of millions of Americans.
Judge O’Connor sided with the claims of 20 Republican states, which brought a lawsuit asserting the law is unconstitutional without a penalty for not having coverage. Republicans repealed the requirement last year, although it doesn’t go into effect until 2019. The Supreme Court has upheld the ACA as constitutional based on Congress’ taxing power.
The 16 Democratic attorneys general who have intervened in the case are expected to seek a stay pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case could wind up in the Supreme Court.
“Today’s ruling is an assault on 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions, on the 20 million Americans who rely on the ACA’s consumer protections for health care, on America’s faithful progress toward affordable health care for all Americans,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who intervened with other Democrats in the case.
In a move that stunned many congressional Republicans, the Justice Department also asked the court to invalidate key planks of the ACA. Those provisions include consumer protections such as the prohibition barring insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
Judge O’Connor had to weigh whether the plaintiffs have standing in the case and whether a penalty-free insurance mandate is unconstitutional—and if so, what parts of the law should be struck down.
“Finally, Congress stated many times unequivocally-—through enacted text signed by the President—that the individual mandate is ‘essential’ to the ACA,” he wrote. “And this essentiality, the ACA’s text makes clear, means the mandate must ‘work together with the other provisions’ for the act to function as intended.”
Democrats seized on the request in the November election campaign to portray Republicans as threatening the health coverage of an estimated 52 million Americans with pre-existing health conditions. Some congressional Republicans have introduced legislation and a House resolution aimed at preserving some pre-existing-coverage protections.
The lawsuit, which was first dismissed as largely frivolous when it was filed in February, represents the biggest risk to the ACA since the repeal push in 2017. Led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, it seeks to undo the entire health law that has now become deeply intertwined in the U.S. health system.
It includes Medicaid expansion, subsidies for roughly 10 million people who buy health insurance on the ACA’s individual markets, requirements on employer-provided health coverage and new industry taxes. An estimated 20 million people gained coverage, mostly through Medicaid expansion and the ACA exchanges, since October 2013, according to a 2016 report from the Department of Health and Human Services.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/federal...d=hp_lead_pos1