Millions Of Americans Have Been Benefiting From The Health Law For Years–They Just Might Not Know It
Consumer protections were put in place through the Affordable Care Act even for people who don't buy coverage on the exchanges. Now a federal judge's ruling invalidating the law might jeopardize those popular provisions that Americans might not even realize are part of the ACA. Meanwhile, less than a week after that decision, the case is back in court, this time in front of a judge appointed by former President Barack Obama. And, the legal uncertainty is complicating Medicaid expansion politics.
Politico:
Obamacare’s Secret Base: America’s Middle Class
Millions of middle-class Americans who get health coverage through work have been getting Obamacare benefits for years — whether they know it or not. And millions of older Americans who rack up big drug costs under Medicare get more financial help through Obamacare — whether they know it or not. Now a Texas federal judge who just invalidated the entire health care law has put them at risk — whether they know it or not. (Kenen and Ollstein, 12/19)
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
If Ruling On ACA Is Upheld, Entire Insurance Market Would Be Affected
Cathy Mahaffey, the chief executive of Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, has a simple question if the Affordable Care Act no longer exists: “What is Wisconsin’s Plan B?” Others were asking the same question after a federal judge in Texas on Friday ruled in favor of 20 states, including Wisconsin, that asked the court to declare the law unconstitutional. (Boulton, 12/18)
Boston Globe:
Here’s Why Experts Say The Judge In The ACA Case Went Too Far
Yet a federal judge in Texas has ruled that the Republican elimination of the tax penalty for the uninsured also invalidated the legal mandate that every adult American have health insurance. Based on just those two issues, Judge Reed O’Connor ruled the entire law is unconstitutional. But Boston-area law professors who specialize in health care law and the intersection between health care and the US Constitution contend O’Connor’s vaporizing of the Affordable Care Act as a whole is the judicial equivalent of a doctor performing surgery on the wrong body part — it’s just not right. (Ellement, 12/18)
Cleveland Plain Dealer:
Texas Judge’s Obamacare Ruling Is ‘Bananas,’ Says Case Western Law Professor Whose Research Fueled Previous Attempt To Gut Law
A Case Western Reserve University law professor whose research formed the foundation for a major challenge to the Affordable Care Act recently found himself on the other side – essentially defending the current state of the controversial law. Jonathan Adler, who has taught at Case since 2001, said a Texas federal judge’s recent ruling that struck down the entire healthcare law, commonly known as Obamacare, has analysis that the professor considers “bananas.” (Heisig, 12/18)
Bloomberg:
Obamacare Battle Now Before A Baltimore Judge Picked By Obama
Five days after a Texas judge declared the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, Obamacare supporters are back in court in a bid to save it. A lawsuit filed in September as a hedge against just the sort of ruling U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth issued Dec. 14 is the new front in the nearly nine-year war over President Barack Obama’s signature achievement and could force the issue back before the U.S. Supreme Court. (Harris, 12/19)
Modern Healthcare:
Texas ACA Ruling Complicates Politics Of Medicaid Expansion
A Texas federal judge's ruling Friday invalidating the Affordable Care Act could create political headaches for Medicaid expansion supporters in states that are moving to implement or maintain expansion. If it's upheld on appeal, which is highly uncertain, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor's decision declaring the entire ACA unconstitutional would eliminate federal authorization and funding for the expansion of Medicaid to low-income adults. That would force states to shoulder the full price of covering people who would not qualify for coverage under pre-ACA criteria, rather than having the federal government pick up 90% of the cost. (Meyer, 12/18)
In other news —
The Baltimore Sun:
Maryland AG Frosh Seeks To Preserve Affordable Care Act And Opposes Acting U.S. Attorney General's Involvement
The Maryland attorney general's office is seeking to preserve its suit sustaining the Affordable Care Act while challenging the legality of Matthew Whitaker's appointment as acting U.S. attorney general. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander scheduled a hearing in the case for Wednesday morning in Baltimore. The suit seeks a declaration that the Affordable Care Act — once known as Obamacare — is constitutional, and it aims to uphold provisions protecting people with pre-existing medical conditions when they seek insurance. (Barker, 12/19)
Denver Post:
Colorado Health Insurance Market Showing Stability, According To State Report
Uncertainty may be flooding the health care market after a Texas judge’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act, but in Colorado there is some good news: There’s another sign pointing to the individual market stabilizing. Insurers didn’t lose as much money on the individual market last year as they did in 2016 and 2015, according to a new report by the Colorado Division of Insurance. As for consumers, officials offered good news: They’re likely to see lower increases in their health insurance premiums than in previous years. (Seaman, 12/18)
