Latest Bid To Kill Health Law Gets Day In Court, Giving Dems A Possible Gift As Midterm Season Enters Final Stretch
If the judge rules that the health law is unconstitutional because Congress zeroed-out the individual mandate, 17 million people could lose their insurance and popular provisions -- such as protections for preexisting conditions and coverage for young adults up to age 26 -- could be wiped out. Democrats are seizing on the challenge as a 2018 campaign talking point.
The New York Times:
A New Lawsuit Threatens Obamacare. Here’s What’s At Stake And What To Expect In Oral Arguments
The Affordable Care Act has survived numerous court battles and repeal efforts, but a new case is threatening the law’s future once again. A federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, will hear arguments Wednesday on whether to grant a preliminary injunction that would suspend the health law until the case is decided. He has also indicated that he might go straight to ruling on the merits of the case. It focuses on whether the law’s requirement that most Americans have health insurance is unconstitutional, but has much broader implications. (Goodnough and Hoffman, 9/4)
The Wall Street Journal:
Health Law’s Constitutionality Is Focus Of GOP Lawsuit
The Trump Justice Department is asking the court to invalidate certain planks of the ACA, rather than tossing out the entire law. Among those provisions is a prohibition on insurers denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions. About 130 million non-elderly people in the U.S. have pre-existing conditions, and before the ACA, insurers could deny coverage to people for conditions including high cholesterol, cancer, and asthma. Democrats say a return to that arrangement would leave many patients without resources, while Republicans contend that over-regulating insurers makes coverage more expensive for many people. (Armour, 9/5)
Politico:
Red States Take Obamacare Back To Court, Picking Up Where Congress Left Off
Attorneys general from mostly conservative states will try to pick up where the GOP-led Congress left off, seeking a permanent injunction halting enforcement of the law. They argue that because Congress gutted the individual mandate — zeroing out the penalty for not having coverage starting next year — the rest of the law needs to go as well. Numerous legal experts have deemed the argument a stretch, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions has thrown the Trump administration’s weight behind key parts of the assault — with Sessions notably opposing the law’s popular protection for people with pre-existing conditions. (Demko, 9/5)
The Hill:
High Stakes As Court Takes Up ObamaCare Case
Democrats have made the case an issue in the midterm elections, blasting Republicans over the lawsuit and warning that it threatens to abolish popular protections for pre-existing conditions. (Sullivan, 9/4)
Bloomberg:
Anti-Obamacare Lawsuit Puts GOP On Defensive Before Elections
“The fact that this lawsuit is taking place in September means that the GOP’s health-care agenda -- the way they’re trying to increase premiums and cut coverage for preexisting conditions -- will be front and center for voters minds," said David Bergstein, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. (Kapur, 9/5)
The Hill:
Patient Groups Say GOP Bill On Pre-Existing Conditions Is Insufficient
More than 25 patient groups on Tuesday released a statement saying a recent GOP bill aimed at protecting people with pre-existing conditions is insufficient. The legislation, introduced by 10 GOP senators last month, aims to clarify that Republicans want to maintain ObamaCare’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions in case a GOP-backed lawsuit against the 2010 health law succeeds. (Sullivan, 9/4)
The Hill:
Poll: Majority Want To Keep ObamaCare Protections For Preexisting Conditions
A majority in a new poll want ObamaCare’s protections for pre-existing conditions to remain the law. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s latest tracking poll, 72 percent of those surveyed said it is “very important” to them that insurance companies remain prohibited from charging sick people more. (Weixel, 9/5)
