Trump Administration Takes New Aim At Obamacare's Pre-Existing Protections [View all]

[riversedge]

Source: Huff post




06/07/2018 10:17 pm ET Updated 3 hours ago

The effort probably won’t succeed, but it could put health care back in the political debate.


The Trump administration on Thursday officially threw its support behind a new, seemingly far-fetched legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act, arguing that the law’s protections for people with pre-existing conditions are unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, now before a federal district judge in Texas, comes from officials in 20 conservative states. And its prospects for success look slim. The Supreme Court has already rejected two legal challenges to the law, the second on a 6-3 decision that came with a strongly worded ruling from Chief Justice John Roberts.

State attorneys general will step in to defend the law from this new challenge. And they will not have difficulty making their case.

The lawsuit’s key argument is that Congress intended for the pre-existing condition protections to work in tandem with the law’s individual mandate, the provision that people have insurance or pay a penalty. Now that Congress has decided to zero out the penalty, as Republicans did last year as part of the 2017 tax cut, the pre-existing conditions have to go, too.

......................................
On Thursday, three career attorneys from the Department of Justice asked to remove themselves from the case. That is highly unusual, leaving legal observers like Bagley to speculate that the lawyers may have felt they could not in good conscience sign onto the brief.
...........................................

Read more: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-obamacare-justice-lawsuit_us_5b19d81be4b0bbb7a0dafeef

---

Read Andy's tweets on this issue to get a better picture:



Andy Slavitt
?Verified account @ASlavitt

BREAKING: The biggest health care news of the year.

The Trump DOJ tonight just told the courts to dismantle pre-existing conditions protections and other consumer protections.

This may seem predictable, but these actions are unprecedented.

More coming. Follow if interested.

Link to tweet

8:27 PM - 7 Jun 2018

20,276 Retweets
21,832 Likes
Mary Quite Contrary
Bubby
Ramsai
RAOJenkins🇺🇸 🏳️?🌈
ReadBetweentheLyme💚
Barbara Wyatt
leah gillis
Tsahia Hobson, MHA
Human In resistance

809 replies 20,276 retweets 21,832 likes
dora wiilliams Tweet text




New conversation
Andy Slavitt
?Verified account @ASlavitt
14h14 hours ago

Before I get into it, I have to stop and just repeat this another way:

The DOJ, responsible for upholding the rule of law, is not defending the people in a frivolous lawsuit to say that wi5out the mandate, the rest of the ACA can’t be enforced. 2/
19 replies 1,366 retweets 2,621 likes
Andy Slavitt
?Verified account @ASlavitt
14h14 hours ago

This collusion between the conservative plaintiffs and the “defense” would make pre-ex protections and age rating protections unconstitutional.

In an active of savage cynicism, the Trump Administration doesn’t want this to go into effect until after the election. 3/
30 replies 1,347 retweets 2,411 likes
Andy Slavitt
?Verified account @ASlavitt
13h13 hours ago

On the phone now with experts. Give me a minute. 4/
4 replies 288 retweets 1,292 likes
Andy Slavitt
?Verified account @ASlavitt
13h13 hours ago

I am going got try to cover what happened and what is likely to happen next.

A gift for insurance companies and the infliction of harm on the lives of 130 million Americans w pre ex conditions or older Americans.

So what happened... 5/
14 replies 927 retweets 1,863 likes
Andy Slavitt
?Verified account @ASlavitt
13h13 hours ago

Two really destructive instincts have combined: a desire to turn back the ACA and hurt the millions who benefit from it (not through the exchanges but through the protections) AND an unprecedented move by the Justice Dept. not to defend the rule of law in a frivolous case. 6/
15 replies 1,163 retweets 2,084 likes
Andy Slavitt
?Verified account @ASlavitt
13h13 hours ago

FOR AMERICANS WITH PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS: This is game on that the Administration is against you. Same if you ever may get sick.

(Excuse all CAPS for looking like I’m yelling. But I’m literally in a restaurant in DC and feel like I should probably be yelling.) 7/
64 replies 2,244 retweets 3,996 likes
Andy Slavitt
?Verified account @ASlavitt
13h13 hours ago

Legally, this is the justice department laying down and refusing to do their jobs for political reasons.

Three career Justice Department officials quit the case today, presumably in protest. Amazing.

Unbelievable details c/o @nicholas_bagley 7/

https://takecareblog.com/blog/texas-fold-em …
26 replies 1,970 retweets 3,201 likes
Andy Slavitt
?Verified account @ASlavitt
13h13 hours ago

So what happens now: it is up to other states (who filed tonight) to do what the Federal government wouldn’t— and argue on behalf of the public. 8/
26 replies 846 retweets 2,201 likes
Andy Slavitt
?Verified account @ASlavitt
13h13 hours ago

Experts tell me the following.

Frivolous lawsuit will attract every conservative lawyer to get this o the Supreme Court.

Even though conservative experts point out how frivolous this is. 9/
4 replies 549 retweets 1,311 likes
Andy Slavitt
?Verified account @ASlavitt
13h13 hours ago

There are chances this ends up past the crazy judge who has the case now, the 5th(?) circuit and on the Lap of Chief Justice Roberts.

Only imagine a USOC case with the Solicitor in cohorts with the defendant.

Sound unprecedented? Probably why career lawyers walked out. 10/
6 replies 600 retweets 1,522 likes
Andy Slavitt
?Verified account @ASlavitt
13h13 hours ago

This could hit the Supreme Court in 2019 earliest or more likely . . . 2020.

And who knows what the make up of the court is by then? If Trump us a chance to replace a liberal judge, it may even be out of Roberts hands. 11/
11 replies 590 retweets 1,281 likes
Andy Slavitt
?Verified account @ASlavitt
13h13 hours ago

More important than ever...

-A loud public outcry
-Educate the public what could happen after the election
-Support for states preventing this
-A Dem Senate for the USOC
-A press and an electorate that makes every R who voted to eliminate the mandate account for this 12/
24 replies 1,672 retweets 3,187 likes


Andy Slavitt
?Verified account @ASlavitt
13h13 hours ago

I will close with this: people who care about public health don’t do this. People who care about the rule of law don’t do this.

The people responsible must come to regret it when they face the electorate. /end for now— I’m not going anywhere.