Trump Administration Takes New Aim At Obamacare's Pre-Existing Protections

[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.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

1. Trump and the Congressional Republicans ARE NOT Pro-Life

Nor are they Christians. No follower of Christ would put lives at risk, eliminate funding for Children's health, that of Seniors, etc.

When your Republican Rep says they are "Christian and Pro-Life", LAUGH in their face and yell out "No you are not! You are a fucking hypocrite liar who is Pro-Birth!"

Then wait for them to react if they do.

[lancelyons]

4. They are pro kick a liberal in the ass.. get their way by strong arm tactics.

And more and more they are succeeding.

Democrats are too nice and try to do the gentlemanly thing.

GOP shoves the democrat in the ground and rubs feces on their face.

Who wins?

[bearsfootball516]

2. If this happens, the November blue wave will turn into a tsunami we've never seen before.

It’ll be a Republican massacre in the House, Senate and Governorships.

[riversedge]

3. **Sessions wrote that he has the approval of Trump to do this ....

https://gizmodo.com/trump-regime-says-obamacare-shouldnt-protect-people-wit-1826662463



Trump Regime Says Obamacare Shouldn't Protect People With Pre-Existing Medical Conditions
Matt Novak
Today 7:00amFiled to: obamacare

.......................................

It’s considered very strange for the U.S. Department of Justice to argue against existing law, but that’s precisely what President Trump’s DOJ is doing by joining 20 conservative-led states. Obamacare has been unpopular among some conservatives, but the protections for people with pre-existing conditions have been incredibly well received. According to a Kaiser poll last year, 70 percent of Americans overall believe that insurance companies shouldn’t be able to charge consumers more if they have pre-existing conditions. When the numbers are broken down by party, a strong majority, 59 percent of Republicans, still believe that people with pre-existing conditions should be protected.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent a letter to Republican congressman Paul Ryan and Democratic congresswoman Nancy Pelosi yesterday saying that he was acting with the explicit approval of President Trump, despite Trump’s previous promises that he would make sure all Americans get better, cheaper health care. The president has done nothing to actually achieve that, of course, and Trump supporters often give credit to Trump when they benefit from provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

The new Republican-led tax cut, an enormous transfer of wealth from the poorest Americans to the wealthiest Americans, got rid of the individual mandate which required all Americans to buy health insurance. Sessions claims that the tax law’s elimination of the individual mandate should invalidate the requirement that health insurance companies not discriminate based on pre-existing conditions.

Texas first filed its lawsuit to completely dismantle the ACA on February 28, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and saw 19 other states join. But 17 Democratic-controlled states, led by California, intervened in April to fight back against the attacks on Obamacare.

“The lawsuit initiated by Texas is dangerous and reckless and would destroy the ACA as we know it. It would leave millions of Americans without access to affordable, quality healthcare. It is irresponsible and puts politics ahead of working families,” California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “We won’t sit back as Texas and others try yet again to dismantle our healthcare system. Our coalition of states and partners across the country will fight any effort to strip families of their health insurance.”

Where will things shake out? The judge overseeing the case in Texas was appointed by Republicans, and as the New York Times notes, three DOJ lawyers who were working on the case abruptly quit yesterday, presumably because they weren’t happy with the decision to dismantle Obamacare and protections for consumers.

If Texas and the DOJ win, the most popular elements of the ACA will disappear. And it will sure be interesting to see who Trump supporters blame if the DOJ succeeds in stripping health care away from millions of people. Somehow, you know it won’t be Trump.

[riversedge]

5. It's considered very strange for the U.S. Department of Justice to argue against existing law, but

https://gizmodo.com/trump-regime-says-obamacare-shouldnt-protect-people-wit-1826662463


Health
Trump Regime Says Obamacare Shouldn't Protect People With Pre-Existing Medical Conditions
Matt Novak
Today 7:00amFiled to: obamacare
16.8K
93
9
Photo: Getty

The U.S. Justice Department made an unusual argument to a federal court last night, claiming that Obamacare’s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions are unconstitutional. Roughly 1 in 4 Americans have pre-existing conditions that would make it difficult to buy insurance without those protections. If the DOJ is successful, millions of American could be denied the ability to buy health insurance.

Under the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, insurance companies can’t deny coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, and it puts limits on how much those companies can charge. But the Trump regime wants to change all that, arguing in federal court along with 20 states that protections for pre-existing conditions should be abolished.

It’s considered very strange for the U.S. Department of Justice to argue against existing law, but that’s precisely what President Trump’s DOJ is doing by joining 20 conservative-led states. Obamacare has been unpopular among some conservatives, but the protections for people with pre-existing conditions have been incredibly well received. According to a Kaiser poll last year, 70 percent of Americans overall believe that insurance companies shouldn’t be able to charge consumers more if they have pre-existing conditions. When the numbers are broken down by party, a strong majority, 59 percent of Republicans, still believe that people with pre-existing conditions ................

[turbinetree]

6. Maybe this malignant asshole should re-read the preamble, or have someone that is sane read it to

him......................here is a fucking reminder dirt bag....................here fuck wad, I will make it real simple................

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Did you notice in the preamble fuck wad, it says promote the general welfare, and establish Justice............so go fuck yourself.................................we are coming asshole, unconstitutional my ass.......................


November 2018 cannot get here fast enough

[progree]

7. Genocidal maniacs. That's what I screamed at some Republican from the state Repub party

who had the audacity to call me (that was several months ago).

[paleotn]

8. Oh, now that's a winner...

Attack one of the most popular aspects of the legislation. Smart.

[duforsure]

9. Trump and the gop,

Want to destroy all health care , and Social Security for everyone except for the elites. The same thing for education, and many other area's of our government. A vote for a Republican is a vote to take all health care away, and to destroy Social Security . When his followers realize what they're doing to them , they're going to be the most upset that they've been conned.