Trump Seeks End to Pre-existing Condition Mandate

Trump Seeks End to Pre-existing Condition Mandate

Also, 39 percent of registered voters in today's NBC/WSJ said they are enthusiastic or comfortable with a candidate seeking to repeal Obamacare, compared to 49 percent who said they have reservations or were very uncomfortable with a candidate seeking to repeal the health care law. Rather, they promise to fight repeal of the Affordable Care Act - which the Trump administration continues to pursue - or call for expanding Medicaid, the federal program for the poor, disabled and nursing home residents that, polls show, enjoys strong support even among Republicans.

The reason so many people could be affected by this decision is because it would apply not just to people with individual insurance policies, "but also [to] people with preexisting conditions who have employer-sponsored coverage".

In a brief filed Thursday, the Justice Department sided with Texas and a coalition of other Republican-led states that had filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare. Now they have a new talking point, and they lost no time testing it. "For the people not affected by the ACA, or not particularly supportive, I don't know that it will matter much". The Justice Department isn't asking for anything immediately.

SIMON: We've been getting reports from all over the country about how health care premiums are going up.

Most legal scholars seem to think this suit is unlikely to succeed.

Medicaid is considered to be the largest source of health coverage for the USA. A recent HuffPost/YouGov poll also found that health care is voters' top issue.

Besides urging nullification of the insurance-buying mandate itself, the new government position argued that two of the most popular features of the ACA must fall along with it: the requirement that insurance companies can not deny health insurance to individuals because of existing or pre-existing medical conditions, and the requirement that they can not charge higher insurance premiums based on existing or pre-existing conditions. That's one of the most popular parts of the health law.

The issue became a flash point that helped derail Republican efforts to repeal the law a year ago, with opponents of the party's health bills speaking loudly against weakening protections for the sick and vulnerable.

The Trump administration Thursday did not go that far. Which will make it more likely that the Democrats will take back the House and/or the Senate. "No matter what Washington spin Bob Casey puts on it, the fact remains access to care got worse and costs skyrocketed early in the Obama Administration due to the disastrous law Casey supported".

Passage of the Affordable Care Act cost them control of Congress, gave rise to the upstart Tea party movement and helped install Donald Trump in the White House.

How is this lawsuit different from previous challenges to the ACA? Texas wants the provision of the ACA requiring individuals to have health insurance declared unconstitutional.

Stormy Daniels Sues Ex-Lawyer She Says Was ‘Puppet’ for Trump, Cohen
The former New York City mayor was speaking at the "Globes" Capital Market Conference in Israel. "She believes in her husband". Scarborough said the first lady's terse statement crushed Giuliani and signaled just how wrong he was to speak for her.

In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate as a legal use of Congress's taxing power. "Congress in 2010 may have thought that a mandate may have been an essential component of the ACA, but a subsequent Congress indicated otherwise by eliminating the penalty without altering the other parts of the law". Without that form of tax, the new Administration document noted, the ACA mandate to buy insurance would be unconstitutional as beyond Congress's power to regulate interstate commercial activity.

If the administration prevails in the case, the full force of the decision would not hit until after the midterm elections on November 6.

"Otherwise individuals could wait until they become sick to purchase insurance, thus driving up premiums for everyone else", Sessions said in his letter to Pelosi. Under another provision, the community rating provision, insurers were not allowed to set premiums based on a person's health history. "That's how far out the administration's position is".

Texas and other Republican-led states are suing to strike down the entire law because Congress recently repealed a provision that people without health insurance must pay a fine.

California and 15 other states filed an opposing brief on Thursday defending the law.

Democrats "are responsible for the current problems that we have in our healthcare system as a result of Obamacare", said Hunt, noting the law passed without a single Republican vote. "This is a sad moment".

Just hours before the Justice Department officially withdrew from the case, three of the staff attorneys who had been working on it withdrew. That's not exactly what the attorneys general were arguing, but that's what the Justice Department position is.

The issues in the court case are unlikely to be resolved quickly, but some experts said the added uncertainty could prompt insurers to seek higher premiums in 2019 for health plans sold to individuals. "Such withdrawals are exceedingly rare - typically only when the argument is indefensible, as they are here".

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department would not defend the preexisting-conditions provision or the provision allowing insurance companies to impose discriminatory pricing.

For years Democrats ran from the health-care issue as though it were a heap of flaming rubble, which, politically speaking, it was.

The Texas district court judge, Judge Reed O'Connor, still has to rule on the request Texas and Texas' allies have made for the preliminary injunction. Ultimately, the case may be heading for the Supreme Court.