Millions of Texans with pre-existing medical conditions cannot be denied coverage by insurance companies under protections established in the Affordable Care Act. Now, Attorney General Ken Paxton wants to throw patients with pre-existing conditions back to the mercy of insurance companies, and the Trump administration wants to help. In a brief filed Thursday night, Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) sided with 20 GOP attorneys general, led by Paxton, to say that pre-existing conditions protections under the ACA are unconstitutional. The argument in the lawsuit, originally filed by Texas and 19 other states in February, is that eliminating the individual mandate penalty in Congress’ tax bill last year rendered the mandate, and therefore the rest of the health care law, unconstitutional. In an unusual flouting of precedent, the administration has decided not to defend federal law, instead going after one of the ACA’s most popular provisions, in an election year, no less. The rules at issue prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage or charging more to certain individuals based on their health or gender. Prior to these protections, people could be routinely denied insurance coverage because they had past medical conditions, or charged more on the basis of being a woman who could become pregnant and need maternity care. Kaiser Family Foundation analysis. Many more have other health conditions that could lead to much higher costs. In its new brief, the federal government agreed with Texas and the other states that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, along with pre-existing conditions protections. But while Paxton’s lawsuit goes after the full ACA, the DOJ’s brief says that other measures of the law, such as the insurance exchanges, subsidies and Medicaid expansion, could stand. Asked to respond to the DOJ’s brief, Paxton’s communications director, Marc Rylander, wrote in an emailed statement, “We’re pleased that the Trump administration agrees with our argument that Obamacare’s individual mandate is unconstitutional and that key parts of Obamacare must be invalidated.” Paxton’s office declined to comment on pre-existing conditions protections specifically. The ongoing lawsuit has no immediate impact on coverage, and its chances for success may be slim. But it creates further uncertainty in an insurance market already rocked by Trump’s blatant attempts to sabotage the law. And legal experts say it’s an extremely dangerous precedent for the federal government to pick and choose which laws it wants to defend and enforce. (Here’s a helpful Twitter threadfrom University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley.) Notably, the lawsuit and brief are also striking indicators of the government’s priorities. Texas already declined a Medicaid expansion that would have covered more than 1 million patients. Now, in the state with the highest uninsured rate in the country, the top law enforcement official is still taking aim at the ACA’s insurance protections — and the president is taking his side in court. https://www.texasobserver.org/trump...-conditions-protections-are-unconstitutional/
Most of the discussion of the Trump administration's decision not to defend the Affordable Care Act — and to urge the courts to throw out its protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions — has focused on what happens to the individual insurance market. But the political impact may be even greater. Why it matters: Protections for people with pre-existing conditions are hugely popular, and the administration may have handed Democrats their strongest health care weapon yet — because now they can make the case that the administration has gone to court to take away protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions. The case is also likely to drag on, so it could be the political gift that keeps on giving through 2020, even if it is eventually thrown out. The back story: The lawsuit that the Trump administration has embraced is the latest assault on the ACA’s marketplaces, and appears to be motivated both by continuing anti-ACA sentiment and a belief that the ACA’s consumer protections drive up rates. No alternative to protect people with pre-existing conditions is offered. The impact: A lot of people would be affected. Our analysis at the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 52 million non-elderly adults had pre-existing conditions that would have made them uninsurable prior to passage of the ACA. Even more people had health conditions that would lead to premium surcharges based on their health. And they know it. Our March tracking poll found majority support across the board for prohibiting insurers from charging sick people more: 84% of Democrats support that part of the ACA, but so do 68% of independents and 59% of Republicans. 64% of Republicans still favor repeal of the ACA, but they do not favor repeal of protections for people with pre-existing conditions. What to watch: The denial of protections under the lawsuit would apply only to people in the individual market, because people in the group market are protected under other federal laws. But it may not play that way in the real world. Everyone with a pre-existing condition would likely be scared, just as most Americans were worried that their rates were increasing when rates spiked in the relatively small non-group market. Polls show that the public largely holds the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress responsible for problems with the ACA, and Democrats are accusing Republicans of ACA "sabotage." Republicans claim the problems are with the ACA itself, and they'd still like to repeal it — or change the subject to their repeal of the unpopular individual mandate penalty. This lawsuit ending protections for people with pre-existing conditions changes the equation. It's an action the administration and Republican states will have taken directly themselves that would end these popular protections. The bottom line: Democrats will try to force Republican candidates to take a position on the lawsuit. The question is how far Democrats will hit this this slow curve ball. https://www.axios.com/trump-gives-d...ing-e3b9e632-e718-466e-8522-764a2b6f5409.html
Step 1: remove a provision to create unconstitutionalities in the law. Step 2: use newly created flaw to scrap law entirely.
look - you sobs ran my 10,000 deductible up to 1300 month. (It was under 500 if I recall. maybe it should have gone up a few hundred over the last few years.) That is 15,600 dollars plus up another 10,000 or so before our insurance kicks in. 25,000 a year so others can get a discount... at least half that is stolen beyond market rates. the govt should be paying for helping others directly... not be rigging the prices we pay for insurance through garbage exchanges. Stop with the stealing from the income tax payers. Get your democart assholes to work with republican assholes and fix this theft. There is a whole portion of America who will never vote for a democrat again...until you do. And you foreign trolls have no business talking about this... you need to register before discussing U.S. politics in front of an election.
What did his post had anything to do with Trump admin calling pre-existing protections unconstitutional? Why the fuck should I go down that senile inbred's rabbithole of non-sequitur? He wants Dems to fix healthcare that Trump promised he alone could fix it? What is there to refute in that bullshit argument?
1. register - you foreign troll. per muller you are breaking the law. 2. you are a child... over the last few weeks I have been pointing out how many of your posts and questions are non sequiturs. 3, in theory by allowing insurance companies to insure pools without pre existing conditions, rates could see a reduction back to pre obamacare rates. Do I trust insurance companies to do drop everyone's rates? not necessarily, but some pools could have enough pull to stop the the massive rate hikes or even bring down costs a fair amount 3. That you called my post and non sequitur and that people liked it is amazing. It seems to indicate how few of the lefties here think in systems. Or the fact they are foreign leftist without true understanding of how health insurance works here. 4. Trump was blocked by democrats and establishment whores in D.C. But, I still hold trump at fault, to some degree, because the did not call this guys out enough and destroy them for their lies to the American people. As of now I will be voting for someone else in the primary.