Health Care Reform

[GMDino]

Folks!  We have a hint at Trump's plan!

He's going to stop calling the ACA "Obamacare" and....uh...that's it.  Just stop giving Obama credit for it.

The president is pursuing forcing insurance companies to cover all pre-existing conditions.

This was provided for in 2010 and the Trump administration is currently in court suing to overturn pre-existing illness coverage. https://t.co/w3P19YPRFq

— ????? ????? (@martyduren) August 8, 2020

Oh, btw....


https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/suit-challenging-aca-legally-suspect-but-threatens-loss-of-coverage-for-tens-of

Quote:The Trump Administration and 18 Republican state attorneys general are asking the Supreme Court to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA) as unconstitutional. The Justice Department (DOJ) and Republican states petitioning for judicial repeal of the law will file briefs by June 25, with oral arguments this fall and a decision likely next spring. The ACA remains the law of the land for now, and legal experts across the political spectrum view the case against it as extremely weak. But if the courts “terminate” the ACA, as President Trump again urged in May, some 20 million people would become uninsured — likely many more when accounting for COVID-19’s effects on ACA participation. In addition, if the Administration prevails, millions more could be charged more or denied coverage altogether because they have a pre-existing condition or would lose other important protections.


Lawsuit Background and Trump Administration’s Position
The state attorneys general filed their lawsuit with a Texas district court in February 2018. The crux of their argument is that the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius upheld the ACA’s individual coverage requirement under Congress’ taxing power, and the 2017 tax law zeroed out that tax penalty. Without the tax in place, they claim, the coverage requirement is unconstitutional, making the rest of the ACA also unlawful — an argument that ignores Congress’ choice to leave the ACA intact when it zeroed out the tax penalty.


From the start the Trump Administration has refused to defend the ACA, an unprecedented move that seems to have led two senior career attorneys to withdraw from the case and one to resign. But the government’s specific position on the case has changed. In June 2018 DOJ largely agreed with the plaintiffs’ reasoning, but it asked the court to strike down not the entire law but two critical consumer protections that it said were inextricably linked to the mandate: the prohibitions on insurers denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions (guaranteed issue) and on charging people higher premiums because of their health status (community rating). The Administration has since endorsed striking down the entire ACA, in line with its many legislative and executive attempts to repeal or undermine it.