User login
The Department of Justice is declining to interfere with a legal action that could have the significant impact on the Affordable Care Act, filing a brief stating that it will not defend the law in the case Texas v. The United States.
In February 2018, Texas and 19 other states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, seeking to have the ACA’s individual mandate declared unconstitutional in light of the mandate’s penalty being reduced to zero effective Jan. 1, 2019. Congress eliminated the financial penalty for not carrying qualifying insurance coverage as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.
Taking it further, the plaintiffs argue in their court filing that if the individual mandate is found to be unconstitutional, the ACA “must be invalidated as a whole,” though they suggest that at minimum, “the guaranteed-issue and community rating provisions are non-severable from the mandate and must be invalidated along with the individual mandate.”
The Supreme Court in the 2012 case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruled that the penalty associated with the individual mandate could be characterized as a tax and as such rejected the argument that the penalty and the individual mandate were unconstitutional. But since the repeal of the individual mandate and the government’s collection of revenue in conjunction with the mandate, the “ACA lacks a rational basis,” according to the plaintiffs.
DOJ signaled on June 7 that it is siding with the plaintiffs and will not be defending the Affordable Care Act in court.
In a letter sent the same day to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, (D-Calif.), U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that after “careful consideration, and with the approval of the President of the United States, I have determined that ... the Department of Justice will not defend the constitutionality of the [individual mandate] and will argue that certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are inseverable from that provision.”
Mr. Sessions said in the letter that the plaintiffs “are correct” in determining that the individual mandate is unconstitutional in light of the legislative action to eliminate the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate.
However, the DOJ does not agree that the balance of the law outside of the individual mandate and the inseverable guaranteed issue and community rating provisions should remain in tact.
The court filing argues that the request for a temporary injunction to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional should not be allowed because the individual mandate’s penalty for non-coverage is in effect through 2018, therefore it remains constitutional.
“That said, because this is a pure question of law on which the Plaintiffs and Defendants do not disagree, the Court should consider construing Plaintiff’s motion as a request for summary judgment and then entering a declaratory judgment that the ACA’s provisions establishing the individual mandate as well as the guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements will all be invalid as of January 1, 2019. That would be adequate relief against the government.”
Former CMS Administrator Andy Slavitt in a tweet called the government’s desire to push any decision until the new year, which would come after the midterm elections, an act of “savage cynicism.” He added in a later tweet that “people who care about public health don’t do this. People who care about the rule of law don’t do this.”
If the plaintiffs are successful in this lawsuit, it could have significant ramifications for Americans.
“If the judge buys the administration’s argument, and if his ruling is upheld on appeal, 52 million Americans with preexisting conditions could face denial of coverage or higher premiums,” Timothy Jost, emeritus professor, Washington and Lee University School of Law, said in a blog post published on The Commonwealth Fund website. “The administration’s argument would also allow insurers to charge women, older people, and people in certain occupations higher premiums. This policy change would jeopardize coverage not just for consumers in the individual market, but also people with preexisting conditions who have employer-sponsored coverage. If these people lost or left their jobs, they may not be able to get individual market coverage.”
The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society criticized the position taken by DOJ.
“Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have been emphatic that critical protections should not be repealed without a replacement that would ensure patients can continue to have access to care,” the organizations said in a joint statement. “If the court strikes down these protections, that exact repeal without replace scenario will occur. Should this case be successful, people with cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and any serious or chronic condition are likely to be denied coverage due to their preexisting conditions or charged such high premiums because of their health status that they will be unable to afford any coverage that may be offered.”
The Department of Justice is declining to interfere with a legal action that could have the significant impact on the Affordable Care Act, filing a brief stating that it will not defend the law in the case Texas v. The United States.
In February 2018, Texas and 19 other states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, seeking to have the ACA’s individual mandate declared unconstitutional in light of the mandate’s penalty being reduced to zero effective Jan. 1, 2019. Congress eliminated the financial penalty for not carrying qualifying insurance coverage as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.
Taking it further, the plaintiffs argue in their court filing that if the individual mandate is found to be unconstitutional, the ACA “must be invalidated as a whole,” though they suggest that at minimum, “the guaranteed-issue and community rating provisions are non-severable from the mandate and must be invalidated along with the individual mandate.”
The Supreme Court in the 2012 case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruled that the penalty associated with the individual mandate could be characterized as a tax and as such rejected the argument that the penalty and the individual mandate were unconstitutional. But since the repeal of the individual mandate and the government’s collection of revenue in conjunction with the mandate, the “ACA lacks a rational basis,” according to the plaintiffs.
DOJ signaled on June 7 that it is siding with the plaintiffs and will not be defending the Affordable Care Act in court.
In a letter sent the same day to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, (D-Calif.), U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that after “careful consideration, and with the approval of the President of the United States, I have determined that ... the Department of Justice will not defend the constitutionality of the [individual mandate] and will argue that certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are inseverable from that provision.”
Mr. Sessions said in the letter that the plaintiffs “are correct” in determining that the individual mandate is unconstitutional in light of the legislative action to eliminate the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate.
However, the DOJ does not agree that the balance of the law outside of the individual mandate and the inseverable guaranteed issue and community rating provisions should remain in tact.
The court filing argues that the request for a temporary injunction to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional should not be allowed because the individual mandate’s penalty for non-coverage is in effect through 2018, therefore it remains constitutional.
“That said, because this is a pure question of law on which the Plaintiffs and Defendants do not disagree, the Court should consider construing Plaintiff’s motion as a request for summary judgment and then entering a declaratory judgment that the ACA’s provisions establishing the individual mandate as well as the guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements will all be invalid as of January 1, 2019. That would be adequate relief against the government.”
Former CMS Administrator Andy Slavitt in a tweet called the government’s desire to push any decision until the new year, which would come after the midterm elections, an act of “savage cynicism.” He added in a later tweet that “people who care about public health don’t do this. People who care about the rule of law don’t do this.”
If the plaintiffs are successful in this lawsuit, it could have significant ramifications for Americans.
“If the judge buys the administration’s argument, and if his ruling is upheld on appeal, 52 million Americans with preexisting conditions could face denial of coverage or higher premiums,” Timothy Jost, emeritus professor, Washington and Lee University School of Law, said in a blog post published on The Commonwealth Fund website. “The administration’s argument would also allow insurers to charge women, older people, and people in certain occupations higher premiums. This policy change would jeopardize coverage not just for consumers in the individual market, but also people with preexisting conditions who have employer-sponsored coverage. If these people lost or left their jobs, they may not be able to get individual market coverage.”
The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society criticized the position taken by DOJ.
“Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have been emphatic that critical protections should not be repealed without a replacement that would ensure patients can continue to have access to care,” the organizations said in a joint statement. “If the court strikes down these protections, that exact repeal without replace scenario will occur. Should this case be successful, people with cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and any serious or chronic condition are likely to be denied coverage due to their preexisting conditions or charged such high premiums because of their health status that they will be unable to afford any coverage that may be offered.”
The Department of Justice is declining to interfere with a legal action that could have the significant impact on the Affordable Care Act, filing a brief stating that it will not defend the law in the case Texas v. The United States.
In February 2018, Texas and 19 other states filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, seeking to have the ACA’s individual mandate declared unconstitutional in light of the mandate’s penalty being reduced to zero effective Jan. 1, 2019. Congress eliminated the financial penalty for not carrying qualifying insurance coverage as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.
Taking it further, the plaintiffs argue in their court filing that if the individual mandate is found to be unconstitutional, the ACA “must be invalidated as a whole,” though they suggest that at minimum, “the guaranteed-issue and community rating provisions are non-severable from the mandate and must be invalidated along with the individual mandate.”
The Supreme Court in the 2012 case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ruled that the penalty associated with the individual mandate could be characterized as a tax and as such rejected the argument that the penalty and the individual mandate were unconstitutional. But since the repeal of the individual mandate and the government’s collection of revenue in conjunction with the mandate, the “ACA lacks a rational basis,” according to the plaintiffs.
DOJ signaled on June 7 that it is siding with the plaintiffs and will not be defending the Affordable Care Act in court.
In a letter sent the same day to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, (D-Calif.), U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that after “careful consideration, and with the approval of the President of the United States, I have determined that ... the Department of Justice will not defend the constitutionality of the [individual mandate] and will argue that certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are inseverable from that provision.”
Mr. Sessions said in the letter that the plaintiffs “are correct” in determining that the individual mandate is unconstitutional in light of the legislative action to eliminate the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate.
However, the DOJ does not agree that the balance of the law outside of the individual mandate and the inseverable guaranteed issue and community rating provisions should remain in tact.
The court filing argues that the request for a temporary injunction to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional should not be allowed because the individual mandate’s penalty for non-coverage is in effect through 2018, therefore it remains constitutional.
“That said, because this is a pure question of law on which the Plaintiffs and Defendants do not disagree, the Court should consider construing Plaintiff’s motion as a request for summary judgment and then entering a declaratory judgment that the ACA’s provisions establishing the individual mandate as well as the guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements will all be invalid as of January 1, 2019. That would be adequate relief against the government.”
Former CMS Administrator Andy Slavitt in a tweet called the government’s desire to push any decision until the new year, which would come after the midterm elections, an act of “savage cynicism.” He added in a later tweet that “people who care about public health don’t do this. People who care about the rule of law don’t do this.”
If the plaintiffs are successful in this lawsuit, it could have significant ramifications for Americans.
“If the judge buys the administration’s argument, and if his ruling is upheld on appeal, 52 million Americans with preexisting conditions could face denial of coverage or higher premiums,” Timothy Jost, emeritus professor, Washington and Lee University School of Law, said in a blog post published on The Commonwealth Fund website. “The administration’s argument would also allow insurers to charge women, older people, and people in certain occupations higher premiums. This policy change would jeopardize coverage not just for consumers in the individual market, but also people with preexisting conditions who have employer-sponsored coverage. If these people lost or left their jobs, they may not be able to get individual market coverage.”
The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society criticized the position taken by DOJ.
“Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have been emphatic that critical protections should not be repealed without a replacement that would ensure patients can continue to have access to care,” the organizations said in a joint statement. “If the court strikes down these protections, that exact repeal without replace scenario will occur. Should this case be successful, people with cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and any serious or chronic condition are likely to be denied coverage due to their preexisting conditions or charged such high premiums because of their health status that they will be unable to afford any coverage that may be offered.”