Trump justice department will stop defending key parts of Obamacare

  • Trump justice department will stop defending key parts of Obamacare

Trump justice department will stop defending key parts of Obamacare

An obscure district court lawsuit over the Affordable Care Act became a potent threat to one of the law's most popular provisions late Thursday, when the Justice Department filed a brief arguing that as of January 1, 2019, the protections for people with preexisting conditions should be invalidated.

The states argue that now that Congress repealed the penalty for not having coverage in the tax bill past year, ObamaCare's individual mandate can no longer be upheld as a tax, and that it therefore should be invalidated.

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes says a decision by the Department of Justice not to defend pivotal parts of the Affordable Care Act in court will strengthen the state's recently submitted lawsuit, filed with 19 other states, that argues the entire law should be struck down as unconstitutional.

These sections of the law, along with the mandate that insurers provide comprehensive coverage, are the bedrock of Obamacare's protections for those with pre-existing conditions.

The Trump administration, however, is seeking to gut two core provisions that guarantee that these folks can get health insurance and that they won't have to pay more for it. "It's important for consumers to know that the Affordable Care Act and the protections it ensures for their coverage are still the law, and they should continue to see their health providers and plan to shop for coverage this fall as they have any other year", says Imholz. However, the federal support for the states' lawsuit is unusual, since the Justice Department typically defends existing law.

The administration said it agrees with Texas that the so-called individual mandate will be unconstitutional without the fine. As a result, the entire remainder of the ACA must be upheld, even if the court finds the mandate unconstitutional.

"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.

Bailey's spokesman Corey Uhden said Friday that he wouldn't comment on the constitutionality of the ACA provisions.

What are the ramifications of the Trump administration making these arguments? But Martin S. Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor who was a Justice Department official in the Obama administration, called the mass withdrawal a likely sign of distress. "The Trump Administration is perpetuating the same cruel vision of higher costs and less coverage that House Republicans voted for in the monstrosity of Trumpcare".

While U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions argues that no reasonable arguments exist to defend Obamacare, California led a coalition of 15 states and D.C.to fight Texas's suit, saying the individual mandate has twice survived Supreme Court review and attempts by Congress to repeal the law, thus legitimizing it. Stripping away Obamacare would create a health crisis by putting at risk some $500 billion in health-care funding, according to a statement issued by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. 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.

Many advocates spoke out against the Trump administration's stance on the law's consumer protections.

Moreover, if the Trump administration did not want to defend the ACA expressly, it could simply have filed a jurisdictional motion, asserting that the states are not injured by the lack of an individual mandate penalty and that the litigation is not yet timely, as the tax is still in effect.