Trump's Ministry of Justice says Obamacare is unconstitutional in court action

The Trump administration wants the federal courts to completely overturn the Affordable Care Act, an escalation of judicial aggression against the law on health care.

The Ministry of Justice said Monday in a memoir that the administration supported a recent decision of a district court that had invalidated all Obamacare. The administration of President Trump has therefore officially decided that all ACA markets – the private insurance markets, which cover 15 million people, the Medicaid extension, which covers 15 million additional people, as well as the protections for pre-existing persons and other regulations – should be: canceled.

When Trump subscribed to the various Republican legislative plans to repeal and replace Obamacare and other regulatory measures taken by his subordinates, the clear, consistent and unequivocal position of the Trump administration is that millions of people should lose their health insurance and protected against discrimination based on their medical history.

The Ministry of Justice had previously stated that only the prohibition of health insurers refused by the ACA to natural persons or charging higher premiums to people because of their medical history should fall into the lawsuit brought by 20 Republican states. But their last memory removed this subtlety, saying that the whole law should disappear.

Legal experts view states' argument as "absurd", but they fear finding a receptive audience among conservative lawyers, given the earlier success of fictitious anti-Obamacare lawsuits that have yet been brought to the Supreme Court .

The argument has already been held in the North Texas Federal Court, even though this decision is pending the appeal.

The basis of the Conservative states thesis is that, since the Republican-controlled Congress, repealed the individual term of office provided for in the 2017 Tax Act, thereby removing the provision used by Chief Justice John Roberts to justify the the constitutionality of the law in 2012, it must now fall under Roberts' theory. Lawyers on the left and right say it's a ridiculous case; Congress is constantly amending laws and the previous Congress had decided to repeal the term of office while preserving the rest of the law. It is legally empty to try to apply Roberts' old logic to a recently modified law.

However, Federal Judge Reed O. Connor nevertheless decided in December that the warrant is now unconstitutional, as is the rest of Obamacare, as reported at the time Sarah Kliff of Vox . Democratic officials have appealed this decision, with the support of the Democrats in the House. For the moment, Obamacare remains in force despite the last legal battle going on for its future.

The lawsuit in Texas is the most direct legal threat against the ACA. But the Trump administration has conducted a multi-pronged crusade against the extension of health coverage by law and its regulations prohibiting discrimination against pre-existing conditions. Trump supported the GOP's plans in Congress to reduce Obamacare, which is expected to leave millions fewer Americans with health insurance and inflict deep cuts to Medicaid.

Although the repeal has failed, the administration has used its regulatory leeway to promote insurance plans that are not required to comply with the pre-existing conditions rules of the ACA. Trump officials have also authorized states to impose work obligations in Medicaid to those involved in extending it into the Obamacare process. Tens of thousands of people have been forced to lose their benefits.

While the Trump administration was implementing this program, the rate of uninsured people began to rise after reaching a historic low at the end of the Obama administration. They are now asking the federal courts to go even further than before and invalidate the whole law.

Source link