[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – A Texas federal judge said Friday that the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional, now that the US Congress has scrapped the sentence for those who give up health insurance, questioning the law on health and coverage of millions of Americans. [19659002] US District Judge Reed O'Connor, appointed by President George W. Bush, declared invalid the entire health law of the Obama era, standing side by side claims of 20 Republican states having filed a lawsuit aimed at invalidating the ACA.
Republicans removed the penalty imposed on the ACA for non-coverage last year, although the measure only comes into force in 2019. Compulsory health coverage was a pillar of the original law, with the aim of attracting healthy people into the insurance pool to help offset the costs of sick registrants. The Supreme Court confirmed that the ACA was constitutional based on Congress's taxing power.
The Trump administration, which has long sought to repeal the ACA, applauded the ruling on Friday.
"Wow, it's no wonder ObamaCare has ruled unanimously. by a highly respected judge in Texas. Great news for America! Wrote President Trump on Twitter. In a statement, the White House said: "Once again, the President called on Congress to replace Obamacare and protect people with pre-existing diseases and provide Americans with quality affordable health care."
Friday's decision has shaken Democratic leaders, medical groups and health sector leaders. Some pressure groups have called on Congress to immediately enact legislation protecting those already afflicted, and the American Medical Association has pledged to work with other organizations to appeal.
"It's a five-alarm fire – the Republicans have just blown. our health system, "said Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) in a statement." Republican Party anti-health advocates intentionally snatch health care from poor workers, raise costs for people older people and make insurance more difficult to pay for people already suffering from health problems. "
This decision invalidates the law., did not immediately block the application of the ACA, a situation that could trigger widespread uncertainty in the short term.Some states may cease to apply or administer the law, including the extension of Medicaid as of January 1, at the time of the elimination of
The democratic states that intervened in the lawsuit declared that they would quickly appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals of the Fifth American Circuit. account, the case could reach the Supreme Court. Friday's decision laid the foundation for the future of the 2010 law on unstable ground just before the last busy days for registrations during the open registration period. TO THAT.
"It will destabilize health insurance coverage by postponing federal policy to 2009," said Barbara McAneny, president of the American Medical Association.
Organizations opposing the ACA stated that they support the decision. The law, they said, amounted to significant government interference in health care and limited choice for consumers.
"Although Republicans in Congress have failed to repeal Obamacare in its entirety, this decision has proven that their action to repeal the individual mandate of the law of last year on tax reform has was a consequence, "according to a statement released Friday by FreedomWorks, which advocates a reduced government.
Friday's decision places health care law on land unstable just before the last days of affluence for registrations during the open registration period.
Photo:
Pablo Martinez Monsivais / Associated Press
The prosecution, which was tried for the first time very frivolous in February, represents the biggest risk to the ACA since Republican efforts to repeal the law in 2017. The prosecution, headed by the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, aims to:
This includes the expansion of Medicaid, grants for approximately 10 million people who purchase health insurance in individual ACA markets, requirements for health insurance provided by the employer and a new industry. the taxes. According to a 2016 report by the Ministry of Health and Social Services, about 20 million people have been covered, mainly through the expansion of Medicaid and ACA exchanges, since October 2013.
"The Today 's decision is an attack against 133 million Americans – the existing conditions, out of the 20 million Americans who rely on ACA consumer protections for the health care, about the US's steady progress toward affordable health care for all Americans, "said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who has spoken to other Democrats in the United States. ;case. 19659004] A deeply divided Supreme Court upheld the ACA in 2012, considering the insurance penalty as a tax and holding that such a tax was within the power of Congress.
As the tax is no longer in effect from 2019, the term of insurance can no longer Judge O'Connor said Friday that the decision was unconstitutional. And since the mandate is central to the operation of the ACA as a whole, the law must be respected, the judge said.
In a move that stunned even many Congressional Republicans, the Justice Department had also asked the court to overturn the essential rules. l & # 39; ACA.
Democrats seize the demand made during the November election campaign to present Republicans as threatening the health coverage of some 52 million Americans with pre-existing health conditions. Some Congressional Republicans have introduced a bill and a House resolution to preserve certain pre-existing protections.
Democrats are concerned about the end of the Supreme Court trial, and many of them are committed to passing legislation anchoring the protections provided by the law.
"Now, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh at the Supreme Court, we have a judge who supports the president's efforts to undermine the law that he is supposed to enforce and protect," said Margarida Jorge, executive director of Health Care for America Now, a lobby group that supports the ACA.
Judge O. Connor had to determine whether Republican states had the legal capacity to even challenge the law and whether an insurance mandate without penalty was unconstitutional – and if so, which parts of the law should to be canceled.
"The individual mandate is so intertwined in the ACA regulations that they can not be separated arated. The judge wrote in a 55-page notice.
A representative group of legal experts asked if the decision would be valid on appeal, especially since the action of the Congress of 2017 left most of the law
The decision also affects ACA's new market stability – starting in 2019, premiums have not increased significantly, as in previous years, and insurers have expanded their footprint after previous withdrawals.
Since insurers have already signed the dotted line to offer plans and locked their rates, they will probably not be able to make any changes until 2020. However, as the case progresses to higher courts, insurers will have to weigh bids for 2020 – first deposits are due in some states in the late spring.
"If this terrible decision is upheld by higher courts, it will be a disaster for tens of millions of American families, especially for people already pre-existing. Chuck Schumer (D., NY).
-Anna Wilde Mathews contributed to the writing of this article.
Write to Stephanie Armor at the address [email protected] and Brent Kendall at the address [email protected]
