ShareThis Page
Democrats cry foul as Trump calls for striking down ‘Obamacare’ | TribLIVE.com
Politics/Election

Democrats cry foul as Trump calls for striking down ‘Obamacare’

Associated Press
937389_web1_AFP_1F38MI
Getty Images
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., talks about healthcare legislation on Capitol Hill March 26, 2019, in Washington.
937389_web1_937389-089a7f33d54a4da9b9d0b7a128937bea
AP
President Trump accompanied by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, left, and Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., speaks to members of the media as he arrives for a Senate Republican policy lunch on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 26, 2019.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has told a federal appeals court it wants the entire Affordable Care Act struck down, an outcome that could leave millions uninsured and re-ignite a winning political issue for Democrats.

The administration, in a terse filing Monday with the court in New Orleans, said it agrees that former President Obama’s health care law should be declared unconstitutional after Congress repealed one part of it — unpopular fines on people who remain uninsured.

That position is at odds with previous statements by leading congressional Republicans who said they did not intend to repeal other parts of the law when they cut out its fines, effective this year. It’s also a departure from the administration’s earlier stance in a lower court, where it had argued that only federal protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions and limits on premiums charged to older, sicker people should be struck down.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the turnabout shows that Republicans “say one thing and they do another.” Democrats have been casting about for a message after Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no conspiracy between candidate Donald Trump and the Russian government to sway the 2016 election.

“This is actually an opportunity for us to speak to the American people with clarity,” Pelosi said. “Republicans did say during the campaign that they weren’t there to undermine the pre-existing condition benefit.”

“Then they go to court to strip it and strip the whole bill,” she continued. If the entire ACA is repealed, popular provisions such as coverage for adult children on parental insurance until age 26 would go, Pelosi said.

Seeming to react to the pushback, Trump said on Twitter, “The Republican Party will become “The Party of Healthcare!” As president-elect Trump promised “insurance for everybody,” but the White House never presented a comprehensive plan.

The Justice Department did not explain its reasoning in a two-sentence letter to the court, but promised a full and timely explanation for the appeals judges. It’s rare for Justice to decline to defend a federal law.

The case brought by Texas and a group of GOP-led states seems headed for the Supreme Court. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth earlier ruled in favor of the plaintiff states, and Democratic-led states have appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

The Supreme Court has twice upheld the Obama-era law. Five justices — a majority — who upheld the law in 2012 are still on the bench. They are Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberals.

Repeal of the ACA in its entirety would risk making more than 20 million people uninsured. That includes some 12 million low-income people covered through its Medicaid expansion, and some 11 million purchasing subsidized private health insurance through HealthCare.gov and state-run insurance markets.

Some Republicans say that wouldn’t happen because the Trump administration’s “repeal and replace” plan would send grants to states for them to run their own health insurance programs. However, during the 2017 congressional debate over repealing the health law, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the GOP replacement plans would result in steep coverage losses.

Trump as president has never given up on repealing “Obamacare,” and is still complaining about the vote by the late GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona that saved the law. The latest Trump budget also calls for repeal. But that possibility was foreclosed when Democrats won control of the House in last year’s midterm elections.

Judge O’Connor’s ruling rests on a legal analysis that the congressionally repealed fines for going uninsured are central to the law. O’Connor noted that the Supreme Court upheld the law in 2012 because its requirement for Americans to carry health insurance was enforced through fines levied as taxes, which passed constitutional muster.

With the fines gone, the coverage requirement can no longer be considered constitutional, O’Connor reasoned, and the entire health law is defective because it can’t be separated from the coverage requirement.

But California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, heading up the Democratic state officials defending the law, says that view strains the meaning of underlying federal laws and the clear intent of many Republican lawmakers who voted to repeal the ACA’s fines.

Signed nearly 10 years ago, the health law remains in place while the lawsuit continues. House Democrats, meanwhile, are unveiling broad legislation on Tuesday to shore up the Affordable Care Act and expand enrollment to millions more people.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.