Texas officials make their case today to abolish the Affordable Care Act

[Elderberry]

Houston Chronicle by  Benjamin Wermund Nov. 10, 2020

Texas attorneys  will urge the Supreme Court Tuesday to strike down the Affordable Care Act amid reports that more Texans are seeking the health insurance offered under the law during the pandemic.

The Texas-led challenge to the Affordable Care Act is one of the first high-profile tests of the new 6-3 conservative majority on the high court, which has been reshaped by three appointees of President Donald Trump. And much is on the line.

If the court were to scrap the health care law, some 21 million Americans, including 788,000 Texans, could lose insurance, according to recent estimates by the Urban Institute, a D.C.-based think tank. More than 5 million Texans are already uninsured, the most in the nation.

But Texans behind the case argue that the ACA’s offerings are far from the affordable health care the law promises. Among the individual plaintiffs in the case is Neall Hurley, a Fort Bend man who says he now pays nearly $25,000 out of pocket every year to cover the costs for monthly premiums and expenses for his family of four.

More: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Texas-officials-make-case-abolish-ACA-health-care-15714204.php

[catfish1957]

The Comical never gives the whole story does it?

Good for parakeet poop though.

[Elderberry]

Tuesday round-up

SCOTUSblog by James Romoser 11/10/2020

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/tuesday-round-up-555/#more-297638

It’s Obamacare day at the Supreme Court. In California v. Texas, which will be argued at 10 a.m. EST, the Affordable Care Act returns to the court for the seventh time in eight years.

The case is the second full-fledged constitutional challenge seeking to invalidate the entire law (the first being National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius in 2012).

Republican state officials, joined by the Trump administration, argue that Congress rendered the law’s individual insurance mandate unconstitutional when, in 2017, Congress zero-ed out the penalty for failing to comply with the mandate. The Republican states argue further that the mandate cannot be severed from the rest of the law and that, as a result, the entirety of the law must be struck down. Our case preview is here. Our symposium on the case is here. Our podcast episode on the case is here.

Here’s a round-up of other Supreme Court-related news and commentary from around the web:

•   Obamacare Is Back in Court. The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher. (Abbe Gluck, The New York Times)

•   Fate of Obamacare law rests with U.S. Supreme Court once again (Lawrence Hurley, Reuters)

•   Eyes on Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch as Supreme Court decides Obamacare’s future (Joan Biskupic, CNN)

More at link.

[Elderberry]

The Comical never gives the whole story does it?

Good for parakeet poop though.

Its quite effective at sucking you in.  You mean you print these online newspaper articles out to use in your birdcage?

[catfish1957]

Its quite effective at sucking you in.  You mean you print these online newspaper articles out to use in your birdcage?

Naw... a friend buys the Sunday one, once a week, and that's enough for the tweeter for a few weeks.  I haven't bought a paper newspaper in probably 25 years.

[Elderberry]

Supreme Court appears ready to uphold Affordable Care Act over latest challenge from Trump, GOP

Washington Post by Robert Barnes, Ann E. Marimow, Amy Goldstein, Paige Winfield Cunningham and Paulina Firozi

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/10/scotus-hearing-aca-live-updates/

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to uphold most of the Affordable Care Act in the face of a challenge from Republican-led states and the Trump administration.

Two key members of the court — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh — said that Congress’s decision in 2017 to zero-out the penalty for not buying health insurance did not indicate a desire to kill the entire law.

“I tend to agree with you this a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents, meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said to a lawyer defending the law.

Roberts, who wrote the 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the act’s constitutionality, suggested again that the justices should not do something Congress itself has failed to do — repeal the law.

“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act,” Roberts told Kyle Hawkins, the Texas solicitor general leading the red-state effort.

More at link.

[Elderberry]

Supreme Court hears Obamacare arguments


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[catfish1957]

Supreme Court appears ready to uphold Affordable Care Act over latest challenge from Trump, GOP

Washington Post by Robert Barnes, Ann E. Marimow, Amy Goldstein, Paige Winfield Cunningham and Paulina Firozi

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/11/10/scotus-hearing-aca-live-updates/

You are right, Kavanaugh is signaling he will go in the direction to uphold and join Roberts.  Damn, this sucks.

[Elderberry]

California Takes Lead Role in Defending Obamacare in Supreme Court Case

By Bay City News   â€¢ Published November 10, 2020

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/california-takes-lead-role-in-defending-obamacare-in-supreme-court-case/2394667/

At a Monday news conference on the eve of arguments, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra spoke about the importance of the case and California's critical role in defending the legality of Obamacare.

The high court hears the matter after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that the act's individual mandate was unconstitutional after Congress reduced the penalty amount to zero. The 5th Circuit did not decide whether invalidating the mandate affected the other provisions of the act and sent the case back to the trial court to explore that issue.

California leads a coalition of 20 states and the District of Columbia, and has taken on the role of defending the act because the Trump administration has sided with a group of Republican states in arguing that the individual mandate is not only unconstitutional, but because that provision is central to the act as a whole, the entire 900-page statute should fall as well.

The California-led group argues that the plaintiffs do not have standing to sue, that the individual mandate is constitutional, and, even if it were found to be infirm, the rest of the act can be "severed" from the unconstitutional part and continue in full force and effect.

More at link.