Washington Times (DC) December 19, 2019
A
federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that Obamacare's individual mandate runs
afoul of the Constitution because it is no longer a tax following President
Trump's decision to rearrange his predecessor's program.
But the
5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, put off a thornier question
— whether other parts of the Affordable Care Act can still stand without the
lever that forced Americans to either get insurance or pay a penalty.
Judges
asked the lower court to go back and evaluate which provisions can survive,
setting up a high stakes review and injecting new uncertainty ahead of the 2020
election.
"It
may be that all of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate. It may
also be that some of the ACA is severable from the individual mandate, and some
is not," wrote Judge Jennifer Elrod, a Bush-appointee.
"But
it is no small thing for unelected, life-tenured judges to declare duly enacted
legislation passed by the elected representatives of the American people
unconstitutional."
Judge
Carolyn King, a Carter-appointee, dissented, saying she would hold the coverage
requirement legal.
The
decision to punt the case back down the judicial ladder makes it likely that
another Obamacare showdown before the Supreme Court, should the case make it
there, will have to wait until after 2020.
Even
so, the court's decision Wednesday will revive the Obamacare wars as Mr. Trump
contends with impeachment and gets ready for a bruising reelection battle.
President
Trump, who loathes Obamacare, said the decision is "a win for all
Americans and confirms what I have said all along: that the individual mandate,
by far the worst element of Obamacare, is unconstitutional."
He
reissued promises to deliver "the best health care in the world" and
contrasted his plans with liberals' push for a government-run, single-payer
health care system.
Democrats,
meanwhile, said Mr. Trump and his GOP pals jumped off a ledge without a
parachute, using a conservative judiciary as accomplices.
"Despite
their claims to support protections for people with preexisting conditions,
Republicans have taken every opportunity to dismantle them," House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi said.
Though
nothing will change immediately, she said the decision is a "chilling
threat" to key protections for sicker Americans, which could be at risk
without the mandate.
Republicans,
meanwhile, saw the decision as an opportunity for Congress to revisit Obamacare
and see if they can do better, while somehow preserving protections for people
with preexisting medical conditions.
Mr.
Trump and his GOP allies failed to replace Obamacare as promised in 2017. But
later that year, they used a tax bill to zero out the part of the law that
requires Americans to either get insured or pay a tax.
State
GOP plaintiffs seized on that change, reasoning that if the mandate is no longer
collecting money, is it not the "tax" that Chief Justice John G.
Roberts relied on in upholding the health law five years earlier.
Blue-state
attorneys general have argued in court the mandate is still on the books and,
furthermore, Congress clearly intended to leave the rest of the law alone when
it gutted the mandate.
A
district court judge in Texas agreed with the red states, setting up the
appellate battle.
The
circuit court said it could no longer view the mandate as an enforceable tax,
though it is not sure what else is now in peril — for example, the protections
for preexisting conditions or the expansion of Medicaid coverage in dozens of
states and subsidies for middle-class Americans who buy insurance on their own.
The
judges suggested the district court's ruling may have been overly broad, and
that it should conduct a "granular" review of which parts are
tethered to the mandate. However, it said it wouldn't prescribe how
"fine-toothed that comb should be."
"The
rule of law demands a careful, precise explanation of whether the provisions of
the ACA are affected by the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate as it
exists today," Judge Elrod wrote.
Democrats
are seizing on the fresh uncertainty, saying Mr. Trump cheered the state-driven
lawsuit without a backup plan despite promising insurance "for
everyone" during the last campaign.
"Today's
ruling is the result of the Trump administration and congressional Republicans
attempting to make dangerous health policy using the courts since they failed
to succeed in Congress," said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman
Richard Neal on Wednesday. "This is a blow to our nation's health care
system and the millions of Americans who have gained coverage and protections
under the Affordable Care Act."
California
Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is leading nearly two dozen states
fighting to uphold the law, said the 5th Circuit's ruling could lead the
country to a "dangerous and irresponsible place," putting healthcare
for millions on the line. He said he will ask the Supreme Court for a speedy
review of the appellate ruling.
"California
will move swiftly to challenge this decision because this could mean the
difference between life and death for so many Americans and their
families," he said.
Meanwhile,
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who challenged the law, said the ruling was
a victory because the "legal system can be held to its word."
"The
Fifth Circuit correctly held that the individual mandate is unconstitutional,
and we look forward to the opportunity to further demonstrate that Congress
made the individual mandate the centerpiece of Obamacare and the rest of the
law cannot stand without it," he said.
The
tension will also trickle down to Senate races, where liberals are eager to
paint vulnerable Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine as partly responsible
for the case. She thwarted Mr. Trump's Obamacare plans but voted for the tax
bill that set the table for the lawsuit over the mandate.
The
senator is among a handful of Republicans who urged the Trump administration's
Justice Department to reconsider its support for the lawsuit, saying Congress
never intended to gut the law when it zapped the mandate.
Likewise,
Sen. Lamar Alexander said he's not aware "of a single senator who said
they were voting to repeal Obamacare when they voted to eliminate the
individual mandate penalty."
"I
thought the Justice Department's argument in the case was far-fetched,"
the Tennessee Republican said.
Yet
Sen. Ben Sasse, Nebraska Republican, said the ruling gives lawmakers a shot at
finding "real solutions" to the Obamacare morass, while Senate
Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley called on both parties to come
together.
"Congress
should work to ensure that no matter the ultimate outcome, Americans who have preexisting
conditions are protected from losing their insurance or facing
discrimination," he said. "This is something that has broad,
bipartisan support."
No comments:
Post a Comment