MI democrats respond to federal judge's ruling on Affordable Care Act

MI democrats respond to federal judge's ruling on Affordable Care Act

Each one serves up an interesting selection of facts, opinions, images and videos in order to catch you up and vault you ahead.

President Donald Trump on Saturday hailed a court decision against Obamacare as "a great ruling for our country", while a USA government official said the decision by a Texas judge would have no immediate impact on health coverage.

At the same time, there is a history of lawsuits that most legal experts thought were unpersuasive nonetheless putting ACA in mortal danger - first the lawsuit against the individual mandate and then the challenge to insurance subsidies.

It is all but certain the case will become the third time the Supreme Court decides a constitutional question related to the ACA. That means that beginning in January, there no longer will be a penalty for not purchasing health insurance. O'Connor made his decision after 18 Republican state attorneys general and two GOP governors brought their case, Rovner reports.

Why does it matter? . The selloff is occurring although the judge's decision will be appealed and won't affect Americans who signed up for 2019 health coverage. "Our first stop is the courts". Saturday was the last day of open enrollment for the ACA in most states. Enrollment is already down 11 percent, likely the result of changes to the attendant tax penalties and a slashed publicity budget that hurt advertising efforts.

Rovner says people should act as if the ACA is still in place, but the ruling opens a possibility for "an enormous disruption". No one can predict how an appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court will treat this decision as the case winds its way up the judicial system on review, and it remains to be seen whether a fractured Congress and the president can develop revisions to the law that would satisfy the courts and the American people. Their intent was to get rid of the penalty but leave the rest of the law standing, and that the courts ought to respect that.

The pre-existing condition issue played a major role in the Democrats winning control last month of the House by picking up 40 seats, Durbin said.

Supporters of the law immediately said they would appeal. The Democrats only picked up the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections. Even before Friday's court decision, liberals were promising to make health care a central issue in the next presidential election.

Would a government shutdown impact holiday travel, mail?
When pressed on if they would be willing to go into a government shutdown over funding, Miller said , "absolutely". The survey of 1,000 registered voters has a margin of error of three percentage points.

For their part, in the wake of the December 14 ruling, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have promoted the illusion that they will seek to defend protections for those with preexisting conditions.

In his ruling, O'Connor reasoned that the body of the law could not be surgically separated from its now-meaningless requirement for people to have health insurance. Still, officials refute claims that their actions amounted to sabotage.

But the ongoing court battles over the law are likely to proceed eventually to the Supreme Court, where President Donald Trump's appointees, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, could rule against the law. These include emergency services, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance abuse treatment, prescription drugs and pediatric care.

"They have no plan for insuring the uninsured. But if people are sick and poor, forget it".

"Yes, there are things to do, but we should be working to improve the Affordable Care Act, not just throw it out and set it on fire", Klobuchar said.

"Anybody that has a pre-existing condition, anybody that was relying on Medicare or Medicaid, or anybody that enrolled ... that law that they were relying on was just declared unconstitutional".

"We're going to fight this tooth and nail".

What do the people think? Bagley supports the law generally, but has been critical of how it has been put into effect. Since the 1790s, the federal courts have never had the authority to give legal advice; they are obliged constitutionally to decide genuine "cases or controversies" - actual, real-world lawsuits.

Related Articles