A New Lawsuit Threatens Obamacare. Here’s

A New Lawsuit Threatens Obamacare. Here’s What’s at Stake and What to Expect in Oral Arguments.

The Affordable Care Act has survived numerous court battles and repeal efforts, but the new case is threatening the law’s future once more.

A federal judge in Fort Worth, Tex., will hear arguments Wednesday on whether to grant a preliminary injunction that might suspend the health law until the case is set.

He has also indicated that he might go straight to ruling on the merits of the case.

It focuses on whether the law’s requirement that the majority of Americans have insurance is unconstitutional, but has much broader implications.

The Department of Justice made a highly unusual decision this summer: though it disagreed with the plaintiffs that the entire law should be struck down, it decided to not defend the individual mandate or several other central provisions, including protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

That prompted a coalition of 16 states and therefore the District of Columbia, led by California, to intervene to defend the law, saying that to pause it or invalidate key components would threaten the health care of many people.

Presiding over the case is Judge Reed O’Connor of the administrative district Court for the Northern District of Texas, who was appointed by President George W. Bush.

The judge has previously blocked Obama-era efforts to increase medical leave protections to same-sex couples and to incorporate gender-identity discrimination as a sort of sex discrimination under the health law.

Who brought this latest case and why?

The case is being brought by a gaggle of 20 Republican state attorneys general and therefore the governors of Maine and Mississippi.

They argue that the law is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

The reason, they say, is that in 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the health law supported Congress’s taxation power. Congress, the court said, could impose a tax penalty on people who didn't have insurance.

But Congress enacted a bill in December 2017 that zeroed out that tax penalty.

The plaintiffs argue that the health law’s requirement that the majority of people have insurance — the so-called individual mandate — not functions as a tax, and thus is unconstitutional.

That results in a central question within the case: does tugging at the individual mandate unravel the whole health law, including popular provisions like its protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions?

The plaintiffs argue that if the mandate is unconstitutional, it can't be severed from the law’s other requirements. If the mandate falls, they say, so must the whole law.

Who are the defendants?

Technically the federal is that the defendant — the case is named Texas v. The United States.

But in June, the Trump administration sided with the plaintiffs on the individual the mandate, arguing during a brief that it and therefore the pre-existing conditions protections were unconstitutional.

The administration didn't challenge certain other parts of the law, however, just like the establishment of insurance marketplaces and premium subsidies for low- and moderate-income people which, it said, could continue without the mandate.

The administration has asked Judge O’Connor for “summary judgment” — in effect to rule immediately on the constitutionality of the individual mandate and other issues, instead of granting a preliminary injunction.

Is anything at stake for people that don’t get insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces?

Yes, there are tons on the road for people covered through their employers, also as those insured through the law.

If the court finds that the individual mandate is not any longer constitutional and as a result, the whole Affordable Care The act must fall, about 17 million Americans would lose their insurance, consistent with the Urban Institute, a left-leaning think tank.

that has millions who gained coverage through the law’s expansion of Medicaid also because the millions more who get subsidized private insurance through the law’s marketplace.

Insurers would also not need to cover young adults up to age 26 under their parents’ plans.

Annual and lifelong limits on coverage would once again be permitted, and there would be no cap on out-of-pocket costs.

If the court sides with the Department of Justice and strikes down only the mandate and the law’s popular protections for people with pre-existing conditions, insurers could return to denying coverage to such people or charging them more.

they might also return to charging people more supported their age, gender or profession.

The Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan research organization, estimates that 52 million adults between 18 and 64, or 27 percent of that population, would be rejected for coverage under the practices that were in effect in most states before the Affordable Care Act.

If the judge finds the law unconstitutional, is there the another way to preserve protections for people with pre-existing conditions?

A group of 10 Republican senators preemptively introduced legislation last month, but it would only partially restore the provisions in question.

it might prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage or charging more for it supported someone’s health status.

But the catch is that insurers could still refuse to hide certain medical conditions.

They could also again charge more supported gender or line of labor, or raise rates on older Americans.

After the judge rules, what happens next?

The losing side would almost certainly appeal, which process could take years.

Eventually, the case could land before us Supreme Court. Confirmation hearings on Judge Brett M.

Kavanaugh, the Trump Administration’s nominee for an open the seat thereon court began on Tuesday and can continue on Wednesday because the oral arguments, during this case, get underway.