Texas vs USA
Federal Case to declare Pre X Waiver Clause of ACA unconstitutional

Here’s my extraction of what I feel is the crux of the case where Texas asks the Federal Court to declare the ACA unconstitutional.  Here’s Commonwealth Funds.

USA Federal – Response to Texas Application to have ACA no longer enforceable  6.7.2018

In the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), Congress fundamentally altered the American health-insurance system by imposing a “[r]equirement” for most Americans “to maintain minimum essential coverage.” 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a). In light of the basis on which the Supreme Court previously held that this “individual mandate” survived constitutional scrutiny, the United States agrees with the Plaintiffs that Section 5000A(a) must now be struck down as unconstitutional in light of the amendments that were made to it in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), Pub. L. No. 115-97, 131 Stat. 2054 (2017).

the United States explained to the Court in NFIB, Congress’s own “findings establish that the guaranteed-issue §2701 and community-rating provisions [no charge for Pre Existing Conditions 45 CFR §147.108   The preexisting conditions clause prohibits insurers from refusing coverage to people with prior illnesses, or charging them more because of it.] are inseverable from the minimum coverage provision.” Br. for Resp’t (Severability) at 45, NFIB, No. 11-393 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 18091(2)(I)). The remainder of the ACA, however, can stand despite the invalidation of those provisions.

CA Xavier Becerra – INTERVENOR-DEFENDANTS’ BRIEF IN OPPOSITION to stopping the ACA from being law 6.7.2018

The remedy that Plaintiffs seek is also profoundly undemocratic. Plaintiffs ask this Court to impose an outcome by judicial fiat that Congress rejected through the legislative process.

Since the ACA became law in 2010, ACA opponents in Congress have tried—unsuccessfully—to repeal it at least 70 times. But the fact that Congress (through the Senate) voted down each of those efforts leads to one unavoidable conclusion: the Congress that passed the ACA, the Congress that passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), and every Congress in between, has decided to leave nearly every provision of the ACA in place, choosing instead to modify one provision reducing the future tax penalty for individuals who do not maintain health insurance. That reflects the will of the people, as expressed through their democratically elected representatives over multiple election cycles.  There would be an enormous human cost from invalidating the ACA. Lastly, a preliminary injunction would also disserve the public interest because it would upend the status quo and wreak havoc on the healthcare market for patients, providers, insurance carriers, and the federal and state governmentsCourt Filin


If the Pre X protections of ACA are struck down, what laws prior to ACA come back to life?

What alternatives are there?

What might Congress or CA do to protect those with Pre X conditions?

AB 1672 for Small Groups guaranteed coverage with 2 or more employees, including husband and wife as owners. Scroll down and view the Q & A on that page too.

6.15.2018 LA Times  refers to 12 month guaranteed on Pre X. I’m not exactly sure which exact law they are talking about.

In fact, Californians would already be temporarily cushioned by existing state rules that protect people with preexisting conditions for 12 months [Citation Needed] if that portion of the Affordable Care Act is struck down.  Try below about Federal HIPAA.

Mr. MIP and PCIP High Risk Pools – might come back

Association plans?

CA Single Payer SB 562

See our website on TrumpCare.

One example might be the MacArthur Amendment that requires states to set up a program for High Risk Individuals.

See our main page on Pre X and check out the HISTORICAL section

Earlier Briefs & Filings

View on Pacer  *  Court Listener  *

Order May 16, 2018 The motion is ripe for review. Having considered the motion, briefing, and applicable law, the Court finds that the Proposed Intervenor States’ Motion to Intervene (ECF No. 15) should be and is hereby GRANTED for the reasons stated below.

BRIEF OF PLAINTIFFS – Texas (with our comments, highlights, annotations) IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 4.26.2018

Texas V US  Memorandum Opinion & Order 3.5.2018

Complaint for Declaratory & Injunctive Relief 2.26.2018

Plaintiffs ask this Court to preliminarily enjoin the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), a landmark piece of legislation that has enabled more than 20 million Americans to gain health coverage, has restructured nearly one-fifth of the national economy, and has become central to the healthcare system of our country over the past eight years.  Court Filin


News Reports

An estimated 50 to 130 million Americans have preexisting conditions, such as arthritis or diabetes. If the Trump administration has its way, insurers could deny coverage or charge higher premiums to consumers with preexisting conditions in the individual market or exclude their preexisting conditions from coverage, unless prohibited by state law.

The ACA provisions the Trump administration asked the court to invalidate affect all forms of private health coverage — individual, small group, large group, and self-insured employer plans.
If the ACA is invalidated, protections under the prior law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, would likely come back into force.   Under that law, they would prohibit your employer from refusing to cover you or charging you more because of a preexisting condition, but your employer plan could refuse to cover preexisting conditions for up to a year if you failed to maintain continuous coverage.  CNN  6.14.201

Trump’s Flip Flop  Washington Post 6.14.2018


Related Pages in Pre-Existing Conditions  Section

11 comments on “Texas vs USA Federal Case to declare Pre X Clause of ACA unconstitutional

  1. Summary of today’s argument – Oral Argument




    Although it is risky to try to predict the outcome of a case from oral argument, Judge O’Connor’s questions… suggest he may be considering striking down some or all of the ACA.”

    Jost came away with a similar conclusion: “The devastating consequences of his potential decision in the case before him were of no interest to Judge O’Connor, who showed no sign of having read the amicus briefs filed by virtually every stakeholder in the American health care system — doctors, hospitals, insurers, patient groups, consumer organizations, small businesses, older Americans, as well as numerous health economists and public health experts — demonstrating those consequences.”

  2. So, what’s the latest for the 2019 renewal? Where are we at? Will my coverage be renewed even though I have Pre X conditions?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

wp-puzzle.com logo