Why is ppaca constitutional

During her confirmation hearing, Barrett, when asked about her position on the constitutional issues involving the ACA, stated she could not comment on an upcoming case.

When Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. I'm not hostile to any statute that you pass. The Supreme Court's options for deciding this case are shaped by the complicated history of litigation over the ACA. The origins of the case go back to , when the court upheld the constitutionality of the ACA's penalty on individuals who lack health coverage—the so-called individual coverage mandate—as a justifiable exercise of Congress' power to tax.

In December , however, President Donald Trump signed into law a tax bill that eliminated the ACA's penalty on individuals who lack health coverage. Afterward, several Republican state attorneys general, led by the state of Texas, filed a lawsuit arguing that the health care statute itself, or at least the parts of the act closely linked to the individual mandate, were no longer valid.

Democratic states and the House of Representatives, led by Democrats, stepped in to defend the statute. In December , a Texas district court struck down the ACA but stayed its ruling pending appeal, concluding that the individual mandate is so connected to the law that Congress would not have passed the ACA without it.

On appeal, in Texas v. United States , a split panel of the 5th U. Circuit Court of Appeals deemed that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but the panel instructed the district court to rehear the matter and "to employ a finer-toothed comb on remand and conduct a more searching inquiry into which provisions of the ACA Congress intended to be inseverable from the mandate. However, on March 2, , before the district court could carry out the appellate court's directive, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case in its term beginning in the fall of , blocking the lower courts from taking further action.

The case the Supreme Court will decide is now titled Texas v. When the 5th Circuit instructed the district court to rehear the matter and to focus on those ACA provisions that Congress intended to be "inseverable from the individual mandate," this suggested, legal analysts said, that the appellate court was unlikely to overturn the ACA in full. As a result, "plan sponsors know that the entire Affordable Care Act will not be overturned. Had the case proceeded at the appellate level, the 5th Circuit might have struck down those parts of the law directly related to the individual mandate.

The appellate decision noted, for instance, that community rating, which prevents insurers from varying premiums within a geographic area based on age, gender, health status or other factors, might be among the provisions determined to be "inseverable" from the individual mandate, because the increase in revenue to insurers from the mandate was meant to offset the decrease from these restrictions.

The ACA's guaranteed-issue provisions, which ban insurers from rejecting coverage based on a person's pre-existing conditions, might also be inseverable, the appellate decision noted. The Supreme Court has the following options when it decides the case , The Washington Post and other sources have reported:. According to an analysis by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation , "If the Supreme Court adopts the position that the federal government took during the trial court proceedings and invalidates the individual mandate as well as the protections for people with pre-existing conditions, then federal funding for premium subsidies and the Medicaid expansion would stand, and it would be up to states whether to reinstate the insurance protections.

If that were to happen, Congress also could reinstate protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential nominee, has voiced his support for the ACA, sometimes referred to as Obamacare, pointing out how it safeguards people who might not otherwise qualify for coverage.

His campaign website says, "Because of Obamacare, over million people no longer have to worry that an insurance company will deny coverage or charge higher premiums just because they have a pre-existing condition —whether cancer or diabetes or heart disease or a mental health challenge.

President Trump has also pledged to maintain these protections even as his administration supports the lawsuit that seeks to overturn the act.

During his acceptance speech for the Republican presidential nomination , Trump said, "We will always, and very strongly, protect patients with pre-existing conditions, and that is a pledge from the entire Republican Party.

The individual mandate is most closely linked to ACA provisions on guaranteed issue and federal subsidies to insurers, said Kathy Bakich, national health compliance practice leader at Segal, an employee benefits consulting firm. But there's a possibility the justices could consider the mandate that employers with 50 or more full-time employees provide ACA-compliant coverage to full-time staff. The Supreme Court could issue a ruling that maintains the status quo and leaves the appellate decision intact , wrote Katie Keith, a former research professor at Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms and a contributor to the Health Affairs blog.

In that instance, "the 5th Circuit's ruling would stand and the case would be remanded back to the district court," she noted. If that is the outcome, "the ACA would remain in effect while the district court undertook a provision-by-provision severability analysis," Keith noted. Thinking Ahead. If the employer 'play-or-pay' mandate the hour rule were struck down, would an employer move full-time eligibility back to 40 hours? Concluded Mercer's consultants, "There is much to consider with these possible ACA changes," should they come to pass.

You may be trying to access this site from a secured browser on the server. Please enable scripts and reload this page. Reuse Permissions. Image Caption. The U. Senate confirmed 7th U. She will now join her fellow justices in hearing the ACA case when it is argued. Supreme Court's Options The Supreme Court has the following options when it decides the case , The Washington Post and other sources have reported: To dismiss the case on technical grounds, leaving the statute in place.

See more ». This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks.

By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies. Eric Athey. To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:. Send Print Report. Published In: Affordable Care Act. Article III. California v Texas. Commerce Clause.

Individual Mandate.