Immediately after last night's bombshell* announcement of the ruling in the Texas Fold'em lawsuit by right-wing judge Reed O'Connor, one of the numerous parts of the outrage was over the timing of the decision being announced. Just about everyone, myself included, assumed that O'Connor would either...
The recent federal court decision is still moving through the courts, and the exchanges are still open for business and we will continue with open enrollment. There is no impact to current coverage or coverage in a 2019 plan.
"Open enrollment is full-steam ahead in California and continues in other states for several more weeks. No one in America should let this TX District Court ruling discourage them from enrolling in health coverage or be worried about using the coverage they have. This case will wind its way through the courts and I’m confident the Supreme Court will once again do the right thing and uphold the Affordable Care Act,"
*....pending an immediate appeal, all the way up to the Supreme Court over the next year or so, which means a LOT of lawyers are about to make a LOT of billable hours.
Before you read anything else: DON'T PANIC. An injunction against the ACA was not included with the ruling (at least, not yet). The 2019 Open Enrollment Period isstill ongoing through Saturday night in 44 states and longer than that in the other 6 + DC.
If you haven't enrolled for 2019 healthcare coverage yet, now is still the time to do so.
Maryland files suit to protect health reform from Texas.
... the Maryland attorney general today filed a separate lawsuit in a Maryland district court. Among other things, he’s seeking an injunction requiring the continued enforcement of the law. Depending on how quickly the Maryland case moves, it’s possible we could see dueling injunctions—one ordering the Trump administration to stop enforcing the law, the other ordering it to keep enforcing.
That’s an unholy mess just waiting to happen. Now, it may not come to that. My best guess is that the Texas lawsuit will fizzle: any injunction will likely be stayed pending appeal, either by the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court, and the case is going nowhere on the merits. The Maryland lawsuit will likely prove unnecessary.
I don't have much to add to this other than to note how much this case underscores just how much power and importance state attorneys general have.
To enter the Fort Worth Courtroom of Judge Reed O’Connor on September 5, 2018, was to leave the real world. The Affordable Care Act was once again on trial. At stake was access to health care for the 20 million Americans who have gained coverage through the ACA, affordable coverage for 133 million Americans with preexisting conditions, and preventive services coverage for 44 million Medicare beneficiaries.
U.S. District Court Judge Reed O'Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, vigorously questioned attorneys during the three-hour hearing but gave no indication when he would rule.
Lawyers for the Trump administration partially agreed with the red states' argument, concluding that the removal of Obamacare's individual mandate requires striking down the law's insurance provisions, including protections for people with preexisting medical conditions.
But the administration disagreed on the need for immediate action, arguing that any remedies should not be applied until next year.
In June 2018, President Trump’s administration announced – as part of a lawsuit known as Texas v. United States, brought by 20 Republican state attorneys general – it will no longer defend the ACA’s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions.
Senate Democrats are preparing a long-shot procedural maneuver to reverse new Trump administration regulations that they say would sabotage the Affordable Care Act by expanding “junk” insurance that isn’t obligated to cover preexisting conditions.
The judge overseeing the high-profile case over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, which could potentially land at the Supreme Court, is slated to attend a Federalist Society event featuring Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas -- and several members of the federal circuit court of appeals that would review the case before it landed at the high court. A key ethic professor suggests the Texas' judge's appearance at the event does not cross any lines.
Judge Reed O'Connor is also slated to monitor a panel entitled “Trump, Sessions and the States,” during the Texas Chapter meeting on Sept. 8, just days after the Sept. 5 arguments in the federal Texas court are scheduled.
Inside Health Policy asked ethics experts whether O'Connor's appearance pushed the envelope on judicial ethics, and those that responded generally suggested his appearance at the event is not an issue.