The ACA Fallout

I have little to remark upon specific to yesterday’s decision by a Texas Federal Court to dismember the ACA, because, after all, I’m not a lawyer and cannot follow the arguments. Non-severability? But according to conservative lawyer Ted Frank, this is a terrible ruling:

But I think this will lead to some interesting fallout in two areas.

First, the inevitable appeals will give us common citizens a feel for how radical this Texas court judge, Judge O’Connor, may be. The general rumor is that he’s an extremist, and that’s why the plaintiffs in this suit filed in this court. As the appeals progress, it’ll illuminate whether or not this judge has a good understanding of the law, or not. This may even lead to scrutiny of this judge by relevant Congressional committees. A single decision is hardly a case upon which to build an impeachment, but a pattern of partisanship, i.e., abuse, may provide sufficient motivation. Such a proceeding needs great justification, however.

And, second, this potentially returns the pressure of a national health plan back onto the GOP. A large number of Americans will lose, or see diminished, their health care. These are folks who may have never had health care and took advantage of it when available, people living off of disability, all sorts of people who couldn’t afford it until the ACA was developed. And, concerning everyone outside the clan of the independently  wealthy, Steve Benen says the pre-existing condition clause, forbidding the refusal of health care coverage based on pre-existing conditions, will also go away.

Republicans filed the suit. Will the Democrats use this lawsuit’s results to hammer the Republicans in 2020? Eric Earling on conservative site The Resurgent thinks they will, and that the Republicans are not ready:

Health care is a top tier issue for both the public and private sector. Future health care agendas are essential for good governance moving forward.

So what’s the conservative solution?

You’re not going to dramatically reduce eligibility for Medicare or Medicaid. A Republican President, Senate, and House, couldn’t even make relatively incremental changes to an already comparatively incremental law in Obamacare without major political fallout. If you think simply cutting Medicare or Medicaid are political winners, I invite you to enjoy your extended time in the Congressional minority.

Yes, Medicare and Medicaid will definitely require reform, even as addressing the issue of Obamacare’s problematic impact on the affordability of individual market coverage for middle class consumers is still necessary as well. Yet, a clear lesson of recent electoral politics is Republicans don’t have the combination of a winning message and a winning policy solution for health care. Not even close.

The next two years see a split Congress, and it seems unlikely any major health care plans will be written that are acceptable to both bodies, much less President Desperate Trump in the White House. My vague understanding of the decision for the plaintiffs in yesterday’s result was the fact that the individual mandate penalty had been “zeroed” out during the passage of the 2017 Tax Change (it wasn’t a reform) bill. We may see the Democrats passing a bill in the House that reauthorizes the ACA by activating the individual mandate, thus invalidating the ruling, and then beating the GOP about the head and shoulders when the Senate refuses to pass the same bill. This will then be used for messaging purposes during the 2020 elections. The Republicans don’t believe in affordable health care. Why should you vote for them?

I suspect this lawsuit result for the Republicans is a fool’s Pyrrhic victory.

Bookmark the permalink.

About Hue White

Former BBS operator; software engineer; cat lackey.

Comments are closed.