Obamacare Likely to Survive, Supreme Court Arguments Indicate

A more conservative Supreme Court appears unwilling to do what Republicans have long desired: kill off the Affordable Care Act, including its key protections for pre-existing health conditions and subsidized insurance premiums that affect tens of millions of Americans.

Meeting remotely a week after the election and in the midst of a pandemic that has closed their majestic courtroom, the justices on Tuesday took on the latest Republican challenge to the Obama-era health care law, with three appointees of President Donald Trump, an avowed foe of the law, among them.

But at least one of those Trump appointees, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, seemed likely to vote to leave the bulk of the law intact, even if he were to find the law’s now-toothless mandate that everyone obtain health insurance to be unconstitutional.

“It does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh said.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote two earlier opinions preserving the law, stated similar views, and the court’s three liberal justices are almost certain to vote to uphold the law in its entirety. That presumably would form a majority by joining a decision to cut away only the mandate, which now has no financial penalty attached to it. Congress zeroed out the penalty in 2017, but left the rest of the law untouched.

“I think it’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act. I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts said.

In the court’s third major case over the 10-year-old law, popularly known as “Obamacare,” Republican attorneys general in 18 states and the administration want the entire law to be struck down. That would threaten coverage for more than 23 million people, as well as millions of others with preexisting conditions that now would include COVID-19.

California, leading a group of Democratic-controlled states, and the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives are urging the court to leave the law in place.

The Supreme Court could have heard the case before the election, but set arguments for a week after. The timing could add a wrinkle to the case since President-elect Joe Biden strongly supports the health care law.

Speaking after the arguments, Biden called the Republican-backed challenge to the law “cruel and needlessly divisive” and vowed to enact reforms to expand coverage when he’s in office next January, regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Tuesday’s arguments, conducted by telephone and lasting two hours, reached back to the earlier cases and also included reminders of the coronavirus pandemic. The justices asked about other mandates, only hypothetical, that might have no penalties attached: To fly a flag, to mow the lawn or even, in a nod to current times, to wear a mask.

“I assume that in most places there is no penalty for wearing a face mask or a mask during COVID, but there is some degree of opprobrium if one does not wear it in certain settings,” Justice Clarence Thomas said.

The court also spent a fair amount of time debating whether the GOP-led states and several individuals who initially filed lawsuits had the right to go into court.

The suits are against the federal government and U.S. agencies, “but doesn’t it really seem that Congress is the one who’s injured the individual plaintiffs here and you can’t sue Congress and say: ‘Hey, you’ve put us under this mandate that’s forcing us to buy insurance and that’s harming us,’ right?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said to Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins.

A ruling that those parties do not have that right, known as legal standing, would result in the dismissal of the case and leave the entire law in place, including the mandate.

Questions from Barrett, who joined the court late last month following her hurried nomination and confirmation to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, did not point to a clear outcome. Trump’s other high-court appointee is Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Bloomberg Quicktake brings you live global news and original shows spanning business, technology, politics and culture. Make sense of the stories changing your business and your world.

Connect with us on…

[pzlblqm]

I think they need to bring the teleprompter down a little bit

[jaredstevens]

People who don't pay taxes shouldn't be able to tell us how to run our government funded by tax payers

[castilloo]

The Irs shouldn't have the hands on anything with healthcare.

[braxtonjackson_]

so am i the only one that noticed the news anchor was not looking at the camera?

[competetodefeat]

Calling it affordable is and always has been laughable. Those plans cost a fortune even for plans that have terrible coverage.

[tosammyk]

Nothing affordable about it. Premiums but no coverage until you ALSO pay a huge deductible.

[williamhughey]

All praise to our HOLY GOD to maintain our ACA so desperately needed by the mass majority of Why would any same person with any morality at all want to strike down the ACA especially during COVID19!!!!???? For Americans fortunate enough to have health care through their jobs, remember how volital our jobs can be during these times!!!! This includes our GOP

[chiisaiward]

Please lower the prices so people can stop yelling at me everyday lol

[mcrobby]

Currently utilizing ACA and I’m perfectly fine with it. I have been fighting cancer for 4 years and my premium through the marketplace is just under $100 a month. I read a lot of comments about how bad it is and do not understand what your individual problems are or if you have even attempted to utilize the system. For me, one of millions, it works.

[Hexxedtone]

affordable care act 💙🇺🇸💙🇺🇸💙🇺🇸💙🇺🇸 saved me and my mother and does to this day.

[Sero]

I almost got fined for not having health care after i lost my job. You don't want to protect health care for everyone, you want an excuse to exploit money for those who can't even afford it in the first place

[spiritsofthesun]

Obamacare is very expensive I cant afford it

[edcarr]

It's too expensive. If it's good, why don't the reps and sens use it?

[MORTONRICK]

You people simply don't pay attention and don't understand anything about the ACA. It's NOT insurance. It's a way for you to GET insurance from all the regular carriers like Blue Cross, United, etc. Provides the ability to get insurance if you have pre-existing conditions. It allows you deadbeats to stay on your parents insurance until you're 26, when you'll likely move out. Based on your income, the ACA provides direct tax credits to help you pay premiums, saving you hundreds of dollars a month. The ACA doesn't set or raise premiums. That's the insurance companies and they've been doing that steadily for the past 20 years.

[dyelawnhotfire]

I feel for anyone who uses marketplace plans -- especially if you don't qualify for subsidies and/or have a pre-existing condition. The premiums and deductibles are sky-high, and the provider network is usually as narrow as a supermarket aisle.

[humelakecabin]

That's unfortunate. What a worthless excuse for health insurance. Better to use that written policy as TP .

[guystudios]

Obamacare was a godsend for me and many Americans. Let’s expand on it instead of discarding it!

[RegineAteliers]

ACA sucks. WAY TOO EXPENSIVE $1200 - $1800 mo. avg. & $6000/yr. co-pay

[davinci]

I know a lot of people are against Obamacare but after my dad was diagnosed with cancer our health insurance company kicked us off of it and we struggle to find a new one because of it. Without Obama care my dad wouldnt have been able afford the medical treatment he need and live another 13 years

[tonygraham]

Government should not have anything to do with healthcare it would be nightmare like canada