Remember all those 2018 Republican Party advertisements where GOP candidates would appear in commercials touting how they would never take away constituents’ guarantee for pre-existing conditions that exists in ACA/ Obamacare. They were all lying in those ads as they were all aware of a pending law suit, specifically targeting that pre-existing mandate as required by Obamacare/ ACA.
This has to be #1 2020 advertisement for all Democratic Party candidates.
Remember that the republican President Donald Trump and the the GOP US senators were just one vote shy of killing Obamacare/ ACA without a GOP replacement plan. It was the republican US Senator John McCain from Arizona who saved the 2010 Affordable Care Act/ ACA/ Obamacare from extinction by his onr ‘thumbs down’ vote.
On the 26th of March 2019, President Trump trekked over to Capitol Hill to meet with US senate republicans. I’m betting that they were still high fiving each other over the 3/22/2019 FBI’s Special Counsel Mueller’s publication of its final report which was favorable to the White House.
But I’m thinking that they are also planning strategically to blunt the advantage the Democratic candidates will have during the 2020 elections’ cycle, with regards to their policies regarding improving the quality of healthcare coverage and its access to millions of Americans.
If the republican President Trump and his GOP cronies succeed in killing Obamacare, Republican candidates will be excoriated by the voters in 2020, and yes, they are currently acting to do just that.
Here’s the rest of the story…
As per 3/26/2019 Crooks and Liars blog by David, “Before leaving (Capitol Hill on 3/26/2019), Trump hinted that Republicans would make another attempt to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform law.”
“Let me tell you exactly what my message is,” Trump stated. “The Republican Party will soon be known as the party of health care. You watch.”
Earlier in the day, the president had made a similar statement on Twitter.
“The U.S. Justice Department said in a legal filing (3/25/2019) that it agrees with a Texas district court’s ruling that the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” is unconstitutional, throwing the future of the health-care law in doubt. “The Department of Justice has determined that the district court’s judgment should be affirmed,” the DOJ said in a filing to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The Texas ruling last December said the law’s individual mandate was unconstitutional, invalidating the entire ACA. The Justice Department had previously argued to keep the law mostly intact, but that the law’s protection of pre-existing conditions needed to be struck down. The filing means the government agrees the entire law should be struck and it will not challenge the ruling in its lengthy appeal process. Health-insurance stocks turned volatile immediately following the original Texas ruling, as it brought uncertainty over future health-insurance costs. Experts said in December that the case may reach the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020.”
On March 26, 2019, Isaac Stanley Becker of the Washington Post penned the following report, “Trump administration asks court to completely invalidate Obama’s Affordable Care Act”
“In a significant shift, the Justice Department now says that it backs a full invalidation of the Affordable Care Act, the signature Obama-era health law.”
“It presented its position in a legal filing Monday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, where an appeal is pending in a case challenging the measure’s constitutionality. A federal judge in Texas ruled in December that the law’s individual mandate “can no longer be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s tax power” and further found that the remaining portions of the law are void. He based his judgment on changes to the nation’s tax laws made by congressional Republicans in 2017.”
“At first, the Trump administration had not gone as far, arguing in a brief last June that the penalty for not buying insurance was legally distinct from other provisions of the law, which could still stand. Justice Department officials said there were grounds only to strike down the law’s consumer protections, including those for people with preexisting health conditions.”
“But in the new filing, signed by three Justice Department attorneys, the administration said that the decision of U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor should be affirmed and the entirety of the ACA should be invalidated.”
“The government said it planned to file a brief in support of the Texas-led coalition of states pursuing the law’s complete nullification, now that “the United States is not urging that any portion of the district court’s judgment be reversed,” as the filing stated.”
“The Department of Justice has determined that the district court’s comprehensive opinion came to the correct conclusion and will support it on appeal,” Kerri Kupec, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said in a statement.”
“If the Justice Department’s position prevails, it would potentially eliminate health care for millions of people and cause disruption across the U.S. health-care system — from removing no-charge preventive services for older Americans on Medicare to voiding the expansion of Medicaid in most states. A court victory would fulfill Republican promises to undo a prized domestic accomplishment of the previous administration but leave no substitute in place.”
The Justice Department announced the shift fewer than six weeks after William P. Barr was sworn in as attorney general. Barr, who served in the same position under President George H.W. Bush, is currently at the center of a conflict over the findings reached by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III in his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election — a conflict about who is entitled to view those findings, and who has the authority to make judgments about them.
As that controversy raged, Monday’s filing — on the scarcely less explosive issue of health coverage — offered a window into Barr’s approach to his role as the nation’s top law enforcement officer, said Nicholas Bagley, a professor of law at the University of Michigan.
“This refutes any notion that people might have that Attorney General Barr would retreat from some of the most partisan litigation choices made by the previous attorney general,” Bagley said in an interview, referring to former attorney general Jeff Sessions, who declined to defend the ACA against legal challenges in a break from the executive branch’s long tradition of supporting existing statutes.