Republicans are still trying to steal your health insurance
Or at least make it as crummy and expensive as possible
Republicans failed to repeal ObamaCare in 2017 by a single vote in the Senate. But they are still trying to drive a stake through its heart in secret — using yet another tendentious legal Calvinball case to try to get the courts to strike it down as unconstitutional.
With a recent decision from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, there are some signs that it might actually happen. As the 2020 election campaign picks up, it's worth remembering that the Republican Party is dead set on taking millions of Americans' health insurance away, or failing that, making it as expensive and terrible as possible, by any means they can dream up.
First, the legal background. The suit is Texas vs. United States, filed by a number of right-wing state attorneys general. It is very obviously a backfilled pretext trying to get through judicial activism what the Republican Congress could not pass. Here's how the logic goes. Back in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that ObamaCare could stand in part by reinterpreting its individual mandate to buy insurance as a tax. Then, in 2017, Congress passed a tax cut for the rich that also got rid of the individual mandate tax — leaving a legal requirement with no teeth.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
So the suit argues the mandate must be struck down since you can't have a tax that collects no money — and because, when Congress was designing ObamaCare, most agreed that the individual mandate was a key part of the law, the whole thing needs to go. (The Trump administration has also refused to defend the law.)
As Slate's Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern explain, on the legal merits this argument is absolutely preposterous. The suit argues that Congress repealed ObamaCare in secret with the 2017 tax bill despite voting against an explicit repeal that very same year. And when Congress was designing the ACA, they included the individual mandate because all the liberal wonks agreed you needed one to stave off the dreaded cost death spiral within the ObamaCare exchanges. The Supreme Court has previously held that a law can stand with an unconstitutional portion removed so long as it is "fully operative" without it — and not only does it turn out that you don't actually need the individual mandate to keep the exchanges functioning, there are tons of parts of ObamaCare that have nothing to do with the mandate or exchanges at all, like the Medicaid expansion or allowing children to stay on their parents' insurance until age 26.
Like the Halbig v. Burwell case from years ago, this is a "Monty Python-esque exercise in extreme tendentiousness" from bug-eyed Federalist Society crackpots. If it weren't this it would be something else, like maybe arguing ObamaCare is unconstitutional because it enslaves doctors, thus violating the 13th Amendment. The only problem would be the legal team huffing just enough paint thinner so that they could make the argument with a straight face before the bench.
And yet, the notoriously reactionary 5th Circuit basically accepted this argument in a ruling from earlier this month. They ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional, but remanded the question of whether the whole law should therefore be thrown out back to the lower court. There very likely won't be a final decision before the 2020 election — which is almost certainly a political move. The partisan Republican hacks President Trump has been stuffing onto the federal bench obviously don't want to blow up his chances of reelection. If millions of people are going to lose their insurance via conservative judicial rule-by-decree, best not to do it during an election year when your party is the presidential incumbent.
But make no mistake, ObamaCare is still very much on the ballot in 2020. If Trump wins reelection, he will very likely be able to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court, and that will almost certainly spell doom for the law (with this lawsuit or another one). If that happens, something like 20 million people will lose their insurance immediately — as Medicaid is drastically rolled back, the exchanges are shut down, and anybody between 18 and 25 who is still on their parents' coverage is kicked off. Protections for people with preexisting conditions would be removed, and private insurers could once again place annual and lifetime coverage limits on their policies.
The slow-motion collapse of the private health insurance system would accelerate as well, as cost-control policies designed to slow the cancerous cost bloat that is eating the American economy from the inside would be deleted. More broadly, there would be spectacular chaos within the health care system, which was totally overhauled to accommodate ObamaCare changes — and this time there will be no guiding hand from Congress.
So while there is a never-ending parade of war crimes, corruption, and general insanity from the Trump regime to distract us, let's not forget that Republicans are also gunning for your health insurance. If they can't take it away, by God they'll make it as crummy and expensive as possible.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com. His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly, The New Republic, and the Washington Post.
-
Feds raid Diddy homes in alleged sex trafficking case
Speed Read Homeland Security raided the properties of hip hop mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Trump gets $289M break, first criminal trial date
Speed Read The former president's fraud bond has been reduced to $175 million from $464 million
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
Today's political cartoons - March 26, 2024
Cartoons Tuesday's cartoons - the House GOP abandon ship, Joe Biden sets his stall, and more
By The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Xi-Biden meeting: what's in it for both leaders?
Today's Big Question Two superpowers seek to stabilise relations amid global turmoil but core issues of security, trade and Taiwan remain
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Will North Korea take advantage of Israel-Hamas conflict?
Today's Big Question Pyongyang's ties with Russia are 'growing and dangerous' amid reports it sent weapons to Gaza
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published