Judge presses ObamaCare supporters during arguments on future of health law

Enlarge this image

Enlarge this image

As a federal court considers a challenge to the Affordable Care Act's constitutionality, the public, including most Republicans, wants protections for people with pre-existing conditions preserved, * a href="https://connect.kff.org/e1t/c/*W8vnz1v8fKXsMV2rxq32kqmz-0/*VpSBtY2zqTpXW4XWqMm5h7L3R0/5/f18dQhb0S4006v3gH9VM_xy24MHDS-N2n8QT9j264kW6x71LF5cK_1RW1drs7k42F44HW7J3bqZ3M9tMVW7ZlvwB7rMxCdW6Fh7-99l6KslW4vP5sT2FQ-RfW5MyXZY1b7TjmW6tcl-B87V9gMW1r5vmh9h7JyQW91gq1d2q4N1kW4B0XXr2GxmQPW5_dcqD5gpHzKN628LfVwRbv0VFCRgg8ljqKxN7G99f0rMdp6N8fgCjZqNNf9W8jFDnv3wcFm6W7RxJCY8wpTN7VrVhcT65VKzSW3xL0Sl1TLyF6W7j7J-x5tWfB5W5YvS7q33PH1QW3hmpqB3CvHCMN8pgqQ95PVPdW2Nv3lb80bTr8W87-dsv4MpxpgW4TdS3H3wlW0MW7jRTf73YBqYGV_xMnP8FT6McW6lDFTX53B_17W16ZXsN8s86m-W8v2z5s38h-nbVx6jtv83wlTYW3SjFQ88-Rd_YW4JXStQ9lPFkzW1-7p204DfRHZW2lM76D703fwnW91fvBz1h4mjJW7_87ln6T9JVXW1C0njZ6wlDHrW86bk026r-KBQW53dT_G4cK0f_W7Schm42LwrSmW4KM1Nz2kVg-HW4cBkk38CWb9jN83x6WD6vVKFW2bZjvw70B2zbW2RxgDW46V6nrW6TtGYr70zQB_W93dpTc2jCXdYW6Zp8pt7h75nwW6SlM213lstzpW4GbH7335kcHn103" target="_blank" rel="noopener" *the latest Kaiser Family Foundation tracking poll finds.

The State of Texas has filed multiple lawsuits against the law, also known as Obamacare.

Defending the law is a group of 17 attorneys general, led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

The Republican-led coalition of states is arguing that the Obama administration and a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices said in prior cases that the mandate is constitutional because its penalty is a tax and the mandate is essential to creating effective health insurance markets. Paxton has said that without the tax penalty, there is no "remaining legitimate basis for the law".

As voters go to the polls in November, many will surely remember these incessant threats to health care. At issue are core principles of the law, including protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions and limits on how much older customers can be charged.

The reason, they say, is that in 2012 the Supreme Court upheld the health law based on Congress' taxation power.

And, they continue, because the requirement is so central to health care law, the whole law can not survive without it. The administration did not challenge certain other parts of the law, however, like the establishment of health insurance marketplaces and premium subsidies for low- and moderate-income people which, it said, could continue without the mandate.

"Every single justice ... looked at this", O'Connor said.

When given a list of possible worries, unexpected medical bills tops the list that includes other health care costs such as premiums, deductibles and even drug costs.

That has fueled a renewed effort by Democrats to highlight Republican hostility to health care protections in the 2010 law.

Across the country this summer, Democratic congressional candidates have made preserving the health care law's protections a cornerstone of their campaigns. Thom Tillis introduced a bill recently that they claimed would protect Americans' insurance coverage, even if the federal court in Texas backs the challenge.

"This legislation is a common-sense solution that guarantees Americans with preexisting conditions will have health care coverage, regardless of how our judicial system rules on the future of Obamacare", said Sen. The same could be true for a health insurance provider being able to deny coverage for chemotherapy to someone with cancer.

The author of a high-profile measure to curb paid "conversion therapy", which purports to change a person's sexual orientation, said he is shelving his bill Friday in hopes of finding consensus with religious communities that vigorously opposed the proposal.

Federal regulators say insurers selling short-term plans are not required to comply with the broad scope of benefits required to be covered under Obamacare.

Many legal experts have said the Texas case appears to be a long shot.

Almost 80 percent of those polled said pharmaceutical company profits were a "major reason", followed by 71 percent who cited fraud and waste in the health care system and hospitals charging too much.

Writing off this case would be a mistake, warned Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law and frequent commentator on the health care law. The first oral arguments occur in a Fort Worth courtroom today.

Latest News