TexasFoldEm

An unsurprising but still very welcome development in the Endgame of the ongoing #TexasFoldEm #ACA lawsuit:

NEW: Biden admin tells Supreme Court that ObamaCare remains constitutional even without a tax penalty to enforce the individual mandate—a reversal from Trump admin's position

https://t.co/pjNWCaSgf4

— John Kruzel (@johnkruzel) February 10, 2021

Here's the full text of the letter sent to the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court by Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. It's actually pretty cut & dry for this sort of legal document:

Dear Mr. Harris:

 

h/t to Albus Brooks for the video. Here's the transcript, verbatim:

Q: "IF the Affordable Care Act is overturned, how will you ensure that Colordans who have healthcare through the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion will continue to be covered?"

10/29/20: SEE UPDATE BELOW.

A month ago, incumbent Democratic Senator Gary Peters of Michigan and his Republican challenger John James were both interviewed as part of a Detroit Regional Chamber series on several issues, including healthcare policy and the ACA.

As I noted at the time:

 

This morning, U.S. Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) and his Republican opponent, John James, were interviewed online by Nolan Finley of the Detroit News and Stephen Henderson of DPTV & WDET. Here's the verbaitm transcripts of each of their healthcare/ACA Q&A sections, Peters first:

HENDERSON: "One of the things which has been made really manifest during the COVID-19 pandemic is the weakness of our healthcare system. We're now coming up on about a decade of life under the Affordable Care Act, which of course expanded access to insurance and made some other changes, but there are still obviously a lot of inefficincies...there are a lot of insufficiencies.

Give us an idea of what you would support in terms of changes to the healthcare system, changes to the Affordable Care Act, to get more people covered at lower costs and make the system work better."

Republican Senator Cory Gardner is up for re-election this fall, and he's in major trouble. Various polling over the summer has him trailing his Democratic opponent, former CO Governor John Hickenlooper, by around 6 points on average.

Gardner is underwater for many reasons, many of which have to do with his repeated attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act...most recently by voting for the "Skinny Repeal" bill the summer of 2017 which was nipped in the bud by a single vote thanks to John McCain's famous "thumbs down" vote.

Back in March I noted that while the U.S. Supreme Court has indeed agreed to hear the Texas Fold'Em lawsuit to strike down the Affordable Care Act (aka "Texas vs. Azar", aka "Texas vs. U.S.", aka "CA vs. TX") sometime this fall, the odds of actually getting a final decision in the case from SCOTUS before the November election (or even before either Trump or Biden are sworn into office in January) is extremely unlikely:

The ACA case was granted. It will be heard this coming term.

— Nicholas Bagley (@nicholas_bagley) March 2, 2020

#SCOTUS grants petition filed by California & other states, as well as petition filed by Texas on whether individual mandate can be separated from rest of ACA. Argument is likely in the fall, w/decision to follow by June 2021.

Back in March I noted that while the U.S. Supreme Court has indeed agreed to hear the Texas Fold'Em lawsuit to strike down the Affordable Care Act (aka "Texas vs. Azar", aka "Texas vs. U.S.", aka "CA vs. TX") sometime this fall, the odds of actually getting a final decision in the case from SCOTUS before the November election (or even before either Trump or Biden are sworn into office in January) is extremely unlikely:

The ACA case was granted. It will be heard this coming term.

— Nicholas Bagley (@nicholas_bagley) March 2, 2020

#SCOTUS grants petition filed by California & other states, as well as petition filed by Texas on whether individual mandate can be separated from rest of ACA. Argument is likely in the fall, w/decision to follow by June 2021.

UPDATE 9/29/20: There have been several important developments in the #TexasFoldEm case since I posted this back in June.

For one thing, another 81,000 Americans have died of COVID-19 and another 4.7 million Americans have tested positive for it.

For another, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away, and Donald Trump has already formally nominated an ultra-right wing zealot who is on the record as wanting the ACA to be struck down to replace her. His nominee's confirmation hearings have already been scheduled to start in mid-October, meaning that there's a very good chance that she'll be confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate before Election Day...in which case the Texas Fold'em case to strike down the entire ACA could end up being the very first case she hears as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice on November 10th.

With this in mind, I figured this would be a good time to re-up the analysis below.

Last week it was noted by several healthcare policy experts that if and when a vaccine for the coronavirus (COVID-19) sweeping the entire planet is ever developed, under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies would be legally required to cover the full cost of it for anyone enrolled in an ACA-compliant policy:

SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.

(a) In General.--A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for--

(1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of 'A' or 'B' in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force;

(2) immunizations that have in effect a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to the individual involved; and

About a month ago I wrote a flow chart, of sorts, explaining the different potential permutations of the absurd Texas vs. Azar (aka Texas vs. U.S., aka #TexasFoldEm) lawsuit which threatens the entire Affordable Care Act. Since then there's been a few more developments (actually, a few more non-developments), the timing of which change the potential landscape a bit.

Sometime this morning the Supreme Court is expected to announce whether they'll intervene in the case:

Hey everyone! The Supreme Court may announce at at 9:30am today its decision about whether to take the big Affordable Care Act case.
If it says yes, it'll hear argument in the fall (around the election!). If it says no, it'll take another three years or so to get a final answer.

— Nicholas Bagley (@nicholas_bagley) March 2, 2020

Here's the catch, though:

If yes, they'll HEAR the case in the fall...but when would they announce their *decision*?

Pages