黑料吃瓜网

(iStock/Getty Images)

The Trump administration is refusing to defend key parts of the Affordable Care Act, essentially arguing that federal courts should find the health law鈥檚 protection for people with preexisting conditions unconstitutional.

The federal lawsuit hinges on the ACA鈥檚 individual mandate, or the requirement to get health coverage or pay a penalty. The mandate has long been a sticking point for conservatives, who argue that the government should not be telling individuals what coverage they must have.

But that mandate was crucial to persuading insurers to offer plans under the ACA. It helped expand their risk pools while the law forced them to guarantee coverage to any customer. Insurers were not allowed to raise costs for people with preexisting conditions. The administration鈥檚 brief, filed Thursday in federal district court in Fort Worth, Texas, takes aim at those links.

Twenty Republican state attorneys general filed on Feb. 26, charging that Congress鈥� changes to the law in rendered the entire ACA unconstitutional. In the tax law, Congress repealed the penalty for people who fail to have health insurance starting in 2019.

The attorneys general argue that a Supreme Court decision in 2012 saved the ACA from being declared an unconstitutional overreach of congressional power by declaring the penalty a tax and pointing out that Congress has the power to levy taxes. Without the tax penalty, they argue, 鈥渢he Court should hold that the ACA is unlawful and enjoin its operation.鈥�

The Trump administration Thursday did not go that far. Rather, it argued that without the tax to encourage healthy people to sign up, the parts of the law guaranteeing coverage to people with health conditions and charging them the same rates should be struck down as well.

The administration to declare the provisions that guarantee coverage to be 鈥渋nvalid beginning on January 1, 2019,鈥� when the mandate penalty goes away.

Here are five things to know about this latest in a long line of challenges to the health law:

If This Lawsuit Succeeds, Who Would Be Affected?

People who buy their own insurance because they are self-employed or don鈥檛 get coverage through their jobs or the government. There are about 21 million people who do so, buying either through brokers or from a state or federal Affordable Care Act marketplace.

But it鈥檚 not clear how many Americans have preexisting conditions and could be affected. Estimates vary widely because there is not a standard definition of what counts as a preexisting condition. Before the ACA passed, insurers commonly rejected people with cancer, heart failure, diabetes, arthritis and even less serious conditions.

Based on those pre-ACA examples, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that of people under age 65 have a preexisting condition. Of course, not all of them buy coverage on their own. (Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent program of the foundation.)

America鈥檚 Health Insurance Plans, an industry trade group, Friday criticized the federal government鈥檚 filing.

鈥淶eroing out the individual mandate penalty should not result in striking important consumer protections鈥� that help guarantee coverage to people with preexisting conditions, the statement said. 鈥淩emoving those provisions will result in renewed uncertainty in the individual market, create a patchwork of requirements in the states, cause rates to go even higher for older Americans and sicker patients, and make it challenging to introduce products and rates for 2019.鈥�

Is Anything Going To Change Right Away? What About Next Year?

Don鈥檛 look for big changes yet.

The lawsuit could easily go all the way to the Supreme Court before there is a resolution, which could take years. So, the preexisting conditions protection is likely to stay in place during that period.

More immediately, there might be some effect on premiums for next year. Health insurers are currently deciding whether to sell coverage in the individual market in 2019 鈥� and what they鈥檙e going to charge.

鈥淭he more uncertainty there is, the more the actuaries are going to be plugging into their projections for premium rates,鈥� said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University鈥檚 Health Policy Institute.

But others say the legal brief may have minimal impact next year on premiums. That鈥檚 because insurers already expected the Trump administration would not defend the ACA 鈥� and they know that a resolution of the case will be years away, said industry consultant Robert Laszewski.

A bigger effect on premiums, according to both Corlette and Laszewski, are factors already in play that are expected to draw younger and healthier people out of the ACA marketplace. Those include Congress鈥� decision to repeal the individual mandate penalty and rules expected soon from the administration that will expand the market for lower cost and short-term policies that won鈥檛 have to follow all the ACA rules.

How Is This Lawsuit Different From Previous Challenges To The ACA?

The Supreme Court has twice upheld the constitutionality of the health law. Most famously, in 2012, a led by Chief Justice John Roberts turned back a challenge that was also filed by Republican attorneys general, along with the National Federation of Independent Business. Roberts wrote in a 5-4 ruling that the requirement for most Americans to either have insurance or pay a fine constitutes a tax 鈥� even though Democrats had gone to great lengths to not call it a tax 鈥� and was therefore constitutional.

In 2015, the that Congress did not intend to provide financial aid exclusively for premiums to individuals in states that operated their own insurance exchanges.

This current lawsuit, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel, argues that since Congress has changed the law to remove the penalty forcing individuals to get insurance, it has inadvertently rendered the rest of it impermissible under the 2012 Supreme Court ruling.

鈥淭exans have known all along that Obamacare is unlawful and a divided Supreme Court鈥檚 approval rested solely on the flimsy support of Congress鈥檚 authority to tax,鈥� said Paxton when the suit was filed. 鈥淐ongress has now kicked that flimsy support from beneath the law.鈥�

Other legal observers point out that鈥檚 not how it works.

鈥淐ongress is always free to amend its statutes, even to omit what it previously thought was essential,鈥� , a law professor at the University of Michigan, in a blog. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 what Congress did when it zeroed out the mandate. So we don鈥檛 have to speculate what Congress would鈥檝e done if it had a choice between invalidating the ACA鈥檚 insurance reforms or just invalidating the mandate. Congress made that choice.鈥�

If The Trump Administration Isn鈥檛 Going To Defend The Health Law In This Lawsuit, Who Will?

In May, the court allowed to 鈥渋ntervene鈥� in the case and defend the law.

鈥淭he goal of Texas鈥� lawsuit is to leave Americans without health insurance, forcing them to choose between their health and other needs,鈥� said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Allowing the Democratic officials to join the suit 鈥渁llows us to protect the health and well-being of these Americans by defending affordable access to healthcare.鈥�

If Nothing Is Going To Happen Right Away, Why Is This Such A Big Deal?

The guarantees for coverage for people with preexisting conditions are among those most valued by the public. Even if the lawsuit stands little chance of success, putting those provisions back in play can create uncertainty for insurers and patients. It could also possibly provide Democrats another talking point for the coming midterm elections in November.

Legal experts also point out that the Trump administration鈥檚 failure to defend the law could have long-lasting implications for the rule of law in the nation.

鈥淚f the Justice Department can just throw in the towel whenever a law is challenged in court, it can effectively pick and choose which laws should remain on the books,鈥� wrote Bagley. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 as flagrant a violation of the President鈥檚 constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as you can imagine.鈥�