Global Pandemic? Time to Eliminate Your Healthcare.
By: Andrew Nguyen
Tags: Supreme Court, Obamacare, Politics, Healthcare, Affordable Care Act

On Tuesday, November 10, the case of California v. Texas (2020) regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act headed to the Supreme Court, where they heard oral arguments from both sides of the aisle.

Despite the country engulfed in a pandemic, Republican officials followed suit with the elimination of the ACA, threatening over 20 million insured Americans and over 100 million Americans with pre-existing conditions.

With one of the largest threats to healthcare currently in court, it is important to know about its past court rulings.

Background: the Affordable Care Act

Passed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or otherwise known as Obamacare, followed through with their goals of establishing a more affordable healthcare plan for all Americans by providing tax credits for poor and middle-class Americans as well as by expanding Medicaid.

In 2012, a Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate was upheld, with the ruling stating that the mandate was constitutional and made it so that by 2014, Americans must have a minimum level of healthcare or they must pay a penalty.

In 2015, the Supreme Court also allowed federal nationwide subsidies to be implemented to help poor and middle-class Americans afford healthcare, a prominent legislative component of former-President Obama’s plan under the ACA.

However, problems arose once 2017 came around when Congress voted to reduce the individual mandate penalty to zero, causing concern for Republicans on the constitutionality of the law.

Present Day America: SCOTUS Hearing

As argued by the Texas Solicitor General, Kyle Hawkins, Republican officials claim that by reducing the individual mandate to zero, the law can no longer be justified as a tax and therefore, is unconstitutional.

Their ideal outcome is to strike down the ACA in its entirety, claiming that without justification that the individual mandate can be considered a tax, the ACA is unconstitutional.

On the other hand, defenders of the ACA represented by California Solicitor General Michael Mongan argued that removing the individual mandate doesn’t prove to have any constitutional problems as “it doesn’t require anybody to do anything.”

Defenders of the ACA are hoping the Supreme Court favors their arguments, claiming that reducing or removing the penalty is not unconstitutional and that the law itself can stand on its own with the removal of the individual mandate if ruled unconstitutional.

A major development from both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh in the hearing that took place Tuesday signaled their support in only removing the individual mandate — declaring that the ACA will still be able to stand without one.

“It’s hard for you to argue that Congress intended the entire act to fall if the mandate were struck down, when the same Congress that lowered the penalty to zero did not even try to repeal the rest of the act.” — Chief Justice Roberts

In relation, Justice Kavanaugh agreed with Chief Justice Roberts in the argument, claiming that the entire fate of the ACA law is not tied to the elimination of the individual mandate argued by Republicans.

“I t does seem fairly clear that the proper remedy would be to sever the mandate provision and leave the rest of the act in place — the provisions regarding pre-existing conditions and the rest.” — Justice Kavanaugh

To Donald Verrilli, who is serving as the lawyer for the House of Representatives and who has also successfully defended the ACA as a solicitor general under the Obama administration, Justice Kavanaugh stated,

“I tend to agree with you that it’s a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents.” — Justice Kavanaugh

Both justices recalled the fact that in 2017 when Congress voted to reduce the penalty, the ability to remove the law as a whole was available, but was not taken. The simple basis that the same Congress could have removed it, but didn’t, created the assumption that the ACA was not tied entirely to the individual mandate.

Although the two key justices have stated that removing the individual mandate from the ACA will not jeopardize current law, this ruling will not coincide with the Trump administration’s stance on removing the law entirely.

A key issue for many Americans is the threat to their healthcare coverage, with as many as 20 million Americans becoming uninsured if the ACA is struck down. However, as the ACA also guaranteed Americans under 25 to remain on their parent’s healthcare plan, they too are at threat along with tens of millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions.

Despite countless affirmations in the past, the current administration has stated that they do have a healthcare plan to replace the ACA, however, it has not been released to the public.

Overturning a law that protects and guarantees coverage for millions of Americans during a global pandemic is a risky strategy, but so far, support from two Republican-appointed justices provides valuable support to upholding the current ACA law.

From the two-hour oral hearing on Tuesday, it is clear that the fight to overturn the ACA is ongoing and serves to threaten millions of Americans. Until then, the final ruling is expected by June 2021.