Read on Twitter
And we're live! Today, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in California v. Texas, the case that will decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act. https://cs.pn/3n14hCa
California Solicitor General Michael Mongan argues that "Congress made a single, surgical change" in 2017 by zeroing out the penalty for not purchasing health insurance.
At the heart of today's case is whether other provisions of the ACA (such as Medicaid expansion) can stand, independent of a toothless individual mandate. It's worth noting that *more* states have expanded Medicaid since the mandate was zeroed out.
The defendants (California since the Trump administration refuses to defend the ACA in court) argue that the individual mandate was initially a choice (buy insurance or pay a penalty) and is still a choice (buy insurance or do nothing).
As a side note, it's worth noting that the individual mandate has always been unpopular, because commercial health insurers are unpopular. And rightfully so. Medicare, on the other hand, remains both popular and unambiguously constitutional.
In closing, California counsel notes that overturning the entire ACA would eliminate "hundreds of provisions that Congress chose to leave in place and that are functioning perfectly well" without an individual mandate.
Chief Justice John Roberts hearkens back to the 2012 argument made by the Obama administration that the individual mandate was key to a functioning ACA marketplace. Our experience with a $0 mandate has proven otherwise (the marketplace is functioning largely as it did before).
U.S. House of Representatives attorney Donald Verrilli notes that, "it turned out that the carrots (subsidies, allegedly generous policies) work without the stick (penalty for not purchasing insurance)."
The ACA offers carrots, but #MedicareForAll offers a whole meal.
The ACA offers carrots, but #MedicareForAll offers a whole meal.
It's worth reminding ourselves of the stakes in this case: “Gutting the ACA would throw another 19.9 million Americans off of insurance, and cause up to 68,345 extra deaths each year.” https://bit.ly/34BLJ52 via @awgaffney
Verrilli argues that the structure of the $0 individual mandate is “similar to a tax law where the tax is suspended for a number of years.” So it could be coming back. How would the growing number of uninsured Americans feel about that?
Chief Justice Roberts notes that Congress *could have* repealed the ACA in 2017, but chose not to. “I think they wanted the court to do that, but that's not our job.”
