Barr's worst move had nothing to do with Mueller
By Catherine Rampell
The Washington Post
The worst thing that Attorney General William Barr did this week arguably had nothing to do with possible contempt of Congress or the Mueller report.
It had to do with health care.
On Wednesday, amid the circus over alleged special counsel snittiness, the department that Barr oversees formally asked a federal appeals court to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act, jeopardizing access to health care for tens of millions of Americans.
If the Trump administration prevails, everything in the law would be wiped out. And I do mean everything: the protections for people with pre-existing conditions, Medicaid expansion, income-based individual-market subsidies, provisions allowing children to remain on their parents insurance until age 26, requirements that insurance cover minimum essential benefits such as prescriptions and preventive care, and so on.
The administrations rationale was laid out in a policy brief supporting a lawsuit challenging Obamacare by 20 red states. Their logic: When Congress, as part of President Trumps 2017 tax cuts, set the penalty for not carrying health insurance to zero, that effectively made it no longer really a tax, and therefore made it unconstitutional. Somehow, that rendered the rest of the law unconstitutional, as well; including lots of provisions having nothing to do with the mandate.
This reasoning has been rejected even by conservative legal scholars otherwise opposed to the law. But legal merits (and demerits) aside which are likely to be ultimately adjudicated by the Supreme Court its also not clear what political upside Republicans could possibly see in mounting yet another overt attack on Obamacare.
-more-
https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/rampell-barrs-worst-move-had-nothing-to-do-with-mueller/
pandr32
(11,615 posts)Most people I know have some form of a "pre-existing condition" and prescription costs are already through the roof. The American people will go broke.
ResistantAmerican17
(3,827 posts)In quotes. That is a term invented by insurance companies to deny healthcare to the people who need medical care and, in some cases, need medical care to live. Through medical negligence, I am a surgical diabetic. They had to remove my pancreas. Insulindead without it. Period. No fault of my own. So what, right Barr? A choice??? Hardly.
pandr32
(11,615 posts)and I hope you are not out-of-pocket for the insulin. I have heard awful stories of people not being able to afford it and rationing the little they do manage to get.
Personally, I would like to see insurance companies out of healthcare. Since their business model is for-profit I see them at odds with actual healthcare. Their focus is on profitable premiums and minimal pay-outs.
I grew up in Canada and of-course have fond memories of our government-run healthcare.
CrispyQ
(36,518 posts)Besides pre-existing conditions, that children-on-their-parent's-insurance-until-age-26 is VERY popular, even in red households.
The GOP doesn't have a plan. Let them die, or better yet, let them go bankrupt & then die is their plan. Evil fuckers, every one.
kimbutgar
(21,195 posts)Skittles
(153,193 posts)Trump does not give a damn who it hurts