Trump's undermining of Obamacare violates the Constitution, new lawsuit charges
Four cities are charging that the president is failing to execute the law by actively undercutting the Affordable Care Act.
by Heidi Przybyla / Aug.02.2018 / 5:14 AM ET
WASHINGTON — After congressional Republicans repeatedly failed last year to repeal the Affordable Care Act, President Trump promised to “let Obamacare implode” on its own.
A new lawsuit being filed Thursday argues that Trump’s efforts to make good on that promise violate the U.S. Constitution.
Trump has “waged a relentless effort to use executive action alone to undermine and, ultimately, eliminate the law,” the complaint charges, according to a draft obtained by NBC News. The lawsuit is being filed in Maryland federal court by the cities of Chicago, Columbus, Cincinnati and Baltimore.
Since his first executive order directing federal agencies to claw back as much of the Affordable Care Act as possible, Trump’s directives have increased health coverage costs and depressed enrollment, the complainants say.
Specifically, the suit argues that Trump is violating Article II of the Constitution, requiring the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
“There’s a clear case of premeditated destruction of the Affordable Care Act,” said Zach Klein, Columbus City Attorney.
This includes making it easier for individuals and trade groups to purchase coverage outside the law’s insurance markets; threatening to eliminate cost-sharing reduction payments; cutting funding for “navigators,” or those who help individuals enroll in the program; and using federal funds Congress dedicated to implementing the law toward making videos criticizing it.
On Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar announced a plan for cheaper, short-term insurance plans, the latest example of actions that critics say will drive up costs on Obamacare exchanges.
During a call-in appearance on Rush Limbaugh's radio show Wednesday, Trump took credit for all-but ending the Affordable Care Act.
"I have just about ended Obamacare. We have great health care," he said. "We have a lot of great things happening right now. New programs are coming out."
The suit will also rely on a list of Trump’s tweets indicating his intent to unravel the law, according to a lawyer involved in the case.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
....We had Repeal & Replace done (and the saving to our country of one trillion dollars) except for one person, but it is getting done anyway. Individual Mandate is gone and great, less expensive plans will be announced this month. Drug prices coming down & Right to Try!
8:18 AM - Jun 4, 2018
68.6K
23.6K people are talking about this
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
ObamaCare is a broken mess. Piece by piece we will now begin the process of giving America the great HealthCare it deserves!
7:14 AM - Oct 13, 2017
72.6K
40.3K people are talking about this
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
3 Republicans and 48 Democrats let the American people down. As I said from the beginning, let ObamaCare implode, then deal. Watch!
2:25 AM - Jul 28, 2017
88.1K
114K people are talking about this
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
As I have always said, let ObamaCare fail and then come together and do a great healthcare plan. Stay tuned!
7:58 AM - Jul 18, 2017
79.6K
57.3K people are talking about this
Constitutional scholars have long debated the extent to which the executive must “faithfully” execute U.S. laws under Article II — from Franklin Roosevelt’s objections to legislative veto provisions and Harry Truman’s seizure of steel mills.
Citing the same “take care” clause, Republicans took issue with Obama’s executive orders on immigration as well as his delayed implementation of the health law.
This case stands apart from all others, says Abbe Gluck, a Yale University law professor and expert on Article II, because it’s not about the extent to which Trump is “faithfully” implementing a law. Rather Trump has been frank that he is sabotaging the law, she said.
“That’s what makes this case novel, first of its kind and really important,” said Gluck. “No scholar or court has ever said the president can use his discretion to implement a statute to purposely destroy it,” she told NBC News. “If there’s ever going to be a violation of the ‘take care’ clause, this is it,” said Gluck.
If successful, the suit would strike down aspects of a Trump rule designed to undercut insurance markets; render a judgment he’s violating his constitutional obligation to enforce the statute and issue an injunction that he implement the law faithfully.
LOCAL IMPACT
The suit also cites Trump scaling back oversight of insurance issuers, cutting open enrollment in half, urging a federal court to throw out Obamacare’s protections for pre-existing conditions and undermining the individual mandate.
All of these actions, they say, undercut confidence in the program and enrollment, the keys to its success. The whole concept of insurance, whether it’s for cars, homes or people, is to minimize risk by creating a diverse pool — in this case of healthy and unhealthy, young and old participants.
John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and former Bush Justice Department official, said a president can’t refuse to enforce a law just because he disagrees with it.
Still, Obamacare was written in a way that gives great leeway to the executive, said Yoo.
“Is there something specific in the statute that he is refusing?” he said. Funding reductions don’t qualify, he said. “That’s the constitutional standard,” said Yoo.
In 2017, there was a 37 percent average increase in premiums nationwide, and 3 million more people lacked health insurance than did in 2016. In Columbus, city-subsidized health centers saw almost 3,000 more uninsured patients in 2017. As the uninsured rate increases, Columbus must also pay more for ambulance transports, draining millions of dollars from localities.
“The accumulation of these (acts) has cost Americans thousands of dollars more, and it was done in a way that can be clearly traced” to Trump’s orders, said Andy Slavitt, former acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid under President Obama.
The budget strain is also hampering efforts to address the opioid crisis. Ohio has the second-highest drug overdose death rate, according to the Centers for Disease Control, with the city of Columbus averaging 9 or 10 Naloxone administrations a day to prevent deaths.
“The time for criticism is over. We have no ability to recoup that money, we just have to eat it due to the Trump administration’s efforts to sabotage the law,” said Klein.
HEALTH CARE POLITICS
The plaintiffs deny politics play a role in the timing of the suit, which they say they have been building for the past year.
But it will likely serve as a reminder to voters of Trump’s hand in rising premiums just as they are set to skyrocket. Trump’s 2016 campaign platform was built in part on greater economic security for working class Americans.
Insurance companies are hiking rates in the individual market, citing decisions being made in Washington. And premiums are set to surge in 2019. Proposed hikes have been announced for 27 states, with 25 containing increases over and above the previous year.
After several elections in which Republicans used Obamacare to attack Democrats, the party says it’s regained the advantage on the health care issue. In the past few years, the Republican-led Congress has voted dozens of times to try and repeal the law, failing each time. “People got to see they (the GOP) have no better alternative,” said Slavitt.
“Most Democrats are saying ‘look we never said the ACA is perfect, but the other person is trying to take away your coverage,” said Slavitt.
Trump’s former Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price has also faulted Congress’s repeal of the individual mandate for coming premium increases. Further, Trump’s Justice Department is taking aim at Obamacare’s most popular provisions: A ban on insurance companies discriminating against individuals with preexisting conditions.
CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION
The suit seeks to force Trump to adopt policies intended to expand rather than shrink enrollment; reduce rather than increase premiums and promote instead of attack the ACA.
Among the specific rules plaintiffs seek to reverse: Allowing exchanges to strip individuals of tax credits without notification; reducing oversight of insurance agents and brokers as well as oversight of the law in general.
“What’s insidious here is the administration is doing it knowing that confidence in the act is key to its success,” said Adam Grogg, senior counsel at Democracy Forward and the lead litigator on the case. The fewer Americans who enroll in the program the more volatile the market, he said.
“The overall picture here is one of sabotage that drives up the rates of uninsured and understand and leaves cites and counties holding the bag,” said Grogg.
@Builder,
you may genuinely think that. Your.'re genuinely wrong.
Trump lost by 3 million votes. The rigged Electoral College anti-democratically put him in. The majority think the Russia probes are important and should continue.
'He has never had majority support, nor has his agenda.
He's down 7 points to Joe Biden in a hypothetical 2020 matchup.
There is massive support for Democratic oipponents in the midterms. We plan on voting already.
Ypou are the one who should get over support for the con man, fraudster, buffoon, not us. We support good, sane government. Why do you support the politics of rage?
@revelette1,
Quote:Trump, along with Robert Mueller, are working to deliver sealed indictments and ship everyone from Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to George Soros to Hillary Clinton off to Guantanamo Bay.
Well, OK, then!
A great way to Gitmo satisfaction.
Think about what's going on here in this tweet from hours ago
Quote:Jerry Falwell
Verified account
@JerryFalwellJr
8h8 hours ago
Strangely @jeffsessions appeared unannounced at @LibertyU the night before the 2016 election on a bus tour. I told students but could get almost none of them to come hear him. Could it be our students were the first to see he was a phony pretending to be pro- @realDonaldTrump ?
@gungasnake,
Hillary got 3 million more votes. He can be impeached for obstruction of mustice and conxpiracy with a foreign power. And it looks ;ike those grounds are coming up strong. Mueller rocks.
@blatham,
Pretty obvious, huh? Trump would be stupid to fire Sessions to get another AG to fire Mueller. Sessions has been a Trump supporter from day one. He had to recuse himself for lying to congress. He has carried on an extreme justice department all aimed at minorities. He has made up new rules in order to prosecute all migrants crossing the boarder which resulted in family separation which has resulted in wide spread abuse of children. This is how Trump treats his loyalist when he starts to feel the heat. Stabs them in the back and throws the bodies to his enemies.
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Hillary got 3 million more votes.
Yeah, so?
That's about the 100th time you said that. You can go to your grave chanting that mantra and Trump will still be prez until 2024.
Whine on, eh?
@coldjoint,
Quote:The Left is Racing To See Who Could Be the Biggest Moron. This nag is out in front. She’s passed Alexandria Occasional Cortex on the back turn.
She'll win the primary by a landslide, eh? Then the DNC will spend a shitload of money trying to prop her up as she goes down by a landslide in the general election.
@coldjoint,
That is one of the legal grounds for what is called infirmally ciollusiin. Obstruction. O justjce is anothefr. If ssessions fires mueller as trump demands rhat case gets .MUCH stronger. We will vote his lackeys out in nov. in any case.
@layman,
Actually, the "abolish ICE" movement has been superseded by a platform that makes it unnecessary. Same with the wall and all other immigration problems. It instantly solves EVERYTHING:
USA Today wrote:Forget the wall already, it's time for the U.S. to have open borders
The solution to America’s immigration problems is open borders, under which the United States imposes no immigration restrictions at all. If the U.S. adopts this policy, the benefits will far outweigh the costs.
Illegal immigration will disappear, by definition...Government will then have no need to define or interpret rules about asylum, economic hardship, family reunification, family separation, DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and so on. When all immigration is legal, these issues are irrelevant.
Expenditure on immigration enforcement would shrink to nothing, because open borders means no walls, fences, screening at airports, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), deportations, detention centers or immigration courts
The question of fairness about who enters first — those who waited in line or those who entered illegally — disappears. Amnesty for existing illegal immigrants also becomes a non-issue.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/31/open-borders-help-economy-combat-illegal-immigration-column/862185002/
This guy is the Einstein of the left, eh?
@layman,
The left also has a plan, one that's pretty simple, actually, to eliminate all crime, to wit:
Repeal all criminal laws
Then they can't be accused of being "soft on crime, anymore, see?
And just think of all the money we would save on judges, cops, prosecutors, jails, and **** like that! We'll all be rich!
Well, except for cheese-eaters, I mean. They'll get robbed of every last dime, of course. But the rest of us will flourish, I tellzya!
