I haven't written anything about the developments in the #TexasFoldEm anti-ACA lawsuit in awhile, partly because I was out of the country for a couple of weeks and got backlogged. Then again, things are kind of at a standstill at the moment anyway, so perhaps that omission on my part isn't quite as big of a deal as I had feared.
Covered California Extends Deadline for Jan. 1 Coverage Until Friday, Dec. 21
Texas District Court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act has no impact on Covered California’s open enrollment period.
Covered California is extending today’s deadline to Friday, Dec 21, for consumers who want health care coverage that starts on Jan. 1, 2019.
Consumers who enroll after Dec. 21, and by Jan. 15, will have their coverage start on Feb. 1.
While open enrollment ends in 44 states on Saturday, California is one of seven health insurance marketplaces which will enroll consumers after Dec. 15, serving 25 percent of the U.S. population.
58,000 consumers have signed up since Monday, including 17,000 on Friday.
Immediately after last night's bombshell* announcement of the ruling in the Texas Fold'em lawsuit by right-wing judge Reed O'Connor, one of the numerous parts of the outrage was over the timing of the decision being announced. Just about everyone, myself included, assumed that O'Connor would either...
On December 15, Access Health CT announced a one-month extension for 2019 enrollment. The exchange had planned to end enrollment on December 15, but the new deadline is January 15. People who enroll between December 16 and January 15 will have coverage effective February 1, 2019.
The recent federal court decision is still moving through the courts, and the exchanges are still open for business and we will continue with open enrollment. There is no impact to current coverage or coverage in a 2019 plan.
"Open enrollment is full-steam ahead in California and continues in other states for several more weeks. No one in America should let this TX District Court ruling discourage them from enrolling in health coverage or be worried about using the coverage they have. This case will wind its way through the courts and I’m confident the Supreme Court will once again do the right thing and uphold the Affordable Care Act,"
“Tonight’s district court ruling exposes the monstrous endgame of Republicans’ all-out assault on people with pre-existing conditions and Americans’ access to affordable health care.
*....pending an immediate appeal, all the way up to the Supreme Court over the next year or so, which means a LOT of lawyers are about to make a LOT of billable hours.
Before you read anything else: DON'T PANIC. An injunction against the ACA was not included with the ruling (at least, not yet). The 2019 Open Enrollment Period isstill ongoing through Saturday night in 44 states and longer than that in the other 6 + DC.
If you haven't enrolled for 2019 healthcare coverage yet, now is still the time to do so.
The midterms are over, and the Democrats won back the U.S. House, so the ACA is (mostly) safe at last, right?
Well...maybe. In addition to the ongoing regulatory sabotage by the Trump Administration to undermine, weaken and generally piss all over the law as much as possible, there's also still a little thing called Texas vs. Azar, aka the #TexasFoldEm federal lawsuit. Oral arguments were held way back in early September, and right-wing Judge O'Connor claimed that he'd rule on a preliminary injunction "quickly" afterwards.
As a reminder, here's the #TexasFoldEm case in a single image:
The midterms are over, and the Democrats won back the U.S. House, so the ACA is (mostly) safe at last, right?
Well...maybe. In addition to the ongoing regulatory sabotage by the Trump Administration to undermine, weaken and generally piss all over the law as much as possible, there's also still a little thing called Texas vs. Azar, aka the #TexasFoldEm federal lawsuit. Oral arguments were held way back in early September, and right-wing Judge O'Connor claimed that he'd rule on a preliminary injunction "quickly" afterwards.
Well, today is November 18th, and there's been nary a peep from Judge O'Connor. Does 75 days later count as "quickly"? In judiciary time, I suppose it might.
Maryland files suit to protect health reform from Texas.
... the Maryland attorney general today filed a separate lawsuit in a Maryland district court. Among other things, he’s seeking an injunction requiring the continued enforcement of the law. Depending on how quickly the Maryland case moves, it’s possible we could see dueling injunctions—one ordering the Trump administration to stop enforcing the law, the other ordering it to keep enforcing.
That’s an unholy mess just waiting to happen. Now, it may not come to that. My best guess is that the Texas lawsuit will fizzle: any injunction will likely be stayed pending appeal, either by the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court, and the case is going nowhere on the merits. The Maryland lawsuit will likely prove unnecessary.
I don't have much to add to this other than to note how much this case underscores just how much power and importance state attorneys general have.
