WEBVTT - Mass AG Says Obamacare is Constitutional

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:19.720
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The future of

0:00:19.760 --> 0:00:22.840
<v Speaker 1>Obamacare is once again in the courts and in jeopardy,

0:00:23.000 --> 0:00:25.920
<v Speaker 1>as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments

0:00:26.000 --> 0:00:30.960
<v Speaker 1>yesterday on whether the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. Massachusetts

0:00:31.040 --> 0:00:33.360
<v Speaker 1>was one of the states defending the law and joining

0:00:33.400 --> 0:00:36.960
<v Speaker 1>me is the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Maura Healey. Thanks

0:00:37.040 --> 0:00:39.840
<v Speaker 1>for joining us. General. Great to be with you, June.

0:00:40.200 --> 0:00:44.360
<v Speaker 1>Will you explain the basic argument in the case? Well?

0:00:44.400 --> 0:00:47.400
<v Speaker 1>Sure to provide some context. Remember, it was years ago

0:00:47.520 --> 0:00:50.680
<v Speaker 1>that Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. It was challenged,

0:00:50.800 --> 0:00:54.080
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court ruled that the a c A was constitutional.

0:00:54.600 --> 0:00:58.800
<v Speaker 1>Republican members of Congress tried seventy times to repeal the

0:00:58.840 --> 0:01:01.160
<v Speaker 1>Affordable Care Act. When you saw people take to the

0:01:01.160 --> 0:01:05.360
<v Speaker 1>streets and town halls and protests and ultimately they failed

0:01:05.400 --> 0:01:08.440
<v Speaker 1>in the effort to repeal. Now what happened is a

0:01:08.480 --> 0:01:14.280
<v Speaker 1>group of Republican state ags and governors filed a lawsuit

0:01:14.360 --> 0:01:16.800
<v Speaker 1>to try this from a different angle, and that is

0:01:16.840 --> 0:01:19.840
<v Speaker 1>to challenge the a c A in court. And at

0:01:19.840 --> 0:01:23.160
<v Speaker 1>the time, the Justice Department was supposed to, consistent with

0:01:23.200 --> 0:01:26.720
<v Speaker 1>its constitutional duty and obligation, defend the a c A.

0:01:27.120 --> 0:01:30.560
<v Speaker 1>But what's happened, unfortunately, is that the Justice Department is

0:01:30.640 --> 0:01:34.360
<v Speaker 1>not defending the a c A. And a number of

0:01:34.520 --> 0:01:38.040
<v Speaker 1>states like Massachusetts, California, New York, and others have joined

0:01:38.080 --> 0:01:41.319
<v Speaker 1>now to defend the Affordable Care Act because it is

0:01:41.360 --> 0:01:45.240
<v Speaker 1>imperative that we keep this law in place. Lives depend

0:01:45.280 --> 0:01:48.520
<v Speaker 1>on it, our health care markets depend on it, and unfortunately,

0:01:48.840 --> 0:01:51.960
<v Speaker 1>this is just another effort to sabotage access to care

0:01:52.040 --> 0:01:55.760
<v Speaker 1>and really read havoc with the system. When the Texas

0:01:55.840 --> 0:02:00.400
<v Speaker 1>judge struck down the law in December, many legal spirits

0:02:00.440 --> 0:02:03.360
<v Speaker 1>said it was an outlier decision, it wouldn't survive an

0:02:03.360 --> 0:02:07.480
<v Speaker 1>appeals court. But most observers at the hearings you say

0:02:07.520 --> 0:02:10.600
<v Speaker 1>that two of the three judges appeared to side with

0:02:10.639 --> 0:02:14.519
<v Speaker 1>the Republican States arguments. Well, let me say a couple

0:02:14.520 --> 0:02:16.640
<v Speaker 1>of things. First, I'm not going to read much into

0:02:16.760 --> 0:02:20.280
<v Speaker 1>the questions asked by the judges on the fifth Circuit.

0:02:20.320 --> 0:02:22.320
<v Speaker 1>I think we need to wait to see what they're

0:02:22.360 --> 0:02:26.360
<v Speaker 1>ruling is. But I agree that the District Court's decision

0:02:26.760 --> 0:02:29.200
<v Speaker 1>is an outlier. In my view, it is not consistent

0:02:29.240 --> 0:02:32.079
<v Speaker 1>with the law. It doesn't follow the law, and that's

0:02:32.120 --> 0:02:34.600
<v Speaker 1>exactly why this matter has been appealed now to the

0:02:34.600 --> 0:02:37.480
<v Speaker 1>Fifth Circuit. I expected to go to the Supreme Court,

0:02:37.840 --> 0:02:39.839
<v Speaker 1>and hopefully the Supreme Court will rule in a way

0:02:40.000 --> 0:02:43.520
<v Speaker 1>that once again preserves the Affordable Care Act, because you

0:02:43.560 --> 0:02:47.000
<v Speaker 1>know what this is about. It's not about anything more

0:02:47.200 --> 0:02:51.320
<v Speaker 1>than politics and really trying to undo something that happened

0:02:51.400 --> 0:02:55.600
<v Speaker 1>during the Obama administration. What undoing the a c A

0:02:56.040 --> 0:03:00.320
<v Speaker 1>would do is put healthcare at risk for more than

0:03:00.360 --> 0:03:03.919
<v Speaker 1>a hundred thirty million Americans who have pre existing conditions

0:03:04.200 --> 0:03:06.840
<v Speaker 1>who are now ensurable because of the a c A.

0:03:07.240 --> 0:03:09.919
<v Speaker 1>We've got hundreds of thousands of people across this country

0:03:10.200 --> 0:03:13.560
<v Speaker 1>who benefited from Medicaid expansion through the a c A

0:03:13.600 --> 0:03:16.280
<v Speaker 1>who would lose that. We've got all these young people

0:03:16.280 --> 0:03:18.839
<v Speaker 1>who are now covered on their parents care up through

0:03:18.880 --> 0:03:21.680
<v Speaker 1>the age of twenty six who would lose access to

0:03:21.960 --> 0:03:25.520
<v Speaker 1>that care. And we've got community health centers and other

0:03:25.760 --> 0:03:30.840
<v Speaker 1>providers whose funding and livelihood basically is at stake. This

0:03:30.919 --> 0:03:35.200
<v Speaker 1>is about the stability of our entire insurance market, and

0:03:35.280 --> 0:03:39.000
<v Speaker 1>it's also about saving lives and making sure that people

0:03:39.040 --> 0:03:42.160
<v Speaker 1>across this country have access to the care they need.

0:03:42.480 --> 0:03:44.960
<v Speaker 1>That's why we're in court, that's why we're defending the

0:03:45.000 --> 0:03:47.600
<v Speaker 1>a c A. I hope the Fifth Circuit rules in

0:03:47.640 --> 0:03:51.680
<v Speaker 1>our favor and reverses what really is a wrongheaded decision

0:03:51.880 --> 0:03:54.800
<v Speaker 1>by the District Court in Texas, and ultimately we'll be

0:03:54.880 --> 0:03:57.040
<v Speaker 1>prepared to fight this all the way through to the

0:03:57.040 --> 0:04:00.200
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court. But we have got to provide access to

0:04:00.360 --> 0:04:02.800
<v Speaker 1>health care. The A c A is something that is working.

0:04:03.320 --> 0:04:07.080
<v Speaker 1>It is big now into our markets, and to undo that,

0:04:07.120 --> 0:04:11.960
<v Speaker 1>to sabotage this is really, I think morally wrong and problematic,

0:04:12.000 --> 0:04:15.760
<v Speaker 1>but it's economically stupid and it really will set us back.

0:04:16.240 --> 0:04:21.039
<v Speaker 1>So these federal judges are looking into whether the individual

0:04:21.120 --> 0:04:25.800
<v Speaker 1>mandate is unconstitutional, whether the law can stand without the

0:04:25.839 --> 0:04:29.880
<v Speaker 1>individual mandate. Are they taking into account what you just describe,

0:04:29.920 --> 0:04:32.320
<v Speaker 1>what would happen to health care for millions of Americans

0:04:32.360 --> 0:04:36.560
<v Speaker 1>if the law is found unconstitutional? Are allowed to do that?

0:04:36.880 --> 0:04:39.760
<v Speaker 1>They are, and I sure hope that that is something

0:04:39.800 --> 0:04:41.839
<v Speaker 1>they look at. They also are going to look at

0:04:42.240 --> 0:04:45.080
<v Speaker 1>the actual intent of Congress at the time the law

0:04:45.200 --> 0:04:47.520
<v Speaker 1>was passed, and in our view and in the view

0:04:47.560 --> 0:04:51.880
<v Speaker 1>of including a bipartisan group of legal scholars who filed

0:04:51.880 --> 0:04:54.720
<v Speaker 1>a brief in support of our position to sending the

0:04:54.839 --> 0:04:58.040
<v Speaker 1>legality of the a c A. Looking at the text

0:04:58.120 --> 0:05:01.520
<v Speaker 1>and Congress is intent. It is year that they intended

0:05:01.560 --> 0:05:05.440
<v Speaker 1>this law to stand regardless of an individual mandate being

0:05:05.480 --> 0:05:08.240
<v Speaker 1>in place, or regardless of a tax penalty being in

0:05:08.279 --> 0:05:11.279
<v Speaker 1>place which has now been been taken away. So this

0:05:11.360 --> 0:05:14.160
<v Speaker 1>is really important. And you know, June yesterday, I had

0:05:14.160 --> 0:05:18.120
<v Speaker 1>an opportunity to sit with a mother whose son has

0:05:18.160 --> 0:05:23.080
<v Speaker 1>a complex congenital heart defect. He's had three open heart surgeries,

0:05:23.400 --> 0:05:26.640
<v Speaker 1>significant medical care that will continue to be the case

0:05:26.680 --> 0:05:30.680
<v Speaker 1>for the rest of his life. Now he's ensurable under

0:05:30.720 --> 0:05:34.040
<v Speaker 1>the a c A and would be going forward because

0:05:34.080 --> 0:05:36.080
<v Speaker 1>the A c A makes clear that if you're somebody

0:05:36.120 --> 0:05:40.279
<v Speaker 1>with a pre existing condition, you can't be made unensurable.

0:05:40.960 --> 0:05:43.880
<v Speaker 1>But if the see it goes away, so does the

0:05:44.000 --> 0:05:47.560
<v Speaker 1>likelihood that this young man will be able to access

0:05:47.560 --> 0:05:50.159
<v Speaker 1>health care. And that's what I mean. This is about

0:05:50.160 --> 0:05:54.880
<v Speaker 1>people's lives and why a certain number of Republicans are

0:05:55.320 --> 0:05:59.719
<v Speaker 1>dead set on trying to sabotage and take away access

0:05:59.760 --> 0:06:03.440
<v Speaker 1>to care. Really boggles my mind when you think about

0:06:03.480 --> 0:06:05.960
<v Speaker 1>the concern and the wary that parents like this mother

0:06:06.360 --> 0:06:09.400
<v Speaker 1>has to live with u now with with this challenge

0:06:09.800 --> 0:06:13.320
<v Speaker 1>being placed and now being put at risk through through

0:06:13.320 --> 0:06:17.080
<v Speaker 1>the litigation. Well, it seemed at the hearing yesterday that

0:06:17.160 --> 0:06:20.440
<v Speaker 1>the attorney for the Justice Department struggled at different points

0:06:20.480 --> 0:06:25.240
<v Speaker 1>to explain what would happen if the judges found the

0:06:25.320 --> 0:06:30.360
<v Speaker 1>law unconstitutional. Does that suggest that there's no plan in place?

0:06:30.880 --> 0:06:33.640
<v Speaker 1>They can't articulate it because they don't want to articulate.

0:06:34.040 --> 0:06:36.440
<v Speaker 1>The fact of the matter is it's going to result

0:06:36.480 --> 0:06:39.240
<v Speaker 1>in people dying in this country. People will not have

0:06:39.560 --> 0:06:42.800
<v Speaker 1>access to healthcare that have access to it now. It's

0:06:42.880 --> 0:06:45.920
<v Speaker 1>also going to rehab it for employers and our health

0:06:46.000 --> 0:06:49.120
<v Speaker 1>care market, our health insurance market, which by the way,

0:06:49.240 --> 0:06:52.120
<v Speaker 1>is once six of the economy in this country. And

0:06:52.200 --> 0:06:54.400
<v Speaker 1>so they don't want to call out the truth about

0:06:54.400 --> 0:06:57.600
<v Speaker 1>what will happen. And and that's why, you know, let

0:06:57.640 --> 0:07:01.320
<v Speaker 1>me also remind folks what happened here. Justice Department was

0:07:01.360 --> 0:07:04.640
<v Speaker 1>set to defend this law and then it got an

0:07:04.680 --> 0:07:09.720
<v Speaker 1>instruction by Jeff Sessions and President Trump to no longer

0:07:09.800 --> 0:07:12.600
<v Speaker 1>defend the law and to actually switch sides and challenge

0:07:12.640 --> 0:07:15.400
<v Speaker 1>the law. Every lawyer from the Justice Department who was

0:07:15.440 --> 0:07:19.480
<v Speaker 1>working on the case and prepared to defend the law

0:07:19.880 --> 0:07:24.280
<v Speaker 1>was removed from the case or resigned and replaced with

0:07:24.400 --> 0:07:27.880
<v Speaker 1>lawyers who are now in court. It's crazy, it's wrong,

0:07:28.000 --> 0:07:31.080
<v Speaker 1>and most of all, it's illegal, and that's why we're

0:07:31.160 --> 0:07:32.920
<v Speaker 1>in court on this, and it's really a shame. This

0:07:33.000 --> 0:07:36.880
<v Speaker 1>shouldn't be a partisan issue. It shouldn't be a political issue.

0:07:37.320 --> 0:07:39.840
<v Speaker 1>This is about ensuring that people have access to care

0:07:39.920 --> 0:07:44.360
<v Speaker 1>and that our health insurance markets are functioning. But unfortunately

0:07:44.680 --> 0:07:46.840
<v Speaker 1>there's a group that just doesn't seem to care that

0:07:46.920 --> 0:07:50.360
<v Speaker 1>they're putting lives at risk. Well, thank you so much

0:07:50.400 --> 0:07:54.240
<v Speaker 1>for joining US General. That's Massachusetts Attorney General Maurra Healey.

0:07:56.280 --> 0:07:59.200
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can

0:07:59.240 --> 0:08:03.000
<v Speaker 1>subscribe to listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,

0:08:03.080 --> 0:08:06.960
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.

0:08:07.440 --> 0:08:08.720
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg