Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. The future of
Speaker 1: Obamacare is once again in the courts and in jeopardy,
Speaker 1: as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments
Speaker 1: yesterday on whether the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. Massachusetts
Speaker 1: was one of the states defending the law and joining
Speaker 1: me is the Attorney General of Massachusetts, Maura Healey. Thanks
Speaker 1: for joining us. General. Great to be with you, June.
Speaker 1: Will you explain the basic argument in the case? Well?
Speaker 1: Sure to provide some context. Remember, it was years ago
Speaker 1: that Congress passed the Affordable Care Act. It was challenged,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court ruled that the a c A was constitutional.
Speaker 1: Republican members of Congress tried seventy times to repeal the
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act. When you saw people take to the
Speaker 1: streets and town halls and protests and ultimately they failed
Speaker 1: in the effort to repeal. Now what happened is a
Speaker 1: group of Republican state ags and governors filed a lawsuit
Speaker 1: to try this from a different angle, and that is
Speaker 1: to challenge the a c A in court. And at
Speaker 1: the time, the Justice Department was supposed to, consistent with
Speaker 1: its constitutional duty and obligation, defend the a c A.
Speaker 1: But what's happened, unfortunately, is that the Justice Department is
Speaker 1: not defending the a c A. And a number of
Speaker 1: states like Massachusetts, California, New York, and others have joined
Speaker 1: now to defend the Affordable Care Act because it is
Speaker 1: imperative that we keep this law in place. Lives depend
Speaker 1: on it, our health care markets depend on it, and unfortunately,
Speaker 1: this is just another effort to sabotage access to care
Speaker 1: and really read havoc with the system. When the Texas
Speaker 1: judge struck down the law in December, many legal spirits
Speaker 1: said it was an outlier decision, it wouldn't survive an
Speaker 1: appeals court. But most observers at the hearings you say
Speaker 1: that two of the three judges appeared to side with
Speaker 1: the Republican States arguments. Well, let me say a couple
Speaker 1: of things. First, I'm not going to read much into
Speaker 1: the questions asked by the judges on the fifth Circuit.
Speaker 1: I think we need to wait to see what they're
Speaker 1: ruling is. But I agree that the District Court's decision
Speaker 1: is an outlier. In my view, it is not consistent
Speaker 1: with the law. It doesn't follow the law, and that's
Speaker 1: exactly why this matter has been appealed now to the
Speaker 1: Fifth Circuit. I expected to go to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: and hopefully the Supreme Court will rule in a way
Speaker 1: that once again preserves the Affordable Care Act, because you
Speaker 1: know what this is about. It's not about anything more
Speaker 1: than politics and really trying to undo something that happened
Speaker 1: during the Obama administration. What undoing the a c A
Speaker 1: would do is put healthcare at risk for more than
Speaker 1: a hundred thirty million Americans who have pre existing conditions
Speaker 1: who are now ensurable because of the a c A.
Speaker 1: We've got hundreds of thousands of people across this country
Speaker 1: who benefited from Medicaid expansion through the a c A
Speaker 1: who would lose that. We've got all these young people
Speaker 1: who are now covered on their parents care up through
Speaker 1: the age of twenty six who would lose access to
Speaker 1: that care. And we've got community health centers and other
Speaker 1: providers whose funding and livelihood basically is at stake. This
Speaker 1: is about the stability of our entire insurance market, and
Speaker 1: it's also about saving lives and making sure that people
Speaker 1: across this country have access to the care they need.
Speaker 1: That's why we're in court, that's why we're defending the
Speaker 1: a c A. I hope the Fifth Circuit rules in
Speaker 1: our favor and reverses what really is a wrongheaded decision
Speaker 1: by the District Court in Texas, and ultimately we'll be
Speaker 1: prepared to fight this all the way through to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. But we have got to provide access to
Speaker 1: health care. The A c A is something that is working.
Speaker 1: It is big now into our markets, and to undo that,
Speaker 1: to sabotage this is really, I think morally wrong and problematic,
Speaker 1: but it's economically stupid and it really will set us back.
Speaker 1: So these federal judges are looking into whether the individual
Speaker 1: mandate is unconstitutional, whether the law can stand without the
Speaker 1: individual mandate. Are they taking into account what you just describe,
Speaker 1: what would happen to health care for millions of Americans
Speaker 1: if the law is found unconstitutional? Are allowed to do that?
Speaker 1: They are, and I sure hope that that is something
Speaker 1: they look at. They also are going to look at
Speaker 1: the actual intent of Congress at the time the law
Speaker 1: was passed, and in our view and in the view
Speaker 1: of including a bipartisan group of legal scholars who filed
Speaker 1: a brief in support of our position to sending the
Speaker 1: legality of the a c A. Looking at the text
Speaker 1: and Congress is intent. It is year that they intended
Speaker 1: this law to stand regardless of an individual mandate being
Speaker 1: in place, or regardless of a tax penalty being in
Speaker 1: place which has now been been taken away. So this
Speaker 1: is really important. And you know, June yesterday, I had
Speaker 1: an opportunity to sit with a mother whose son has
Speaker 1: a complex congenital heart defect. He's had three open heart surgeries,
Speaker 1: significant medical care that will continue to be the case
Speaker 1: for the rest of his life. Now he's ensurable under
Speaker 1: the a c A and would be going forward because
Speaker 1: the A c A makes clear that if you're somebody
Speaker 1: with a pre existing condition, you can't be made unensurable.
Speaker 1: But if the see it goes away, so does the
Speaker 1: likelihood that this young man will be able to access
Speaker 1: health care. And that's what I mean. This is about
Speaker 1: people's lives and why a certain number of Republicans are
Speaker 1: dead set on trying to sabotage and take away access
Speaker 1: to care. Really boggles my mind when you think about
Speaker 1: the concern and the wary that parents like this mother
Speaker 1: has to live with u now with with this challenge
Speaker 1: being placed and now being put at risk through through
Speaker 1: the litigation. Well, it seemed at the hearing yesterday that
Speaker 1: the attorney for the Justice Department struggled at different points
Speaker 1: to explain what would happen if the judges found the
Speaker 1: law unconstitutional. Does that suggest that there's no plan in place?
Speaker 1: They can't articulate it because they don't want to articulate.
Speaker 1: The fact of the matter is it's going to result
Speaker 1: in people dying in this country. People will not have
Speaker 1: access to healthcare that have access to it now. It's
Speaker 1: also going to rehab it for employers and our health
Speaker 1: care market, our health insurance market, which by the way,
Speaker 1: is once six of the economy in this country. And
Speaker 1: so they don't want to call out the truth about
Speaker 1: what will happen. And and that's why, you know, let
Speaker 1: me also remind folks what happened here. Justice Department was
Speaker 1: set to defend this law and then it got an
Speaker 1: instruction by Jeff Sessions and President Trump to no longer
Speaker 1: defend the law and to actually switch sides and challenge
Speaker 1: the law. Every lawyer from the Justice Department who was
Speaker 1: working on the case and prepared to defend the law
Speaker 1: was removed from the case or resigned and replaced with
Speaker 1: lawyers who are now in court. It's crazy, it's wrong,
Speaker 1: and most of all, it's illegal, and that's why we're
Speaker 1: in court on this, and it's really a shame. This
Speaker 1: shouldn't be a partisan issue. It shouldn't be a political issue.
Speaker 1: This is about ensuring that people have access to care
Speaker 1: and that our health insurance markets are functioning. But unfortunately
Speaker 1: there's a group that just doesn't seem to care that
Speaker 1: they're putting lives at risk. Well, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining US General. That's Massachusetts Attorney General Maurra Healey.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
Speaker 1: subscribe to listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso.
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg