THE
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT --
>>>
>>> WE
>>> WE START TONIGHT WITH A BIG, BIG MOVE WITH WIDESPREAD
IMPLICATIONS.
IMPLICATIONS. A FEDERAL JUDGE SHOT DOWN THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND SAID IT
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. >> WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR YOU,
FOR ME, FOR THE KIDS, FOR ALL
OF US, HERE IS A BREAK DOWN WE
CAN ALL DIGEST.
>> Reporter: SINCE ITS BIRTH
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT HAS
BEEN AN ISSUE, STILL IS.
WE MET WITH AMY MONAHAN WHO HAS
A BACKGROUND IN HEALTH CARE LAW
TO EXPLAIN THE LATEST CHAPTER.
>> WHAT HAPPENED IN TEXAS?
>> THE LAWSUIT BY TEXAS AND THE
OTHER STATES SAID THE MANDATE
CAN NOT BE CONSTITUTIONAL AS A
TAX ANYMORE BECAUSE THERE IS NO
MORE TAX.
MORE TAX.
MORE TAX. >> PAUSE THAT, QUICK REVIEW.
>> THE REPUBLICAN CONGRESS
COULD NOT WIPE OUT THE ACA LAST
YEAR IF YOU RECALL BUT IT
FLATTENED THE PENALTY FOR NOT
HAVING HEALTH INSURANCE TO 0.
NOTHING.
NOTHING.
NOTHING. SO, A TAX THAT DOES NOT TAX
PEOPLE IS NOT A TAX, GET IT?
PLAY.
PLAY.
PLAY. >>
PLAY. >> AND THEN THEY ALSO ARGUED IT
CAN'T BE WHAT WE CALL SEVERED
FROM THE REST OF THE LAW.
>> PAUSE QUICK.
OKAY, THIS IS CALLED
SEVERABILITY.
SEVERABILITY. MEANING THE LAWSUIT THAT THE
JUDGE AGREED WITH SAID IF THE
MANDATE IS NO GOOD THEN THE
WHOLE GOSH DARN ACA IS NO GOOD.
>> IS THAT A GOOD ARGUMENT?
>> I DON'T THINK SO.
THE COURT, TO THE EXTENT IT IS
ABLE TO ALWAYS WANTS TO RESPECT
THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. CUT OUT THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PART, LEAVE THE REST.
IF YOU CAN, THE JUDGE DOES NOT
EVEN TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
DOES OR DOES NOT MAKE SENSE
WITHOUT THE MANDATE.
WHAT HAPPENS NOW?
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT.
>> RIGHT. THERE WAS NO INJUNCTION OR
OTHER REMEDY IN THIS CASE THAT
IS CHANGING ANYTHING ABOUT THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT RIGHT NOW.
>> NOTHING CHANGES RIGHT NOW?
>> NO.
>> NO.
>> NO. THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT STAYS
IN PLACE.
IN PLACE.
IN PLACE. >> PAUSE QUICK.
NOTHING CHANGES.
NOTHING CHANGES. NOT MEDICAID, YOUR HEALTH PLAN,
SIGNING UP FOR ONE, NOTHING.
ANY CHANGES AWAITING THE APPEAL
PROCESS WHICH CALIFORIA HAS
ALREADY FILED.
ALREADY FILED. >> WHAT ARE THE ODDS ARE THAT
THE SUPREME COURT THROWS OUT
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT BASED
ON THIS DECISION?
>> EXTREMELY LOW.
THE SUPREME COURT TAKES
SEVERABILITY SERIOUSLY.
SEVERABILITY SERIOUSLY. >> WOULD MOST LAWYERS AGREE
WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, YOU
THINK?
THINK?
THINK? >>
THINK? >> I THINK MOST LAWYERS WILL
AGREE.
AGREE.
AGREE. THERE HAVE BEEN OPINION PIECES
FROM CONSERVATIVE SCHOLARS AND
THEY CAME OUT AGAINST THIS
DECISION.
DECISION.
DECISION. OUR MOST RECENTLY APPOINTED
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE KAVANAUGH
SAID IN EARLIER OPINIONS AND
WRITINGS ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT IT
IS TO KEEP SEVERABILITY NARROW.
SO, I DON'T SEE IT AS A LIBERAL
CONSERVATIVE LEGAL ISSUE.
I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING
LAWYERS AGREE ON.
>> POLITICALLY MIGHT BE
SOMETHING ELSE.
SOMETHING ELSE. >> VERY DIFFERENT.
>> Reporter: SO WHAT HAPPENS
NEXT?
NEXT?
NEXT? IT
NEXT? IT WILL GO TO THE 5TH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS.
THEY CAN CONFIRM IT, THEY CAN
OVERTURN IT, THEY CAN SLICE A
LITTLE BIT OUT OF IT AND DO
WHAT THEY WANT WITH IT.
BUT IT COULD GO UP TO THE
SUPREME COURT IF THEY AGREE.
SO, THE WHITE HOUSE SAID IT IS
A LIKELY THING, WHAT THEY WILL
SAY IS A BIG DEAL.
WE DON'T KNOW.
WHAT KAVANAUGH PREVIOUSLY RULED
ABOUT KEEPING THINGS NARROW,
THIS DOES NOT, LIKE THE RULING
IN TEXAS DOES NOT KEEP IT
NARROW.
NARROW.
NARROW. >> BUT IT HAS TO DO THE HOKEY-
POKEY THROUGH ALL OF THE COURTS
AND THAT COULD TAKE MONTHS,
YEARS.
YEARS.
YEARS. >>
YEARS. >> YES.
>> YES.
>> YES. MONTHS OR YEARS.
>> MONTHS YEARS IS A NEW TIME
FRAME, NOTHING CHANGES DURING