Five tips for the court's decision against ObamaCare

<pre><pre>House GOP can vote for $ 5B for Trump's boundary wall

A federal judge in Texas cast a new uncertainty about ObamaCare's fate when he issued a verdict condemning the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Court Reed O & # 39; Connor & # 39; s decision of the court in the US sent shock waves through the country and health care Friday after he had challenged a challenge and violated the law in favor of a GOP-led state.

While the political world intertwines to find out the implications, here are five dice from the decision:

ObamaCare is still in effect and people can still sign up

Despite the high-profile statement, nothing has changed in the short term with regard to coverage under the law.

The Affordable Care Act is still in force and offers people health insurance. In fact, the deadline to sign up for coverage next year is already early on Sunday morning at 3:00 PM, so there are still a few hours to sign up.

The ruling will only come into force if an appeal has been lodged at higher courts, where many expect it to be reversed. But there is the risk of confusion of all headlines about the downcast law.

Some supporters of the law have accused the judge, a conservative representative of former President George W. Bush, of deliberately pronouncing the night before the deadline in an effort to reduce enrollment.

"Although this ruling is not in force, will be challenged and likely to be reversed, it causes massive damage," wrote Topher Spiro, vice president of health policy for the liberal Center for American Progress, on Twitter. "Many will be deterred to enroll, many will suffer fear and fear."

The decision was wide-ranging

Both conservative and liberal legal experts denounced Connor's decision as wild deviant from established legal principles.

Abbe Gluck, professor of the Yale law and adherent of the ACA, wrote Saturday in The New York Times a joint opinion piece with Jonathan Adler, jurist in the case law of Case Western Reserve and opponent of the health law.

"We agree that this decision is a mockery of the rule of law and the basic principles of democracy," they wrote.

O & # 39; Connor ruled that because the Supreme Court in 2012 confirmed the mandate of the law to have coverage under the authority to tax, after the Congress had withdrawn the fine for non-compliance with the mandate last year, the mandate no longer a tax and is therefore unconstitutional.

But where lawyers in particular criticize O & # 39; Connor is his next step, where he decided because the mandate is unconstitutional, the rest of the Affordable Care Act is also invalid.

Experts say the established legal norm violates Congress's intention to be the guide, and in this case it is clear that Congress intended to stay for the rest of the Affordable Care Act when it only mandate.

The judgment is expected to be appealed

In view of the sharp criticism of the reasoning of the judge from both the left and the right, experts expect that the decision will be reversed on appeal and that the Affordable Healthcare Act will be enforced.

Tim Jost, a health law expert at the University of Washington and Lee, said he was "really sure" that the Supreme Court would not decide for the challengers of the ACA, and that the challenge could yield the votes of maybe only three of the nine judges.

Nicholas Bagley, professor of law at the University of Michigan, said he thinks the case is probably not even coming to the Supreme Court, because 5th Circuit's court of appeal could reverse the decision of O & # 39; Connor himself.

But if the Supreme Court would ultimately decide to overturn the law, it would cause chaos. Health insurance for around 20 million people would be compromised and wrinkle effects would spread to Medicare, Medicaid and employer-sponsored insurance policies, with unpredictable results.

Democrats are planning to carry out the attack

House Democrats intend to move quickly as soon as they take the lead in January to have the House formally intervene in the lawsuit and plead in defense of the ACA.

And they show no interest in the Republicans' calls to start again and work on a dual replacement of the law – a task that is practically anything but impossible. Democrats want to defend the law that already exists and attack Republicans to undermine it.

"I think it's more that the House quickly intervenes in the Texas lawsuit and then tackles the entire spectrum of ways the GOP has tried to sabotage the health system and the ACA," said a Democratic Assistant to the House. "Supervision is also part of that."

Republicans are faced with a dilemma in the way they have to respond to the verdict

When last year's collapse in the Senate of attempts to withdraw and replace ObamaCare, the Republicans have great difficulty agreeing on any proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act.

President TrumpDonald John TrumpAustralia recognizes West Jerusalem as Israeli capital, will not move embassy Mulvaney persists while White House budget therapist pronounces Trump against ObamaCare: & Mitch; & Nancy & # 39; have to convince MORE new law on health care praised Connor's decision on Friday night and called on leaders of both parties to work together on a replacement.

"Now Congress has to endure a STRONG LAW that offers GREAT health care and protection against pre-existing conditions, Mitch and Nancy, do it!" Trump tweeted.

But experts are broadly convinced that finding a replacement that both parties agree is essentially impossible.

While the appeal process is fulfilling, some Republicans in the aftermath of the ruling Friday have simply made general calls to work together on health care without specific details.

"I am determined to work with my colleagues to ensure that the US healthcare system works for all Americans," House Majority Leader said. Kevin McCarthyKevin Owen McCarthy Trump leaves the GOP in turmoil with outbreak threaten McCarthy calls on incoming Democrats to embrace bipartisan, not 'food fight'. or investigate GOP congressman says she has opted out of NRCC because McCarthy & # 39; another plan & # 39; had MORE (Calif.).

Sen. Chuck GrassleyCharles (Chuck) Ernest GrassleyThe year before the door: severe tests arise for Trump's trade agenda Senate moves towards ground fight against bill for criminal justice Top civil servants of the security sector give grim warning for Chinese espionage efforts MORE (R-Iowa), the new Chairman of the Senate Financial Committee, tweeted Saturday that his panel would hold hearings on the Health Law next year and that Congress would come up with a "better way" to insure Americans. (function(d, s, id) {
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];
if (d.getElementById(id)) return;
js = d.createElement(s); = id;
js.src = “”;
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);
}(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’)); .