A project of the George Washington University's Hirsh Health Law and Policy Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

House votes to repeal ACA

Posted on July 12, 2012 | Comment (1)

PDF Version
Details
Library
Implementation Briefs

The House voted again Wednesday to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Members approved the bill in a 244-185 vote, after five hours of debate. Five House Democrats, including Reps. Dan Boren (OK), Larry Kissell (NC), Jim Matheson (UT), Mike McIntyre (NC) and Mike Ross (AK), sided with Republicans in the final vote. Repeal of Obamacare Act, H.R. 6079 was passed by the House in response to the Supreme Court’s June 28 decision to uphold the ACA.

Comment (1)

  • Just me says:

    Insurance is a great financial INVESTMENT. Collection of premiums vs: claims payment is always to the advantage of the provider, or they wouldn’t still be in business. They finance more lobbyists, and fund more campaigns than most other business types. How much of the American public (w/avg. income) can actually afford to ‘purchase’ medical insurance? Compare the average “TAKE HOME” income, normal monthly expenses, (rent/mortgage+ins., food, utilities,auto/gas+ins.) and add a “LOW” premium…say $300 per mo. How many people do you think can really afford to purchase their own medical insurance? Add to that a deductable of $1000, a co-pay of $25 per visit, procedures that are only 50-80% coverd…etc. Obama’s promise was to “provide” public health insurance, not to require that the public “BUY” it! How much are those insurance companies contributing to his re-election campaign funds? Just one more thing…did making it a requirement to have auto liability insurance ever reduce the cost paid by the consumer?
    Some thought should be given to compromising payment of student loans with providing public health care… or public health care being provided by interns/residents at State Universities.
    Quit with all the “gross income” statistics too! The US/+ States keep an average of 30% of a typical low-mid income persons gross pay for TAXES! Where does that go? (Maybe it pays for all the PAST presidents life long retirement income fund.)

Several days ago, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) published a report describing how the appropriations impasse and government shutdown will impact the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The report provides background information on the ACA, particularly focusing upon how the law impacts federal spending. This information is followed by an explanation of the various legislative attempts to defund or amend the ACA, as well as legal and procedural considerations in using the appropriations process to attack the law. CRS concludes by examining how the government shutdown would impact ACA implementation. The report found that implementing the ACA would be largely unaffected by the government shutdown, because most of the federal agencies implementing the ACA will be able to rely upon funds outside of discretionary spending and several actions associated with implementing the ACA would be considered exceptions to the Antideficiency Act, the law that bars the federal government from performing certain tasks during a shutdown.
Today, the Republican Study Committee (RSC) released The American Health Care Reform Act, the RSC's replacement version of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Below are key components of this proposed legislative concept:
  • Fully repeal the ACA
  • Allow the purchasing of insurance across state borders
  • Permit small businesses to pool together to increase their "buying power"
  • Reform medical malpractice laws
  • Increase access to health savings accounts (HSA)
  • Strengthen state-based high risk pools to help protect individuals with pre-existing conditions from coverage discrimination
  • Ensure that no federal funds are used for abortions
The RSC designed this proposal to reform the tax code without raising taxes, requiring an individual mandate, or including any subsidies. The proposal is an amalgamation of various Republican ideas on health care reform that have been touted over the years.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an analysis exploring various deficit reduction options. The CBO report reviews the magnitude and causes of the federal government’s budgetary imbalance, various options for bringing spending and taxes into closer alignment, and criteria that lawmakers and the public might use to evaluate different approaches to deficit reduction. According to the report, repealing of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) coverage expansion while keeping the rest of the law in place would generate $150 billion in 2020. Such a repeal would also increase the number of uninsured Americans to 29 million in the same year. CBO noted that the report does not mention the Medicare premium support model, as CBO does not have a current estimate of the proposal.
President Obama and Governor Romney offer different visions for the nation’s healthcare system. To inform public discussion about health care in the election and beyond, an analysis published by the Commonwealth Fund draws from microsimulation analysis to contrast the potential impact of implementing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in full with Romney’s proposals to repeal the law, eliminate many of the new requirements for insurance markets, and make changes in Medicaid and Medicare. The report focuses on the following:
  • the number of Americans expected to gain health insurance;
  • changes in the affordability of insurance;
  • changes in consumer protections and consumer choice;
  • help for small businesses;
  • improvement in Medicare solvency;
  • improvement in health care quality; and
  • control of health spending growth.
The report's findings indicate that, in each area, implementation of the Affordable Care Act would likely outperform Romney’s proposals.
HealthReformGPS Editor, Sara Rosenbaum, and frequent guest contributor to HealthReformGPS, Timothy Jost, authored two Health Affairs pieces analyzing the Supreme Court's Thursday decision regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Jost's post provides an overview of the Court's decision regarding the individual mandate while Rosenbaum's examines the Court's surprising Medicaid expansion ruling.
On September 28, 2011, the United States Justice Department (DOJ) asked the United States Supreme Court to review the decision of the court of appeals for the Eleventh Circuit striking down as unconstitutional what the DOJ terms the law’s “minimum coverage provision.” In seeking Supreme Court intervention, the DOJ sought review on two matters: first, whether Congress exceeded its Commerce Clause powers, as enhanced by the Necessary and Proper Clause; and second, whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars the challenges from proceeding in the first place.
Since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), at least 27 lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of various provisions of the law. While nearly half of the lawsuits have been dismissed on procedural grounds, three district courts have found provisions challenged to be constitutional, and three have found them to be unconstitutional. Previous HealthReform GPS Implementation briefs/updates have discussed these lower court decisions. Following appeals of each of these rulings, the United States Courts of Appeals in the Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits have now issued decisions as well. Most importantly, the appellate decisions continue to reflect a split in judicial opinion regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Other important issues addressed by the appellate rulings concerned the constitutionality of the ACA Medicaid expansion and the question of whether the trial court in the Virginia cases (Liberty University v. Geithner and Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius) had the authority to hear the cases at all.
This is an updated version of a brief originally published on November 15, 2010. Shortly after President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)[1] into law, opponents of the law filed a series of legal challenges in federal court. This health reform implementation brief provides an overview of the legal challenges by identifying and providing summaries of the two major cases filed by states and select claims, not raised by the states, from other cases.