Condemning the Trump Administration's Legal Campaign to Take Away Americans' Health Care.

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 271 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>






116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 271

   Condemning the Trump Administration's Legal Campaign to Take Away 
                        Americans' Health Care.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2019

 Mr. Allred submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee 
  on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
   Condemning the Trump Administration's Legal Campaign to Take Away 
                        Americans' Health Care.

Whereas on February 26, 2018, 18 State attorneys general and 2 Governors filed a 
        lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
        Texas, Texas v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-00167-O (N.D. Tex.) (in this 
        preamble referred to as ``Texas v. United States''), arguing that the 
        requirement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 
        Law 111-148; 124 Stat. 119) (in this preamble referred to as the 
        ``ACA'') to maintain minimum essential coverage is unconstitutional and, 
        as a result, the court should invalidate the entire law;
Whereas in a June 7, 2018, letter to Congress, then Attorney General Jefferson 
        Sessions announced that the Department of Justice--

    (1) would not defend the constitutionality of the minimum essential 
coverage provision; and

    (2) would argue that provisions protecting individuals with pre-
existing conditions (specifically the provisions commonly known as 
``community rating'' and ``guaranteed issue'') are inseverable from the 
minimum essential coverage provision and should be invalidated;

Whereas in the June 7, 2018, letter to Congress, Attorney General Sessions also 
        advised Congress that ``the Department will continue to argue that 
        Section 5000A(a) is severable from the remaining provisions of the 
        ACA'', indicating a difference from the plaintiffs' position in Texas v. 
        United States;
Whereas on December 14, 2018, the United States District Court for the Northern 
        District of Texas issued an order that declared the requirement to 
        maintain minimum essential coverage unconstitutional and struck down the 
        ACA in its entirety, including protections for individuals with pre-
        existing conditions;
Whereas the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern 
        District of Texas was stayed and is pending appeal before the United 
        States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit;
Whereas on March 25, 2019, the Department of Justice, in a letter to the United 
        States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, changed its position and 
        announced that the entire ruling of the United States District Court for 
        the Northern District of Texas should be upheld and the entire ACA 
        should be declared unconstitutional;
Whereas prior to 2014, individuals with pre-existing conditions were routinely 
        denied health insurance coverage, subject to coverage exclusions, 
        charged unaffordable premium rates, exposed to unaffordable out-of-
        pocket costs, and subject to lifetime and annual limits on health 
        insurance coverage;
Whereas as many as 133,000,000 nonelderly people in the United States--

    (1) have a pre-existing condition and could have been denied coverage, 
only offered coverage at an exorbitant price had they needed individual 
market health insurance prior to 2014, or had coverage for their pre-
existing condition excluded prior to 2014; and

    (2) will lose protections for pre-existing conditions if the ruling of 
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas is 
upheld in Texas v. United States;

Whereas contrary to President Trump's public claims that he supports protections 
        for people with pre-existing conditions, he has ordered his Department 
        of Justice to actively pursue the destruction of these protections in 
        Federal court;
Whereas employer-provided health plans cannot place lifetime or annual limits on 
        health coverage, and if the Trump Administration succeeds in its 
        argument before the court, more than 100,000,000 people in the United 
        States who receive health insurance through their employer could once 
        again face lifetime or annual coverage limits;
Whereas if the Trump Administration succeeds in its argument before the court, 
        insurers would be allowed to impose an unlimited ``age tax'' on the 
        health insurance premiums of older Americans;
Whereas prior to 2010, Medicare enrollees faced massive out-of-pocket 
        prescription drug costs once they reached a certain threshold known as 
        the Medicare ``donut hole'', and since the donut hole began closing in 
        2010, millions of Medicare beneficiaries have saved billions of dollars 
        on prescription drugs;
Whereas at a time when 3 in 10 adults report not taking prescribed medicines 
        because of the cost, if the Trump Administration succeeds in its 
        argument before the court, seniors enrolled in Medicare would face 
        billions of dollars in new prescription drug costs;
Whereas as of March 2019, 37 States, including the District of Columbia, have 
        expanded or are in the process of expanding Medicaid to individuals with 
        incomes up to 138 percent of the Federal poverty level, providing health 
        coverage to more than 12,000,000 newly eligible people;
Whereas if the Trump Administration succeeds in its argument before the court, 
        the millions of individuals and families who receive coverage from 
        Medicaid could lose eligibility and no longer have access to health 
        care;
Whereas as of March 2019, many people who buy individual health insurance are 
        provided tax credits to reduce the cost of premiums and assistance to 
        reduce out-of-pocket costs such as copays and deductibles, which has 
        made individual health insurance coverage affordable for millions of 
        people in the United States for the first time;
Whereas if the Trump Administration succeeds in its argument before the court, 
        the health insurance individual exchanges would be eliminated and 
        millions of people in the United States who buy health insurance on the 
        individual marketplaces could lose coverage and would see premium 
        expenses for individual health insurance increase exorbitantly;
Whereas if the Trump Administration succeeds in its argument before the court, 
        people in the United States would lose numerous consumer protections in 
        their coverage, including the requirements that--

    (1) plans offer preventive care without cost-sharing;

    (2) young adults have the option to remain on a parent's insurance plan 
until age 26; and

    (3) many health insurance plans offer a comprehensive set of essential 
health benefits such as maternity care, addiction treatment, and 
prescription drug coverage;

Whereas pursuant to section 516 of title 28, United States Code, the conduct of 
        litigation in which the United States is a party is reserved to the 
        Department of Justice;
Whereas public reports suggest that the President and his political advisors 
        directed this course of action in direct contravention of the Department 
        of Justice's longstanding policy to defend Acts of Congress and duty to 
        advance reasonable analysis of legal questions, for example--

    (1) when the Department of Justice changed its litigating position on 
June 7, 2018, in the Texas v. United States case to ask the court to strike 
down the ACA's guaranteed issue and community rating requirements, thereby 
eliminating protections for people with pre-existing conditions and 
reinstating legal discrimination based on health status, that position was 
found to be so legally indefensible that three of the four career attorneys 
representing the Government refused to sign the relevant briefs and removed 
themselves from the case; and

    (2) when the Department of Justice again changed its litigating 
position on March 25, 2019, in the appeal of Texas v. United States to seek 
the invalidation of every provision of the ACA, it was reported that 
decision was made over the objections of both the Department of Justice as 
well as the Department of Health and Human Services; and

Whereas the Trump Administration has proceeded in the Texas v. United States 
        lawsuit with total disregard for the consequences of its actions for the 
        lives of millions of Americans: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that--
            (1) the actions taken by the Trump Administration seeking 
        the invalidation of the ACA's protections for people with pre-
        existing conditions, and later the invalidation of the entire 
        ACA, are an unacceptable assault on the health care of the 
        American people; and
            (2) the Department of Justice should--
                    (A) protect individuals with pre-existing 
                conditions, seniors struggling with high prescription 
                drug costs, and the millions of people in the United 
                States who newly gained health insurance coverage since 
                2014;
                    (B) cease any and all efforts to destroy Americans' 
                access to affordable health care; and
                    (C) reverse its position in Texas v. United States, 
                No. 19-10011 (5th Cir.).
                                 <all>