News

Protect Our Care Has Held Events in Colorado, Florida, South Carolina, Iowa, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania; Set to Hold More Events in Iowa and Maine

Beginning last week, Protect Our Care began holding nationwide events across the country highlighting the growing threat to Americans’ health care as Senate Republicans rush to fill the Supreme Court vacancy with anti-ACA Judge Amy Coney Barrett and as the ever-worsening COVID-19 pandemic continues to spread. California v. Texas, the Trump-Republican lawsuit to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, will be heard one week after the election. If successful, the lawsuit would take away protections for 135 million Americans with pre-existing conditions and rip coverage away from over 20 million Americans in the middle of the worst public health crisis in a century.

Events From the Week So Far: 

COLORADO
Friday, October 9 — Affordable Care Act and Women’s Health Event with Sen. Michael Bennet
On Friday, U.S. Senator Michael Bennet and health care advocates joined Protect Our Care Colorado at a virtual press conference to discuss what is at stake for Americans’ health care if the Affordable Care Act is overturned. Panelists condemned Senate Republicans’ ongoing attack on  health care and their rush to confirm a new Justice comes just weeks before the Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Republicans’ lawsuit to eliminate the Affordable Care Act on November 10. Participants focused on how Trump’s ACA-repeal lawsuit would devastate Coloradans and roll back critical protections for women, Latinxs, and LGBTQ+ individuals who have suffered disproportionate economic impacts during the COVID-19 pandemic and seen greater job loss overall – likely resulting in loss of health care coverage. You can watch the event here.

FLORIDA
Friday, October 9 — With Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Looming, Local Leaders and Health Care Advocates to Stress What’s at Stake for Healthcare in South Florida in this Election
With only a few days before the Senate begins confirmation hearings for Donald Trump’s hand-picked ACA-opposed Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, local leaders and healthcare advocates in Miami will stress the stakes of this election for the healthcare of hundreds of thousands of South Floridians who are at risk of losing their healthcare, should the ACA be overturned in November. Florida City Mayor Otis Wallace will join former Republican legislator and legal expert Juan-Carlos Planas, along with several healthcare advocates, including Miami resident Judith Casale, and Kendall resident and recent guest of honor at last year’s State of the Union address, Michelle Garcia, who will all discuss what life could look like for hundreds of thousands of Floridians in South Florida should the Supreme Court overturn the ACA in November. Watch the event here.

• Actualidad Radio 1020 AM: Clip of Juan-Carlos Planas Discussing SCOTUS nomination 

SOUTH CAROLINA
Friday, October 9 — SCOTUS Accountability Event with State Representatives and SC Storytellers
Representatives Marvin Pedarvis and JA Moore joined Mary McBride, a South Carolinian health care advocate, and Protect Our Care South Carolina on a virtual roundtable to highlight the growing threat to health care coverage as Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham and Republicans rush to fill the Supreme Court vacancy as COVID-19 continues to spread among senior GOP officials. “We can’t play politics with people’s lives. That’s what got us into this mess with COVID and that’s what Lindsey Graham is trying to do with this nomination,” said Rep. Marvin Pendarvis. You can watch a recording of the event here.

IOWA
Monday, October 12 — Iowans Launch ‘Our Lives On The Line’ Week of Action to Oppose Rush to Confirm a New Supreme Court Justice
Iowan health care advocates from Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Action Fund, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Iowa, Iowa Citizen Action Network, and One Iowa Action joined Protect Our Care Iowa for an event about what’s at stake for Iowa families and their health care as Senate Republicans, including Senators Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley, rush to fill the Supreme Court vacancy before the election. The statewide press event kicks off the ‘Our Lives on the Line’ week of action sponsored by a number of grassroots and community organizations. Watch the event here.

NORTH CAROLINA
Monday, October 12 — Supreme Court Press Call with Chairman Wayne Goodwin, State Senator Terry Van Duyn, and Stacy Staggs
North Carolina Democratic party Chairman Wayne Goodwin, State Senator Terry Van Duyn, and Stacy Staggs, a health care advocate, joined Protect Our Care North Carolina on a press call to highlight the growing threat to health care coverage as Republican’s rush to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. On November 10, one week after the election, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in California v. Texas, the lawsuit led by the Trump administration and 18 Republican a state Attorneys General to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. You can listen to the call here.

WISCONSIN
Monday, October 12 — Supreme Court Press Call with Attorney General Josh Kaul and Health Care Advocates
Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, cancer survivor Renee Gasch, and emergency room physician Chris Kapsner joined Protect Our Care Wisconsin to highlight the growing threat to health care coverage as Republican’s rush to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. On November 10, one week after the election, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in California v. Texas, the lawsuit led by the Trump administration and 18 Republican state Attorneys General to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. You can watch the event here.

• WKOW: Wisconsin Politicians Still Divided as Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings Begin

PENNSYLVANIA
Tuesday, October 13 — SCOTUS Accountability Event with the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and Protect Our Care Storytellers
Earlier today, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party and Biden For President Pennsylvania kicked off their joint “Health Care is on the Ballot Tour” with U.S. Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chair Nancy Patton Mills, Johnstown native and breast cancer survivor Amy Raslevich, and Little Lobbyists National Director of Advocacy Erin Gabriel to discuss what’s at stake for the health care of Pennsylvania families in the upcoming election. A recording of the virtual press conference can be found here, and an audio clip is available here.

Trump’s Lawsuit to Overturn the Affordable Care Act Would Eliminate Protections for 135 Million People with Pre-Existing Conditions — and, Despite Claims to the Contrary, Republicans Have No Plan If the Law is Struck Down

Before the election, the Senate plans to rush through President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court before voters have a chance to make their voices heard. President Trump and his enablers in the Senate see the nomination of Judge Coney Barrett as their opportunity to accomplish what they haven’t been able to do legislatively — completely dismantle the Affordable Care Act and its protections for more than 135 million people with pre-existing conditions. One week after the election, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in California v. Texas, the Trump-Republican lawsuit that if successful, would overturn the ACA and throw our entire health care system into chaos. Trump and Senate Republicans want to tilt the balance of the court ahead of the lawsuit in their favor, and Judge Coney Barrett is their best chance to do it. Ending protections for people with pre-existing conditions is extremely unpopular with voters, so Senate Republicans and Trump have been scrambling to obscure their record and say they support these protections, but these lies are clearly just another election year stunt to try to distract voters from their decade-long war on health care. The reality is, they are in court trying to overturn the ACA — the gold standard for protecting people with pre-existing conditions.  

KEY POINTS

• Thanks to the ACA, 135 million Americans are protected from discrimination in the individual marketplaces, so regardless of their job status or state of residence, they will be able to access quality coverage without being charged more for having a pre-existing condition. If the ACA is overturned, these protections will be ripped away overnight, and in the middle of a pandemic. 
• Over seven million Americans have already tested positive for coronavirus and would likely be deemed as having a pre-existing condition without the ACA. If the law is overturned, the millions of Americans who have contracted the virus would be at the mercy of their insurance companies who could refuse to pay for needed care. Because of Donald Trump’s failure to respond to the coronavirus crisis, the number of Americans with coronavirus is only increasing, with roughly a million cases being reported every month. 
• Despite claims made to the contrary, the ACA includes key protections for people with employer-based coverage, including guaranteed free preventive care, bans on annual and lifetime caps on coverage, and out-of-pocket limits for patients.
• The coronavirus pandemic demonstrates the importance of the ACA. An estimated 12 million people have lost employer-sponsored coverage and experts say an overwhelming majority have been able to get covered under the ACA — through the marketplaces or through Medicaid expansion. Every single one of these individuals now relies on the ACA’s protections for pre-existing conditions. We cannot return to the days where, if people lost their job, they would lose access to quality, affordable health care at a time they need it the most. 

Research Confirms That 135 Million People Have A Pre-Existing Condition

Before the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies routinely denied people coverage because of a pre-existing condition or canceled coverage when a person got sick. Without the ACA, insurance companies could have the license to do this again. 

• According to a recent analysis by the Center for American Progress, roughly half of nonelderly Americans, or as many as 135 million people, have a pre-existing condition. This includes:
• • 44 million people who have high blood pressure
  • 45 million people who have behavioral health disorders
  • 44 million people who have high cholesterol
  • 34 million people who have asthma and chronic lung disease
  • 34 million people who have osteoarthritis and other joint disorders
• More than 17 million children, 68 million women, and 32 million people aged 55-64 have a pre-existing condition.
• The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 54 million people, or 27% of adults aged 18 to 64, have a condition that would have been grounds for coverage denial in the pre-ACA marketplace. Recent survey data found that six in 10 say they or someone in their household suffers from a pre-existing condition, such as asthma, diabetes, or high blood pressure. 

Trump’s Own HHS Confirmed That More Than 130 Million Have A Pre-Existing Condition. A 2017 study published by the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that 133 million Americans have a pre-existing condition that could lead to coverage denial, premium surcharges, or benefit exclusions without the ACA: “any of these 133 million Americans could have been denied coverage, or offered coverage only at an exorbitant price, had they needed individual market health insurance before 2014.” 

Republicans Want To Put Insurance Companies Back In Charge, Ending Protections For The 135 Million People With Pre-Existing Conditions

The ACA included four key provisions that protect people with pre-existing conditions. If the ACA is overturned in the Texas lawsuit: 

• GONE: Rule that forbids insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. 
• GONE: Rule that prevents insurers from charging people with pre-existing conditions more. 
• GONE: Requirements that insurance companies cover essential health benefits, such as prescription drugs and maternity care.
• GONE: Ban on insurance companies having annual and lifetime caps on coverage.

Premium Surcharges Could Once Again Be In The Six Figures. Thanks to the Republican lawsuit, insurance companies can charge people more because of a pre-existing condition. The House-passed repeal bill had a similar provision, and an analysis by the Center for American Progress found that insurers could charge up to $4,270 more for asthma, $17,060 more for pregnancy, $26,180 more for rheumatoid arthritis and $140,510 more for metastatic cancer.

Insurance Companies Would Not Have To Provide The Coverage You Need. The Affordable Care Act made comprehensive coverage more available by requiring insurance companies to include “essential health benefits” in their plans, such as maternity care, hospitalization, substance abuse care and prescription drug coverage. Before the ACA, people had to pay extra for separate coverage for these benefits. For example, in 2013, 75 percent of non-group plans did not cover maternity care, 45 percent did not cover substance abuse disorder services, and 38 percent did not cover mental health services. Six percent did not even cover generic drugs.

Insurance Companies Could Reinstate Lifetime And Annual Limits On 109 Million Privately Insured Americans. Repealing the Affordable Care Act means insurance companies would be able to impose annual and lifetime limits on coverage for those insured through their employer or on the individual market. In 2009, prior to the implementation of the ACA, 59 percent of workers covered by employer-sponsored health plans had a lifetime limit. 

American Cancer Society, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, and National Multiple Sclerosis Society: “Striking Down These Provisions Would Be Catastrophic And Have Dire Consequences For Many Patients With Serious Illnesses.” [American Cancer Society et. al, 6/14/18]

Republicans Want To Give Insurance Companies The Power To Limit The Care You Get, Even If You Have Insurance Through Your Employer. 

133 Million People With Employer Coverage Could Once Again Have To Pay For Preventative Care. Because of the ACA, health plans must cover preventive services — like flu shots, cancer screenings, contraception, and mammograms – at no cost to consumers. More than 140 million Americans are enrolled in plans that provide free preventive services, including 133 million people with employer coverage. 

Large Employers Could Choose To Follow Any State’s Guidance, Enabling Them Put Annual And Lifetime Limits On Their Employees’ Health Care. Without the ACA’s definition of essential health benefits (EHB), states could eliminate them altogether. Large employers could choose to apply any state’s standard, making state regulations essentially meaningless. Because the prohibition on annual and lifetime limits only applies to essential health benefits, this change would allow employers to reinstate annual and lifetime limits on their employees’ coverage.

Employers Could Eliminate Out-Of-Pocket Caps, Forcing Employees To Pay More For Care. Under the ACA, health insurers and employer group plans must cap the amount enrollees pay for health care each year. If the law is overturned, these cost-sharing protections would be eliminated. 

Republican Bills Claiming To Protect People With Pre-Existing Conditions Are A Sham 

Any Legislation That Meaningfully Protects People With Pre-Existing Conditions Must Include Four Key Provisions: 

• GUARANTEED ISSUE: Rule that forbids insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. 
• COMMUNITY RATING: Rule that prevents insurers from charging people with pre-existing conditions more. 
• ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS: Requirements that insurance companies cover essential health benefits, such as prescription drugs, mental health and substance abuse treatment, and maternity care.
• LIFETIME & ANNUAL CAPS: Ban on insurance companies having annual or lifetime caps on coverage.

Without All Of These Protections, Access To Care Would Be Out Of Reach For People With Serious Medical Conditions:

For example, without the ACA, a 40-year-old patient with cancer would face a premium surcharge of anywhere between $30,000 to $140,000. And without the ban on annual and lifetime caps, the cancer patient – whose costs for treatment average about $150,000 – could quickly reach their plan’s limit and face the devastating choice of continuing treatment or facing financial ruin. Moreover, insurance companies could refuse to cover this person’s chemotherapy drugs because they would no longer need to cover essential health benefits. And this is all of this assuming the patient was not already denied coverage outright, which would be permitted without the ACA. 

Why State Laws Are Insufficient If Trump Succeeds In Invalidating The ACA

A few states have implemented critical protections to serve as a backstop if the ACA is overturned, such as banning insurers from denying coverage or charging people with pre-existing conditions more. However, even these states cannot make up the federal funding provided under the ACA, which helps millions of people receive free coverage under Medicaid expansion or subsidized coverage in the individual marketplaces.

If the ACA is struck down: 

• Nine Million People In the Marketplaces Would Pay More for Coverage. If the ACA is overturned, consumers would no longer have access to tax credits that help them pay their marketplace premiums, meaning roughly nine million people who receive these tax credits to pay for coverage would have to pay more.
• More Than 15 Million People Enrolled Through Medicaid Expansion Would Lose Coverage. Before the coronavirus crisis, roughly 15 million people were enrolled through Medicaid expansion.
• States Would Lose important Federal Health Care Funding — an estimated reduction of $135 billion in the first year. The Urban Institute estimates that a full repeal of the ACA would reduce federal spending on Medicaid/CHIP care and Marketplace subsidies by $135 billion, or 34.6 percent in the first year. 

It is critical to note that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not have any pre-existing condition protections under state law at all. Only 13 states have enacted laws — and most do not provide comprehensive protections from discrimination. 

Perhaps Most Egregiously, Republicans Want To Eliminate Protections For People With Pre-Existing Conditions During A Global Pandemic

If The ACA Were Overturned, The More Than Seven Million Americans Who Have Had Covid-19 Could Be Discriminated Against By Their Health Insurer. “Before the ACA, medically underwritten health insurance sold to individuals could discriminate based on a person’s health conditions and history as well as other risk factors. So, for example, someone who applies for medically underwritten health insurance while sick – or after having been sick – with COVID-19 might be turned down, charged more, or offered a plan that excludes coverage for COVID-19 or related symptoms. A positive test for the coronavirus could also be used in medical underwriting. In addition, someone who has recently been tested negative for COVID-19 – for example, a rideshare driver who gets tested from time to time out of concern about his potential exposure – might also be discriminated against if insurers determine people who seek testing tend to be at higher risk of getting COVID-19. If ACA protections are invalidated, such people might be turned down, charged more, or offered a policy that temporarily or permanently excludes coverage for COVID-19.” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/30/20]

The bill introduced by Senators Graham, Cassidy, Heller and Johnson (Graham-Cassidy) would have radically changed our health care system – ending the Affordable Care Act tax credits and Medicaid expansion and changing them into block grants with dramatically less funding for states. It would have also converted traditional Medicaid into a per capita cap program permanently. This bill aimed to slash coverage, raise costs, eliminate protections for millions of people across America and gut Medicaid. In fact, it was the worst of the repeal bills that we have seen to date. 

Graham-Cassidy Was Worse for States Than Other GOP Repeal Bills 

Analysts Agree: Every State Loses Under Graham-Cassidy Affecting People’s Care. Multiple independent analyses agreed that the Graham-Cassidy repeal bill would have cut federal funding to states. Over time, every state would lose because Graham-Cassidy proposed to zero out its block grants and ratchet down its spending on the Medicaid per capita cap. This meant people would not have access to the financial assistance to help lower their health care bills, and federal Medicaid funding would no longer adjust for public health emergencies, prescription drug or other cost spikes, or other unexpected increases in need. 

Avalere: $4 Trillion Cut To States Over Next Two Decades. Independent analysts at Avalere estimated that states collectively would lose $215 billion from 2020 to 2026 from the plans block grants and Medicaid cap, another $283 billion in 2027 when the block grant funding disappears altogether and $4 trillion over the next two decades. 

Fitch Ratings: Graham-Cassidy “More Disruptive.” Fitch Rating Agency found that the Graham-Cassidy bill was “more disruptive for most states than prior Republican efforts.”

Graham-Cassidy Would Have Cut Coverage 

32 Million Would Lose Health Coverage. As a result of zeroing out block grants for Marketplace tax credits and Medicaid expansion and additional cuts to Medicaid, the Graham-Cassidy bill essentially repealed the Affordable Care Act without replacing it. 

Millions Enrolled Through Medicaid Expansion Would Be Put At Risk. The Graham-Cassidy bill would have eliminated Medicaid expansion, which has helped more than 15 million Americans receive quality, affordable coverage, and put part of its funding into inadequate block grants. The bill would have further punished states that expanded Medicaid by redistributing funds to states that did not expand Medicaid. 

More Than 70 Million Americans with Medicaid Coverage, Including Seniors, People with Disabilities, and Children, Would Be Put At Risk. The Graham-Cassidy bill would have turned traditional Medicaid into a per capita cap, meaning millions who are enrolled in Medicaid would have had their care jeopardized. Medicaid disproportionately helps children, seniors in nursing home care and people with disabilities. A study by Avalere found that Graham-Cassidy would have cut funding for people with disabilities by 15-percent and 31-percent for children by 2036. 

More Than 35 Million Children’s Care Would Be Put At Risk. Millions of children are enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP, whose care could be at risk because of the funding cuts in Graham-Cassidy. 

Veterans Across The Country Could Lose Coverage. The Rand Corp released a study showing Republican repeal efforts would increase the number of uninsured veterans. The report found that the ACA’s Medicaid expansion was responsible for reducing the uninsured rate of veterans by about one-third, from 9.1% to 5.8%, in 2015.

Graham-Cassidy Would Have Raised Costs, Reduced Access to Care And Eliminated Protections for Pre-Existing Conditions 

Premiums Would Have Increased 20 Percent in the First Year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Graham-Cassidy included provisions that would have raised premiums up to 20 percent in the first year. 

Nine Million People In The Marketplaces Would Have Paid More For Coverage. Because the Graham-Cassidy bill would have eliminated block grant funding in 2027 with no guarantee of any other funding to take its place, that meant there would be no funding for Marketplace tax credits that help people pay for their premiums. 

Graham-Cassidy Would Have Raised Costs For People With Pre-Existing Conditions. Graham-Cassidy would have allowed states to let insurance companies once again charge people with pre-existing conditions more, which could have raised costs for more than 130 millions Americans that have a pre-existing condition. For example, an individual with asthma would face a premium surcharge of $4,340. The surcharge for pregnancy would be $17,320, while it would be $142,650 more for patients with metastatic cancer. 

109 Million Privately Insured Americans Could Have Seen Lifetime And Annual Limits Again. Allowing states to opt out of the Essential Health Benefits coverage meant that insurance companies could once again put lifetime and annual limits on the amount of care you receive, even impacting people with coverage from their employer. 

People Over The Age of 50 Would Have Faced An “Age Tax.” The Graham-Cassidy bill would have allowed states to let insurers charge people over 50 high premiums without limits. AARP said, “The Graham/Cassidy/Heller/Johnson bill would result in an age tax for older Americans who would see their health care costs increase under this bill.” AARP estimates that 60-year-old Americans could have paid as much as $16,174 more in higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs in 2020. 

Millions of Women Could Have Faced Higher Costs or Even Lost Access to Care. Graham-Cassidy would have ended Medicaid expansion, which allowed 3.9 million women to gain access to care. It would end provisions that helped lower premiums and out-of pocket costs for 9 million women. Graham-Cassidy would have slashed Medicaid, on which one in five women of reproductive age rely. The bill would defund Planned Parenthood and would allow states to let insurers forgo maternity coverage. 

People Could Have Paid More For The Same Comprehensive Coverage. According to the Brookings Institution, if a state waived the Essential Health Benefits (EHB), no one “would have access to comprehensive coverage. Insurers would likely sell separate policies for benefits not covered in their core plan offerings, but these supplemental policies would be subject to tremendous adverse selection, leading to very high premiums and enrollment almost exclusively by those with pre-existing conditions.” A woman who purchases a separate insurance rider for maternity care, for example, would have to pay $17,320 more. For states that no longer required substance use disorders or mental health to be covered, coverage for drug dependence treatment could cost an extra $20,450. 

Key Health Care Stakeholders Oppose Graham-Cassidy 

PHYSICIANS AND NURSES: American Medical Association; American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Osteopathic Association, American Psychiatric Association; American College Of Physicians; American Nurses Association

CONSUMER GROUPS: AARP; Consumers Union 

PATIENT GROUPS: ALS Association, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Arthritis Foundation, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Family Voices, JDRF, Lutheran Services in America, March of Dimes, National Health Council, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Organization for Rare Diseases, Volunteers of America, WomenHeart; More Than 35 Cancer Organizations; 469 Mental Health And Substance Use Disorder Groups; The Arc 

HOSPITALS: American Hospital Association; Children’s Hospital Association; Federation of American Hospitals; America’s Essential Hospitals; Catholic Health Association; Kansas Hospital Association; Greater New York Hospital Association; Kaiser Permanente

INSURERS: America’s Health Insurance Plans; Blue Cross Blue Shield Association; Association Of Community Affiliated Plans

Day one of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings is in the books and headlines show that Senate Democrats used the spotlight to make clear what’s at stake for our health care and the consequences Americans would face in the middle of a pandemic without the protections of the Affordable Care Act. Senate Republicans are trying to install Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the court to accomplish what they couldn’t do through legislation — completely overturn the ACA. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump’s lawsuit, California v. Texas, one week after election day. If successful, the lawsuit would rip coverage from more than 20 million Americans and remove protections for more than 135 million Americans with a pre-existing condition. 

Leah Millis/Pool / Getty Images

NBC News: With Eye on Election, Democrats Hammer Health Care on First Day of Barrett Hearing. “Senate Democrats came to the first day of the Supreme Court hearings Monday with a singular message: Health care coverage and protections for millions of Americans are at risk if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed. Like a choir singing in unison, Democrats carried the same tune, in different vocal ranges. Each showed photos of constituents who have battled illness and stand to lose potential lifesaving treatment if the Affordable Care Act were axed, demonstrating an unusual level of harmony for a party not known for message discipline.” [NBC News, 10/12/20] 

New York Times: For Judiciary Committee Democrats, the Affordable Care Act Was Center Stage. “Senate Democrats have settled on their line of attack against Judge Amy Coney Barrett: Her confirmation to the Supreme Court could mean the death of the Affordable Care Act and millions of Americans stripped of their health insurance…In their opening remarks on Monday, the first day at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing, one Democrat after another invoked the health care law — and, more broadly, the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic.” [New York Times, 10/12/20] 

Time: On Day One of Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court Hearing, Democrats Focus on Health Care. “During the course of the day, every single Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee mentioned health care in their opening remarks. In a show of disciplined messaging, they honed in on fears that Barrett would overturn the Affordable Care Act (ACA) if she were confirmed to the Supreme Court — which is set to hear a case about the constitutionality of the Obama-era health care law just one week after Election Day.” [Time, 10/12/20] 

Yahoo News: Barrett Nomination Hearing Begins as Democrats Focus on Health Care. “The confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett began Monday morning, with Democrats focusing on what her vote could mean for the Affordable Care Act, which is being challenged by the Trump administration and a number of Republican states in a case coming before the court this term. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee came equipped with large posters showing photos of Americans who they say would lose their health care if the Supreme Court were to overturn the ACA, also known as Obamacare. Barrett has written she disagrees with Chief Justice John Roberts’s 2012 opinion that upheld the ACA. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last month, was in the majority upholding the ACA in the case eight years ago.” [Yahoo News, 10/12/20] 

Associated Press: Health Care is Focus as Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court Hearing Opens. “Senate Democrats branded Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett a threat to the Affordable Care Act and many Americans’ health care Monday at the start of a fast-tracked hearing that Republicans are confident will end with Barrett’s confirmation to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before Election Day.” [Associated Press, 10/12/20] 

Washington Post: At Barrett Hearing, Harris Highlights Health Care, Ginsburg in Opening Statement. “At Barrett’s hearing, Harris echoed the health-care message of other Senate Democrats and warned that confirming Barrett to the Supreme Court would precipitate the demise of the Affordable Care Act. In her opening remarks, Harris told the story of a constituent who has benefited from the protections of the 2010 health-care law: an 11-year-old girl named Myka from Southern California, who has a congenital heart defect and has to see multiple specialists during the year. Harris argued that because Republicans have failed legislatively to repeal the increasingly popular ACA, ‘they are trying to bypass the will of the voters and have the Supreme Court do their dirty work.’ The justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments in a high-profile Obamacare case on Nov. 10.” [Washington Post, 10/12/20]

Today, Democrats highlighted health care and the impacts Americans would face in the middle of a pandemic without the protections of the Affordable Care Act. President Trump has promised to only appoint justices to the Supreme Court who support overturning the ACA. Now, Senate Republicans are trying to install Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the court to accomplish what they couldn’t do through legislation — completely overturn the ACA. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump’s lawsuit, California v. Texas, one week after election day. If successful, the lawsuit would rip coverage from more than 20 million Americans and remove protections for more than 135 million Americans with a pre-existing condition. 

Watch the Video Here

Watch the Video Here

First Day of Confirmation Hearings Shows Health Care Is on the Line

Watch the Event Here

Washington, DC — After the first day of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hearings, Senate Judiciary Committee member U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and health care storytellers joined Protect Our Care to discuss what’s at stake for health care and the Affordable Care Act. As Senate Republicans continue to rush through President Trump’s anti-ACA Supreme Court nominee, Democrats used the hearing to highlight the importance of the ACA and stories of constituents who would lose health care if the law were to be overturned. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in California v. Texas, Trump’s lawsuit to completely dismantle the ACA, on November 10 — one week after the 2020 election. If successful, the lawsuit would strip millions of Americans of their health coverage in the middle of a global pandemic made worse by this administration’s failure to confront the crisis head-on. 

“As Senate Republicans continue to rush through this illegitimate process, millions of Americans stand to lose their health care in the middle of a deadly pandemic — including the 150 million Americans with pre-existing conditions covered under the ACA,” said U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ). “For millions of Americans like Michele and Nick, a future without the ACA looks like being forced to sell your house if you want to afford your health care, it looks like not having access to a doctor when you’re sick, it looks like having to choose between paying for groceries and paying for medicine. As we face the worst public health crisis in our lifetimes, it would be cruel and reckless to force so many Americans to potentially face losing their health care.”

Michele Lewris is a New Jersey resident with pre-existing conditions. After the sudden death of her husband, Lewris lost her health insurance. Without the coverage she was able to get through the marketplace, she would have had to choose between paying her health care costs and her mortgage. 

“It’s really inhumane and immoral to repeal the Affordable Care Act and I’m terrified it’s going to happen,” said Lewris.

Nick Hare is a South Carolina resident with a pre-existing condition. Last year, he was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. During the coronavirus pandemic, he was laid off from his job with a software company and lost his health insurance. Without the protections for pre-existing conditions provided by the ACA, Nick would have to find a way to pay over $1,500 per month for needed medications. 

“The idea of coverage for pre-existing conditions being eliminated is not only cost prohibitive to people but immoral,” said Hare.

“The stakes of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation couldn’t be more clear. President Trump has said he would only select nominees for the Supreme Court who oppose the Affordable Care Act, and Judge Coney Barrett is no exception” said Protect Our Care Executive Director Brad Woodhouse. “If Judge Coney Barrett is installed on the court, we are risking losing protections for 135 million people with pre-existing conditions and throwing our entire health care system into chaos during the worst public health crisis in a century.”

Judiciary Committee member U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has made her opposition to the Affordable Care Act crystal clear by voting time and again to repeal the health care law and by supporting California v. Texas, the Trump administration’s lawsuit to completely dismantle the health care law. If successful, the lawsuit would throw our entire health care system into chaos by ripping away health care from more than 20 million Americans and ending protections for more than 135 million people with pre-existing conditions, all in the middle of an ever-worsening pandemic. Senate Republicans are rushing to confirm anti-ACA Judge Amy Coney Barrett in hopes she will help them accomplish their decade-long goal of eliminating the law — and the protections it provides for Americans — when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in California v. Texas one week after the election. 

What’s At Stake If The Supreme Court Overturns The ACA

If Trump’s lawsuit to overturn the ACA is successful, 232,000 Tennesseans would lose coverage. 

Without the ACA, 2,754,300 Tennesseans with pre-existing conditions could be charged more or denied coverage altogether. 

A Walk Down Memory Lane: Senator Blackburn And The ACA

Blackburn has voted SIX TIMES to fully repeal the ACA.

2018: Blackburn Said She Remains Committed To Repealing The Affordable Care Act. “Tennesseans know the false promises of a government-controlled system, and they are suffering from the impacts of Obamacare, which made health insurance and health care too expensive to afford. It has driven up the cost of all health insurance and forced 122,000 Tennesseans to pay a penalty. Last year, the Senate failed its promise to the American people when it refused to repeal the law, but Marsha remains committed to returning health care to a patient-centered system where families and doctors can make their decisions. She’ll fight to make health care accessible and affordable for all Tennesseans – unlike Democrats who will drive up health care costs and put the government in charge of your healthcare decisions.” [Marsha for Senate, accessed 9/28/18] 

2017: The Washington Post Fact Checker Rated Blackburn’s Claim That The ACA’s Protections For Pre-Existing Conditions Were Republican Provisions “Four Pinocchios.” “There is no evidence that either of these popular elements of the ACA ‘were Republican provisions,’ as Blackburn claims. In fact, Blackburn is on record as promoting the concept of federally funded ‘high-risk pools’ even on the eve of the House vote for the Democratic bill that included a robust provision to bar insurance companies from refusing to cover preexisting conditions. Similarly, the Obama White House and House Democrats were the prime movers of the under-26 provision. Blackburn earns Four Pinocchios.” [Washington Post, 2/28/17] 

Judiciary Committee member U.S. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) has made his opposition to the Affordable Care Act crystal clear by voting time and again to repeal the health care law and by supporting California v. Texas, the Trump administration’s lawsuit to completely dismantle the health care law. If successful, the lawsuit would throw our entire health care system into chaos by ripping away health care from more than 20 million Americans and ending protections for more than 135 million people with pre-existing conditions, all in the middle of an ever-worsening pandemic. Senate Republicans are rushing to confirm anti-ACA Judge Amy Coney Barrett in hopes she will help them accomplish their decade-long goal of eliminating the law — and the protections it provides for Americans — when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in California v. Texas one week after the election. 

What’s At Stake If The Supreme Court Overturns The ACA

If Trump’s lawsuit to overturn the ACA is successful, 538,000 Louisianans would lose coverage. 

Without the ACA, 1,914,200 Louisianans with pre-existing conditions could be charged more or denied coverage altogether. 

A Walk Down Memory Lane: Senator Kennedy And The ACA

Kennedy has voted THREE TIMES to fully repeal the ACA.

2016: Kennedy: “Obamacare Sucks And We Need To Repeal It.” “On Wednesday, eight Senate candidates from Louisiana were invited to participate in a forum on health insurance and delivery in Baton Rouge—the candidates all believe that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has its shortcomings, and could use some changes. ‘Obamacare sucks,’ said State Treasurer and Republican John Kennedy, ‘and we need to repeal it.’” [Insurance Business, 8/5/16] 

2017: Kennedy Said He “Will Not Quit” Until The ACA Is Repealed. “US Sen. John Kennedy issued a statement Friday morning following the latest vote on “Obamacare” repeal in which the so-called ‘skinny repeal’ failed. ‘The vote last night is not a loss for the Republican Party. It’s a loss for the American people. Obamacare has not worked. I made a promise to the people of Louisiana, and I kept that promise last night when I voted to repeal and replace Obamacare. Forty-eight other Republicans stood with me, and I want you to know I will not quit until all Louisianans and all Americans have access to affordable health insurance through a health care delivery system that looks like somebody designed it on purpose.’” [WAFB, 7/28/17] 

Judiciary Committee member U.S. Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) has made his opposition to the Affordable Care Act crystal clear by voting time and again to repeal the health care law and by supporting California v. Texas, the Trump administration’s lawsuit to completely dismantle the health care law. If successful, the lawsuit would throw our entire health care system into chaos by ripping away health care from more than 20 million Americans and ending protections for more than 135 million people with pre-existing conditions, all in the middle of an ever-worsening pandemic. Senate Republicans are rushing to confirm anti-ACA Judge Amy Coney Barrett in hopes she will help them accomplish their decade-long goal of eliminating the law — and the protections it provides for Americans — when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in California v. Texas one week after the election. 

What’s At Stake If The Supreme Court Overturns The ACA

If Trump’s lawsuit to overturn the ACA is successful, 99,000 Idahoans would lose coverage. 

Without the ACA, 693,400 Idahoans with pre-existing conditions could be charged more or denied coverage altogether. 

A Walk Down Memory Lane: Senator Crapo And The ACA

Crapo has voted FIVE TIMES to fully repeal the ACA.

Crapo: “Mike Crapo Opposes Obama’s Health Plan And Is Fighting For Its Repeal.” “Mike Crapo opposes Obama’s heath care plan and is fighting for its repeal and replacement. He has co-sponsored and advocated for legislation to fully repeal Obamacare. As a two-time cancer survivor, Mike knows that patients, families and doctors need to be free of excessive government interference so they can have power over their personal healthcare choices.” [Crapo for US Senate, accessed 10/11/20] 

2015: Crapo Sponsored Legislation To “Fully Repeal Obamacare.” “Idaho Senator Mike Crapo, a long-time critic of the President’s health care law, has joined a coalition of senators led by Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to introduce legislation to fully repeal Obamacare, officially known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and released the following statement: ‘Millions of Americans, including thousands of Idahoans, have been pushed from their health insurance plans and preferred doctors by this Administration’s signature piece of legislation, despite the President’s repeated pledge to the contrary,” said Crapo. “Americans have seen their taxes increase and felt the pinch of the rising out-of-pocket expenses as a result of Obamacare. Each day seems to bring another piece of bad news regarding the expenses on Obamacare. The law has proven itself unworkable, doubling-down on policies that fail to address the root cause of the soaring costs of health care and inefficiencies in the system. We must move away from the ill-conceived notion that government bureaucracy is the answer to our broken health care system and, instead, turn to real reforms that will result in truly affordable health care as well as improved access to quality care that Americans want and deserve without the failures that are inherent in Obamacare.’ Crapo voted against passage of Obamacare in 2009 when it was being considered in the U.S. Senate, and has since sought to fully repeal, defund and scale back harmful provisions contained in the law.” [Sen. Mike Crapo Press Release, 2/3/15] 

Judiciary Committee member U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) has made her opposition to the Affordable Care Act crystal clear by voting time and again to repeal the health care law and by supporting California v. Texas, the Trump administration’s lawsuit to completely dismantle the health care law. If successful, the lawsuit would throw our entire health care system into chaos by ripping away health care from more than 20 million Americans and ending protections for more than 135 million people with pre-existing conditions, all in the middle of an ever-worsening pandemic. Senate Republicans are rushing to confirm anti-ACA Judge Amy Coney Barrett in hopes she will help them accomplish their decade-long goal of eliminating the law — and the protections it provides for Americans — when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in California v. Texas one week after the election. 

What’s At Stake If The Supreme Court Overturns The ACA

If Trump’s lawsuit to overturn the ACA is successful, 227,000 Iowans would lose coverage. 

Without the ACA, 1,288,400 Iowans with pre-existing conditions could be charged more or denied coverage altogether. 

A Walk Down Memory Lane: Senator Ernst And The ACA

Ernst has voted FOUR TIMES to fully repeal the ACA.

2017: Ernst Refused To Give Up On Repealing The Affordable Care Act After The Failure Of The Senate Bills: “We Don’t Have The Option To Sit Back And Do Nothing.” “Iowa’s U.S. senators vowed Friday to continue trying to rein in Obamacare after coming up on the losing end of an early morning vote on a controversial ‘skinny repeal’ bill. […] Ernst said Friday she’s also not ready to give up on repealing the Affordable Care Act. ‘We don’t have the option to sit back and do nothing; Iowans are demanding relief from Obamacare,’ she wrote in a statement released by her staff. ‘I am disappointed that the Senate was unable to advance important changes to this flawed law. We must now continue to find ways to work on behalf of Iowans and the American people who have been negatively impacted by Obamacare to find affordable, patient-centered solutions that work for them.’” [Des Moines Register, 7/28/17] 

2014: Ernst Campaigned For The Senate With An Ad Where She “Unloads” On Obamacare By Shooting It With A Handgun. “Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joni Ernst of Iowa has released a new TV ad vowing to ‘unload’ on Obamacare, in which she takes target practice at a shooting range with a handgun. The narrator of the ad says Ernst, a state senator and lieutenant colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard, ‘carries more than just lipstick in her purse.’ The commercial portrays her riding a motorcycle to a shooting range where she takes target practice. ‘Joni Ernst will take aim at wasteful spending. And once she sets her sights on Obamacare, Joni’s gonna unload,’ the narrator continues. Next, Ernst starts firing a handgun at a target. ‘Oh, and one more thing,’ adds the narrator as the dispersal of her shots on the target come into view. ‘Joni doesn’t miss much.’” [Washington Post, 5/4/14]