Most unaware of health insurance deadline
As of March 27, 6 million Americans – roughly a population the size of the Washington metropolitan area -- have signed up for health insurance offered through the government.
While imperfect, most Americans don't want to see the law overturned, according to Kaiser: "Six in ten want Congress to keep the law in place and either leave it as is or work to improve it, while three in ten would prefer to see it either repealed and replaced with a Republican alternative or repealed and not replaced."
Even so, the law still faces legal challenges:
The case: Halbig v. Sebelius
The issue: The Affordable Care Act sets up health insurance exchanges that may be run by either the federal government or state governments. The act also provides tax subsidies to help people at certain income levels purchase insurance on the exchanges. The plaintiffs, who oppose the law, contend that a strict reading of the legislation limits the subsidies to state-run exchanges. That means there would be no subsidies to help residents of the 36 states that chose not to participate in the program, which led the federal government to step in and run the exchanges in those states. The Obama administration and the Internal Revenue Service argue that Congress’ intent in passing the law was to provide subsidies for people in all states, even those with federally run exchanges.
The players: The defendant is Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, whose agency is implementing the Affordable Care Act. The lead plaintiff is Jacqueline Halbig of Virginia, appointed by President George W. Bush to be deputy director of the Center for Faith and Community-Based Initiatives. Co-plaintiffs include David Klemencic of West Virginia, a member of the National Federation of Independent Business, and Sarah Rumpf of Texas, a self-described “Republican operative.”
What’s next: On March 25, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments. A decision could be a couple of months away. If the Obama administration is unsatisfied with the outcome, it will likely appeal to the full circuit court, which has 17 judges, according to the court’s website.
The case: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.
The issue: An Affordable Care Act provision requires large employers to offer workers health coverage – including contraception. All along, this provision has been controversial.
In a 2012 op-ed for USA Today, Sebelius wrote, “The public health case for making sure insurance covers contraception is clear. But we also recognize that many religious organizations have deeply held beliefs opposing the use of birth control. That's why in the rule we put forward, we specifically carved out from the policy religious organizations that primarily employ people of their own faith. This exemption includes churches and other houses of worship, and could also include other church-affiliated organizations.”
But in this lawsuit, business executives also want an exemption on religious grounds. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. is suing the government, citing religious objections to specific types of contraception that end life after conception. The Hobby Lobby case argues that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden satisfies strict scrutiny.
The players: David and Barbara Green are founders of the Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based retailer. Much coverage has focused on the Greens, but the case also involves a similar challenge by Conestoga Wood Specialties of Pennsylvania.The founder of that company, Norman Hahn, has been described by the Lancaster, Pa., website LancasterOnline, as a conservative Mennonite.
What’s next: The case has been argued before the Supreme Court. A decision is not expected before June.
Related:
If you would like to comment give us a shout or like us on Facebook and tell us what you think.
