Brought by a group of Republican attorneys general, the California v. Texas case argues that the ACA's individual mandate is unconstitutional, and that means the whole law must fall. (The individual mandate is a penalty people had to pay if they didn't have insurance.)
-
-
Show this thread
-
As
@Shefalil has reported, prior to the ACA's passage, health insurance plans could charge higher premiums based on someone’s gender, and charged more based on people’s medical history.https://bit.ly/2RPb0BBShow this thread -
The ACA is also the reason insurance plans must cover pregnancy-related medical services, contraception without cost-sharing and mental health care.
Cis women + trans people have higher rates of anxiety and depression, and are more likely to forego medication due to cost.Show this thread -
The ACA was also the first law to establish protections against sex and gender discrimination in health care, protections the Trump administration has already attempted to walk back.https://bit.ly/2RPb0BB
Show this thread -
Via
@sciam: If the ACA is struck down, 20 million people would lose their insurance. If it is partially struck down, up to 129 million could lose protections for preexisting conditions — including the more than eight million who have had COVID-19.https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/upcoming-supreme-court-ruling-could-jeopardize-health-insurance-for-people-with-covid/ …Show this thread -
Oral arguments begin at 9 a.m. CT. We'll be following. You can hear the arguments live via
@cspan: https://www.c-span.org/video/?471185-1/health-care-law-supreme-court-oral-argument …pic.twitter.com/RoYA29xFcb
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.