On the recordOctober 21, 2019
very briefly, I wanted to highlight a story that was in today's Wall Street Journal, entitled ``As Court Case Imperils Affordable Care Act, Some States Prepare Contingency Plans.'' That is the headline. The subheadline is this: ``Lawmakers explore ways to preserve coverage, benefits if the health law is struck down.'' This is the opening paragraph that I will read--it is not very long, but I want to read it--from the story today: A federal appeals court decision that could strike down the Affordable Care Act as soon as this month has rattled officials in several states who are pursuing legislation to preserve some coverage in the absence of any Trump administration contingency plan. Lawmakers in states including Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico and California have passed bills or are reviewing action aimed at dealing with the fallout if the ACA is overturned. That is from the very beginning of the article. I will not go further, other than to say that this is a grave matter. If a Federal appeals court were to rule in favor of the moving party on appeal--or I should say the moving party at the beginning of the suit--and affirm the district court, what would happen if that were the case?…
