Hide Transcript Show Transcript

EFFORT TO DEFEND THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT -- BECAUSE OF HOW MANY GRANITE STATERS DEPEND ON IT. THE FUTURE OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS NOW IN THE HANDS OF THE U-S SUPREME COURT. THIS WEEK -- JUSTICES AGREED TO HEAR AN áAPPEAL BY 20 MOSTLY DEMOCRATIC STATES OF A LOWER COURT RULING THAT CALLED áPART OF THE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND NOW -- áNEW HAMPSHIRE WILL BE JOINING THAT EFFORT. 0040(9:19) <THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT HAS NOT BROUGHT DOWN COSTS IT DOES HAVE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH IT'S APPLICABILITY, BUT HERE IN THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, IT'S A HUGE PART OF OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM AND TO JUST PULL IT AWAY AND REPEAL IT WITHOUT A REPLACEMENT IT WOULD BE DEVASTATING FOR NH> (9:34) TEXAS AND OTHER REPUBLICAN- LED STATES SUED... ARGUING THAT A 20- 17 BILL SIGNED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP THAT GOT áRID OF THE FINANCIAL PENALTY FOR AMERICANS WHO DO áNOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE MEANS THE áREST OF THE LAW MUST BE THROWN OUT AS WELL. LOWER COURTS HAVE AGREED WITH THAT ARGUMENT. BUT THE GOVERNOR SAYS REPEALING THE LAW WILL HURT GRANITE STATERS. 0040(12:14) <WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OUT OF A SYSTEM THAT POSITIVELY IMPACTS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YOUR CITIZENS, MY JOB IS TO STAND UP FOR OUR SYSTEM, IT MIGHT NOT IMPACT OTHER STATES IN THE SAME WAY BUT IT'S VERY IMPACTFUL HERE> (12:27) THE DECISION PUTS THE GOVERNOR IN OPPOSITION TO OTHER REPUBLICAN STATES -- AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. 0040(12:40) <I'M NEVER WORRY ABOUT REPERCUSSIONS , I ONLY WORRY THE CITIZENS OF THIS STATE AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE ARE GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND MAKE SURE WE ARE FIGHTING FOR THEIR INTEREST> (12:47) ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT COULD HAPPEN AS SOON AS THIS FALL -- áBEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTI

Advertisement Sununu says NH will join in defense of Affordable Care Act before US Supreme Court State likely to file ‘friend of the court’ brief opposing efforts by 18 states to strike down ‘Obamacare’ law Share Shares Copy Link Copy

New Hampshire will join 17 other states in defense of the Affordable Care Act as a case brought by states seek the law’s repeal goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.>> Download the FREE WMUR appGov. Chris Sununu told WMUR on Wednesday night that while he does not believe the law known as “Obamacare” has cut health care costs, repealing the law without an “adequate replacement” would be harmful to Granite Staters.“As unsuccessful as the Affordable Care Act has been in bringing down costs, repealing the program without an adequate replacement would be harmful to the citizens of New Hampshire,” Sununu said in a statement shared first with WMUR.“The state has no choice but to join the bipartisan effort to defend the program.”"It's a huge part of our health care system," Sununu added in an interview with WMUR. "To just pull it away and repeal it without a replacement it would be devastating to New Hampshire."The decision puts Republican Sununu, who is seeking a third term, and New Hampshire in opposition to a group of Republican-led states and the Trump administration."Every state is very different," Sununu said. "The ACA doesn't impact other states like it impacts New Hampshire. It's hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of citizens. To just throw their health care system away on a moments notice, we have to fight for what works."It's not about Republican or Democrat as much as it is that this does need to be replaced, but you just can't repeal something without having something come in behind it."He said he hopes Congress passes a replacement program while the case is pending."We'd love to see a system that brings costs down and a system that actually achieves the goal of more choice in health care. The ACA didn't do any of that. Nevertheless, when you're talking about removing hundreds of millions dollars out of a system that impacts tens of thousands of your citizens, my job is to stand up for our system." The challenge is focused on the law’s individual mandate, which was declared a tax in an earlier Supreme Court ruling but then “zeroed-out” by the Republican tax cut bill signed into law by President Donald Trump in 2017.The plaintiffs in the case, led by Texas, argue that since the tax no longer raises money, the mandate is unconstitutional -- and the entire law should be struck down.According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 18 states are challenging the ACA, represented by 18 Republican attorneys general, while 17 states, led by California, are defending it and four other states have so far joined the case to defend the ACA on appeal.The court rejected a request by the Democratic-led U.S. House of Representatives to hear the case on an expedited basis, and instead decided to take it up in its new term, which begins in October. A decision would likely not be issued until next year, after the November election. Sources told WMUR the state is exploring the specific course it will take in joining the case. It may file its own amicus brief with the court or sign on to another state’s amicus brief. Either way, the Attorney General's office will lead the legal effort. “The governor signed a bill last year enshrining a key portion of the federal Affordable Care Act that gives protection to people with pre-existing condition into state law’ Sununu spokesperson Ben Vihstadt said in explaining the governor's decision. Vihstadt said Sununu also “reauthorized Medicaid Expansion so that 53,000 low-income Granite Staters would have the health care they need and wrote to Congress in support of federal legislation that protects individuals with preexisting conditions.”Sununu's decision drew criticism from two Democrat who are vying to face him in the general election in the fall. They called it "too little too late."State Senate Majority Leader Dan Feltes' campaign manager, Nick Taylor said, "Governor Sununu is trying to have it both ways by covering his political vulnerabilities while keeping his corporate special interests happy. Governor Sununu knows his previous support of 'Trumpcare' and repealing the Affordable Care Act is a problem in this election and is desperately trying to re-write his record. It’s too late."Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky said: "Governor Sununu's reluctant announcement that New Hampshire would participate in Texas v. U.S., in defense of the Affordable Care Act, is too little too late. His decision has everything to do with the fact that this is an election year, and nothing to do with an interest in health care for all."Republican U.S. Senate candidate and former New Hampshire House Speaker Bill O'Brien issued a statement opposing the decision by Sununu to have the state join in the defense of the ACA:"Every law that has been held unconstitutional had its proponents who thought the law was necessary. If 'necessity' alone could preserve unconstitutional laws, then there would be no need for the Constitution. All that would be required is convincing even a temporary legislative majority that a law -- no matter how destructive of liberty and federalism -- is necessary."Yet, even under the constrained argument of necessity, Obamacare fails. It was built on a foundation of lies. We weren’t able to keep our doctors. Health insurance premiums did not go down. Instead, they have skyrocketed. The punishment for not participating was not a tax. It was a fine."The constitutional challenge to Obamacare could provide America the opportunity to adopt an alternate approach to decades of destructive government intervention in health care. Its success would open a public discussion on how we can encourage free market alternatives that will promote the best health care system in the world, while at the same time protecting those financially prevented from fully participating in that system. We should not lose that opportunity."Many worthy proposals for replacing Obamacare have been presented and discussed over the years. The best of them recognize that in markets where government regulations are light, costs tend to go down and access increases. New Hampshire should not oppose a transition to market solutions under a flawed argument that it is necessary to continue with a failed and unconstitutional federal health care law. That is neither necessary nor desirable."