When a Texas judge struck down the entire Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, last week, the stunning news caused nationwide anxiety just as many open season periods were winding down.

The ruling went way beyond what even the Trump Administration had envisioned, or what conservative states had sought - an end to the coverage mandate and to the mandatory coverage of pre-existing conditions.

But when it comes to those receiving TRICARE or TRICARE for Life benefits, the ruling won't change their coverage or their costs. Since the ACA's inception, all types of TRICARE have qualified as “minimal essential coverage,” meaning users wouldn't be subject to any fees associated with a lack of coverage - a main sticking point for those against the original legislation. In fact, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act repealed this coverage mandate; starting in 2019, those without coverage no longer will have to pay a penalty on their tax returns.

While TRICARE won't be affected, the judge's ruling would impact the expanded Medicaid program serving millions, penalties for poorly performing hospitals, and other Medicare cost and quality initiatives already underway. Also affected would be the Trump administration's own plans to lower drug prices and protections for pre-existing conditions - an issue that was key to the Democratic take-back of the House of Representatives and some swing-state Senate seats.

However, there was no injunction from the court, so the decision does not block the ACA's operations for now. Officials with the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services have indicated that it will be business as usual, pending legal appeals.

What is next? The ruling could be upheld by the conservative leaning federal appeals court. However, if the case is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, it will be difficult to see how it would win favor given the Texas judge's verdict aims squarely at the 2012 majority ruling of Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote that the law could stand even though Roberts believed that part of it was unconstitutional.

“The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance,” Roberts wrote, saying that the law “would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command.” However, he continued, the government “does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. [The insurance-mandate section of the law] is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”

Many legal scholars of both parties, think the likelihood of this case to hold up before the Supreme Court is nil.