If the Supreme Court ultimately takes the case and overturns the pillar, this could have a widespread impact on out-of-pocket health care costs, including costs for the HIV-prevention pill, known as PrEP.
A federal appeals court on Friday found unconstitutional a key component of the Affordable Care Act that grants a health task force the effective authority to require that insurers both cover an array of preventive health interventions and screenings and refrain from imposing out-of-pocket costs for them.
The lawsuit centered on the objections of a coalition of small businesses in Texas to the requirement that they cover a drug for HIV prevention, known as PrEP, in their employee health plans. The appeals court did not, however, overturn the related ACA pillar; the practical, immediate impacts of its ruling apply narrowly to the plaintiffs in this case.
Legal experts expect that the case, Braidwood v. Becerra, will ultimately advance to the Supreme Court, given that it poses crucial questions about the constitutionality of the health task force’s effective authority and that of other federal health bodies. Additionally, the current court has demonstrated interest in cases concerning the delegation of congressional authority to agencies and experts.
The lawsuit centered on the objections of a coalition of small businesses
One business and a few individuals apparently.
From another source:
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor focuses on claims from Braidwood Management, a Christian for-profit corporation owned by Steven Hotze, that its rights were violated by the mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
And that complaint is:
But Hotze, whose company provides health insurance to about 70 employees, argued that offering coverage for PrEP drugs encouraged “homosexual behavior” and violated “his religious beliefs by making him complicit in encouraging those behaviors.”
So some old fashion christian homophobic and even heterosexual shaming is the basis for this law suit.
I’m glad you confirmed that, but I’d be utterly surprised if it was any other reason.
Obamacare was the compromise. Remove it and we’ll just work that much harder to get Medicare for All and join the rest of the developed world with universal access to healthcare and not destroying your financial future.
Do you have any idea how long it took to make any kind of healthcare reform happen when we finally got the ACA? If we just remove it, that’s not going to make everyone “work that much harder to get Medicare for All”, it will set us back arguing over even the things that the ACA got us. Suddenly, denying coverage for pre-existing conditions is back on the table.
And what the hell would Democrats say to the tens of millions of people who lose their health coverage when they vote to repeal the ACA? “Don’t worry, this is going to make things so desperate that we’ll all feel really determined to pass universal healthcare!”
It makes absolutely no sense what you’re saying!
Do you have any idea how long it took to make any kind of healthcare reform happen when we finally got the ACA?
Considering the Dems have had control of the house and senate only 4 of the last 44 years, I’d say it’s been 40 of the last 44 years we’ve gotten nowhere.
Repealing the ACA without replacement would result in the immediate loss of healthcare for 45 million Americans. That’s a wildly irresponsible proposal.
Biden tried applying the same pressure by repealing Title 42 without restricting immigration for almost two years, while pressuring Congress to do their job and pass immigration reform. They failed, and now he has to return to restricting entry due to lack of state housing and federal budget.
Republicans don’t care about people as much as they care about winning.
