this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2024

120 points (99.2% liked)

News

21663 readers

6508 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

120

Appeals court finds 'Obamacare' pillar unconstitutional in suit over HIV-prevention drug (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 5 days ago by MicroWave to c/news

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] partial_accumen 75 points 5 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago

I'm glad you confirmed that, but I'd be utterly surprised if it was any other reason.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 2 points 5 days ago

This is the way

[–] halcyoncmdr 41 points 5 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] disguy_ovahea 32 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

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.

[–] CoggyMcFee 26 points 5 days ago (2 children)

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!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 days ago

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.

[–] halcyoncmdr 0 points 5 days ago

Oh I know, and I know the ACA was essentially the Republican plan from the beginning.

I also know there is absolutely jack shit any of us can do to make the Supreme Court not throw shit out just because they want to and find a flimsy justification for it. Congress would have to do their job and hold them accountable, and that's not going to happen.

The only way people will actually demand something real is if this happens and millions lose access to their healthcare, with their new options increasing in price dramatically just like it used to be. If they can even get insured.

The ACA was originally implemented slowly and as such the average person never saw a big difference before and after. The "big" issues were from shit plans that didn't do anything for people anyway but they paid for it thinking they had coverage. We're now post-COVID and there are millions of Americans with long term health issues stemming from that period. I'm sure insurance companies would put that right at the top of their list to disqualify coverage. Denying coverage would not be gradual and will be noticed.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 days ago

I am shocked that the 5th circuit would rule this way. Completely and utterly shocked.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 days ago

This is gonna fun...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

Wouldn't be surprised if this ends up with basically the same ruling as birth control but with a test attached so they don't have to keep ruling on each drug.