|
|
Post by onelasttime on Mar 30, 2023 17:03:16 GMT
More proof the right really doesn’t care what happens to everyday Americans…
|
|
|
|
Post by lisae on Mar 30, 2023 17:37:47 GMT
I just read about this on CNBC. In addition to HIV prevention medication, it overturns screenings for colon cancer and requirements to cover mammograms for woman 50-74. It's a real Christian thing to let people die of cancer because they didn't get screenings which cost way less than treatment of advanced disease and end of life care.
The Biden administration will have to waste time appealing this nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 30, 2023 17:57:52 GMT
So many will suffer, but moreso the rural south (red states)... Kill them all off, another great Republican policy, following pro-birth......
ETA: big pharma won't like their loss of income!!
|
|
casii
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,461 
|
Post by casii on Mar 30, 2023 18:43:29 GMT
How very pro life of them. Indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Mar 30, 2023 18:43:29 GMT
Does this affect private insurance? Will insurance companies make this the same across all their insurance products?
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Mar 30, 2023 18:49:07 GMT
No judge should get a lifetime appointment. I don’t know who thought that was a good idea but it wasn’t. IMO
“Notorious judge strikes down ACA’s preventive coverage benefits”
The ACA requires health insurers to provide a series of free preventive care services. A notorious Texas judge just decided to take those benefits away.
March 30, 2023, 11:32 AM PDT
By Steve Benen
For the Affordable Care Act, everything’s coming up roses. As regular readers know, not only have all of the Republican predictions about the failure of “Obamacare” been discredited, but the ACA is clearly effective, popular, affordable, and expanding. What’s more, it’s withstood three U.S. Supreme Court rights, and Republican politicians have generally waved the white flag and abandoned their “repeal and replace” nonsense.
As a New York Times headline summarized yesterday, “Obamacare Keeps Winning.”
At least, the landmark reform law keeps winning everywhere except U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor’s courtroom. USA Today reported this afternoon:
A federal judge in Texas blocked enforcement Thursday of preventative health care mandates included in the Affordable Care Act, setting up the latest legal brawl over Obamacare and threatening to reduce free access to HIV-prevention pills, screenings for cancer and other services.
A Politico report added that O’Connor already sided with the plaintiffs, but he hadn’t said whether his ruling would apply only to the people suing, to everyone in Texas, or nationwide. This morning, in Braidwood Management v. Becerra, the judge issued a “universal” ruling, applying his decision to the entire national marketplace.
Or put another way, the Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to provide a series of free preventive care services — from cancer screenings vaccinations, prenatal services to HIV prevention — to the benefit of tens of millions of Americans. One notorious jurist has decided that those benefits must no longer exist.
Naturally, the anti-health care ruling will be appealed, and there’s no reason to automatically assume that this district court ruling will be upheld.
But in the meantime, it’s worth pausing to appreciate just how indefensible O’Connor’s judicial activism has become.
On the surface, the judge struck down the ACA’s preventive coverage benefits because they were recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and O’Connor said its members hadn’t been subject to the Senate confirmation process. He was also apparently persuaded by the Texans who brought the case, who — I’m not kidding — argued that requiring people to pay for insurance plans that cover STD screenings and HIV prevention drugs would “facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity, and intravenous drug use.”
But let’s not kid ourselves: O’Connor started with the conclusion and worked backwards to arrive at his preferred outcome. I can say that with some confidence because this guy has a well-earned reputation.
Revisiting our coverage from September, it’s probably safe to assume most Americans have never heard of Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas, but he’s infamous for a reason.
The week before Christmas in 2018, for example, a judge agreed to strike down the entirety of the Affordable Care Act, root and branch. Even many conservatives and ACA critics agreed that the ruling was indefensible, and reactions tended to include words and phrases such as “pretty bananas,” “embarrassingly bad,” and “absurd.”
It was O’Connor, of course, who issued the ruling. The New York Times noted soon after that Republicans had a habit of bringing their cases to this specific district court because of their confidence that O’Connor would give them everything they wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Mar 30, 2023 18:49:41 GMT
Does this affect private insurance? Will insurance companies make this the same across all their insurance products? only in the sense that insurance companies will no longer be required to cover these things. Pre-ACA requirements, some health insurances covered it anyway and some didn't - and some offered different tiers of insurance with different options (higher premiums = more things covered). I suspect that's likely to be the result post-ruling also. |
|
casii
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,461
|
Post by casii on Mar 30, 2023 19:21:35 GMT
Most of us here are women. We've now gone back to having pre-existing conditions due to our female condition with his decision.
Gah, I need to finish up work and go sweat off some frustration.
|
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Mar 30, 2023 20:42:22 GMT
A Bush-appointed judge. “Why should the poor get cancer and heart screenings? Let them eat cake.” Fuck this guy. Luckily it will be appealed.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightnurse on Mar 30, 2023 21:01:09 GMT
Does this affect private insurance? Will insurance companies make this the same across all their insurance products? only in the sense that insurance companies will no longer be required to cover these things. Pre-ACA requirements, some health insurances covered it anyway and some didn't - and some offered different tiers of insurance with different options (higher premiums = more things covered). I suspect that's likely to be the result post-ruling also. So wealthy people will be able to afford health insurance that covers what they need and the rest of us will either be uninsured or pay exorbitant fees for health insurance that doesn’t actually cover our health care needs. I will never forget the patient crying in the office during my training. She was showing signs of a brain tumor and my preceptor ordered an mri. She was insured but the copays were so high she couldn’t afford it. Our health care system sucks and this ruling is likely to make it so so much worse. And if you’re okay with some insurances choosing not to pay for vaccines and cancer screenings, what do you think insurance is designed to do?! |
|
RosieKat
Drama Llama
PeaJect #12
Posts: 5,380
|
Post by RosieKat on Mar 30, 2023 21:12:15 GMT
Does this affect private insurance? Will insurance companies make this the same across all their insurance products? only in the sense that insurance companies will no longer be required to cover these things. Pre-ACA requirements, some health insurances covered it anyway and some didn't - and some offered different tiers of insurance with different options (higher premiums = more things covered). I suspect that's likely to be the result post-ruling also. So - I fully acknowledge that my understanding may be incorrect - what I read said that they were still required to be covered, but no longer at no cost. I also read mammograms were still covered. Granted, even if I'm right, it's kind of nitpicking at the nits' nits... |
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Mar 30, 2023 21:24:09 GMT
only in the sense that insurance companies will no longer be required to cover these things. Pre-ACA requirements, some health insurances covered it anyway and some didn't - and some offered different tiers of insurance with different options (higher premiums = more things covered). I suspect that's likely to be the result post-ruling also. So wealthy people will be able to afford health insurance that covers what they need and the rest of us will either be uninsured or pay exorbitant fees for health insurance that doesn’t actually cover our health care needs. I will never forget the patient crying in the office during my training. She was showing signs of a brain tumor and my preceptor ordered an mri. She was insured but the copays were so high she couldn’t afford it. Our health care system sucks and this ruling is likely to make it so so much worse. And if you’re okay with some insurances choosing not to pay for vaccines and cancer screenings, what do you think insurance is designed to do?! Oh I'm not okay with it and this ruling sucks. katlady asked what the impact on insurance would be and I gave my thoughts. I've been that person who wasn't insured and I've been that person who was but couldn't afford to use it (deductibles and copays). I know I'm fortunate to have excellent insurance now through my dh's employer at a reasonable cost. I wish everyone had the ability to seek necessary medical treatment without worrying about the ability to pay. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 30, 2023 21:52:54 GMT
I wish that health care was recognized as a basic human right in the US. Almost every other developed country does.
The only people to benefit from this ruling will be the insurance companies who have probably spent millions lobbying against the ACA.
|
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Mar 31, 2023 18:07:56 GMT
Not surprised…
|
|
|
|
Post by iamkristinl16 on Mar 31, 2023 19:39:49 GMT
I thought it was bad that DH's colonoscopy ended up being more than $4000 because he had some polyps removed (would have been considered preventive if there had been no polyps). That is off putting to me and makes me not want to get one when it's needed because it could either be free or it could be a lot of money. You just don't know. But now if they may not even be covered at all, I would think even more people will just not get them, leading to more problems down the road. And yes, I do know that what I said about avoiding it because of the cost is not logical in the long run, I could see people doing that because they just can't afford to pay that much for "preventive care."
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Mar 31, 2023 20:23:41 GMT
PBS covered this last night. After the ACA passed, additional preventative procedures were added and required to fully covered. Those are the ones that are being challenged, including the drug to prevent HIV. The conservative organization filed the case on religious grounds that companies should not have to cover HIV drugs. Definitely time to separate employers and health care. Employers should not be able to decide what medical procedures they're willing or unwilling to pay for. The judge decided to strike down the preventative measures because the panel that decided on the extra procedures included medical doctors, not government employees. www.pbs.org/newshour/show/federal-judge-rules-against-key-preventative-care-requirements-of-affordable-care-actYes, so the kinds of preventive services that the ACA requires are very broad. I mean, it's cancer screenings. It's contraception. It screenings for depression and anxiety.
Many of those will actually stay, because what this ruling does is says that any preventive services that were added after 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, are the ones that are thrown out. So those will — the ones that will no longer or could no longer be covered by insurers include PrEP, as you mentioned, medication that prevents HIV, statins that lower cholesterol, and help prevent heart disease, medications that help reduce the risk of breast cancer, lung cancer screening, so a narrower set of services than many people are getting, but still quite significant, and for many people's lives. |
|
|
|
Post by nightnurse on Mar 31, 2023 20:52:01 GMT
PBS covered this last night. After the ACA passed, additional preventative procedures were added and required to fully covered. Those are the ones that are being challenged, including the drug to prevent HIV. The conservative organization filed the case on religious grounds that companies should not have to cover HIV drugs. Definitely time to separate employers and health care. Employers should not be able to decide what medical they're willing or unwilling to pay for. The judge decided to strike down the preventative measures because the panel that decided on the extra procedures included medical doctors, not government employees. www.pbs.org/newshour/show/federal-judge-rules-against-key-preventative-care-requirements-of-affordable-care-actYes, so the kinds of preventive services that the ACA requires are very broad. I mean, it's cancer screenings. It's contraception. It screenings for depression and anxiety.
Many of those will actually stay, because what this ruling does is says that any preventive services that were added after 2010, when the Affordable Care Act passed, are the ones that are thrown out. So those will — the ones that will no longer or could no longer be covered by insurers include PrEP, as you mentioned, medication that prevents HIV, statins that lower cholesterol, and help prevent heart disease, medications that help reduce the risk of breast cancer, lung cancer screening, so a narrower set of services than many people are getting, but still quite significant, and for many people's lives.I absolutely despise that employers decide what health care services their employees are entitled to. I remember a former friend of mine talking about not covering contraceptive services or any prenatal and ob care for the women working in her husband’s dental office because it was too expensive for him and “their husbands should have insurance for that.” 🤮 |
|
|
|
Post by jennifercw on Mar 31, 2023 21:13:34 GMT
Definitely time to separate employers and health care. Employers should not be able to decide what medical they're willing or unwilling to pay for. I agree - for the reason you state and so many more. Like not having to keep a job because you need the insurance. The only way employers should be involved in healthcare is to contribute $ into their employees HSAs as part of a competitive benefits package. (And I think everyone should be eligible for an HSA.) |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Mar 31, 2023 21:31:11 GMT
And this is why I will not vote for any-any-Republicans.
1)Even a decent Republican politician is hostage to that deranged base.
2)They are also hostage to the super religious.
I maintain that if it were up to Republicans, they would make the poor depend upon private institutions and religious institutions-charity, IOW, for healthcare. Maybe I am too cynical. But there is also the fact that they have never come up with a coherent healthcare plan for Americans, even as they were trying to vote the ACA down.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 31, 2023 21:45:19 GMT
And this is why I will not vote for any-any-Republicans. 1)Even a decent Republican politician is hostage to that deranged base. 2)They are also hostage to the super religious. I maintain that if it were up to Republicans, they would make the poor depend upon private institutions and religious institutions-charity, IOW, for healthcare. Maybe I am too cynical. But there is also the fact that they have never come up with a coherent healthcare plan for Americans, even as they were trying to vote the ACA down. Right you are. Trying to remember how many times TFG said he would have a plan in two weeks... |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Mar 31, 2023 22:27:13 GMT
And this is why I will not vote for any-any-Republicans. 1)Even a decent Republican politician is hostage to that deranged base. 2)They are also hostage to the super religious. I maintain that if it were up to Republicans, they would make the poor depend upon private institutions and religious institutions-charity, IOW, for healthcare. Maybe I am too cynical. But there is also the fact that they have never come up with a coherent healthcare plan for Americans, even as they were trying to vote the ACA down. You’re not cynical - that’s exactly what they want. A country where churches are the only social safety net and of course they can turn away those they don’t care to help or make religious services a condition of receiving any help. I wish there was a way to limit the fallout of GOP policy only to those who voted for them. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Mar 31, 2023 23:11:44 GMT
Taking away their ACA health care would be a serious hit. Add in cutting Social Security..
Unfortunately it would affect us too.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Apr 1, 2023 19:48:30 GMT
Pretty good summary of the case, the ruling and background info on the conservative judge who has it in for the ACA and previously tried to strike down the entire ACA. Gift article - no paywall wapo.st/3lY1yhYOpinion This federal judge may be hazardous to your health Reed O’Connor should have to carry a Surgeon General’s warning: This federal judge may be hazardous to your health.
O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, is a federal district judge in Texas, and he has it in for the Affordable Care Act. In 2018, on the flimsiest of rationales, he declared the entire Obama-era statute unconstitutional.
That ruling was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court, on the grounds that Texas didn’t have standing to challenge the law. But O’Connor is back at it, this time going after one of the ACA’s most successful and popular provisions: the requirement that insurers cover preventive services without additional costs, such as requiring co-payments or applying deductibles.
It is common sense — buttressed by numerous studies — that people are more likely to seek preventive care when they don’t have to pay out of pocket for it. This incentive, as Congress found in enacting the Affordable Care Act, isn’t just good for individuals — it’s good for society, helping to head off illness and lower overall health-care costs.
So millions of Americans have relied on this coverage for everything from cancer screening to efforts to head off diabetes and cardiovascular disease. According to a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the American Medical Association, 233 million individuals are enrolled in health plans — employer-sponsored coverage, plans available in the ACA marketplace, Medicare or Medicaid — that are subject to the preventive care rules.
No longer, if O’Connor has his way. On Thursday, following up on a September 2022 ruling, he issued an order prohibiting its enforcement — not just against the plaintiffs in this particular case, but anywhere, anytime. Yes, a single judge in Fort Worth determines whether you have to pay out of pocket for your colorectal cancer screening.
Congress could have specified which preventive services it wanted to see covered. Instead, under the terms of the Affordable Care Act, it sensibly delegated such medical decisions to medical experts, in the form of the Preventive Services Task Force, a volunteer, part-time group appointed by the director of a Health and Human Services agency.
And this move, in O’Connor’s judgment, violated the separation of powers — specifically, the Constitution’s appointments clause, which provides that all “officers of the United States” must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. (He said two other entities, one that advises on vaccines, the other that recommended no-cost contraceptive coverage, didn’t suffer from the same constitutional flaw.)
Assume for the moment that he’s right, though it seems like a stretch. It still wouldn’t justify Thursday’s broad ruling. As the Biden administration argued, O’Connor had a far less drastic alternative available. If, as he found, the constitutional problem with the task force was that its rulings weren’t subject to being second-guessed by the HHS secretary, he could have tossed out that part of the law and let the secretary — a duly constituted “officer of the United States” — approve the task force decisions. Problem, if there was one, solved. The Supreme Court regularly uses this approach to sidestep such constitutional problems.
It won’t surprise you to learn that this dispute has a culture war component. It was brought by Jonathan Mitchell, the lawyer behind the Texas S.B. 8 abortion bill, on behalf of various plaintiffs, including a Christian-run firm, Braidwood Management. Braidwood’s owner challenged the requirement to provide no-cost contraception (O’Connor rejected this argument) and claimed that the requirement to cover pre-exposure prophylaxis drugs to prevent HIV infection “facilitates and encourages homosexual behavior” in violation of his religious convictions. (O’Connor agreed and also upheld the broader challenge under the appointments clause.) Thursday’s ruling addressed the question of what the proper remedy should be.
Liberals loved it and conservatives chafed when Democratic-appointed judges blocked regulations issued by the Trump administration. Now the shoe is on the other foot, the litigation is in different federal courts (goodbye California, hello Texas), and the conundrum remains: Should a single federal judge be able to exercise such sweeping powers, with such far-reaching effects?
As Mitchell noted in his brief, “The issue of universal remedies” — orders that apply beyond the immediate parties to the case — “is one of the most contentious and unresolved issues in modern litigation.” Indeed, but whatever the right answer, it can’t be that a few plaintiffs with a particular beef about coverage provisions, a dozen years after the law was passed, can upend the settled expectations about health-care coverage for millions of Americans.
The Biden administration had warned O’Connor against “a sweeping invalidation of numerous regulations and recommendations that would create extraordinary upheaval in the United States’ public health system.” The judge wasn’t moved, saying that anything short of blocking the rules nationwide “will not cure Plaintiffs’ injuries.” No surprise there — remember, this is the man who previously struck down the entirety of Obamacare.
Maybe O’Connor will get slapped down again by the Supreme Court. Or maybe they will seize the opportunity to do even more mischief. The conservative justices toyed a few years back with the loaded question of whether Congress had delegated too much power to one of the other HHS advisory bodies, a claim that O’Connor rejected in the current lawsuit.
The Affordable Care Act has been good for the health of millions of Americans. It’s less clear — and still to be determined — whether it’s been good for American law. |
|
