Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObamacare is under attack by Republican judges again. Here's what's at stake.
VoxJudge Reed OConnor, a former Republican Capitol Hill staffer who now sits on a federal district court in Texas, is one of the most notorious names in US health policy circles. Hes best known for a 2018 decision that attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety before OConnor was smacked down 7-2 by the Supreme Court.
So when a new attack on Obamacare arrived in OConnors courtroom, this time on the part of the law requiring health insurers to fully cover certain preventive medical treatments, it appeared inevitable that OConnor would deal yet another blow to the 2010 law. On Wednesday, that blow came. OConnors order in Braidwood Management v. Becerra, effectively neutralizes part but not all of this requirement on insurers.
Yet OConnors Braidwood decision is also more nuanced than his previous work suggested it would be. Though OConnor makes a significant cut at the law, he does not go nearly as far as the conservative plaintiffs in this case urged him to go, conceding that a binding appeals court precedent prevents him from doing so.
The ACA empowers three different entities to determine which forms of preventive medical care must be covered by insurers at no additional cost to patients. OConnor ruled that the members of one of those entities are not constitutionally permitted to wield such authority, but his opinion leaves the other two groups authority intact.
So, for the time being, some preventive care, like vaccines and free contraceptive care, will remain covered by insurers.
At the same time, OConnors decision is likely to lead to needless health complications and preventable deaths. For one, OConnor explicitly says that employers with religious objections may offer health plans that do not cover pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), drugs that are very effective in preventing the transmission of HIV.
So when a new attack on Obamacare arrived in OConnors courtroom, this time on the part of the law requiring health insurers to fully cover certain preventive medical treatments, it appeared inevitable that OConnor would deal yet another blow to the 2010 law. On Wednesday, that blow came. OConnors order in Braidwood Management v. Becerra, effectively neutralizes part but not all of this requirement on insurers.
Yet OConnors Braidwood decision is also more nuanced than his previous work suggested it would be. Though OConnor makes a significant cut at the law, he does not go nearly as far as the conservative plaintiffs in this case urged him to go, conceding that a binding appeals court precedent prevents him from doing so.
The ACA empowers three different entities to determine which forms of preventive medical care must be covered by insurers at no additional cost to patients. OConnor ruled that the members of one of those entities are not constitutionally permitted to wield such authority, but his opinion leaves the other two groups authority intact.
So, for the time being, some preventive care, like vaccines and free contraceptive care, will remain covered by insurers.
At the same time, OConnors decision is likely to lead to needless health complications and preventable deaths. For one, OConnor explicitly says that employers with religious objections may offer health plans that do not cover pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), drugs that are very effective in preventing the transmission of HIV.
Link to tweet
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 707 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Obamacare is under attack by Republican judges again. Here's what's at stake. (Original Post)
In It to Win It
Sep 2022
OP
A single risk pool is a health care system. Multiple risk pools is an investment scheme.
Ron Green
Sep 2022
#3
Eliot Rosewater
(31,106 posts)1. they want us dead...period
Response to In It to Win It (Original post)
Baked Potato This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)3. A single risk pool is a health care system. Multiple risk pools is an investment scheme.
We have enough investment schemes in this country; we need a health care system.
no_hypocrisy
(46,020 posts)4. Couldn't this restriction be challenged on an equal protection argument?
You can contract HIV via blood transfusions, heterosexual sexual activity, shared needles (drug addiction). Their argument that the restriction will curtail homosexuality is spacious and outdated.