None of what you're about to read would be a problem if we had universal health care.
I sat around for about 4 hours Saturday stunned by what appears to a done deal: A judge is about to do away with health cares preventive services, like "cancer screenings, contraception, HIV prevention drugs, vaccines, tobacco cessation treatment, alcohol abuse counseling and domestic violence counseling."Religious and free-market objections to the ACA requirement: This is scary stuff, it could happen, and it's huge:
In Texas, a federal judge seems open to ending the requirement that most Americans must receive preventive services like mammograms free of charge. Based on U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor’s Feb. 25 order, it appears likely he will rule in favor of the plaintiffs
But wait, preventive services aren't free and never have been. People pay $300 to $1000 a month for insurance that pays for those preventive services, so it's not free, and our premiums were never meant to be nothing but corporate PROFIT. So the lawsuit should be tossed just on that point alone.
After Dismantling Public Emergency Health Laws, Disease Prevention is Next: The media seems to have missed the complete destruction of public health laws, setting us up for a massive crisis yet to come. So, preventive care is "unconstitutional?" As jaw dropping and cruel as anything I've ever seen, here's the case in a nutshell for dismantling our health care social safety net:
Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of “preventive-care coverage” required under section 300gg-13 because it is unwanted, unnecessary, and responsible for driving up the cost of available health insurance plans on the open market.
-Plaintiffs Braidwood Management, Kelley Orthodontics, Joel Starnes, Zach Maxwell, and Ashley Maxwell (the “Religious-Objector Plaintiffs”) all object to paying for health insurance plans that cover contraceptives, PrEP drugs, and other preventive-care services for religious reasons.-Plaintiffs Donovan Riddle, Karla Riddle, Joel Miller, and Gregory Scheideman (the “Free Market Plaintiffs”) object to paying for health insurance plans that include contraceptive coverage and other preventive-care coverage that they do not want and do not need.
Ultimately, all Plaintiffs express a desire to purchase on the open market insurance policies that meet their needs and are free from the requirements of the provisions and their resulting mandates.
Judge O’Connor, a Republican-appointed conservative, could issue a preliminary injunction blocking first-dollar coverage of preventive services nationwide, which he did in an earlier ACA lawsuit involving coverage for contraceptives. If he does that, or if he moves directly to a summary decision in favor of the plaintiffs, the Biden administration likely would appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a conservative court that partly upheld O’Connor’s 2018 finding that the ACA is unconstitutional.Even worse?
The plaintiffs’ most effective argument, legal experts said, may be that members of the three agencies that decide which preventive services must be provided at no charge to consumers are not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. That means they are not constitutionally authorized to make binding regulatory decisions, the plaintiffs argue.Finally...
Congress cannot delegate responsibility to executive branch agencies to make binding regulatory decisions without providing clear guidance. At least four Republican-appointed justices have indicated a desire to limit this kind of agency discretion.So good-bye to...
“This case provides a vehicle for the conservative legal movement to cripple the American administrative state.”
Welfare: Health care is the new "plasma flat screen TV" for Republicans: The thing is, health care itself isn't "welfare" or a product that people can exploit. No one sees doctors or stay in hospitals on a whim, because people don't use health care unless they need it. As Wisconsin Assembly leader Robin Vos once said about the cost of giving health care to the poor: