Reed O'Connor is the go-to judge if you want to get a ruling against Obamacare. O'Connor hates Obamacare. As near as I can tell, he'll rule against it no matter what's at stake or what the legal justification is. So guess what?
A federal judge in Texas said Thursday that some Affordable Care Act mandates cannot be enforced nationwide, including those that require insurers to cover a wide array of preventive care services at no cost to the patient, including some cancer, heart and STD screenings, and smoking cessation programs.
In the new ruling, US District Judge Reed O’Connor struck down the recommendations that have been issued by the US Preventive Services Task Force, which is tasked with determining some of the preventive care treatments that Obamacare requires to be covered.
The reason for the ruling was—
Oh, it doesn't really matter. The moon was in the wrong phase. The sun rose in the east. Whatever. In this case it was supposedly because the members of the Preventive Services Task Force weren't confirmed by the Senate. You might as well argue that the law didn't specifically exclude Martians and it would make as much sense. It just doesn't matter to this guy.
In any case, it's a fairly minor ruling and there's a good chance it will be stayed on appeal. Eventually it will get to the Supreme Court where we'll get another chance to see if the current court actually gives a damn about the law. I can hardly wait.
Gee, I just don't understand why today's college students are disinclined to give Our Independent Judiciary the respect it so richly deserves. Must be their upbringing or something.
Google paid 99 dollars an hour on the internet. Everything I did was basic Οnline w0rk from comfort at hΟme for 5-7 hours per day that I g0t from this office I f0und over the web and they paid me 100 dollars each hour. For more details
visit this article... https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com
This is a reminder to me why a really expanded national healthcare solution in the US (perhaps called 'Medicare for All') has many obstacles besides the huge political challenge of passing the legislation/funding the bill etc. There are so many issues in the US such as, abortion, birth control, end of life care, the intersection of religion and medicine, trans rights, vax/anti vax, undocumented coverage, etc that are not settled.
Unless one imagines a very different US legal environment, then many elements of 'national' healthcare will really be up to the courts, perhaps your state etc. Medicare for All, while a step forward, does not really solve the availability of all forms of health care, everywhere in the US.
I can not argue that many of the issues cited would remain issues if Sanders' "Medicare for All" bill passed. That the same BS fights will happen either way isn't really an argument against Sanders' bill. The BS attacks are less likely to succeed against a Federal law that requires no explicit payments by employers to insurance companies. I think the courts have dealt before with claims that someone's taxes were being used for purposes contrary to their religion. And I believe the courts usually told the plaintiffs they had no standing and to go pound salt. This whole business about "Thou shalt not kill" apparently doesn't apply to carpet bombing or nuclear weapons, so maybe it doesn't apply to government provided insurance. (Of course with this damn Supreme Court anything is possible.)
I'd like to emphasize two things:
1. Sanders' plan is not a government take over of healthcare in the US. It is a takeover of the rotten, corrupt, and ridiculously expensive private health insurance system.
2. The worst case cost to the Federal government of Sander's plan is about $0 and it could save them a couple of hundred billion a year. Tax rates don't need to go up at all. Companies and individuals will see their taxes go up, but only because the large amounts of tax exempt health insurance expenses have gone down by a much larger amount. Everyone comes out ahead except for the people who own and run the insurance companies.
Dear middleoftheroaddem: That is something I had not thought of...thanks...there is as you note, much more to think about in these regards. Best Wishes
The judge accepted the assertion that they should have been covered by the Appointment Clause in the US Constitution, requiring the advice and consent of the Senate.
That's all he had to say on the matter. Zero analysis of the validity of the claim through historical law. Members of the USPSTF are covered by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, so, it seems like a weak decision.
Even if likely to be rejected by SCOTUS, I would not take it so lightly. The ramifications are vastly larger, taking down much of the administrative state, so to speak -- if you think USPSTF is covered by Appointment Clause, then, FACA is also unconstitutional, and therefore all such administrative bodies are nullified.
Of course, as we have seen in the past, Alito is always willing to make a specious assertion of a narrow ruling creating new exceptions out of whole cloth. It is death by a thousand cuts.