News

35724 readers

2597 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. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

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

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

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. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

121

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

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years 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!

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 years 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@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years 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.