So apparently some jackass orthodontist in Fort Worth is suing in Federal court to have the preventative care provisions of the ACA struck down, because his wife is old, so they don’t need birth control, and he doesn’t want to pay for PrEP or Truvada because he’s a Christian and doesn’t want to subsidize gayness.
Of all the things lately that we’ve seen, this is the one that’s really pissed me off the most I think, because it’s just ridiculously selfish. This asshole is willing to throw out all the colon cancer, heart disease, and other non-lifestyle based preventative screenings and care, simply because he doesn’t like paying a minuscule amount for someone he doesn’t like. Somehow it seems more petty than the rest and stands to have a colossal impact, which pisses me off… YEARS after the ACA was enacted.
Once again, someone loses the plot about what insurance is, at a basic level.
He doesn’t like that some of his insurance premium is going to cover treatment for someone else, a treatment that he does not need himself, (or condone (like that is his role in this) )?
Ok, so don’t participate in insurance! Just pay out of pocket for all of your own medical treatment. Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.
Exactly. I mean, I don’t like paying for people who smoke, but I’m not about to sue the Federal government or the insurance companies to throw that out.
I’d be willing to bet that costs for smokers are FAR, FAR higher than for preventative care for birth control, PrEP, or Truvada. And I’m absolutely sure that paying for PrEP/Truvada now is far cheaper than paying for HIV treatment/AIDS treatment down the road.
It’s against MY religious beliefs for people to try to keep other people from getting the care they need. Maybe I should sue Kelly and the other plaintiffs.
What’s scary about all this is that, according to the article, the lawsuit’s argument is based on a legal principle–the nondelegation doctrine–that may hold up in court, especially because the judge who heard the case, Reed O’Connor, is the same judge who once ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional. It will, of course, eventually wind up in SCOTUS, where Barrett, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, and Gorusch will happily side with the plaintiffs.
The nondelegation doctrine is the principle that Congress can’t delegate its powers to other agencies. According to Cornell Law School,
This prohibition typically involves Congress delegating its powers to administrative agencies or to private organizations.
In J.W. Hampton v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928), the Supreme Court clarified that when Congress does give an agency the ability to regulate, Congress must give the agencies an "intelligible principle” on which to base their regulations. This standard is viewed as quite lenient, and has rarely, if ever, been used to strike down legislation.
But as this SCOTUS has proven, it’s a new ballgame, one where the old rules don’t count.
Blows my mind to see elderly people in particular screaming “Waaaahh, I don’t wanna participate in the same insurance risk pool with these other people!”
Gramps, you do realize that it’s all those young mothers on IUDs and gay swingers trading blowies and other younger people whose “lifestyles” you don’t approve of that are keeping your insurance premiums from going up like 800%, right? Doubtless they aren’t any more enthusiastic about helping fund the medical care that permits you to continue pursuing your nasty-ass sanctimonious hate-group church “lifestyle” than you are about helping fund medical care for them. But as Icarus notes, that’s what insurance is fundamentally about.
Alternatively, Congress could modify the ACA to exclude coverage for orthodontists called Kelley who live in Fort Worth. I mean, I’m not an orthodontist called Kelley who lives in Fort Worth I don’t see why my insurance premiums should pay for orthodontists called Kelley who live in Fort Worth.
I’m never going to watch 95% of the stuff on Netflix. Why should I have to pay so they can produce it?
The suit is bullshit, but it wasn’t put forward because of its legal merits. It just there as a test case to give the SCOTUS the ability to abolish the ACA if they so choose. I think in the next few years we are going to see a lot of these bullshit suits as conservatives around the country try to the courts to fulfill whatever far right fantasy is next on their wish list.
Well, there are REAL Christians (and I guess some flavors of Muslim?) (no idea if you are any type of religious/Christian, no offense meant) who do oppose smoking and drinking. If this suit is upheld, someone from one of those sects should file on that basis. But not a Muslim, a REAL Christian of some sort.
But that’s the thing… eventually WE ALL pay, one way or another. We could pay for some guy to get PrEP, and avoid getting HIV. Or the same insurance plan can pay for his HIV care. Or if not that, then we can pay for him when he goes to the ER/public hospital.
Same thing for a woman who is sexually active. We can pay for birth control, or the insurance can pay for a baby, or we can pay via taxes for that baby at the public hospital.
We can pay for smoking cessation programs, or we can pay for lung cancer, emphysema, etc… one way or another.
It’s ideology-wise, pound-foolish. It’s putting their desire not to “encourage” gay people ahead of the actual cost of paying for HIV. And it’s not like the ACA not paying for it is actually going to change anyone’s behavior. One way or another it’s going to be paid for collectively, so why not do the early intervention that’s the cheapest?
They don’t want any intervention. They want to self righteously let those people die on the streets as an example to all to not be dirty f**s. They see this (including the “I don’t want to pay for them” suit) as a step in that direction.
That’s just it though; they’re going to burn the whole damn thing down just because of the gay aspect. Preventative heart care, physical exams, well-woman exams, colonoscopies, etc…
It’s amazingly short-sighted and evil… even from a purely financial standpoint, never mind the actual ethical and moral aspects.
That was my point. Someone that doesn’t want pay for someone else through insurance shouldn’t be able to opt out of the system and pay their own way because with medical costs in the US they will soon be bankrupted and someone else will have to pay for them. Otherwise known as “I don’t want to pay for your care and I want you to pay for mine.”
)?