Trump Argues in Favor of Maintaining Obamacare's Legacy; Victory may Enhance RFK Jr.'s Political Power
** off the cuff, uncensored, and uncanny review **
President Trump's mixed messages on healthcare
Well, buckle up, folks! Here we go again, with Donald Trump's Justice Department defending the Affordable Care Act (ACA) before the Supreme Court. Talk about a curious turn of events, right? Remember when Trump tried to repeal the darn thing during his first term, and then refused to defend it? That was something else.
But let's get to the point. This current case revolves around the ACA's mandates for covering certain preventive services at no cost. If the feds win, it could give more power to Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to dictate what exactly those requirements are. That's a big deal, especially since Kennedy has been making some eyebrow-raising moves at the HHS, like massive layoffs and plans for a $20 billion "Administration for a Healthy America."
Now, Kennedy has been busy shaking things up at the health agency, questioning established public health recommendations left and right. Brace yourselves, because a win in this case could put him in the hot seat for more direct control over at least one expert panel focused on those policies.
On Monday, the justices will be tackling the legality of the no-cost-sharing coverage mandates, which come from a government committee called the US Preventive Services Task Force. Apparently, these folks are supposed to be immune to political influence, but who knows?
At stake in this little tiff are the health services millions of Americans need to get for free, including cancer screenings, statins for heart disease, PrEP drugs to prevent HIV, and counseling for pregnant and postpartum women at risk of depression. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, says cost sharing was an "enormous barrier" to getting these services.
The case is part of the latest wave of conservative attacks on the ACA, but don't fool yourself – it doesn't threaten to take down the giant health reform law, which has given coverage to tens of millions of Americans. The challengers argue the mandates are unconstitutional because the task force hasn't been confirmed by the Senate, which is a technicality if I've ever seen one.
A ruling in the government's favor would keep those mandates intact for now, but the battle over their creation and enforcement will rage on. HHS secretary Kennedy will have a significant role in that struggle, whether he follows the science or takes a course of his own making. Andrew Pincus, a partner at Mayer Brown who filed an amicus brief supporting the mandates, predicts the Supreme Court will be likely to say "HHS has some authority to oversee the task force and its decisions." CNN has reached out to HHS for comment on the matter.
A long-running war over ACA
This lawsuit was first filed during Trump's first term by some Texas business types who didn't want to offer coverage for certain preventive services, like PrEP meds for HIV, because of their religious and moral objections. They're being represented by Jonathan Mitchell, a well-known conservative lawyer who's been involved in other culturally divisive disputes, like that Supreme Court abortion case and Trump's fight to stay on the ballot in Colorado.
The case in front of the court right now focuses on the Appointments Clause, which deals with the president and Senate's role in confirming officials with substantial government power. Lower courts agreed with the challengers' claims about this clause, but only for one of the three entities that issue the recommendations that become the preventive coverage mandates under Obamacare.
As the Supreme Court considers the taskforce's constitutionality, more legal action will be brewing before U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor about the mandates based on the ACA recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), which provide guidelines on preventive care for women and children.
These proceedings focus on procedural questions, not the taskforce's constitutionality. That said, Kennedy has been particularly skeptical about ACIP, the committee overseeing vaccine recommendations. He has accused the panel, made up of pediatricians, vaccine experts, and other physicians, of being too chummy with vaccine manufacturers. And if Kennedy wants to remove or replace ACIP members, watch out – the fight will get heated real quick.
Controversy over Kennedy's role in healthcare decisions
In the dispute before the justices, the U.S. Solicitor General and the ACA's opponents will wrestle over Kennedy's role in deciding which recommendations of the Preventative Services Task Force become legally binding coverage mandates. The challengers claim Kennedy has little say in the matter, making the task force like a "Principal Officer" that should be appointed and confirmed by the president and Senate.
The administration argues that the taskforce members are "inferior officers" and that the HHS Secretary ultimately calls the shots in deciding which recommendations will have binding legal effects. The Biden administration took a similar stance when it was in power, but given Kennedy's unorthodox stance on vaccines and some health practices, the Supreme Court's decision could have significant implications for preventive health coverage under the ACA. So, cadets, stay tuned for more drama in the world of politics and healthcare!
- In a surprising turn of events, President Trump's Justice Department is defending Obamacare before the Supreme Court, a move that has left many questioning the politics behind it.
- The case revolves around mandates for covering certain preventive services at no cost under Obamacare, and, if the federal government wins, more control could be given to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
- Kennedy has been making controversial moves at the HHS, including plans for a $20 billion "Administration for a Healthy America" and questionable decisions about established public health recommendations.
- On Monday, the Supreme Court will be examining the legality of the no-cost-sharing coverage mandates, which have been instrumental in providing essential health services for millions of Americans, including cancer screenings, PrEP drugs for HIV, and counseling for pregnant women.
- A ruling in favor of the government would keep the mandates intact, but the battle for their creation and enforcement will continue, with the politics of healthcare and general news remaining a hot topic.
