Supreme Court to hear Obamacare dispute

If Barack Obama's biggest NIGHTMARE would be to see his beloved Obamacare struck down in significant part, he might be facing it very soon.

According to TheHill.com, "the Supreme Court will hear a case determining the fate of free preventive services under the Affordable Care Act."

In a short order issued on Jan. 10, the high court announced that it will "consider whether members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force were constitutionally appointed."

This could have a major impact on Obamacare, as the Affordable Care Act is based on the task force's recommendations about what insurers do or do not have to do for their customers.

Four individuals and two small businesses had a problem with the task force's recommendation of HIV-prevention drug preexposure prophylaxis, so they sued the Biden administration over the makeup of the task force.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the task force members are "principal" officers under the U.S. Constitution, who must be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The Biden administration appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

"The court’s holding jeopardizes healthcare protections that have been in place for 14 years and that millions of Americans currently enjoy," Biden's Justice Department wrote in to the high court.

The challengers, represented by the America First Legal Foundation and attorney Jonathan Mitchell, actually agreed that the case should be heard.

"The respondents disagree with the Solicitor General’s criticisms of the court of appeals’ opinion, as well as her dire predictions of what might happen if the court of appeals’ ruling is allowed to stand," Mitchell wrote. "But none of those disagreements affect the certworthiness of this case. The petition satisfies this Court’s criteria for certiorari and presents an issue of exceptional importance."

Preexposure prophylaxis has been available in America since 2012, and when taken as prescribed, it is said to reduce the risk of contracting HIV by about 99 percent.

Do you think HIV-prevention drugs should be part of mandatory coverage?

Or, do you think the challengers have a good argument to make?