Apparently, A Texas Orthodontist Thinks He Can Sue Insurance Companies... To Avoid Paying For The Coverage He Doesn't Use... Charming.

I won't quote his wholly-specious federal suit, but of course, at the bottom of it. . . is a desire to gut the ACA of 2010 provisions (long upheld as a valid use of Congress's taxing powers) mandating specified items of minimum preventative care at a zero co-pay, for anyone offered health insurance. [To state his premise, in full. . . is to refute it, in spades.]

Look -- we all know he is really aiming to block coverage of birth control and other family planning items, claiming these violate HIS religious beliefs.

[Sheesh -- if he doesn't want to buy insurance at all, he need not buy it -- he can just pay in, to the uninsured risk pool, or fund it all -- out of his own pocket. Or create his own insurance cooperative, among other Luddites.]

But he alone cannot prevent all other Americans from accessing these vital items of preventative care.

His religious beliefs can never be tortured sufficiently to end. . . my freedom to ignore his. . . befuddled, even if genuinely held, beliefs. [What about your -- and my -- beliefs, in effective health care?]

However, as NPR notes, he may have a slightly-better shot (but just a little less than zero probability) post the Dobbs decision. In any event, I might ask:

When in recorded history, as against a commerce clause defense, has an individual been able to order all car-makers to sell him a car without turn-signals and seat-belts, at a reduced from retail price. . . because he hates seat belts and turn signals?

Even more directly. . . when have we ever seen a court of last resort order the removal of seat belts, and turn lights. . . for ALL US auto purchasers. . . on the "say so" of a single Texas. . . moron? Again. . . never. Never gonna' happen.

नमस्ते