When I found myself with a fresh wave of anxiety before the Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday on the latest assault on the law, I decided to list all the times that the survival of what became the Affordable Care Act was up in the air. It turned out that they number eight. So if Obamacare survives this last, desperate challenge, it really will have nine lives.
If we truly live in a democracy, Democratic senators should accept the verdict of the people and let Republicans pass their bills.
Whatever the outcome, the King v. Burwell case has huge implications for the future of the Affordable Care Act. While the hearings start today, a decision won't likely be passed down until June. Here are the three possible outcomes of this case.
5. This argument makes clear how important it is to have the right Justices on the Supreme Court. It's not just for the big-forest constitutional questions but for the in-the-trees statutory questions where a lot of our law is made, and where all of us have a very important stake.
If the Supreme Court invalidates premium credits in the federal exchange, the number of uninsured Americans would jump by roughly 8 million. Millions more would face dramatic premium increases; RAND estimates that premiums would jump by 47 percent.
King v. Burwell opens the door to a much broader impact on ObamaCare than just the matter of subsidies. It would be huge if the Supreme Court determines the Court was wrong in affirming the IRS interpretation.
Removal of the tax credits from the Affordable Care Act means worse health outcomes for health center patients. Those who could have entered the health system at an early and treatable point of a health condition may end up visiting their health center/ER with a much more complicated (and costly) issue. Not only is this a moral argument, it's a basic public health argument.
No matter how many repeal votes or legal runarounds are pursued, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land and it is improving the lives of millions of Americans who now have affordable access to health insurance.
This lawsuit and most of the rhetoric of those that oppose Obamacare is a blatant disrespect for lower-income Americans. Who are these Americans? They are families, college students in deep debt, people with serious health issues, senior citizens, first-generation Americans, single mothers, YOU.
The ACA creates insurance-market exchanges through which anyone can purchase private health-insurance policies. In an attempt to subvert the law, most states governed by Republicans refused to establish exchanges.
Republicans in Congress have been saying for five years now that their top priority is to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. The problem, however, is that they are now scrambling to come up with something (anything!) that would help convince John Roberts to vote against the ACA.
If the Roberts Court chooses to sabotage millions of Americans' access to health care, the consequences will be catastrophic for many everyday people, and possibly fatal to some.
Federal funding levels for the Title X family planning program have not come close to meeting the demonstrated need for family planning care and growing challenges of our provider network. In an environment of fiscal austerity and politically motivated attacks, publicly funded family planning health centers cannot continue to do more with less.
The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell argue that federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (the "ACA") are lawful only in states which have set up their own health care exchanges. This case is now pending before the United States Supreme Court, and the very survival of the ACA could be at stake.
You may not have heard the name Peter Harbage before. But if you are one of the millions of people getting health insurance because of Obamacare or some other government program, it's possible Peter had something to do with it.
An analysis by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Jan. 29, suggests that a significant number of health insurance companies are employing new schemes to discourage high-cost patients with chronic illnesses from enrolling in their plans1.