We're now six years and counting into Barack Obama's presidency, and I have to tell you: That hopey-changey stuff is working out great! Of course, I say that as someone who reads the news and pays attention to the President's accomplishments.
In the words of the Chief Justice Roberts in the majority opinion in the case, "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them." Those words could not be more true.
Right now, too many Americans are working long days for less pay than they deserve. That's partly because we've failed to update overtime regulations for years -- and an exemption meant for highly paid, white collar employees now leaves out workers making as little as $23,660 a year -- no matter how many hours they work.
Being both poor and a woman is not easy. Add to that a constant barrage of attacks on your reproductive health, and you've got a nearly impossible situation. Yet, it's something that millions of American women are forced to endure every minute of every hour of every day.
In King v. Burwell, decided last Thursday, the Supreme Court has once again (no doubt inadvertently) given us a lesson in the philosophy of language. The dispute in the case is over the meaning of the phrase "exchange established by the state." Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, argues that the phrase can and should be read to include an exchange established by the federal government. He explains that "exchange established by the state" is ambiguous because when read in context (as he proceeds to do) it means something different than it does when read in isolation. Justice Scalia retorts that by the logic of such a reading, "everything is ambiguous." That's both right and not right.
The Supreme Court decided last week in favor of the government in the King v. Burwell case. But significant challenges remain to realize the potential of the law's sweeping insurance reforms and expansions.
In his famously febrile ruminations, Hamlet contemplated suicide as perhaps the one and only way to avoid the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...
On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court again upheld the ACA against a challenge, this time to federal subsidies. Was this a good or bad decision? What grade should we give the court, and for that matter congress as well?
Answer: Its own members. For years I have been railing against conservatives for eroding confidence in our judicial system by the constant litany of charging judges with being "activists," "following their own agenda," "legislating from the bench," "thwarting the will of the majority" and being "soft on crime."
This week, in the words of President Obama, our union became "a little more perfect." On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Obamacare, preserving health insurance for at least 8 million people...
This week, in the words of President Obama, our union became "a little more perfect." On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Obamacare, preserving health insurance for at least 8 million people. In dissent, Justice Scalia -- whose opinions increasingly read like he's shouting them from the Court's front porch at passersby -- accused the majority of "jiggery-pokery." The next day, the Court ruled 5-4 to make marriage legal nationwide for same sex couples. As cheers rang out across the country, the president hailed the courage of those who "slowly made an entire country realize that love is love." But amid the celebration there was also sadness, as Rev. Clementa Pinckney was laid to rest in Charleston... Read More.
It has been a bad couple of weeks for regressives (the accurate term for "conservatives"). The 10-day period from June 18 to June 26 has been such a disastrous time for regressives that it may be looked back upon as the time when it became clear that history has passed by the "Conservative Movement" and left it untenable.
One day after the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, an Aspen Ideas Festival Spotlight Health panel of former politicians and administration officials agreed that a lot more work lies ahead -- in terms of further implementation, improving health care quality and especially the politics.
The Supreme Court's decision in the King v. Burwell decision is a victory for the millions of Americans who need financial assistance to afford health insurance coverage.
Access to health care is a right and not a privilege. Now, the Supreme Court stands on the side of the 4.2 million Latino families who won't have to choose between going bankrupt and going to the doctor.
When a person works full-time that worker must be paid enough to live on with a little to spare. And more and more the only people with much "quality of life" in the U.S. are the wealthiest 1% and those who own and run mega-corporations. We must do something now!