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.
With the Supreme Court scheduled to hear oral argument in King v. Burwell next week, those looking for clues as to what the Court will decide later this year when it rules in King need look no further than a very different case.
Health conscious consumers who have proven their value to insurers over the course of twelve months deserve to receive financial reimbursement for their efforts. Even a year's worth of successful compliance by those patients facing on-going conditions such as diabetes would prove beneficial to patient and insurer.
Rudy, let's break down your statement. When you say that "I do not believe that the president loves America," what indication do you have or what criteria are you using? I really want to know.
Given the network of mutuality in which we live, the health of our whole society improves when we uphold the rights for our LGBT brothers and sisters.
The U.S. now spends far less on essential public health services than virtually all industrialized nations -- and it shows.
The ability to access quality health care services for the majority of the black population has been largely due to federal government policies and initiatives designed to address long-standing, systemic barriers to medical care for African Americans.
The ACA is unsustainable because of its inefficiency, increasing bureaucracy, and unaffordable costs to taxpayers as well as patients and families. As all this becomes more clear, we should all ask, what should follow the ACA?
Like many Latinos, this struggle for access to health care is personal for me. As I look at my beautiful two-year-old daughter, I want her to live in a world where she never experiences the judgment and humiliation I faced when making a choice to protect myself and my health.
With no other alternative in place or even proposed, nearly 300,000 Tennesseans remain without health insurance.
Staples' decision will undoubtedly renew arguments that the ACA's employer mandate has led to harmful effects on work. These arguments, like parallel narratives about min. wage laws and paid sick leave ordinances, are largely inaccurate, and advocates of evidence-based, power-balancing policy are absolutely right to debunk them.