If you have something to say...
Say it on the Huffington Post
If you have something to say...
Say it on the Huffington Post
The Blog
Health care is nothing like cell phones, or any of the other things that "might" come in handy during some future emergency: a bulletproof vest, a car, a ladder, a fire extinguisher, a helicopter, a Hazmat suit, a gas mask, a tank, etc. Truly, about the worst analogy I've ever heard.
The battle over ACA is fundamentally about who we are as a nation. With 50 million of our fellow Americans with no access to affordable health care, government has the responsibility to insure the public's welfare. The Court's decision will signal how far we still have to go.
Paul D. Clement, legal icon of the conservative movement, found himself suggesting a tax hike that violates every fiber in the political body of congressional Republicans as well as the Grover Norquist pledge to never raise taxes in any way or for any reason -- ever.
When the justices breezily ignored the plain language of the Anti-Injunction Act on Monday, it was predictable. The Court wants to decide all of the major issues in American politics, including health care.
Before we are quick to judge, rant, and push the political rhetoric buttons, let us take the time to educate ourselves on all aspects of health care reform. Perhaps some of the provisions of this law are in our favor.
Before I took the time to really study the legislation I called it Obamacare. I encouraged my Democratic Congressman to vote against it, which he did. Now I am calling it health care reform.
As Medicaid and managed care organizations struggle to control costs among high-cost beneficiaries, there is a tremendous opportunity in using supportive housing to control costs and improve outcomes for the most-costly, chronically homeless men and women.
The challenge to the Affordable Care Act not only asks the Supreme Court to enforce the limits on congressional power explicitly listed in our Constitution, it asks for the return of some measure of humility to a Congress that self-interestedly ignored constitutional limits.
While the Supreme Court wrestles with how to untangle the constitutional complexities of the Affordable Care Act, the politics are becoming crystal clear -- and they may ultimately benefit those of us who would like to see affordable, high-quality health care for all Americans.
Leaving the academic world of residency to work in a community health center has made it apparent how complex it is to serve in a climate where money dictates who, what and how you are able to assist.
Every time in recent memory the conservatives on the Supreme Court have stepped in thinking that they could give an advantage to the Republicans, it has instead ended in catastrophe for them.
The health insurance mandate was a compromise that effectively guaranteed the health insurance market in America for years to come by making that market more efficient and guaranteeing it paying customers into the future. Why, then, is the right attacking it?
If you've been listening to the uproar about the Affordable Care Act, then you're probably scared out of your wits from tales of "death panels" and "government takeover." And you'd have good reason to be concerned -- if those allegations were accurate.
When the Justices hear the six hours of argument on the constitutionality of healthcare reform this week, there will no doubt be much talk about "states' rights." But it is important to remember that the one arguing doesn't truly represent "the states" v. the federal government.
In terms of public opinion, then, I think you get less insight from a poll question behind the headline -- "do you approve or disapprove of the health care law that was enacted in 2010?" -- than from specific, immediately understandable parts of the bill.
With a bit of political jujitsu, the president could turn any defeat handed to him by the Supreme Court in the Affordable Care Act case into a victory for a single-payer healthcare system -- Medicare for all. Here's how.
