The Supreme Court's recent blessing of Obamacare has precipitated a rush among the nation's biggest health insurers to consolidate into two or three behemoths. The result will be good for their shareholders and executives, but bad for the rest of us -- who will pay through the nose for the health insurance we need.
I didn't move abroad just for access to cheaper medical care. Rather, I did it for the sheer joy and exuberance I get from the overseas experience. I also did it for lifestyle considerations that, indirectly, also improve my health.
The United States is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. Why are we so far behind so many other countries when it comes to meeting the needs of working families and the American middle class?
Uncontrolled inflation of health care costs continues unimpeded as insurers, hospitals, drug companies, and others in the medical-industrial complex embrace expanded and subsidized new markets with minimal oversight.
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.
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?
This past Friday, the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) issued an official bulletin encouraging and guiding states to use Medicaid resources, where appropriate, to help provide the services complementing the affordable housing side of supportive housing.
This year, as Medicare turns 50, it's a good time to look back on its half-century of success in providing access to health care for hundreds of millions of older Americans. It's also a good time to look forward at ways we can strengthen this essential program for generations to come.
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.
It's likely to be years before Google "healthbands" are prescribed to patients or distributed in trials, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them on the wrists of early adopters in the tech industry in California sooner
There will be more lawsuits, but it is looking more and more like health care providers, employers, families and individuals can plan with confidence that the ACA is here to stay.
In my 32 years serving the people of California in Congress, I have never written to Supreme Court Justices. But your ruling in the King v. Burwell case was so momentous and so important for America's families, I felt compelled to write and share my gratitude for this decision.
They handed it to the governor so he could have his way with it and put his pen to paper, signing it into law with one hand and slashing it with his veto pen line item by line item with the other.