For proponents of the Affordable Care Act, today's Supreme Court decision upholding federal subsidies on federally created exchanges is cause to celebrate. Once again, the ACA has survived a potentially fatal challenge. The significance of today's decision, however, also extends into the future.
For the first time since they've polled people on the Affordable Care Act, more Americans like Obamacare than dislike it. And an overwhelming majority of citizens like the tax subsidies. Most feel the law works but could be improved with changes. The change they want is different from what opponents are talking about, however.
Let's not forget that, before the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted in 2009, members of the "Rising American Electorate" (African Americans, Latinos, unmarried women and millennials) were facing a serious healthcare crisis.
The decision is in! The Supreme Court has ruled on the landmark Affordable Care Act case. Now what?
As a result of today's decision in King v. Burwell, 19,000 people in my district, 232,000 people in Illinois and 6.4 million Americans in 34 states across the country can go to bed tonight knowing that they will wake up tomorrow insured and able to take care of their family's medical needs.
Rand Paul may be many things -- a crusader, a protector of privacy and a conservative, but one thing he certainly isn't is informed on the value of and importance of oversight in American healthcare.
When life throws a curveball, like a recent job loss, financial chaos can ensue. Losing one-fourth of your income is pretty significant, so your inability to stay on top of your premium is understandable.
Women need to plan for their long-term care and estate planning needs as if they will, one day, be single.
Traditional Medicare has proven its superiority over any private, market-based alternatives for the last 50 years. It is time to build on this social insurance model as the health care debate continues.
Preventive services like mammograms and birth control are provided without deductibles or co-pays under Obamacare. If the system is dismantled, get ready to pay up or lose these benefits altogether.
It's been a rollercoaster week in the political world, beginning with Hillary Clinton shifting the gears of her campaign by holding her first big rally, which was immediately followed by the man we're going to call "Jeb! Bush!" finally officially announcing his own candidacy.
For weeks there were signs of a potential California budget fight between Governor Jerry Brown and Democratic legislators, with the press spinning it up a bit. The Legislative Analyst Office was estimating billions more in revenue than the Brown administration.
King is the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, now before the US Supreme Court, designed to kill Obamacare. If the Supreme Court rules against it, millions of Americans will lose their health insurance. But not Mr. King.
You might think that we learned the lesson of discredited managed care in the 1990s. The term "managed care" is confusing to many, but really amounts to managed reimbursement rather than managed care, whereby a set prospective annual payment is made by federal/state governments, as in the case of Medicaid managed care (MMC), to cover whatever services patients will receive over the coming year.
Bush's misplaced reputation for moderation is belied by his actual policy record. And few if any analysts have stopped to consider how Bush's specific policy issues line up with Latino support for key policy issues.
Florida's legislators get a $22,000 annual health benefit paid by the state and 165 out of 180 of them accept the benefit. Meanwhile, Florida's poorest and most vulnerable residents aren't being covered by Obamacare today and wait for answers, and insurance coverage.