Two weeks ago, we kind of went out on a limb (the polling evidence was not all that clear when we wrote it) and subtitled our previous column: "Donald Trump, Frontrunner." Since that time, such a statement has gone from being a wild prediction to becoming an equally-wild reality.
Senator Marco Rubio, the Republican presidential candidate from Florida, may be frustrated that his campaign is lacking traction, but there is no excuse for him to say that the president has "no class." His comment is a feeble attempt to get attention because he is lagging behind.
The problem with white privilege is that the concept is painfully easy to refute. I'm referring to white individuals who hear the word "privilege" thrown at them and interpret it as an individual attack rather than as a societal fact.
As part of a pledge to protect the middle class, Hillary Clinton is taking a second look at aspects of the ACA that hurt working men and women. That's good news, and the only responsible position for politicians interested in providing more and better healthcare at lower cost.
Even though the first 50 years of the 20th century were pretty barbaric due to two extremely bloody world wars, I still believe the arc of history bends towards progress and the pace has accelerated in the last 50 years.
When the CEOs of Aetna and Humana announced a few days ago that they had agreed to a deal in which Aetna will pay $37 billion for Louisville-based Humana, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky pointed the finger of blame straight at Obamacare.
Has the court under the leadership of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. lost its ideological marbles and, gasp, turned liberal? That's the billion-dollar question observers of the high tribunal are asking in the wake of the tumultuous October 2014 term.
If Obamacare is here to stay, funding for it must be addressed. The Obama administration can't use gimmicks like a tanning tax to distract from who is really going to pay for this law: policyholders who will see the cost of their insurance skyrocket.
Healthcare as a right has been debated over many years, but is still not in place for all Americans as this country remains an outlier among advanced industrial countries around the world.
It's tempting, this summery week, to sit and savor the sweet victory that was handed us by the Supreme Court in late June with the King v. Burwell decision. The court's ruling protected the health care subsidies that allow 6.4 million people to afford their health insurance.
Among the losers -- in addition to the people enrolled in the insurers' health plans -- will be many of the employees of the acquired companies, and taxpayers in the cities that come out on the short end of the stick when the combined companies decide where the corporate headquarters will be.
The two decisions, taken together, tell us that the Clean Power Plan's prospects are, in fact, pretty good. Here are three reasons why.
It's clear that health care in the U.S. remains in a state of crisis. Millions of people still don't have health insurance, and pressures remain great to repeal reforms that have extended even bare-bones insurance benefits to the uninsured and underserved.
The tragedy of Obama's mother is symbolic of millions of ordinary Americans facing pain and suffering - unable to take their sick or even dying children to a doctor; or to have their infected tooth treated.
What July will bring is anyone's guess, in other words. Obama wound up down for the month when the monthly averages were calculated, but they could very easily go right back up again in July.
Despite all of the talk about how Roberts saved Obamacare, he actually helped kill a part of it, concluding that the law's expansion of Medicaid was unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution's Spending Clause. Although the Court allowed the expansion to go forward so long as states would not lose existing Medicaid funds if they chose not to expand Medicaid