If the Supreme Court invalidates premium credits in the federal exchange, the number of uninsured Americans would jump by roughly 8 million. Millions more would face dramatic premium increases; RAND estimates that premiums would jump by 47 percent.
In short, there was a great deal in Justice Kennedy's questions this morning that should give hope to supporters of the ACA. To be sure, opponents of the law might tell a different story.
King v. Burwell opens the door to a much broader impact on ObamaCare than just the matter of subsidies. It would be huge if the Supreme Court determines the Court was wrong in affirming the IRS interpretation.
The challenge to the Affordable Care Act heard before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 4 is supported and bankrolled by a right-wing think tank most widely known for its campaign against environmental regulation, or "eco-socialism."
Removal of the tax credits from the Affordable Care Act means worse health outcomes for health center patients. Those who could have entered the health system at an early and treatable point of a health condition may end up visiting their health center/ER with a much more complicated (and costly) issue. Not only is this a moral argument, it's a basic public health argument.
This lawsuit and most of the rhetoric of those that oppose Obamacare is a blatant disrespect for lower-income Americans. Who are these Americans? They are families, college students in deep debt, people with serious health issues, senior citizens, first-generation Americans, single mothers, YOU.
The ACA creates insurance-market exchanges through which anyone can purchase private health-insurance policies. In an attempt to subvert the law, most states governed by Republicans refused to establish exchanges.
To get back to that level and maybe even surpass it, we need someone in charge at the Federal Reserve who understands that creating conditions that increase the purchasing power of American workers' paychecks is a part of her mandate. From what she's said and done so far, it appears Janet Yellen is exactly that kind of Fed chair.
Like the swallows returning noisily to Capistrano each spring, Congress has returned to D.C. following another midterm election, this time with the Republicans firmly in charge and already imposing their will on the legislative agenda.
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.
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.
Based on the above, together with trends going forward, it is clear that the ACA has failed to remedy the nation's access to care problem.
No dear, I don't know why the guy you're into won't text you back. (I still haven't figured that out for my own purposes.) And, for the love of all that is good and HOLY: I am not -- repeat, NOT -- an honorary girl.
During the last two years of a president's second term pundits begin discussing his "legacy." How will historians judge Barack Obama?