Millions of poor people could still be left without medical insurance under the national health care law if states take an option granted by the Supreme Court and decide not to expand their Medicaid programs, state officials and health policy experts said Friday.
It has been five years since the release of Michael Moore’s documentary “SiCKO,” which portrayed the American health-care system as being in shambles while lauding the systems in Europe and Cuba.
And in the wake of Thursday’s Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare, Moore now believes the United States is on track to catch up with those systems. …
“OK, we’ve got this piece of it,” Moore declared. “Now let’s move forward and get the next piece and the next piece. There’s no going back, though. This — we’re on the path that — of leading toward this universal health care.”
Pollsters have asked Americans hundreds of questions about the Affordable Care Act ACA in recent years. You can boil down all of that data into six charts — and we do just that below. Enjoy!
With the Court expected to announce the health care decision sometime this week – possibly as soon as today – the challenge to the Affordable Care Act continues to dominate the weekend’s coverage.
General coverage of the case comes from NPR, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, and McClatchy Newspapers. Predictions about the Court’s ruling come from Douglas Kmiec at America magazine and Walter Dellinger at Slate. The Wall Street Journal reports on the atmosphere in the nation’s capital, while the Associated Press previews possible reactions to the ruling from the Romney and Obama campaigns. The Washington Post and the New York Times both report on the federal government’s legal strategy in the case (as well as criticism of that strategy), while the Associated Press and Jack Goldsmith (writing for the New Republic) discuss the secrecy that the Court has maintained throughout the proceedings. Stories that focus on Solicitor General Donald Verrilli appear in the Washington Post and the ABA Journal; the New York Times discusses President Obama’s wait for a decision. Finally, Reuters reports on a new poll indicating that most Americans oppose the Affordable Care Act even though they strongly support most of its provisions.
In passing the law two years ago, Democrats entertained little doubt that it was constitutional. The White House held a conference call to tell reporters that any legal challenge, as one Obama aide put it, “will eventually fail and shouldn’t be given too much credence in the press.”
But my reporting leads me to think that the problem, to a large extent, gets to a very specific issue: the decision by the administration not to broadcast the part of the law that will have the most obvious, immediate impact on the working class: the expansion of Medicaid.
Obamacare is under review by the Supreme Court because of its constitutionally suspect provisions, namely the “individual mandate” and the coercive Medicaid provisions. Certainly, the Court would do the country an immense favor by striking down the entire law so the decks were cleared for a sensible, market-based reform plan. But in the event that the Court does not invalidate the entirety of Obamacare, it is important to remember that what might remain on the books is just as problematic as the provisions under legal scrutiny.
The following are just four of the worst features of Obamacare; there are many other aspects of the law that would be damaging. And all of these features could remain threats to the strength of the economy and quality of American health care if the Court upholds the law or severs the unconstitutional provisions from the rest of the legislation. That is why Congress must stand ready to repeal the rest of Obamacare in the event that the Court does not invalidate the entire thing.
One of the themes I tend to harp upon when talking about the pros and cons of development is that, as the great Aaron Wildavsky pointed out long ago, wealthier is healthier.
But a new chart, from an article in the New England Journal of Medicine: The Burden of Disease and the Changing Task of Medicine, gives us an idea of how this happens. The radical reduction in communicable diseases is remarkable.
When the Supreme Court announces next week its ruling in the case challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the greatest suspense will involve not whether or not the individual coverage mandate survives (It’s dead, Jim, as Dr. “Bones” McCoy might advise). The more important question is: What other provisions of the health law, if any, might remain to limp ahead awkwardly?
Most conventional analysis paints three or four basic scenarios, while overlooking a more likely one – amputating the Title I private insurance leg of the Act.
If you think the Supreme Court’s upcoming verdict on Obamacare will be the final word, you’re in for a surprise. Here in Delaware, the Democrats who control the state legislature and governor’s mansion have just floated a bill to mandate single-payer health care in the state. If your state government is controlled by the Democratic Party, brace yourself. It’s clear Democrats have decided that if Obamacare doesn’t survive a federal court test, they’ll battle it out state by state.