(Which is a bit of a “Suck it” to the hordes of naysayers who’ve been trying to kill it to replace it with the system we’ve had forever that really wasn’t working all that hot, anyway.)
In a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court shot down a challenge that would have (from the link):
erased subsidies in at least 34 states for individuals and families buying insurance through the federal government’s online marketplace. Such a result would have made coverage unaffordable for millions and created price spirals for those who kept their policies, many experts predicted.
This is the second Supreme Court challenge to the Affordable Care Act in three years. Do the ACA’s opponents have anything else on their minds?
You can read the opinion here. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion.
And thanks, Leftover, for the link.
I met Jill when she was working on this at a Mark Twain House writing course I taught. It was awesome to see her progress, and I’m thrilled with what she did with this. Go, Jill!
And next to no consideration of how concussions affect women?
I wrote this for Connecticut Health Investigative Team, C-HIT. Once again, it looks like the research money goes to the dudes.
A new Kaiser Family Foundation study says that one of the things that is credited with keeping healthcare costs low — higher cost sharing with consumers — is crippling for families struggling to make ends meet.
Which raises the question, what means the “affordable” in “Affordable Care Act?”
You can read the report here. And thanks, Leftover, for the link.
Arguments are ongoing at the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell, the third Obamacare (Affordable Care Act to precise historians) case to reach that august body.
Add to that some 56 attempts to repeal the thing by elected officials who oughta know better. And because they don’t, I will helpfully post this.
A tinge more disquieting is this Wall Street Journal interview with Michael Carvin, one of the lawyers arguing against the Afford Care Act (h/t to Jezebel):
Wednesday’s argument involves “a statute that was written three years ago, not by dead white men but by living white women and minorities,” Mr. Carvin said. “It hasn’t had time to ‘grow’ or ‘evolve,'” he adds, mocking terms liberals have invoked for constitutional doctrines that conservatives deride as unsupported by the 18th century text.
He cites an unlikely inspiration for his fight: Atticus Finch, who in “To Kill a Mockingbird” defends a black man charged with raping a white woman in small-town Alabama’s racist justice system.
Uh…golly. From this living white woman, I can only say: Bite me, Michael Carvin.
At question in the case is whether the IRS can issue tax credits in health exchanges established by the federal government. If you want more discussion in easy-to-understand language, go here. You can follow a live-blog on the proceedings here.
And thanks, Leftover, for the links.
Posted in Guvmint, Health
Tagged Affordable Care Act, Arguments, Atticus Finch, Conservatives, Elected officials, Evolve, Federal government, Grow, IRS, Jezebel, Liberals, Live blog, Michael Carvin, Obamacare, Repeal, Statute, Supreme Court, Tax credits, Wall Street Journal