makes a wholly specious argument that the sections of the law it connects to the plaintiff’s injuries cannot be separated from the portions of the law that extend Medicaid to more poor Americans, improve the quality of care, cut prescription drug costs for the elderly, explore ways to slow the growth of healthcare costs, increase the supply of doctors and nurses, let young adults stay on their parents’ insurance policies, and make it cheaper for everyone to get preventive health services.
The notion that Obamacare does more harm than good has been central to the Republican argument against the law since the day it went into effect. And there’s no question that some people, like the two individual plaintiffs in, have been forced to pay more for coverage, even as millions of others benefited from the new federal subsidies. That’s because the law sought to rein in “junk” policies that didn’t cover many important forms of care and to spread individuals’ risks and costs more broadly.
only as an exercise of Congress’ power to levy taxes. Removing the tax rendered the mandate unconstitutional, which upends the insurance reforms that are the heart and soul of the law. And if those insurance reforms are off the table, Congress wouldn’t have enacted any of the other provisions of the ACA. Or so the plaintiffs and the Trump administration argue.
opinion There are no words to describe Trump's greed and callousness.
opinion This guy is a monster. Just a monster.
opinion Sounds consistent with their track record of consistently doing the exact wrong thing.
opinion Why would they do that? Doesn't anybody realize that all resources are unlimited?
opinion