Who should save the sight of an uninsured South Carolina man who can’t afford eye surgery? That’s the question the Charlotte Observer asks in a story about a 49-year-old Republican who declined to sign up for Obamacare because he “prided himself on paying his own medical bills,” and is now upset that the Affordable Care Act won’t bail him out.
Just days before the deadline to sign up for coverage, the Obama administration announced that the millions of Americans whose health care plans were canceled under the Affordable Care Act are now eligible for catastrophic coverage and will be granted an exemption from any health care-related penalties.
Writing in today's New York Times opinion section, the psychotherapist and Atlantic contributor Lori Gottlieb offers a shocking first-person account of why the Affordable Care Act is in so much political trouble: It's because many Americans are too stupid and too selfish to understand how health insurance works, on the most fundamental level.
If asked to pick between Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act, which would Americans choose? And would it matter to them that they are synonyms for the same fucking thing?
In a 2010 letter [pdf] signed by Paul Ryan and obtained The Nation through a Freedom of Information Act request, the GOP's VP nominee — a major opponent of President Obama's healthcare reform — asked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to use Affordable Care Act dollars to fund a new health center in his district.
Frequent readers of National Review Online's The Corner might have stumbled over this odd foreign word in contributor Michael Walsh's column about Chief Justice John Roberts: Dolchstoss, which Walsh uses to refer to Roberts' ruling that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. Literally translated, Dolchstoss means something like "dagger-thrust," but, like so many other words, this one has a particularly interesting valence. Let's take a look at Kevin Baker's 2006 Harper's article "Stabbed in the back! The past and future of a right-wing myth," shall we?
Almost no one was able to predict that Chief Justice John Roberts would join the Supreme Court's liberal bloc in voting to uphold the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate — which means a lot of the coverage, especially from the right wing, has focused on what caused Roberts to vote the way he did. Because, sure, it could be that he genuinely believed in the law's constitutionality, but isn't it more likely that he did it to please his masters at the Washington Post?
The Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 in favor of the Obama administration on the Affordable Care Act, upholding the constitutionality of the law's individual mandate as a tax. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the court's liberal bloc. "The bottom line," SCOTUSBlog writes, is that "the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read. [...] Chief Justice Roberts' vote saved the ACA." CNN initially, and hilariously, reported incorrectly that the mandate had been struck down, briefly turning Twitter into an entertaining website.