Supreme Court Review of the Affordable Care Act: The Future of Health Care Reform and Practice of Gastroenterology

Many observers claim that business has become a powerful force in medicine and that the future of health care cannot escape that reality, even though some scholars lament it. The U.S. recently experienced the most devastating recession since the Great Depression. As health care costs rise, we face additional pressure to rein in health care spending. We also have important new legislation that could well mark a significant shift in how health care is provided and who has access to care, namely the Affordable Care Act (ACA). These changes underscore the need to bring new thinking to the conversation about health care and to move beyond conceptual and practical obstacles that inhibit our progress. In this paper we do not to claim to have solutions. Rather, our aim is to try to identify some obstacles to fostering a better conversation about the future of health care and to envisioning a better health care system.

Download Full-text

Diverse Stakeholder Perspectives on Rural Health Care Reform in a U.S. State That Rejected the Affordable Care Act: A Case Study

Online Journal of Rural Nursing and Health Care ◽

10.14574/ojrnhc.v18i2.514 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 18 (2) ◽

pp. 65-87 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Molly Vaughan Prengaman ◽

Dorinda L. Welle ◽

Nancy Ridenour ◽

Keith J. Mueller

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Health Care Reform ◽

Rural Health ◽

Affordable Care Act ◽

Rural Health Care ◽

Stakeholder Perspectives ◽

The Affordable Care Act

Download Full-text

Can the Judicial Branch be a Steward in a Polarized Democracy?

Daedalus ◽

10.1162/daed_a_00201 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 142 (2) ◽

pp. 25-35 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Jeffrey Rosen

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Affordable Care Act ◽

Health Care Decision ◽

Approval Ratings ◽

Chief Justice ◽

The Future ◽

The Affordable Care Act ◽

Care Decision

At the beginning of his first term as Chief Justice, John Roberts pledged to try to persuade his colleagues to consider the bipartisan legitimacy of the Court rather than their own ideological agendas. Roberts had mixed success during his first years on the bench, as the Court handed down a series of highprofile decisions by polarized, 5–4 votes. In the health care decision, however, Roberts did precisely what he said he would do, casting a tie-breaking vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act because he thought the bipartisan legitimacy of the Court required it. But the reaction to the health care decision – which Democrats approved and Republicans did not – suggests that Roberts's task of preserving the Court's bipartisan legitimacy is more complicated than he may have imagined, and that his success in the future will depend on the willingness of his colleagues to embrace his vision. Given the Court's declining approval ratings, an increase in partisan attacks on the Court, and a growing perception that the Court decides cases based on politics rather than law, the Chief Justice's vision of the Court as a bipartisan steward is more difficult – and also more urgently needed – than ever.

Download Full-text