�Թϲ�����

Homeless people, when most of us think of them at all, seem to have no past and no future. It is hard to picture them as children who went to school, played games and, I hope, were loved. It is equally hard to imagine that they age, the way all of us do, and get sick, possibly very sick, just like the rest of us. We even rarely think about how they receive medical care — and yet how and whether we treat these patients, especially at the end of their lives, is a moral measuring stick that is all too often missing in our discussions about health care in America. (Theresa Brown, 2/28)

The White House’s recent 2021 budget released from the Office of Management and Budget includes easing the decades-long Institutions for Mental Disease Exclusion for Medicaid payments. On the surface, this seems a good step. But when it comes to health care, the partisan discourse and absolute convictions by politicians of what is right and what is wrong about providing equitable and just care are simply not an either-or. (Laura Vanpuymbrouck, 3/1)

On Feb. 24, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., released a document outlining how he plans to pay for his agenda, including "Medicare-for-all." He claims his signature health plan will save the country billions of dollars each year. That estimate rests on faulty math and flawed assumptions. Medicare-for-all would cost far more than Sanders admits and force Americans to pay dearly for subpar care. (Sally Pipes, 3/1)

Even many supporters of Medicare for All don’t necessarily know how it would work. The big picture: That doesn’t necessarily mean more information will turn supporters into opponents, but it shows that we’re still at an early stage in this debate, in which opinions about Medicare for All are often reflections of broader political alliances, not the details of a plan. By the numbers: In our January tracking poll. more than half (59%) of Medicare for All supporters didn’t think Medicare for All would require people to give up their employer-based insurance; 34% knew it would. (Drew Altman, 3/2)

Many media outlets and political leaders continue to promote the belief that more than 20 million people will lose health insurance if the Affordable Care Act is struck down. That’s most likely false. At the very least, the loss would not be immediate, as the case would likely be sent back to the district court to establish a reasonable timeframe for the law to come to an end. In the meantime, the exchanges would still be in place, American’s private and employer-provided insurance wouldn’t change, and Congress will have ample time and renewed motivation to look at various plans designed to protect vulnerable communities and promote affordability. The lawsuit puts Democrats in a tough spot. (David Balat, 2/29)

The Supreme Court hears one of its most important oral arguments of the current term on Wednesday, and much more is at stake than policy on the perennially divisive issue — abortion rights — at the heart of the litigation. The court’s integrity itself will be on trial. All Americans, and certainly all nine justices, should favor a ruling consistent with precedent — and the vital principle that constitutional rights do not vary according to which party gets to nominate members of the court. In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that required doctors who perform abortions at outpatient clinics to have “active admitting privileges” at a hospital no more than 30 miles away. (3/1)