The self-righteous indignation about President Trump ‘sabotaging’ Obamacare is as much about the individual inhabiting the Oval Office as it is about health care policy.

President Trump has yet to enforce the law, or the Constitution, on Obamacare, having undone none of his predecessor’s illegal and extralegal acts.

When push comes to shove, few liberals can justify their support for per capita caps on Medicare, but opposition to similar caps in Medicaid.

The Problem Solvers Caucus proposal amounts to little more than an Obamacare TARP—Turning Against Repeal Promises.

Pundit Tomi Lahren recently revealed she’s still on her parents’ health insurance. Her comments provide a perfect case study against Obamacare’s under-26 mandate, in two respects.

For the president, as for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the cost-sharing reduction payments should be a binary choice: Does a lawful appropriation for the payments exist, or not?

If senators support the scenarios below, then they should vote for the bill. If not, perhaps they should consider another course.

The Senate’s consideration of health-care legislation will soon result in a grueling series of votes dubbed ‘vote-a-rama.’ It will be wild.

Joe Rago, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Wall Street Journal writer who died last week at the too-young age of 34, used his ample talents to rouse readers and policy-makers alike.

Without a clear vision of the final legislation and an agreement from 50 Republican senators to preserve that vision on the Senate floor, proceeding to the bill will result in a policy morass.

As Vince Lombardi might ask, ‘What the h— is going on out here?’

Former Obama official Andy Slavitt made the bold claim that Republicans were changing their health-care bill ‘not just to gut Medicaid, but to allow states to eliminate it.’ False.

Moderates want other senators to respect their states’ decisions on Medicaid expansion, but want to dictate to other senators how those senators’ states should regulate health insurance.

Another health-care bill, another pack of senators holding the nation hostage until they get special treatment.

The Senate minority leader implicitly admitted the Obama administration violated both the U.S. Constitution and federal criminal statutes by spending funds without an appropriation.

Did a Republican president who pledged to repeal Obamacare get elected to office in November—or not?

This past week, frictions caused by federalism helped create the legislative stalemate, but the forces of federalism can also pave the way for a solution.

The overhaul being contemplated in Washington could give states flexibility to modernize Medicaid and provide better care to patients, which could end up saving taxpayers money.

Throwing taxpayer money at skyrocketing premiums won’t solve the problem, and will instead just create another entitlement that health insurers will want to make permanent.

If an outright repeal of the ‘Cadillac tax’ receives more than 60 votes in the Senate the legislation likely would increase the federal deficit in the long term.