This morning, the Department of Health and Human Services released a rule proposing several changes to Obamacare insurance offerings.
Congressional leaders will need to pare back their aspirations for a comprehensive ‘repeal-and-replace’ bill and enact other elements of their ‘replace’ agenda in subsequent legislation.
With health care already consuming nearly one-fifth of our economy and our national debt approaching $20 trillion, does the solution really lie in incentivizing health care spending?
The government forcibly enrolls seniors—even wealthy ones—in taxpayer-funded Medicare. Trump should eliminate this government absurdity.
It has more spending than Obamacare, repeals Health Savings Accounts, supports government-imposed price controls, and more. This isn’t what we want.
The Patient Freedom Act, introduced by Republican senators Bill Cassidy and Susan Collins, would go further than Obamacare in funding abortion coverage.
Are conservatives willing to forego ‘victories’ from using power in a way that violates critical philosophical principles rooted in a belief in limited government?
The health-care sector seems to believe they have a God-given right to consume at least one-sixth of the economy (and growing).
Apparently Harry Reid forgot to heed Hillary Clinton’s warning about fake news, because the idea that thousands of people die from lack of health insurance is preposterous.
There are many reasons conservatives should not remain fixated on the number of people with health insurance when designing an Obamacare alternative.
The fact that most seniors receive more in benefits than they paid in payroll taxes speaks to the urgent need to right-size our entitlements.
Politico appears to publish Democrat talking points as ‘facts,’ if a recent hit on Tom Price, Donald Trump’s nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services, is any indication.
Tom Price hasn’t articulated his positions on many, if not most, of the important health-care issues the Republican Congress will face next year.
The incoming Trump administration will face a choice: Will it side with taxpayers, and prevent sending Obamacare bailout funds to insurers, or will it side with Donald Trump’s in-laws?
For those following events of the past few years, the Clinton health debate as profiled in ‘The System’ provides interesting echoes between past and present.
Obamacare’s dirty little secret: the hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities, who are on wait lists because they can’t get services.
Donald Trump’s son-in-law holds a controlling interest in a company whose primary business is selling Obamacare policies.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the media has thus far viewed the debate on an Obamacare replacement entirely through one liberal policy frame: How many people have health insurance cards.
Because President Obama used executive overreach to implement so much of Obamacare, Donald Trump can begin dismantling it immediately upon taking office.
Wealthy Obamacare supporters won’t give up a few thousand dollars to enroll on the exchanges they tout. Aren’t liberals the ones who believe in social solidarity and ‘paying your fair share’?
- When President Obama’s National Security Advisor Lied, The Media LaughedIt’s somewhat ironic that this email was disclosed thcontinue reading >
- 16 Fake News Stories Reporters Have Run Since Trump WonJournalists, media types, reporters, you have two choiccontinue reading >
- ‘Silence’ Shows Comfort Is A Brilliant Way To Pressure Someone Out Of His FaithThe film hints that the Japanese authorities learned thcontinue reading >