The Senate’s 52 Republicans have multiple options open to keep the Obamacare repeal process alive after September 30. The only question is whether they have the political will to do so.
Some people apparently think Americans won’t mind giving up their current health plan, and won’t even notice people like Elizabeth Warren promising one thing and doing another.
The non-partisan budget office found that at every income level, seniors received more in Medicare benefits than they paid in Medicare taxes.
Insurance commissioners’ ignorance that the unconstitutional cost-sharing payments could disappear closely mimics banks’ assumptions leading up to the subprime mortgage disaster.
The governors’ plan would not only not repeal Obamacare, it would further entrench the law by giving tens of billions of new taxpayer funds to wealthy insurance companies.
In her claims this week that the Trump administration ‘has consistently tried to undermine the law that is the law of the land,’ Kathleen Sebelius knows of which she speaks.
President Trump is treating Obamacare’s cost-sharing payments—and thus the Constitution—as his personal plaything, which he can obey or disregard on his whim.
Here’s a simpler, cleaner solution: Preserving the status quo on Medicaid expansion in exchange for full repeal of Obamacare’s insurance regulations at the federal level.
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.
- Why The Supreme Court Should Step Into This California Gun Waiting Period CaseThe Supreme Court has been gun-shy for the past few yeacontinue reading >
- 6 Reasons Your Right-Wing Friend Isn’t Coming To Your Side On Gun ControlThere are several reasons Second Amendment advocates arcontinue reading >
- Here’s The Most Insane Media Reactions To The Allegations Against Sen. Al FrankenAfter a news anchor accused Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesotcontinue reading >