On the two critical questions—will it lower insurance premiums, and will it generate a system that works for states?—a textual analysis of Graham-Cassidy yields significant doubts.
Health-care federalism would give states the chance to reduce the cost of health care with market-based reforms. Not all states would take it, but some would.
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.
We could have increased access, improved quality, and decreased costs with better medical licensing, prescription drug regulation, Food and Drug Administration approval, and patent law.
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.
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.
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.
The health insurance market has not been truly free since 1945, when Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
The taxpayer health care bailout for members of Congress is very real, worth about $12,000 per year for each lawmaker, and utterly indefensible legally or politically.
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?
The personal tragedy of the Gard family and their dying baby elicited a spectacle of hypocrisy and grandstanding from Rome to DC.
These people were lied to repeatedly, made to bear the brunt of Obamacare’s costs and broken promises, and now denigrated for daring to point out they have been hurt.
The so-called “skinny repeal” amendment to the Senate health care reform bill died a lonely death last night.
Americans need relief from Obamacare. But Republican fixes have been polling even less popular—because they’ve done a poor job sharing their message.
The story of one North Carolina man’s ordeal with Obamacare shows how the federal health care law hurts average American families by denying care.
- 13 Questions About The Wiretapping Of Paul ManafortThe wiretapping of former Trump campaign chairman Paul continue reading >
- Your Refusal To Date Conservatives Is One Reason We Have Donald TrumpOkCupid will let users indicate their support for abortcontinue reading >
- Trump’s Straight Talk At The United Nations Disturbs Global EliteWhat really irked the international community was that continue reading >