DOJ’s action represented the right policy outcome, but in the wrong venue. Congress and not the courts has proper jurisdiction to strike down the structure of the law.
Rather than throwing more taxpayer money at exchanges, Republicans could emphasize new alternatives to Obamacare-compliant plans.
A few short words in a summary of the Heritage plan leave the real possibility that the plan, if enacted as described, could lead to taxpayer funding of abortion coverage.
CBO can only assume cost-sharing payments get made through premium subsidies if it assumes those payments do not get made directly—thus violating the agency’s legal obligation.
If CBO and House Budget are blameless, and everything about this budget change occurred in an above-board manner, they seem to have a funny way of going about proving their innocence.
In a Monday report, CBO changed the rules, and violated the law, to make it easier for Congress to pass an Obamacare bailout.
Like other studies before it, the Urban paper omitted inconvenient truths that have made this year’s premium increases less drastic for consumers than they appear at first blush.
In general, the bill would increase the deficit by $19.1 billion and appropriate more than $60 billion to insurance companies, propping up and entrenching Obamacare rather than repealing it.
The hyperventilation over cost-sharing payments sends the wrong message to financial markets: Insurers can ignore significant risks, so long as their competitors do so as well.
The budget proposal means the Trump administration is now actively working to codify not one but two Obamacare bailouts that a Republican Congress denied to the Obama administration.
House leaders have concocted a plan that would use a budget gimmick that arguably violates the law to bail out Obamacare and provide taxpayer funding to plans that cover abortion.
Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander seems more interested in stuffing the coffers of the insurance industry than in conducting robust oversight of his state’s regulatory debacle.
The incompetence on display over cost-sharing reductions demonstrates the need for increased accountability among state authorities.
With White House officials promising to work to bail out Obamacare, how can tax reform have ‘essentially repealed’ the behemoth law?
When health insurers filed their rates for 2017, not a single state commissioner contemplated that the incoming presidential administration might cancel federal cost-sharing subsidies.
Sen. Lamar Alexander’s article includes several omissions and outright false statements about his bailout legislation. Here are the facts Alexander wouldn’t dare admit about his bill.
Both sets of payments to insurers Susan Collins wants—the cost-sharing reductions and reinsurance—could end up subject to a statutory sequester due to the tax bill.
Federal funding for abortions, higher insurance premiums for Americans, massive bailouts for fat-cat insurance companies—what’s not to love?
Overall, insurers could receive a windfall of $4 to $5 billion from the Alexander-Murray subsidies spigot. That’s plenty more than the ‘specific benefit’ to taxpayers.
- 4 Things The Media Won’t Tell You About The Border CrisisPresident Trump’s policy of separating parents and chcontinue reading >
- Democrats’ Border Separation Bill Would Let Nearly All Parents Who Commit Federal Crimes Get Off Scot-FreeEvery Senate Democrat has signed on to cosponsor a billcontinue reading >
- Democrats Have Zero Tolerance For Illegal Immigration SolutionsWhile family separation is callous, it’s existence docontinue reading >