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With White House officials promising to work to bail out Obamacare, how can tax reform have ‘essentially repealed’ the behemoth law?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.
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.
Conservatives should reject the premise that Congress must immediately open the federal piggy bank to replenish the unconstitutional subsidies the Trump administration cut off.
The process for handing health insurers billions of taxpayer dollars to backfill a sinking Obamacare rather than replace it is looking a lot like passing Obamacare itself.
Legislative text has not yet been released, but based on press reports, Twitter threads, and a summary circulating on Capitol Hill, here’s what we know might be in the final package.
The significant sums in play would represent the second-largest expansion of federal abortion funding, behind only Obamacare itself.
Press reports suggest the administration is preparing to revoke Obama administration regulations sharply limiting the sale of short-term health insurance plans.
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.
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 Problem Solvers Caucus proposal amounts to little more than an Obamacare TARP—Turning Against Repeal Promises.
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?
- House Intel Committee Democrats Started The False ‘Russia On Facebook’ StoryDemocrats spread a false story, the media picked it up continue reading >
- This Defense Of FBI’s Handling Of The Steele Dossier Is One Of The Weakest YetThe FBI and Department of Justice have fought requests continue reading >
- California’s LGBT Travel Ban Bars Students From NASA Rocket CompetitionStudents belonging to a rocketry club at a California ccontinue reading >