Liberals have suddenly discovered the benefits of federalism to ‘resist’ a Trump initiative, even as Republicans want to dictate to states how their insurance markets should function.
Repealing Obamacare’s insurance mandate alone focuses solely on pruning back the fruit of the poisonous tree, rather than attacking that poisonous tree’s roots.
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.
A new study suggests Medicaid provides inferior outcomes in the nation’s largest state, raising more questions about the program that represents the bulk of Obamacare’s coverage expansion.
Four Republican senators have blocked Obamacare repeal. These same senators’ low-income constituents are among those most hurt by Obamacare’s individual mandate tax.
Both President Trump and President Obama took action to prevent dramatic premium spikes due to Obamacare’s insurance mandates. Yet only Trump was accused of ‘sabotage.’
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.
Before you accept the supposed consensus amplified by a compliant media about chaos and disaster, consider whether the White House’s week was really one of failure or success.
With Republicans in charge of Congress and the White House, will they allow a massive Obamacare tax on health insurance plans to hit Americans next year?
Democrats are holding up an arguably too-generous health welfare bill literally to shield the wealthy and insurance companies. Republicans have responded by…negotiating with them.
While one could presume Tim Kaine is intentionally deceiving the public to cover up his sweet deal, he could be instead genuinely ignorant of how health insurance works.
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.
What is unique about health care is not fee-for-service, but third-party payment. Only in health care is someone else picking up the tab for our spending.
Insurance commissioners’ ignorance that the unconstitutional cost-sharing payments could disappear closely mimics banks’ assumptions leading up to the subprime mortgage disaster.
The health insurance market has not been truly free since 1945, when Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
We can’t meet every health need because every single person in this world is deteriorating. Someone must make decision about when health care is worthwhile and when it is not.
- 8 Worst Defenses Of FBI Agent’s Anti-Trump ‘Insurance Policy’ TextsHow do the media handle dramatic updates that counter tcontinue reading >
- Can We Be Honest About Women?Here’s a little secret we have to say out loud: Womencontinue reading >
- Trump Admin To Remove Climate Change From List Of National Security ThreatsThe National Security Strategy to be released on Mondaycontinue reading >