It is not the case, as Kimmel insists, that the Graham-Cassidy bill would throw 30 million people off their insurance plans. Dishonest histrionics do not advance the cause of responsible health-insurance reform.
Despite his past critiques of a single-payer, ‘Medicare for All’ plan, Bernie Sanders seems to have adopted a completely different tone.
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.
Which states will end up the proverbial winners and losers under the Graham-Cassidy bill? The answer is simple: Nope.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In a single-payer system, government covers basic health care costs for all residents regardless of income, occupation, or health status. Veterans Affairs is such a system.
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.
The health insurance market has not been truly free since 1945, when Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act.
When push comes to shove, few liberals can justify their support for per capita caps on Medicare, but opposition to similar caps in Medicaid.
- NFL Commissioner: Trump’s Criticism Of NFL Players Who Kneel During Pledge Shows ‘Lack Of Respect’According to a recent J.D. Power survey, over a quartercontinue reading >
- The Confederate Statue Controversy Isn’t About Slavery, It’s About Ending AmericaAttacks on Confederate heritage have quickly evolved incontinue reading >
- This Trial Could Remove a Senator: You’ll Believe What CNN Did NextThe ongoing trial of Sen. Bob Menendez involves multi-mcontinue reading >