History raises questions about whether liberals’ outrage over President Trump’s emergency declaration stems from his extralegal actions—or their opposition to his border policies.
Rather than throwing more taxpayer money at exchanges, Republicans could emphasize new alternatives to Obamacare-compliant plans.
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.
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.
For several reasons, the proposed bailout appears to trace back to one individual—Andrew Bremberg, head of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council.
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With White House officials promising to work to bail out Obamacare, how can tax reform have ‘essentially repealed’ the behemoth law?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.
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 1519 Project: How Early Spanish Explorers Took Down A Mass-Murdering Indigenous CultFive hundred years ago, Hernando Cortez and his native continue reading >
- No, America Wasn’t Built On Slavery, But Faith That All Men Are Created EqualBy reframing America’s founding around slavery, the 1continue reading >
- The Political Perils Of Supporting IsraelLong before Donald Trump came around, conservative Jewscontinue reading >