Pete Buttigieg’s ‘Medicare for All Who Want It’ plan would reinstate Obamacare’s individual mandate, but at a much higher price. It would also ultimately lead to the end of private insurance.
The constitutional principle at stake in this suit involves the power of the federal government to force people to purchase qualifying health insurance.
People who obey the law will pay the health coverage for people who by definition have broken the law by coming to, or remaining in, the United States unlawfully. Nice job, California.
CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic’s biography of Chief Justice John Roberts, ‘The Chief,’ is so preoccupied with disagreeing with the man that it doesn’t provide much insight into Roberts’s life and rulings.
Maybe ‘Obamacare’ should be renamed ‘Robertscare’ for the justice who went out of his way to save the individual mandate.
Obamacare is probably the worst piece of legislation in American history, but this judge’s decision was based on a weak legal argument and will almost certainly be overturned.
Obamacare was sold to the American people under false pretenses and upheld by a dishonest Supreme Court ruling. Now it’s coming apart, and it’s about time.
The Trump tweet illustrates a much larger problem facing congressional Republicans: They don’t want to fight—about the wall, or about much of anything, particularly spending.
By defunding the mandate, the Palmer amendment would effectively prohibit this tax increase, to say nothing of the threat of property seizures, from affecting residents of the nation’s capital.
Brett Kavanaugh has by far the strongest, most consistent, most fearless record of constitutional conservatism of any federal court of appeals judge in the country.
The D.C. mandate contains three elements that make it just as bad as, if not worse than, the federal mandate it is intended to replace.
Which is worse: An unelected judge opining on how a mandate to purchase a product could meet constitutional muster, or giving Congress instructions on how to ensure it will? Kavanaugh did both.
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.
Striking down the law through legal fiat would represent judicial activism at its worst—asking unelected judges to do what elected members of Congress took great pains to avoid.
It says much about the leftward shift of the Democratic Party that the government-run ‘public option’ represents the most conservative of all the policy proposals discussed.
The Commonwealth researchers claim Trump administration decisions explain the decline in the number of Americans with health insurance. But the data themselves suggest another theory.
A relatively small provision included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed in December 2017, gives President Trump the ability to achieve what his party has failed to accomplish.
Rather than criticizing Tom Price for his candid comments, Republicans would do better to go back and pass legislation repealing the Obamacare regulations.
Congress still refuses to eat its policy spinach, following the path of least resistance in making easy choices rather than tough ones.
- If CNN Can’t Take Punches, They Shouldn’t Be Throwing ThemCNN bashes conservative media on a daily basis, but whecontinue reading >
- A Touching Story About Alex Trebek And A Recent ‘Jeopardy!’ ContestantYou could tell Priscilla was nervous—she was shaking continue reading >
- Reminder: Elizabeth Warren Is A Known Liar Who Will Lie Again And Again To Get What She WantsWarren has lied about being an American Indian, about scontinue reading >