Health care insurance coverage for most Americans, under Obamacare, is simply “not worth the price,” writes Grace-Marie Turner, of the Galen Institute, in her recent column on the continuing policy fiasco in Forbes online.
Obamacare recently passed the five-year milestone, and etiquette would suggest an anniversary gift is in order for the politicians who passed and implemented the law. The traditional gift for five-year anniversaries is wood, and the more modern gift is silver. In this case, I’d recommend silver pieces – more than 29 but fewer than 31 – in light of the betrayal against American workers this law represents.
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, Managing Editor of Health Care News Sean Parnell speaks with Devon Herrick. Herrick, a senior fellow in health care policy at the National Center for Policy Analysis, discusses the fifth anniversary of Obamacare and what the touted drop in the number of uninsured really means.
The Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell, the case challenging the Obama administration’s decision to award tax credits for health insurance sold through federally established exchanges, could turn on the question of whether a ruling that ends the tax credits on federal exchanges might cause something known as a “death spiral” in health insurance markets.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a report on March 9 projecting Obamacare premium prices to outpace both private insurance premiums and government spending between 2016 and 2018.
The announcement of a new fiscal budget for the U.S. government always sets the stage for struggles between the spenders and those trying to put some limits on the spending. The spenders usually win because politicians—particularly progressive ones—love to tap the national treasury in order to reward their supporters.
There are three paths Congress could take in the wake of a ruling from the Supreme Court that strikes down the Obamacare insurance exchange subsidy system. They amount to a path toward doing nothing, a path toward doing something, and a path toward doing everything.
Tucson, AZ. One of the biggest selling points for the Affordable Care Act (ACA or ObamaCare) was the promise that insurers couldn’t cancel your plan if you get sick. But if the U.S. Supreme Court, in King v. Burwell, holds premium subsidies to be illegal in Exchanges not established by States, the Administration will allow insurers to abrogate their contracts, says the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
David Hogberg, a health policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research, discusses his research from last fall regarding claims that the insurance coverage available under Obamacare is generally of a higher quality than what was available before.
On June 28, 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts announced his vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate provision, siding with the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) liberal cohort to obtain a 5–4 vote in favor of the Obama administration in the now-infamous case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.
In this edition of the Heartland Daily Podcast, Director of Communications Jim Lakely sits down with the Managing Editor of Health Care News Sean Parnell. Parnell and Lakely discuss the Supreme Court case King v. Burwell.
The Obama Administration was apparently shocked when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of King v. Burwell, which challenges insurance subsidies flowing through federal Exchanges. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) clearly states that subsidies flow only through Exchanges established by States.
On Wednesday, March 4, the Supreme Court will hear the King v. Burwell case. It is likely to deliver a death blow to ObamaCare when the decision is announced in a few months. About the only good thing ObamaCare demonstrated is that the federal government should be kept from taking over sectors of the nation’s economy that are working just fine without it.
In this edition of the Heartland Daily Podcast, Research Fellow Sean Parnell sits down with Texas Public Policy Foundation’s John Davidson. Davidson discusses his latest paper, “Medicaid Expansion by Another Name,” which describes the largely unsuccessful efforts of several Republican governors to get even modest reforms of Medicaid in exchange for expanding the program under Obamacare.
For governments everywhere, taxes and regulations are like Lays Potato Chips – no one can eat just one.
In part, of course, because governments’ appetite for taking our money and controlling our lives is insatiable. It’s their nature.
And because government intervention just about always makes things worse.
From its inception, the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—popularly called Obamacare— has been touted as the necessary fix for the nation’s health care system needed prior to its passage. Yes, it’s going to cost nearly $2 trillion over the next decade that the nation doesn’t have. Yes, it’s going to radically transform the entire health care marketplace and lead to significant cost increases for families and taxpayers. But no matter what the costs, the Obama administration told us, Obamacare is necessary because there were roughly 49 million Americans without health insurance in 2010, and something had to be done about it.
State officials in Ohio filed a lawsuit on Monday, Jan. 26 alleging Obamacare tax assessments against government agencies are unconstitutional. Unsurprisingly, the case was covered closely by major media outlets across the nation.