Constitution’s ‘commerce power’ doesn’t permit Obamacare
Constitutional debate about the new health care law has been about the law’s mandate that individuals buy health insurance. But the constitutional issues also include whether the federal government should be regulating health care at all. The Founders would have said “no.”
How ObamaCare increases Colorado premiums
The Colorado Division of Insurance has published the “Effect of New Federal Requirements on Colorado Health Insurance Premiums.” Here’s a brief look behind the numbers.
Should states oppose ObamaCare’s insurance exchanges?
States establishing Obamacare exchanges are making a one-way, lose-lose bet. If Obamacare persists, exchanges will become bloated administrative nightmares. If Obamacare is defeated, states will have wasted time and energy that should have been directed towards that effort. Obamacare is President Obama’s problem. Don’t make it your state’s, too.
What Republicans can do about ObamaCare
Republicans will have a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives next year. Michael Tanner at Cato outlines what they can, and cannot, do to stop ObamaCare (HR3590).
Lawsuits vs. mandatory insurance could prevail
When 21 states and several private groups initiated lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Obama health care law earlier this year, critics denounced the suits as frivolous political grandstanding. But it is increasingly clear that the plaintiffs have a serious case with a real chance of victory.
More Proof ObamaCare Is a Sop to Industry
“ObamaCare‘s biggest cheerleaders are the insurance and drug industries. … barring repeal and despite the Obama administration’s fatuous rhetoric about standing up to the special interests, ObamaCare will shower those industries with massive subsidies.” – Michael Cannon, Cato Institute
Does ObamaCare Reduce Health Care Spending?
“ObamaCare doesn’t reduce medical costs under even the rosiest of scenarios (that is, projections that take seriously all its creators’ assumptions). What we can be certain of is that this legislation increases the amount of money taxpayers will be forced by law to pay for health insurance to the tune of $420 billion over the next 10 years.”
Questions about the “right” to health care
The alleged “right” to health care lurks behind increasing government involvement in medicine. If there were such a right, asks Stefan Molyneux, “when does a woman in the process of becoming a doctor switch from someone with a right to receive health care to someone with an obligation to provide it?”
A Radically Different Approach to Health Insurance
John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis writes: [B]efore the current era, the most common form of health insurance — other than Blue Cross plans — was indemnity insurance with a fee schedule. A typical benefit consisted of so many dollars a day for each day in the hospital. Since the benefit was […]
Workers, not employers, bear the (full) cost of health benefits
Many workers believe they pay one part of their health insurance premium, and their employer pays the rest. But that’s not how it works. Really, you pay the full cost of your health benefits.
Accountable Care Organizations threaten quality medical care
Beth Haynes writes: The PPACA [HR 3590] is “nudging” doctors out of independent practice and into working as employees of large practice groups or hospitals. This move is occurring because of the bundled payment structure of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) which favors “vertical integration” of doctors, hospitals and health plans. The only problem is that […]
Amendment 63 election results
Find Amendment 63 election results here. See also: Commentary in support of Amendment 63 & refuting the opposition Latest blog posts about Amendment 63
