At least four states — Utah, Idaho, Montana and now Nebraska — will have November ballot initiatives letting voters decide whether to join the 34 other states that have expanded Medicaid.
Voters took the time to see through the empty promises of single-payer health care. Other Americans should join them in asking the tough questions. Support for single payer plummets when thoughtful voters learn the facts.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) encouraged states to let insurers sell individual plans without surcharges off the exchange to help Americans who do not qualify for subsidized health plans.
In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate functions as a tax, which means that Scott approved a new health tax despite pledging no new taxes. How should Vermonters make sense of this discrepancy?
Representatives of health care sharing ministries met with Vermont’s individual insurance mandate working group to request an exemption like the one they have under the Affordable Care Act.
Vermont authorities and lawmakers (from both parties) are using sticks such as Act 131, AHP emergency rules and the newly enacted individual mandate to prevent us from escaping the state’s failing insurance exchange in search of carrots elsewhere.
We found that premium increases for Obamacare policies were attributable to a maze of new federal insurance mandates, combined with a flawed subsidy design. That unhappy concoction produced disproportionately older and less healthy insurance pools, requiring insurers to price policies higher.
Don’t we have the right to make our own life decisions? Montpelier says no. Our political class finds the clarion call of collective responsibility more seductive than personal liberty.
In February, Texas and several other states filed a lawsuit alleging that, by reducing the Obamacare tax to zero, Congress eliminated the only basis on which the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare. A sine qua non of a tax is that it generates revenue, Texas argued, and Obamacare will no longer do so.
The premium effects of individual mandate repeal and new rules governing short-term insurance are smaller and more varied than the CAP study suggests. Some people will see premiums somewhat higher than they otherwise would be, but others will pay less for insurance.
Who are the healthy? Primarily our young people. And why must they be forced, on pain of penalties, to buy what for them is seriously overpriced health insurance? Because our state government doesn’t want to have to raise tax dollars to subsidize the far higher premiums of older and sicker people.