Recent Articles

The Affordable Care Act has a perplexing problem: Many uninsured Americans prefer their old ways of getting health care.

For millions, arranging treatment through cash, barter and charity is still better than paying for insurance.

Today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the administration to allow Obamacare subsidies to flow through HealthCare.gov. This is a disappointment for the rule of law and for the states that have fought to keep some of Obamacare’s flawed policies out of their states.

Here’s how the 2016 presidential contenders reacted on Twitter to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a major component of the Obamacare health law.

Now, it’s time for Obamacare opponents and partial critics to move on to the next play. That’s in the political, not the judicial, arena. Elections, and following though on campaign promises, matter.

The law and its regulatory mutations still don’t and won’t work well. More disappointments in what the ACA exchanges produce are ahead, and the reach of the law’s many contradictory and ill-founded ambitions has already reached a high-water mark. Returning our health care system back to a better place will take more time and incremental effort. But it still can and will happen. The old-fashioned way. First by containing the scope and scale of future harm. And then by peeling back the worst parts of this law through legislative and (future) executive branch means, piece by piece.

By one standard no government program can fail, and that’s the standard being applied to ObamaCare by its supporters: If a program exists and delivers benefits, the program is working.

Paul Krugman, Nancy Pelosi and others consistently point to the fact that people are willingly receiving ObamaCare benefits as proof of the program’s value. Mr. Obama himself says: “When you talk to people who actually are enrolled in a new marketplace plan, the vast majority of them like their coverage. The vast majority are satisfied.”

A guest post on The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog has Washington buzzing about a possible outcome of the Supreme Court decision on King v Burwell.

James Blumstein, University professor of constitutional law and health law and policy at Vanderbilt Law School and director of the Vanderbilt Health Policy Center, explains in his article, “Why the procedural posture of King v. Burwell might matter.”

With only three decision days still scheduled for this Supreme Court Term (Thursday, Friday, and Monday), the waiting for the Court’s decision in King v. Burwell will soon be over. Can there still be something new to say or think about at this point? Remarkably, the answer is yes.

The Supreme Court of the United States will soon decide the case of King v. Burwell. The legal question there is simple: Can the president wave his magic wand and rewrite Obamacare to mean whatever he wants it to mean? The correct answer is obviously no. The legal upshot is equally obvious: If King is correctly decided, the president will be barred from doling out Obamacare subsidies in Texas and the dozens of other states that refused to be lured into his eponymous welfare program.

The House voted Tuesday to abolish a cost-cutting board under ObamaCare that has drawn criticism from members of both parties.

Lawmakers voted 244-154 to abolish what is known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The board is tasked with coming up with Medicare cuts if spending rises above a certain threshold, but has been criticized as outsourcing the work of Congress to unelected bureaucrats.

Repeal of the board has split Democrats, 20 of whom cosponsored the repeal bill. Eleven voted with Republicans on Tuesday to kill it.

In the next few days, the Supreme Court will issue a decision in King v. Burwell, the most contentious case of the year. (I’m not counting same-sex marriage because everyone thinks it’s a foregone conclusion.) For those still unfamiliar with what is probably the last existential legal challenge to Obamacare, King asks whether the text of the Affordable Care Act, which provides for subsidies for people who buy health insurance from exchanges “established by the state,” also allows the IRS to give these tax credits to those buying from the federal healthcare.gov.