Wyoming Liberty Group
Charlie Katebi spoke to Chuck Gray about the Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell decision to uphold insurance subsidies on the federal exchange and future prospects of repealing Obamacare. June 25, 2015
Progressives constantly frame the debate over healthcare reform as a false choice: should healthcare be financed through insurance companies or the government? Both options leave patients at the mercy of third parties.
Now an alternative known as Direct Primary Care promises to put the patient back in the driver’s seat. The patient pays a flat monthly fee or retainer, and in exchange, physicians provide primary care services. These services include checkups, urgent care, and chronic care management.
If the Supreme Court rules in King v. Burwell that the IRS illegally distributed tax credits on federal insurance exchanges, Republicans could finally have the chance to repeal Obamacare. June 2, 2015
In four weeks, the Supreme Court will rule on King v. Burwell. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs invalidates federal insurance subsidies for the 36 states without a state exchange and frees them from the individual and employer mandate. States that built their own exchanges bound their residents to Obamacare’s mandates, penalties, and restrictions for the long-term. If the Obama Administration offers Wyoming and the other states without a state exchange insurance subsidies in return for building an exchange, they should not take the bait.
When progressives make the case for Medicaid Expansion, without fail they remind their listeners that the federal government has pledged to cover 90 percent of the cost of expansion. But a report from the Foundation for Government Accountability sheds light on just how empty the federal government’s promises really are. On multiple occasions, the federal government has reneged on its commitments to cover the cost of programs it collaborates with states to fund, leaving them with billions of dollars in additional obligations. And while the Obama Administration has continued to market Medicaid Expansion as “free money” to the state legislatures, the White House has proposed changes to Medicaid’s cost-sharing formula that would substantially increase the proportion of the program’s expenses that states will be stuck paying.
Throughout the debate to expand Medicaid during the 2015 Legislative Session, opponents repeatedly claimed that the federal government couldn’t be trusted to keep its promise to cover 90 percent of Medicaid Expansion’s costs. So it should come as no surprise that the Obama Administration has now broached the idea of reneging on its existing financial promises. In a letter to the Deputy Secretary of Medicaid in Florida, the head of the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (or CMS) threatened to withhold funding to a Medicaid pilot program in the Sunshine State unless it expanded Medicaid. If successful, the federal government would have found a way to undermine the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision on Medicaid Expansion and foist a federal program that delivers woefully inferior healthcare onto millions more patients.