A proposal to repeal Obamacare entitlements and replace them with grants to states would reduce premiums for individual coverage by as much as 32 percent, according to an analysis by the Center for Health and Economy.
Advocates of single-payer health care — like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with his “Medicare for All” legislation — suggest Americans would enjoy a health care utopia if only the government took over. But claims of lower costs and better, more efficient care are widely overblown.
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.
Medicare for All would redistribute federal funds away from states that spend more on health care in favor of those that spend comparatively less. Bringing Vermont’s health care expenditure to the national average would cause a 31 percent decrease in federal funding, which would prompt Montpelier to raise taxes.
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.
Not too many years ago, when you went to see your medical provider, you were the focal point. In the ensuing years, that has changed.
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?
CMS said the rule was made to “encourage price transparency.” Administration officials hope the rule will help patients save money and even “encourage them to shop around.”
The Department of Health and Human Services, Labor Department, and Treasury Department released the final rule that allows consumers to buy “short-term, limited duration” health insurance plans that are not subject to the Obamacare requirements.
In a new cost analysis, Charles Blahous, formerly a member of the Medicare board of trustees, concludes that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” bill would cost a breathtaking $32.6 trillion over 10 years.
A comparison of the CAP “sabotage” estimates with preliminary 2019 rate filings in cities in 17 states compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation suggests CAP vastly overestimated the effects of these policy changes on premiums.