Yes, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the King v. Burwell plaintiffs, there will be short-term losers. But what is not true is what President Obama uttered recently—that it would “take coverage away from millions of people; to take care away from people who need it the most; to punish millions with higher costs of care and unravel what’s now been woven into the fabric of America.”
As the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro points out, in a ruling for King, “the decision will ultimately result in cheaper and better insurance, more jobs, higher incomes and constitutionally proper governance.”
Rather than have Americans subjected to government controlled health-care choices, House Republicans have several alternative plans on the table, each of which “would increase choice, reduce cost, introduce competition among insurers, and maintain popular provisions like coverage for preexisting conditions.” Read more from Mr. Shapiro here.
Latest posts by Debbie Young (see all)
- Terminal Stage IV Cancer in our Health Care System? - March 29, 2017
- Reform ObamaCare to Reduce Government Control and Spending - March 28, 2017
- Our Country’s Checks and Balances—Vibrantly Working - March 27, 2017