Health reform critics cite recent developments regarding insurance premium cost increases as proof that their suspicions about the overhaul were on target. But are they right? Don’t be so sure.
Although far from perfect, the health reform law promises a lot of benefits -- to individuals and to the country as a whole. Can Republicans make the case that Americans would be better off without these benefits?
The whole point of the nation's conversation about health reform has been to find ways to spend differently so that the result is a higher quality, more humane health care system.
States don’t have the money to sustain Medicaid expansions during hard economic times, forcing them to make cuts. This is terrible. But to compare Medicaid cutbacks to private insurer rescission is grossly misleading.
A new CBO report highlights the importance of future lawmakers' willingness to go through with cuts called for in the new health care law.
Insurance plans have a history of frequently changing – but not usually for the better. New regulation set under the health law seeks to use change as a trigger to improve coverage.
Controversy erupted this week after the director of the Congressional Budget Office said the new health overhaul law won't significantly reduce government speding on health care and a New York Times story critiqued Dartmouth research on health spending.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, said he was "alarmed" by Berwick's admiration of the NHS. Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and Pat Roberts of Kansas say Berwick advocates the "rationing" of care. Of course, as Berwick pointed out, our system already rations care by income and medical status. Apparently this is not so alarming to McConnell and the rest of the GOP.