The Daily Caller

At its heart, Obamacare is anti-competitive. That’s why we need full repeal.

Despite wife’s preexisting condition, Rep.-elect Joe Walsh to forgo government health care

Eric Holder and Kathleen Sebelius argue that Congress has the authority to curb harmful economic effects with the individual mandate

Eric Cantor, R-VA, signals GOP protection of pre-existing conditions, young-adult insurance access

On health care, the President and Congress have over-promised and under-delivered.

Rep. Paul Ryan: Health-care reform will fail even without Republican repeal

Those surveyed said they were faced with premium increases averaging 20 percent when they last sought to renew their coverage

There are all sorts of provisions in the legislation, starting this September, that promise to make health plans more expensive

Why is America going down this path to social health insurance? It doesn’t help the consumer get better health or health care. It only seems to help big government, big business, big hospitals, big pharma, and unionized physicians. Then again, I may have just answered the question

Now that the bill has passed and the implications are becoming apparent, lawmakers may wish they looked twice at the warning signs. Health insurance premiums are estimated to increase by 13 percent, and several new layers of bureaucratic red tape will show up between you and your doctor

A discerning public would acknowledge that government often causes the vast majority of the societal ills from which it promises us salvation

Today is not the day that saved health care. Rather it’s the day that sent the world’s premier health care system to its grave

Among the many exaggerated claims made in favor of the health care legislation before Congress is the idea that it would improve the public health system’s ability to manage public health crises like HIV and swine flu

Wavering Members be warned: Your constituents can’t twist your arm or make creative threats, but they will be voting in November

The more President Obama talks about health care, the more he reveals his true character and goals. This was evident earlier this week during his tirade at Arcadia University in Pennsylvania, where he used a captive audience of students to complain about how many of them are without health coverage.

It’s time for Republicans to push for health care reform with the same amount of fire and enthusiasm that Democrats have pushed for health care deform.

President Obama and other leading Democrats

have proposed creating a new government

health insurance program as an option for

Americans under the age of 65, within the context

of a new, federally regulated market — typically

described as a “National Health Insurance

Exchange.” Supporters claim that a new government

program could deliver higher-quality

health care at a lower cost than private insurance,

and that competition from a government program

would force private insurers to improve.

A full accounting shows that government

programs cost more and deliver lower-quality

care than private insurance. The central problem

with proposals to create a new government program,

however, is not that government is less

efficient than private insurers, but that government

can hide its inefficiencies and draw consumers

away from private insurance, despite

offering an inferior product.

A health insurance “exchange,” where consumers

choose between private health plans with

artificially high premiums and a government program

with artificially low premiums, would not

increase competition. Instead, it would reduce

competition by driving lower-cost private health

plans out of business. President Obama’s vision of

a health insurance exchange is not a market, but a

prelude to a government takeover of the health

care sector. In the process, millions of Americans

would be ousted from their existing health plans.

If Congress wants to make health care more

efficient and increase competition in health

insurance markets, there are far better options.

Congress should reject proposals to create a

new government health insurance program — not

for the sake of private insurers, who would be

subject to unfair competition, but for the sake of

American patients, who would be subject to

unnecessary morbidity and mortality.President Obama and other leading Democrats

have proposed creating a new government

health insurance program as an option for

Americans under the age of 65, within the context

of a new, federally regulated market — typically

described as a “National Health Insurance

Exchange.” Supporters claim that a new government

program could deliver higher-quality

health care at a lower cost than private insurance,

and that competition from a government program

would force private insurers to improve.

A full accounting shows that government

programs cost more and deliver lower-quality

care than private insurance. The central problem

with proposals to create a new government program,

however, is not that government is less

efficient than private insurers, but that government

can hide its inefficiencies and draw consumers

away from private insurance, despite

offering an inferior product.

A health insurance “exchange,” where consumers

choose between private health plans with

artificially high premiums and a government program

with artificially low premiums, would not

increase competition. Instead, it would reduce

competition by driving lower-cost private health

plans out of business. President Obama’s vision of

a health insurance exchange is not a market, but a

prelude to a government takeover of the health

care sector. In the process, millions of Americans

would be ousted from their existing health plans.

If Congress wants to make health care more

efficient and increase competition in health

insurance markets, there are far better options.

Congress should reject proposals to create a

new government health insurance program — not

for the sake of private insurers, who would be

subject to unfair competition, but for the sake of

American patients, who would be subject to

unnecessary morbidity and mortality.
Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.