Michael F. Cannon 🇮🇪 🇺🇸

Senate intern on my book: "it was a killer price for Prime Day."

The Only Defensible Obamacare Deal Employers and individuals alike must be free to choose better, more affordable health insurance.

Free @RepMTG/@mtgreenee's kids!

I’m doing none of those things, but rather:

E) great goal going to the moon, stop confusing that with arm-flapping and let’s get there

If I say pepperoni and broken glass pizza is unpopular, and you say I’m wrong because pepperoni pizza is popular, that is not a serious argument.

Not for nothing, @Mark_J_Perry, but I think I might be able to explain your "hospitals" line:

www.nationalaffairs.... @NationalAffairs @AEI

The Only Defensible Obamacare Deal Employers and individuals alike must be free to choose better, more affordable health insurance.

All they have to do is marry one Trump policy and one Obama policy:

I’ve got a piece up this morning @NRO explaining the only defensible deal Republicans could strike on extending Obamacare subsidies for the wealthy is one that frees people to choose better, more affordable health insurance.

Nowhere did I or would I say that voters do not want the benefits of a Obamacare.

My only claim was that when you ask voters about all the costs and all the benefits, even Democrats don’t like Obamacare.

That point is such an obvious area of agreement, I wonder what you and I have been arguing about.

I think the disagreement may stem from you conflating “giving sick people health care“ with “Obamacare“ in a way that I do not.

Can you say in whose mouths I am putting words, and what those words are?

The reason you stated is that you want to ignore trade-offs. Yes?

Health Affairs Journal

Laws requiring insurers to subsidize preexisting conditions are not popular: www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/f.... If you can find a poll that presents all tradeoffs and still finds majority support, lemme know.

You criticize inegalitarian preferences, no?

Health Affairs Journal

Most disagree with you about the reasonableness of those tradeoffs. I suspect you may not be aware of all the tradeoffs. www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/f...

And yes. In large part because it would result in less deprivation (read: minimizes the tradeoffs).

Did you see the piece to which I linked?

“at the group level” = denying tradeoffs

“any process” = question-begging

“doesn’t let people die” = nirvana fallacy

“you would be much better off”: thanks

supply-side: true

I confess again, I’m not following.

My plan is not ready for a response? And you’re not asking about it?

That’s quite a phrase, “not true at the group level.”

Your claim that an establishment of religion violates religious freedom is not true at the group level.

Fella could whitewash all sorts of abuses with phrase like that.

Democrats who once counted on the stupidity of the American voter are now banking on the stupidity of Republican lawmakers — all because they won’t acknowledge that Obamacare is an unaffordable failure.

www.washingtontimes....

Answered the former questions previously.

The latter part misstates my criticism.

Yes. By regulation. And?

That is true.

For most in the individual market, Obamacare doubles their premiums. Without it, their premiums would be far less.

?

Please define what you mean by all this stuff and loss ratios.

I apologize because I’m not following what you’re not following.

The proposal I am offering would not take Obamacare away from them.

The proposal I am offering would not take Obamacare away from them.

Obamacare subsidies rise automatically with premiums, so they would pay no more.

Exactly the right amount.

Obamacare charges double for junk coverage.

CBO: without Obamacare, most enrollees could buy "comprehensive major medical” with “lower deductibles or wider provider networks” at premiums “as much as 60% lower” than the lowest-price Obamacare plans.

www.washingtontimes....

To spur Congress to make health insurance affordable, @realDonaldTrump should unilaterally end the illegal exemption from Obamacare that President Obama granted Congress.

www.washingtontimes....