How Florida Can Reform Property Taxes To Incentivize Young Families
States need not punish seniors, but tax policies must be structured in such a way so as not to freeze younger generations out of the market.States need not punish seniors, but tax policies must be structured in such a way so as not to freeze younger generations out of the market.The cost-of-living panic sparks a bipartisan rush to bad ideas
Welcome to Sesame Street. The word of the day is “affordability.”
Democrats have treated it as a magic spell ever since their 2024 collapse drove the party’s approval to historic lows. New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and governors-elect Abigail Spanberger of Virginia and Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey ran very different races, yet all credited their wins to a relentless focus on the cost of living. Mamdani in particular used the term like an incantation to bury a record full of extremist statements and friendly nods toward terrorist movements.
Turning ‘affordability’ into a political idol guarantees policies that cannibalize the future.
Democrats also see the “affordability” push as an opportunity to turn Republicans’ most effective weapon against them. Joe Biden’s low approval ratings on the economy dogged him throughout his entire term, and his constant insistence that things were improving did not cut the (suddenly expensive) mustard.
Republican anxiety grows
On his first day back in office, Donald Trump ordered “all executive departments and agencies to deliver emergency price relief.” But Democrats’ stronger-than-expected showing in the 2025 elections has GOP strategists wondering whether that relief is moving too slowly to blunt the message.
Trump, who dominated the 2024 campaign by hammering prices, sounds irritated that his best issue has turned into a liability. He avoids the word “affordability,” though it has begun sneaking into his teleprompter.
“We’re making incredible strides to Make America Affordable Again,” he told the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum. “Democrats had the worst inflation in history. They had the highest prices in history. The country was going to hell. ... We’re bringing prices down.”
A political arms race
Both parties now talk about the cost of living as their top priority, and struggling families need the attention. But a politics built around “affordability” can easily turn into a race to the bottom — an auction of quick fixes that burn next year’s seed corn for a bump in the polls.
Plenty of shortcuts tempt politicians. Mamdani floated the most obvious one: freezing rents across one million rent-stabilized apartments in New York City. If he pulls it off — a big “if” — tenants will enjoy short-term relief. Yet the move will also choke new construction and allow existing homes to deteriorate as landlords lose the revenue needed to maintain them.
Beware of quick fixes
Even Republicans flirt with shortcuts. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) teamed up on a bill capping credit-card interest rates at 10%. Cheaper interest sounds great until you follow the consequences. A hard cap would force lenders to reject more applications, denying low-income Americans the credit they often need to escape poverty or cover emergencies.
Republicans face their own affordability temptation as well. AI data centers, which consume enormous amounts of power, are driving up electric bills faster than increased energy production can offset. Slowing or freezing data-center construction could save households money for a year or two. It would also cripple America’s position in the AI race with China and cost the country trillions of dollars in long-term economic growth.
RELATED:If conservatives will not defend capitalism, who will?
Tariffs under fire
Trump’s tariffs have become a favorite target for Democrats claiming to champion affordability. The administration recently eased tariffs on food imports such as bananas and coffee. But gutting the entire tariff regime — if the Supreme Court allows it to remain in place — would be a profound mistake.
Tariffs have pushed some prices upward, but the Harvard Business School tariff tracker estimates that only 20% of tariff costs reach consumers. Foreign companies and foreign governments absorb the rest.
Meanwhile, tariff revenue strengthens the government’s financial footing, and trillions of dollars in investment continue to flow into new and expanded U.S. manufacturing. Reverting to the failed neoliberal free-trade dogma in the name of “affordability” might give politicians a quick approval boost. It would gut the industrial base, weaken the budget, and destroy the very blue-collar jobs voters were promised.
Our marshmallow test
Blaming the other party for rising prices works because it taps into real pain. But it also encourages the kind of policymaking you would expect from the child in the famous experiment who couldn’t wait 15 minutes for a second marshmallow. He ate the first one instantly and lost the reward.
The cost of living in America (to say nothing of thriving) is far too high. Families need real relief. But turning “affordability” into a political idol guarantees policies that cannibalize the future. Prosperity demands discipline. A country that chases quick fixes will never escape its long-term economic traps.
An Illegal Alien Stole An American’s Identity For 15 Years. NYT Says He’s A Victim Too
Every fact in the story underscores the massive cost and toll of illegal immigration.Is a tariff a tax?
Is a tariff a tax? Many Americans have forgotten that this question, which has been in the news more or less all year, was fundamental to the American Revolution. And among American Patriots, or Whigs, meaning those who supported the colonists’ claims against Parliament, there was almost universal consensus that they were different things, constitutionally speaking.
Throughout the Imperial Crisis of 1763 to 1776, the consensus among the colonists was that Parliament had the right to regulate trade in the British Empire but had no right to tax the colonists. And they recognized that a regulation of trade might take the form of a duty imposed upon, for example, molasses imported from French colonies to favor molasses imported from British colonies.
The founding generation believed in the separation of powers.
In the colonists’ view, the Sugar Act of 1764 was an unconstitutional innovation. The Act was quite explicit, stating at the top that it was passed for the purpose of “applying the produce of such duties, and of the duties to arise by virtue of the said act, towards defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the said colonies and plantations.” It was the first trade act to do that.
Townshend’s overreach
The Stamp Act of 1765, and the reaction to it, made the protest against the 1764 Sugar Act less conspicuous. The result of the actions taken against the Stamp Act was that many in Parliament did not grasp the American argument against the Sugar Act. Hence, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts in 1767, imposing duties on lead, glass, paper, paint, and tea to raise revenue. When the colonists complained, many in Parliament accused the colonists of moving the goalposts.
The charge was not accurate, but it did reflect what they believed. And, like many today, many members of Parliament were unable to grasp the difference between a duty imposed for the purpose of trade regulation and a duty imposed for the purpose of raising revenue.
The most famous criticism of the Townshend Acts, and the most popular writing of the era until Thomas Paine published “Common Sense” in January 1776, was John Dickinson’s “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.” In the second letter, Dickinson made the consensus Patriot argument logically, clearly, and eloquently.
There is another late act of parliament, which appears to me to be unconstitutional, and as destructive to the liberty of these colonies, as that mentioned in my last letter; that is, the act for granting the duties on paper, glass, etc.
The parliament unquestionably possesses a legal authority to regulate the trade of Great Britain, and all her colonies. Such an authority is essential to the relation between a mother country and her colonies; and necessary for the common good of all ...
I have looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from their first settlement to this time; and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till the Stamp Act administration.* All before, are calculated to regulate trade, and preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire. ... The raising of a revenue thereby was never intended. ... Never did the British parliament, till the period above mentioned, think of imposing duties in America for the purpose of raising a revenue. ...
Here we may observe an authority expressly claimed and exerted to impose duties on these colonies; not for the regulation of trade; not for the preservation or promotion of a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire, heretofore the sole objects of parliamentary institutions; but for the single purpose of levying money upon us.
This I call an innovation; and a most dangerous innovation.* It may perhaps be objected, that Great Britain has a right to lay what duties she pleases upon her exports.
That so many people today don’t seem to understand this distinction is a sign that the American bar seems to have gone Tory. The founding generation’s way of thinking about tariffs, and perhaps law in general, is in danger of being rendered foreign to our public policy discussion, perhaps even to constitutional discussion, even among people who mistakenly think of themselves as originalists.
This way of thinking, of course, says little about the current case, as the purpose of the law itself must be understood in light of the thinking of the men who passed it. But it is also true that the way of thinking that Dickinson represented, and which was broadly shared in the founding generation, might have something to say here.
Delegation’s limits
The founding generation believed in the separation of powers. The founders recognized, as “The Federalist” notes, that in practice the powers will inevitably overlap and sometimes clash. But they did operate within a way of legal and constitutional thinking that took it as a given that in order to guard the separation of powers, any delegation of legislative powers to the executive had to be limited and focused.
There is a difference between a reasonable and an unreasonable delegation of powers, just as there is between a tax and a regulation of trade, even if, in both cases, money is raised at customs houses. The kind of delegation the Trump administration is asserting in this case is difficult, perhaps impossible, to reconcile with the practice of separation of powers. Congress has no right to abdicate its obligation to set trade policy via legislation.
RELATED: Read it and weep: Tariffs work, and the numbers prove it
The Trump administration’s assertion that it has the right to set tariffs worldwide, claiming unlimited emergency power based on a law designed to delegate to the president a narrow emergency power, resembles the kind of expansive, arbitrary interpretation that the founders’ legal heroes fought.
In the 1630s, King Charles claimed the right to collect “ship money” throughout England. By tradition, the king had the right to raise money, without Parliament’s consent, in port towns in time of war, or if war was imminent.
King Charles asserted a living constitution interpretation: Given modern circumstances, he claimed a general right to raise taxes if a war emergency was imminent. Dickinson mentioned the case in the first Farmer’s Letters, suggesting there was a connection between the logic of the one argument and the other.
Our difficulty recognizing the limits of the nondelegation doctrine — and our confusion about the difference between a duty imposed to raise revenue and one imposed to regulate trade — shows how much work remains if we want to understand the Constitution as the framers did. That understanding requires grappling with the ideas about human nature, government, and law that justified ratification in the first place and that still anchor our constitutional order.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Big Tech’s AI boom hits voters hard — and Democrats pounce
Wouldn’t it be a bitter irony if Republicans lost the midterms — maybe even in conservative red states — because Democrats outmaneuvered them on the dangers of the AI data-center boom? The left now warns voters about land seizures, rising electric bills, water shortages, and Big Tech’s unchecked power. Meanwhile, Republicans stay quiet as Trump himself champions the very agenda voters increasingly fear.
During the Biden years, Republicans attacked Big Tech censorship, digital surveillance, Agenda 2030 land-grabs, and the artificial online culture reshaping young Americans. Every one of those concerns now intersects with the data-center explosion — energy demands, land use, power monopolies, and the rise of generative AI — but the political right barely whispers about it.
Republicans can channel AI toward focused, beneficial uses and away from a dystopian model that erodes civic life. Voters already want that shift.
Democrats don’t make that mistake. They see a potent electoral weapon.
Georgia hadn’t elected a Democrat statewide since 2006. Yet Democrat Peter Hubbard defeated a Republican incumbent on the Public Service Commission by 26 points by hammering “sweetheart deals” GOP officials granted hyperscale data centers. Voters in the state face repeated rate hikes linked to the massive energy demands of Big Tech facilities.
“The number-one issue was affordability,” Hubbard told Wired. “But a very close second was data centers and the concern around them just sucking up the water, the electricity, the land — and not really paying any taxes.”
He wasn’t exaggerating. In 2022, Georgia’s Republican legislature passed a sales-tax exemption for data centers. In 2024, a bipartisan bill attempted to halt those tax breaks, but Gov. Brian Kemp (R) vetoed it. Voters noticed — and punished the GOP for it.
Georgia now surpasses northern Virginia in hyperscale growth. Atlanta’s data-center inventory rose 222% in two years, with more than 2,150 megawatts of new construction under way. It’s no mystery why Democrats flipped two PSC seats in blowouts.
Republicans lost because they defended crony capitalism that inflated energy bills, devoured land, and fed an AI industry conservatives once warned about. If Kamala Harris had pushed the data-center agenda as aggressively as Trump now does, Republicans would be in open revolt. But Trump’s support silences the conservative grassroots and leaves Democrats free to define the issue.
Virginia tells the same story. Democrat John McAuliff flipped a GOP seat by attacking Big Tech’s land-grab and the rising utility costs tied to data-center expansion. He blasted his opponent for profiting while family farms vanished under the footprint of hyperscale development. He became the first Democrat in 30 years to carry the district.
At the statewide level, Democrat Abigail Spanberger won the governor’s office by arguing that AI data centers must pay their “fair share” of soaring energy costs. She framed the issue as a fight to protect families from Big Tech’s strain on the grid.
New Jersey voters heard similar warnings as they faced a 22% electric rate increase. Democrat Mikie Sherrill defeated Republican Jack Ciattarelli by double digits after blaming part of the spike on hyperscale energy demand. She pledged to declare a state of emergency to halt increases and require data centers to fund grid upgrades.
This pattern repeats in reliably red states.
Indiana saw dozens of new hyperscale proposals, yet not a single Republican official pushed back. Ordinary citizens blocked one of Google’s planned rezonings near Indianapolis. Liberal groups — like Citizens Action Coalition — filled the leadership vacuum and demanded a moratorium on new data centers, calling it a fight against “big tech oligarchs that are calling all the shots at every single level of government.”
RELATED: Stop feeding Big Tech and start feeding Americans again
Republican leaders, meanwhile, worked to ban states from regulating AI at all. This summer they attempted to insert a sweeping prohibition into the budget reconciliation bill that would bar states from regulating data-center siting or AI content for 10 years. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) now seeks to attach the same language to the FY 2026 defense authorization act. President Trump backs the provision.
Instead of ceding the issue to the left, Republicans should correct course. They can channel AI toward focused, beneficial uses and away from a dystopian model that erodes civic life. Voters already want that shift. A new University of Maryland poll found residents believe — by a 2-1 margin — that AI will harm society more than it helps. More than 80% expressed deep concern about declining face-to-face interaction, the erosion of education and critical thinking, and job displacement fueled by AI.
Capital expenditures cannot sustain the current pace of expansion, and public patience with Big Tech’s demands is running out. The political party that recognizes these realities first will earn the credit. Right now, the party that once defended property rights, community values, and human-centered technology is getting lapped by the party that partnered with Big Tech oligarchs to censor Americans during COVID.
Republicans still have time to lead. But they won’t win a fight they refuse to join.
When a ‘too big to fail’ America meets a government too broke to bail it out
I’ve been titanically bearish on America for years. Sorry. I can do math.
The United States owes more than $38 trillion. That alone makes the balance sheet hopeless. The debt is insurmountable.
America’s GDP in 2024 was $29.2 trillion, meaning the debt exceeds 130% of what we produce in a year. If this were a business, every financial adviser would tell you to file Chapter 11 and salvage what you can.
Washington keeps adding another trillion to the tab roughly every 100 days. As the debt climbs, interest payments climb faster. The country now spins in a debt spiral that ends only one way. Game over.
The more the world moves away from the dollar, the more tens of trillions of unwanted dollars come flooding home. You haven’t seen anything like real devaluation yet.
Then comes the $210 trillion in future unfunded liabilities — mostly Social Security and Medicare. Those numbers don’t pencil out in any universe.
Underneath all of it sits a sinking currency. The dollar lost 87% of its value since we abandoned the gold standard in 1971. For decades, the petrodollar arrangement held the world in our system by forcing oil purchases through the U.S. currency. Saudi Arabia let that mandate expire last year. Global energy deals immediately began shifting to other currencies.
The more the world moves away from the dollar, the more tens of trillions of unwanted dollars come flooding home. You haven’t seen anything like real devaluation yet.
To fund our binge, Washington must keep selling treasuries. But foreign buyers are losing interest. Rates rise. The government buys its own debt just to keep markets from buckling. The Cayman Islands now holds $1.85 trillion — the largest single foreign share and rising fast. Treasury officials tried to obscure the numbers. None of it signals stability.
Meanwhile, our economy rests on an absurdly fragile foundation: 70% consumption. Seven out of 10 dollars depend on Americans buying things they can no longer afford. Household debt hit a record $18.6 trillion — nearly two-thirds of GDP. Families now pay down debt instead of fueling growth.
Shrinking consumption means a shrinking economy. Shrinking economy means shrinking tax revenue. Combine that with a weakening dollar and the picture becomes darker still.
Enter artificial intelligence, the accelerant. AI threatens tens of millions of jobs within years, wiping out income and collapsing the consumption model even faster. A government facing falling revenue and exploding obligations cannot pretend to stay solvent.
Some cling to fantasies like universal basic income. With what money? The same government already $210 trillion short on existing promises? Please.
This all points toward an economic crash far larger than 2008. Washington froze that crisis with $29 trillion in bailouts — money it didn’t have then either. We conjured it and shoved it onto the national debt.
That option is gone.
Today the government sits too deep in debt, with a weaker dollar and fewer global buyers. And the next crisis won’t hit one sector. It hits everything:
• Record mortgage debt: $13.1 trillion
• Record credit-card debt: $1.2 trillion
• Collapsing commercial real estate: $4.9 trillion
• Big Tech borrowing hundreds of billions to inflate an AI bubble
OpenAI’s Sam Altman already expects an eventual government bailout for AI’s collapse.
RELATED: When the AI bubble bursts, guess who pays
Total U.S. debt — public and private — hit $102.2 trillion in 2024. Washington cannot rescue a single major sector, let alone all of them. The national debt was $10 trillion during bailout 2008. It’s four times that now. The dollar buys less. Foreign creditors show less patience.
So who steps in next time? Who buys the treasuries? Who absorbs the losses?
No one. Not abroad. Not at home. Nowhere on this planet.
That leaves Washington with only one move: Print tens of trillions in new dollars and hand them to itself — more IOIs (as opposed to IOUs) stacked on a pile already ready to topple.
And that printing wave will obliterate whatever value the dollar still holds.
Think the dollar’s fallen far? You haven’t seen anything yet.
Democrats reject ‘current policy’ — unless it pays their base
Washington’s latest fights make one thing unmistakable: Democrats shift their arguments as needed, but always in service of higher taxes, higher spending, and a bigger federal footprint. When the question earlier this year was whether to keep current tax policy and avoid a massive tax hike, Democrats fought against keeping current policy.
Now, after forcing a government shutdown, they claim they must preserve current — but temporary — Obamacare subsidies. Two opposite stances, one consistent goal: bigger government.
On taxes, ‘current policy’ doesn’t count. On spending, ‘current policy’ functions like holy writ.
Earlier this year, Congress faced a hard deadline. Lawmakers had to choose between extending the 2017 American Job Creation Act tax rates or letting them snap back to pre-2017 levels — a $4 trillion tax increase across income brackets. Republicans pushed to retain the lower rates. Democrats pushed for the tax hike.
Democrats insisted the looming deadline was Republicans’ fault and said the surge in revenue would help slow growth in deficits and debt. Republicans ultimately prevailed and passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Democrats erupted.
We all know what happened next. Less than three months later, Congress approached the September 30 deadline for annual appropriations. With negotiations still incomplete, Republicans advanced a clean, short-term extension to keep the government open. The House passed it. President Trump signaled he would sign it. Senate Democrats filibustered it.
Republicans tried over a dozen times to reopen the government. Senate Democrats blocked them every time — until this week. Their central demand: extend the temporary “emergency” premium subsidies that Democrats expanded during the pandemic. Those subsidies, scheduled to expire, broadened eligibility beyond 400% of the federal poverty line and boosted benefits for those below it. Democrats already extended them once through 2025.
Now, with the pandemic long over — President Biden signed the resolution ending it on April 10, 2023 — Senate Democrats want the emergency expansions made permanent.
The inconsistency could not be clearer.
When expiring tax law meant taxes would rise, Democrats described preventing that increase as a tax cut — even though extending the law simply kept existing policy in place. The fact that the policy had been the law for eight years meant nothing.
But when expiring pandemic-era subsidies would return Obamacare to its original structure, Democrats suddenly insist that current policy must prevail. They now treat temporary emergency expansions — linked explicitly to COVID, extended once already, disproportionately benefiting upper-income households — as untouchable programs that must become permanent.
On taxes, “current policy” doesn’t count. On spending, “current policy” functions like holy writ.
RELATED: Trump officially ends ‘pathetic’ Democrats’ record-breaking shutdown
The reasoning shifts, but the outcome never does: Democrats always land on whatever argument leads to more government. Their broader shutdown demands confirm it — ending Medicaid reforms and restoring spending levels President Trump and Republicans reduced. Every item points in the same direction: more federal dollars out the door.
Democrats note that Republicans, too, support keeping some expiring policies. True. Which makes the underlying purpose even more important to identify.
Republicans fought to maintain 2017 tax levels so Americans could keep more of what they earn — and keep that income out of Washington’s hands. Democrats want permanent expansion of Obamacare subsidies to preserve and grow benefits for people who were never intended to receive them, locking in a larger federal role.
Future fights will come; today’s climate guarantees them. One more thing is just as guaranteed: Democrats’ arguments will continue to change as needed, and their demands for higher taxes, higher spending, and a larger federal government will not.
Fearmongering over Medicare hides the real fix seniors need
Democrats are casting the shutdown showdown as a battle over health care costs, tapping into widespread anxiety over the cost of health care, especially among those enrolled in Medicare. For them, it’s politics. But for millions of American seniors, the worry is real — not just a convenient talking point.
Recent polling shows 58% of Medicare recipients 65 and over are concerned about future health care costs, and half are worried a major health situation could result in either debt or bankruptcy.
If left unchanged, Medicare will be unable to pay full benefits by 2036.
While medical debt is a growing concern among Medicare recipients, the staggering size of the federal debt — largely driven by Medicare spending — is a ticking time bomb Congress can no longer ignore. As one of the largest federal spending programs, Medicare consisted of a jarring $874 billion out of the $6.75 trillion federal budget (about 13 cents of every dollar spent in FY2024).
While Medicare receives some funding from premiums paid by enrollees, the single largest source of revenue comes from the federal government's general fund. If left unchanged, Medicare will be unable to pay full benefits by 2036.
Medicare Advantage toes the line
Fortunately, policy solutions exist that can help both seniors and taxpayers.
Medicare Advantage merges public financing with private delivery under accountability. The government pays a fixed amount per enrollee to private plans, calibrated by benchmarks and quality measures. Plans that achieve higher star ratings — which were just released for 2026 by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services earlier this month — receive bonus payments. Meanwhile, poor performers lose ground.
This structure introduces incentives for efficiency and quality that are lacking in traditional Medicare. Yet, successive years of cuts to how Medicare Advantage plans are reimbursed have forced several major insurers to announce they’re withdrawing from certain Medicare Advantage markets next year.
Companies like UnitedHealth, Humana, Aetna, as well as regional plans such as UCare (serving Minnesota and parts of Wisconsin) and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont, are withdrawing from select Medicare Advantage counties across the country, citing rising costs. Seniors are using more medical services than expected, driving up claims, while federal reimbursement rates are being cut. Added regulatory and administrative burdens (such as expanded reporting requirements and prior authorization rules) further limit insurers. Together, these pressures make participation unsustainable in some markets.
If unchanged, more insurers will leave Medicare Advantage, and options for seniors will continue to shrink. Meanwhile, Medicare costs are growing much faster than private health care spending.
In 2023, traditional Medicare spent $15,689 per enrollee, more than double the private sector amount. This is a result of the traditional fee-for-service model, which pays providers per treatment instead of per patient, rewarding volume over outcomes, encouraging unnecessary care, and driving up costs.
Conversely, Medicare Advantage’s structure encourages prevention and coordination. To attract enrollees, Medicare Advantage offers supplemental benefits such as vision, dental, hearing, wellness programs, transportation, and over‑the‑counter benefits. Many Medicare Advantage plans now include these extras at little or no additional cost. That flexibility helps tailor benefits to beneficiary needs.
Better treatment, lower costs
When allowed to work, Medicare Advantage delivers higher satisfaction, lower costs, and greater access to coverage than traditional Medicare. One Harvard study found that seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage had better health outcomes than seniors on traditional Medicare. A National Institutes of Health review of hundreds of studies found that Medicare Advantage provided significantly better quality of care and health outcomes than traditional Medicare by a factor of four to one. Another NIH study found that across 48 studies, Medicare Advantage enrollees received more preventative care and had fewer hospitalizations and emergency visits, shorter stays, and lower total spending.
The financial and quality advantages are clear. One study comparing expected out‑of‑pocket costs in Medicare Advantage versus traditional Medicare found that from 2014 to 2019, projected costs were 18% to 24% lower under Medicare Advantage. For seniors on fixed incomes — that is significant.
RELATED: Democrats deny shutdown is about health care for illegal aliens — then one admits the truth
Seniors get it. This year, the majority of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. Over the last two decades, enrollment in Medicare Advantage has skyrocketed. Unsurprisingly, polling shows 93% of Medicare Advantage enrollees were satisfied or very satisfied with their coverage, and 94% would recommend it to their family and friends. The Congressional Budget Office now projects that by 2034, Medicare Advantage could account for nearly two-thirds of all Medicare beneficiaries.
The model for the future
Medicare Advantage provides the model for quality, affordable health care for seniors that aligns with what they prefer. Reducing regulatory burdens and barriers within the insurance market will provide Medicare Advantage plans greater flexibility and even entice those insurers leaving the Medicare Advantage market to reconsider.
Medicare cannot continue as purely fee‑for‑service without reform — neither for the medical and financial health of Americans, nor for the sake of the federal budget. The current fiscal challenges plaguing the federal budget demand models that can bend the cost curve while improving quality. Medicare Advantage is not a cure-all, but it is among the most promising tools in the toolbox.
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com