King v. Burwell affords a great opportunity for Republicans to advance a conservative alternative to Obamacare and provide a clear choice for voters in 2016.
Each of the three major types of Obamacare alternatives has a different likelihood of political success, and conservatives should carefully examine which one provides them with the best chance to achieve full repeal.
King v. Burwell provides Republicans with a time for choosing: they can prepare to negotiate “fixes” to Obamacare with the Obama administration, or they can lay out a plan that would effectively repeal and replace Obamacare in 36 states and lay the groundwork for full repeal in 2017.
Under a winning alternative, costs would drop, liberty would be secured, and any American who wants to buy health insurance would be able to do so.
New polling finds that most Americans (including 55 percent of independents) want Congress to propose a conservative alternative in response to King v. Burwell, while only 20 percent (most of them Democrats) want Congress to negotiate fixes to Obamacare.
The 2016 Republican presidential nominee will need to offer “more than lip service” to Main Street voters on health care and taxes—issues where “the immediate link between policy and take-home pay is very clear.”
There is an inviting opportunity for a GOP presidential candidate to stand with Main Street, and against Beltway orthodoxy, on immigration.
A new poll by McLaughlin & Associates finds that Americans strongly support having Congress advance a conservative alternative in the context of King v. Burwell.
Not liking their autonomy, the Obama administration has declared war on private-practice doctors—whose numbers are therefore dwindling—and Republicans must come to their rescue.