Congress's health care bills would force more people to enroll in Medicaid--and the states would be left to pick up the tab.

The giant House and Senate health care bills reflect a faith in federal government control over the financing and delivery of Americans' health care.

The Senate health care bill would impose $406.2 billion in new taxes; cost $2.5 trillion over the first 10 years; stifle patient choice by transferring most decision-making authority to Washington; and produce the greatest concentration of political and economic power over a sector of the U.S. economy in our history. Americans want and need health reform, but the Senate bill is clearly not what they have in...

The Senate health care bill would impose $406.2 billion in new taxes; cost $2.5 trillion over the first 10 years; stifle patient choice by transferring most decision-making authority to Washington; and produce the greatest concentration of political and economic power over a sector of the U.S. economy in our history. Americans want and need health reform, but the Senate bill is clearly not what they have in...

The Senate health care bill would encourage companies to engage in some new and repulsive forms of employment discrimination.

If Congress and the President choose to empower an independent commission to tackle this immense problem, they must give it the authority to do it right.

Key assumptions in CBO's cost estimate of the Senate health care bill--especially the viability of the so-called "firewall"--will never hold up over time.

The Senate health insurance premium tax would impose new costs on Americans who already have coverage while deferring for years the even larger amounts that Congress proposes to spend subsidizing those without coverage. Through either Medicare Advantage or Medigap, seniors would pay approximately 17 percent of the new premium tax: the second largest share after workers in small business, who would pay 54 percent.

An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party is literally unprecedented, not just in scope but in kind, and unconstitutional either as a matter of first principles or under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.

An individual mandate to enter into a contract with or buy a particular product from a private party is literally unprecedented, not just in scope but in kind, and unconstitutional either as a matter of first principles or under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.