Tom Hebert

Elizabeth Warren's Spooky 75% Death Tax

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tom Hebert on Thursday, October 31st, 2019, 3:00 PM PERMALINK

Happy Halloween! Instead of dressing up as Pocahontas this year, 2020 Democrat Elizabeth Warren is dressing up as the Grim Reaper. 

Warren recently introduced spooky legislation that would tax Americans at death with a top rate of 75 percent.

Warren's legislation would impose a heavier tax burden at death by severely chopping the death tax exemption from the current $11.4 million down to $3.5 million. Warren's top death tax rate would be an astronomical 75 percent. 

Hillary Clinton also supported a version of this plan, and we all know how that turned out. 

Luckily, the Republican-passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act raised the death tax exemption, leading to countless small businesses and family farms being spared from dealing with the IRS agent at the same time they deal with the undertaker. 

Here's why we should repeal the spooky death tax for good: 

Repeal of the Death Tax will spur economic growth.

In 2016, the Tax Foundation estimated that repeal of the Death Tax would create 150,000 jobs. Additionally, the Joint Economic Committee reported that the Death Tax has suppressed over $1.1 trillion of capital in the United States’ economy since being introduced. Much of this comes from small businesses, who are the core of America’s economy. This loss of capital ultimately results in fewer jobs and lower wages for American workers.

The Death Tax is bad for jobs and repeal would give families a raise. Again according to the Tax Foundation the Death Tax is an economy killer. They have a macroeconomic “dynamic” model to see what killing the Death Tax would do to the job market. This model projects that killing the death tax would create 139,000 jobs, increase private business hours by 0.1 percent, and increase wages by 0.7 percent.

Numerous studies have found that majority of Americans oppose the Death Tax and support its repeal. For example, a recent report by NPR found that 76 percent of Americans support full, permanent repeal of the Death Tax.  

In addition, the Death Tax contributes a miniscule amount of revenue relative to the size of federal government. In all, it makes up only one half of one percent of all federal revenue. Because the Death Tax is so economically destructive, almost all the revenue lost would be offset by increased economic growth. As noted by the Tax Foundation, repealing the Death Tax would result in $240 billion in lower taxes over a decade. However, the economic growth created by repealing the Death Tax would produce $221 billion in federal revenue because of increased wages and more jobs.

Repeal of the Death Tax pays for itself. The same Tax Foundation report says that the death tax would increase the economy by 0.8 percent (or $137 billion in today’s dollars). Because this additional economic growth would be subject to taxation all its own, it would more than make up for the revenue lost by repealing the Death Tax–it would make up the $20 billion per year, plus yield an extra $8 billion per year on top of that. You heard that right–we’d actually collect more tax revenue if we stopped collecting the Death Tax.

Photo Credit: ATR

Trump Economy Continues To Over Perform

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tom Hebert on Wednesday, October 30th, 2019, 2:08 PM PERMALINK

President Donald Trump’s economy has reached the longest expansion in U.S. history, beating market expectations and defying Democrats who have constantly worked to undermine Trump’s economic agenda from day one.  

Real GDP grew 1.9 percent in the third quarter of 2019, beating market expectations of 1.6 percent. The economy has now entered the 123rd month of continued expansion. 

The Trump economy is also beating the Obama economy in GDP growth: 

  • Average Obama quarter-to-quarter GDP growth was 1.9 percent 
  • Average Obama year-to-year GDP growth: 1.6 percent 
  • In 2016, the Obama economy averaged 1.6 percent growth. 
  • In 2017, the Trump economy average 2.4 percent growth.
  • In 2018, following passage of the Republican Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, GDP growth was 2.9 percent. 

American families are feeling the impact of the robust Trump economy. Average real disposable income is growing twice as fast in the Trump economy than it was under the Obama economy. 

Real median household income has also grown by $4,144 or 6.8 percent since President Trump took office, according to an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal.

This data is based on a report released by Sentier Research analyzing the Census Bureau’s monthly Current Population Survey.

The Trump economy is also outperforming other countries on the world stage. Among G7 countries, the U.S. is the only one with annual GDP growth exceeding 2 percent. 

These latest economic numbers show that the Trump economy continues to outpace the anemic Obama economy by most metrics.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

Senate Democrats Forcing Vote to Raise Healthcare Premiums

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tom Hebert on Wednesday, October 30th, 2019, 9:30 AM PERMALINK

Senate Democrats are expecting to force a vote this week that will raise your healthcare premiums and restrict access to quality healthcare for all Americans. Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) wants to disallow states from obtaining a Section 1332 waiver, which has led to the only decrease in healthcare premiums since Obamacare was enacted.

Section 1332 waivers help states design healthcare systems that best fit their needs and escape the rigidity of one-size-fits-all, top-down federal healthcare. 

What is Section 1332? Obamacare’s Section 1332 established a waiver process for states to opt out of some of Obamacare’s most stringent and onerous provisions. This provision was designed to allow states the flexibility to experiment with healthcare approaches to best serve their residents. In 2015, Obama issued guidance that severely limited the ability of states to obtain these waivers. 

What did Trump’s guidance on Section 1332 do? In October 2018, Trump rescinded Obama’s 2015 guidance, empowering states with flexibility to work around Obamacare’s most burdensome mandates to make healthcare more affordable. Under current law, states can ask the Department of Health and Human Services for Section 1332 waivers to provide residents with greater healthcare options. 

How do states qualify for a waiver? The Trump administration has outlined two criteria for states to obtain a 1332 waiver: the state’s proposal must not increase deficits, and it must match the quality, costs, and coverage of the existing healthcare system. 

Why are Section 1332 waivers needed? Obamacare dramatically limited patient choice and forced Americans to purchase expensive, unaffordable healthcare plans. Over the past five years, average family premiums have increased by $742 a month, and narrow networks have increased from 54 percent in 2015 to 72 percent in 2019. 

Short of repealing Obamacare in its entirety, Section 1332 waivers are one of the only tools that have proven to lower healthcare premiums. Every state that has obtained a Section 1332 waiver has seen Obamacare premiums decrease. HHS approved 7 states for a waiver in 2019 – Alaska, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, and Wisconsin. 

According to the Heritage Foundation’s Doug Badger, Obamacare premiums in these states decreased by 7.5 percent between 2018 and 2019. In non-waiver states, premiums rose by 3.1 percent. 

A bipartisan set of states are pursuing Section 1332 waivers for 2020. Badger estimated that Obamacare premiums will decrease in these states as well. See below: 

                                      Source: Doug Badger, Heritage Foundation

Democrats have consistently attacked and undermined the Trump healthcare agenda since day one of his presidency. Instead of repealing one of the few avenues that states have to promote innovation and competition in their healthcare systems, we should support legislation that enacts more flexibility, not less.

With Warner’s resolution to nullfy Trump’s Section 1332 guidance, the left reaffirms its support for rising healthcare premiums and the failed Obamacare structure.

Photo Credit: Mark Warner - Flickr

Rahm Emanuel: Medicare for All An “Untenable Position”

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tom Hebert on Tuesday, October 29th, 2019, 1:02 PM PERMALINK

President Barack Obama’s former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel slammed the Democrat party’s obsessive focus on socialized medicine in an appearance on ABC’s “This Week.” 

Click here to watch the video. 

The Democrat plan, which they disingenuously call “Medicare for All,” would lead to a dramatic reduction in access and quality of healthcare for all Americans. 

Emanuel started by throwing cold water on the left’s claims that their healthcare scheme would cover every person in the United States, including illegal immigrants: 

“We have taken a position so far, and the candidates have...on basically Medicare for all, which is, we're going to eliminate 150 million people's health care, and we're going to provide health care for people that have just come over the border.”

In reality, Emanuel slightly underestimates the damage –– Medicare for All would kick 180 million Americans off of their private coverage overnight. 

Emanuel goes on to explain the obvious political cost for Democrats that support government-run healthcare: 

“That is an untenable position for the general election...I just biked around Lake Michigan, nearly 1,000 miles, through Michigan and Wisconsin, two really important states. Nobody at a diner ran at me and said, take my healthcare away. Nobody. This is -- this is reckless as it relates to -- and you don't have to take the position to win the primary. And you're basically literally hindering yourself for the general election.”

It is safe to assume that Emanuel knows a thing or two about winning elections and vote-moving issues. After all, he was the chief strategist behind Democrats reclaiming the House of Representatives in 2006, and was most recently the Mayor of Chicago. 

Emanuel’s comments are indicative that liberals are starting to wake up to the grim realities of socialized medicine. A recent study from the liberal Urban Institute estimates that the plan would require $32 trillion in new or higher taxes over the next decade. 

Former Vice President and 2020 Democrat Joe Biden has also sounded the alarm on Medicare for all. Biden recently tweeted that the plan would require significant tax hikes on the middle class: 

"Let’s put this in perspective: if you eliminate every single solitary soldier, tank, satellite, nuclear weapon, eliminate the Pentagon and it would only pay for 4 months of Medicare for All. 4 months.

Where do the other 8 months come from? Your paycheck."

The fact is, there is no way to come close to paying for Medicare for All without dramatic tax increases on the middle class. The proposal released by Bernie Sanders contains $14 trillion in tax hikes, roughly 40% of the total cost of Medicare for All.

It is also important to note that a significant portion of Sanders’ $14 trillion tax increase relies on eliminating healthcare options for American families ($4.2 trillion) and a 7 percent tax on employers large and small ($3.5 trillion).

Some prominent Democrats are coming around to what conservatives have known for decades: socialized medicine will raise your taxes, decrease your access to quality healthcare, and destroy the U.S. healthcare system as we know it. Putting a new coat of paint on it and calling it “Medicare for All” doesn’t change this reality. 

Photo Credit: Daniel X. O'Neil

USMCA's Biologics Provision Is An Important Step Towards Stronger IP Protections

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alex Hendrie, Tom Hebert on Monday, October 28th, 2019, 10:08 AM PERMALINK

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) represents a much-needed update to the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The global economy has changed significantly since the United States, Mexico, and Canada signed the NAFTA in 1992. The new USMCA recognizes this reality and modernizes trade relations between the three nations to better fit the new realities of the 21st century.

Importantly, the USMCA includes 10 years of data protection for lifesaving biologic medicines. This change will bring Mexico and Canada’s intellectual property protections up to U.S. standards that have existed for nearly a decade. 

Strong protection for biologics is critical. Biologics are the next generation of medicines, and are more costly and complex to produce than other cures. Data protection recognizes the extraordinary time, resources, and opportunity cost that innovators must devote to go through the FDA approval process. 

A recent study from the Tufts Center estimates that it costs an average of $2.6 billion over the course of 10 to 15 years to develop a new medicine. The USMCA’s 10-year period allows innovators to earn a positive rate of return on the immense costs associated with research, development, and the FDA approval process. The USMCA’s 10-year standard has bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Obama. 

America is a world leader in medical innovation. In 2017, the U.S. exported $51.2 billion in biopharmaceuticals. Such exports have grown 174 percent from 2002 to 2017. This research and development supports high-paying U.S. jobs across the country.

IP rights are also key to the U.S. economy at large. The U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Patent & Trademark Office found that IP-intensive industries contributed $6.6 trillion to the U.S. economy in 2014, or 38.2 percent of GDP. These industries directly and indirectly support 45.5 million jobs, account for $842 billion in merchandise exports, and generate $81 billion in service exports—well over half of all US exports.

While the USMCA will better ensure that North America remains a centerpiece of innovation, the agreement’s strong protection of IP rights is not universal. Many countries have policies that restrict innovation and punish ingenuity. 

As the Trump administration continues to negotiate better trade deals, the USMCA’s strong protections for biologics should serve as the model.

Photo Credit: Marco Verch

Democrats Expose Their Hypocrisy with SALT CRA Vote

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tom Hebert on Wednesday, October 23rd, 2019, 5:13 PM PERMALINK

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) forced a floor vote today on a resolution that will repeal the Trump tax law’s cap on state and local tax deductions. While Democrats campaign on raising taxes on the wealthy, 42 Democrat senators proved their hypocrisy by voting for this massive tax break for their richest constituents. 

The Republican-passed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) implemented a $10,000 cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions. The wealthy mainly took advantage of the unlimited SALT deduction. A recent report from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation shows that repealing the SALT cap would cut $40 billion in taxes for millionaires. In total, 94 percent of the tax breaks generated from ending the cap would be enjoyed by taxpayers making more than $200,000 a year. 

Functionally, the unlimited SALT deduction created two different federal tax rates: one for the wealthy in blue states, and one for the middle class in red states. Technically, a New Yorker with a $20,000 state tax bill had access to the same SALT deduction as a Nebraskan with a $5,000 state tax bill. In a pre-TCJA world, the Nebraskan would take the standard deduction instead of the SALT deduction, while the New Yorker would itemize and take the full SALT deduction. This creates a de facto subsidy for blue states. 

During the TCJA’s passage, Schumer said that eliminating the deduction “socks it to the middle class,” and called on fellow Democrats to “not go along with a tax plan that includes a tax cut for the folks who need it least.”

Hypocritically, Schumer is now pushing a tax scheme that helps those who need it least. 42 Democrats voted for the Schumer scheme to give the wealthiest blue state taxpayers a massive federal tax break:

  • Sen. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.)

  • Sen. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.)

  • Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.)

  • Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio)

  • Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.)

  • Sen. Benjamin Cardin (Md.)

  • Sen. Tom Carper (Del.)

  • Sen. Bob Casey (Penn.)

  • Sen. Chris Coons (Del.)

  • Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.)

  • Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.)

  • Sen. Tammy Duckworth (Ill.)

  • Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.)

  • Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.)

  • Sen. Maggie Hassan (N.H.)

  • Sen. Martin Heinrich (N.M.)

  • Sen. Mazie Hirono (Hawaii)

  • Sen. Doug Jones (Ala.)

  • Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.)

  • Sen. Angus King (Maine)

  • Sen. Amy Klobuchar (Minn.)

  • Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.)

  • Sen. Joe Manchin (W.V.)

  • Sen. Ed Markey (Mass.)

  • Sen. Bob Menendez (N.J.)

  • Sen. Jeff Merkeley (Ore.)

  • Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.)

  • Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.)

  • Sen. Gary Peters (Mich.)

  • Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.)

  • Sen. Jacky Rosen (Nev.)

  • Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii)

  • Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.)

  • Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.)

  • Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.)

  • Sen. Tina Smith (Minn.)

  • Sen. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)

  • Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.)

  • Sen. Tom Udall (N.M.)

  • Sen. Chris Van Hollen (Md.)

  • Sen. Mark Warner (Va.) 

  • Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.) 

Schumer’s skin in the game is clear: in 2015, before the SALT cap, Schumer wrote off $58,000 in state and local taxes. 

Since President Trump signed the TCJA into law, blue-state Democrats have worked overtime to find ways for their wealthiest residents to avoid the SALT cap. Governor Andrew Cuomo attempted an end-run around the cap by allowing New Yorkers to pay their local property taxes into a state-run charitable fund. 

The IRS recently issued new rules and guidance to stop these blue-state schemes. By voting to nullify the IRS guidance, Schumer and 41 other Democrats are aiding and abetting blue-state taxpayers that commit federal tax arbitrage by circumventing the SALT cap. 

Photo Credit: Senate Democrats - Flickr

Congress Should Reject the "SHIELD Act"

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tom Hebert on Wednesday, October 23rd, 2019, 2:57 PM PERMALINK

The House of Representatives is voting today on H.R. 4617, the “SHIELD Act,” legislation sponsored by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) that would erode freedom of speech and federalize state and local elections. The House should reject this misguided bill. 

Election security is a serious issue. Last year, the Department of Homeland Security notified 21 states that hackers had targeted their election systems in 2016. A majority of states are using election infrastructure that is outdated and ripe for cyberattack from foreign adversaries. While there is no evidence that Russia hacked our vote totals in 2016, it is clear that hackers are testing the waters. 

Unfortunately, some Democrats are more interested in clamping down on freedom of expression for Americans than securing our elections.  

Democrats have pushed to have government take over political speech in the past. House Democrats tried introducing a number of the SHIELD Act’s provisions earlier this year in H.R. 1, the misleadingly-named “For the People Act of 2019.”  

The SHIELD Act is a wishlist of Democrat priorities that focuses on restricting the political speech of Americans instead of targeting foreign meddlers abroad.

Strangely enough, the bill does nothing to prevent troll farms, which was the primary means Russia attempted to influence the 2016 election. Additionally, nothing in the SHIELD Act would give law enforcement the resources necessary to counter foreign actors that attempt to influence our elections.  

If enacted, the SHIELD Act would: 

  • Give the federal government the responsibility of determining what qualifies as “legitimate” press/news. This is a blatant infringement on freedom of the press, and a provision ripe for abuse by left-wing bureaucrats. 
  • Allow the U.S. Attorney General to interfere in state elections, a blatant violation of the constitutional principle that states and localities have primary administration of elections. 

  • Apply television disclaimers to internet ads. A four second disclaimer (the standard on television ads) would take up half of most internet ads. 

  • Expand the definition of “electioneering communication” to include “issues of national importance,” a broad term not defined in law or regulation. In effect, this would take ads that are not political in nature and classify them as such, which would have a chilling effect on free speech. 

Thankfully, Republicans have an alternative. House Administration Committee Ranking Member Rodney Davis (R-Illinois) has introduced H.R. 4736, the Honest Elections Act. Instead of federalizing state and local elections, the Honest Elections Act empowers states and localities to secure their elections while upholding constitutional principles.

In reality, the SHIELD Act would do next to nothing to secure our elections while trampling all over the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.

The House should reject the Democrat-led SHIELD Act and pass legislation that would actually secure our election in 2020 and beyond. 

Photo Credit: KidTruant - Flickr

ATR Supports the Compassionate Retirement Act

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tom Hebert on Friday, October 18th, 2019, 2:47 PM PERMALINK

Senators Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) recently introduced S.2495, the Kathryn Manginelli Act (or the Compassionate Retirement Act), legislation that allows families battling devastating diseases to withdraw their retirement savings without incurring a penalty. ATR supports this legislation and urges its passage. 

Under current law, the disability exception allows the disabled to withdraw their retirement savings early without penalty if they are unable to work. 

However, the exception does not cover Americans diagnosed with degenerative illnesses that continue working in the months prior to becoming fully disabled. Many Americans diagnosed with terminal diseases choose to work as much as possible during this period in order to allay future medical bills. 

S.2495 expands the disability exception to cover American workers diagnosed with degenerative diseases. If implemented, terminally-ill workers would be allowed to withdraw their retirement savings without incurring a 10 percent penalty. 

This change would provide much-needed financial stability to families affected by these diagnoses without raising taxes. The government should not tax Americans diagnosed with degenerative diseases for using their retirement contributions to defray medical costs. 

S.2495 is a bipartisan piece of legislation that fixes this problem. Congress should pass it, and President Trump should sign it into law.

Photo Credit: Pug50 - Flickr

Trump's New Executive Orders Make Federal Agencies More Transparent

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tom Hebert on Friday, October 11th, 2019, 4:47 PM PERMALINK

President Donald Trump recently signed two executive orders (EO) that are an important step towards making government agencies transparent and accountable to the American taxpayer. 

Trump’s “Improved Agency Guidance Documents” EO requires agencies to put guidance documents on an easily searchable website. Trump’s “Transparency and Fairness” EO prohibits federal agencies from enforcing rules that have not been made public in advance. Taken together, these actions are imperative in protecting Americans from bureaucratic abuse.

The Obama Administration was a nightmare for taxpayers. This maxim is especially true on the regulatory front, where federal agencies imposed thousands of costly mandates on taxpayers through a flurry of blogs, letters, brochures, and the like. These “guidance” documents are a way for federal agencies to bypass normal regulatory process, including public comments and cost-benefit analysis. 

Bureaucratic abuse of American taxpayers via guidance documents was a commonplace activity in the Obama Administration. Here are four examples: 

  • In 2011, Obama’s Department of Interior refused to renew a permit for Drakes Bay Oyster Company, a family owned-and-operated oyster farm that had operated in California for over 5 decades. The DOI used doctored data to deny renewal, arguing that courts didn’t have the jurisdiction to even hear the case. After three years of costly litigation, Obama’s DOI was unfortunately successful in its quest to shutter another small business. 
  • In 2013, Wyoming taxpayer Andy Johnson built a bond for his daughters’ horses in his backyard, working with state engineers to ensure that the pond was environmentally friendly and ecologically beneficial. In 2014, Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency bureaucrats swarmed the Johnson family and threatened to hit them with a $20 million fine if they didn’t destroy their pond. The EPA only backed down after the left-wing New York Times published a cover story on how abusively the agency was treating the Johnson family. 
  • In 2015, a Department of Labor blog post declared that many independent contractors should be classified as full-time employees. This new “guidance” blindsided thousands of small businesses all across the country, all of whom were denied the opportunity to offer any input on the guidance. 
  • Finally, the Army Corps of Engineers prevented the growth of a small business in Alaska by deeming that permafrost was a “navigable water of the United States.” Richard Schok, hoping to expand his small, family-owned pipe fabrication business, purchased a plot of land with traditional wetlands in Fairbanks. The Corps cited an illegal guidance document known as the “Alaska Supplement” to argue that the wetlands AND permafrost were subject to the agency’s Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The courts have repeatedly upheld the government’s decision. 

All three of these examples of regulatory abuse share a common thread — overzealous bureaucrats used off-the-books guidance documents to intimidate, threaten, and harass American small businesses. The American people should not be bound by murky “guidance documents” that they do not have the opportunity to influence via public comment, and agencies should not be allowed to use these documents to decimate American families and small businesses. Trump’s EO is an important step towards stopping the regulatory abuse of American taxpayers.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

President Trump's Medicare Executive Order Is A Win For Senior Citizens

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Tom Hebert on Thursday, October 10th, 2019, 10:51 AM PERMALINK

President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order (EO) to improve Medicare for senior citizens all across the nation. 

Liberal members of Congress and Democrats running for president have been obsessed with implementing a complete government takeover of the U.S. healthcare system, a plan they disingenuously call "Medicare for All." The Democrat party’s plan would lead to 22 million American seniors losing their Medicare Advantage coverage and would kick 180 million Americans off of their private coverage. The left’s radical plan would destroy Medicare and the American healthcare system as we know it. 

President Trump has rightly stood against socialized medicine during his time in office. The Trump administration has consistently focused on expanding choice and increasing access for American healthcare consumers. Most notably, Trump opened up new insurance options through association health plans, short-term plans, and health reimbursement arrangements, some of which save consumers up to 60 percent on their healthcare costs. Trump has also increased Medicare Advantage plan choices by nearly 1200 over the past two years. 

Trump’s new EO builds on this success in several crucial ways. The EO directs the Department of Health and Human Services to take actions that will shore up Medicare for generations to come. Specifically, the EO:

  • Provides patients with more choices by directing the HHS Secretary to propose new guidelines to revitalize the existing system. These guidelines would foster more innovative benefit structures and plan designs, develop a new Center for Medicare & Medicare Innovation payment model for additional supplemental benefits and savings, and protect Medicare Advantage plans. Expanding patient choice is critical in allowing healthcare consumers to choose the plan and benefits that best suit their personal situation. 

  • Directs the HHS Secretary to eliminate unnecessary burdens on healthcare providers, like excessive billing requirements, conditions of participation, and all licensure burdens that are more stringent than state law. This will allow medical providers to spend more time with patients and less time with frivolous paperwork and contending with unnecessary regulations. 

  • Encourages innovation by directing the HHS Secretary to streamline the approval process to bring innovative products to market faster. Any new products, including breakthrough medical devices and lifesaving technology, will be consistent with patient safety, market-driven principles, and value as determined by patients. 

  • Roots out waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicare by directing the HHS Secretary to propose annual changes to the system. 

  • Maximizes freedom for Medicare patients and providers by allowing seniors who choose not to receive benefits under Medicare Part A to maintain their Social Security benefits. 

Instead of the anti-patient government takeover of healthcare that the radical left is pushing, President Trump is rightfully charting a path forward for Americans that expands healthcare access and promotes patient choice. Trump’s new EO is the latest addition in a long line of his administration’s pro-patient healthcare accomplishments.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore