Rand Paul Plan to Repeal and Replace Obamacare

[jct74]

Paul, Trump upend GOP's Obamacare repeal plans

By BURGESS EVERETT - 01/09/17

After Rand Paul spent the last week urging the GOP not to repeal Obamacare without having a replacement plan ready, his phone rang on Friday night with a call from a new supporter: Donald Trump.

“He called after seeing an interview that I had done [talking about] that we should vote on Obamacare replacement at the same time,” Paul said in an interview on Monday. “He said he was in complete agreement with that.”

With Trump going out of his way to bless the Kentucky senator’s approach, Paul’s week-long campaign to hold a vote on replacing Obamacare alongside a simultaneous repeal measure has seemingly upended the GOP’s long-sought plans for a cathartic and immediate vote to gut the health care law. As news broke that Trump backed Paul's play, several other Senate Republicans were also beginning calls for a new strategy — threatening the trajectory of the party’s rush to repeal the law.

Paul said he wasn’t trying to slow the process down, but instead said it’s a “matter of speeding up” the replacement efforts. He’s putting together an initial proposal containing the GOP’s best ideas and will ship them this afternoon to Trump’s administration after getting buy-in from the president-elect.

...

read more:
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/obamacare-repeal-trump-rand-paul-233351

--------

A Health-Care Plan the GOP Could Get Behind (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443746/republican-health-care-plan-rand-paul)
by Michael Tanner - January 11, 2017


The GOP needs an alternative to Obamacare. Rand Paul’s plan is a good start.
...
Paul wants to repeal Obamacare root and branch, of course, but he also wants Republicans to offer a replacement plan on day one. Democrats may block it, but then the political fallout will be on them.

Paul’s proposal draws liberally from the best ideas in other Republican plans, while avoiding many of the pitfalls that make some of those plans unworkable. He would, for example, dramatically expand health savings accounts (HSAs). HSAs shift control of health-care spending from employers to employees. Paul’s expansion would allow much larger tax-free contributions to these accounts, and would allow them to be used for a wider variety of health-related expenses, including insurance premiums. That would mean that you — not your boss — would be able to choose your insurance plan. Expanded HSAs would also mean increased portability for health insurance. Because you could use your HSA to pay your premium, you wouldn’t be as likely to lose your insurance if you changed or lost your job.

This would replace many of the subsidies in Obamacare without the dangers of government-designated insurance inherent in some of the tax-credit proposals that some Republicans have backed. (If the government offers a credit for insurance, it has to define what insurance qualifies for the credit.)

Paul would also greatly expand competition and choice in the health-insurance market. He would expand association health plans and allow individuals to purchase health insurance through non-traditional groups, such as churches and civic associations. In theory, any person who wanted to purchase group insurance would have the opportunity to do so. And he would legalize the purchase of health insurance across state lines, challenging both the insurance cartels and overzealous state regulators, while allowing individuals to shop for the best price and quality they can find.

Importantly, Paul avoids one of the most significant pitfalls of many Republican plans by not retaining Obamacare’s pre-existing-condition rules. These provisions, which prohibit insurers from denying coverage or charging more to people who are already sick, are among the few popular parts of Obamacare. Yet they are also the reason behind some of the most damaging and unpopular provisions, such as the individual mandate.

Some Republicans are discussing ways to preserve the pre-existing-condition requirements as long as a person maintains continuous coverage, or creating an open-enrollment period during which the rules apply. But those proposals would still encourage people to game the system, jumping to more comprehensive plans or those with the best specialists after they become sick, knowing that insurers could not refuse them or increase their premiums. If Republicans simultaneously eliminate the mandate, this will only accelerate the adverse-selection death spiral that is already besetting Obamacare.

Paul would eliminate the pre-existing-condition regulations altogether (after a transition period), while his other reforms would significantly reduce the number of people who genuinely cannot buy health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. For those who still need help, Paul envisions responsibility for covering them being shifted to the states, possibly in conjunction with proposals to block-grant Medicaid.

This would give states the freedom to experiment with ways to cover people who are unable to buy their own insurance for whatever reason, whether pre-existing conditions or low income. Importantly, it prevents a small number of high-cost cases from distorting the rest of the insurance pool. It wouldn’t try to insure the uninsurable, but would provide their health care more directly. After all, it is health care that counts, not health insurance.
...
More: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443746/republican-health-care-plan-rand-paul

[jllundqu]

Rand Paul is off to one hell of a start this new term. :cool:

[georgiaboy]

nice.

[Origanalist]

Rand Paul is off to one hell of a start this new term. :cool:

And it's really a plus to see the incoming President agreeing with him.

[William Tell]

Now the tough part, getting Rand's 'replacement' and not another doomed to failure intervention that will lead to public support fo Single Payer in 4-8 years.

[TER]

This is a good sign!

[The Northbreather]

Godspeed Rand.

[timosman]

The best part would be if it turns out the call did not happen. Troll level: master.

[Brian4Liberty]

Paul said he wasn’t trying to slow the process down, but instead said it’s a “matter of speeding up” the replacement efforts. He’s putting together an initial proposal containing the GOP’s best ideas and will ship them this afternoon to Trump’s administration after getting buy-in from the president-elect.

Nice.

[thoughtomator]

Suddenly, nobody has a problem with the federal government being involved where it shouldn't be, because Rand.

Isn't anyone here libertarian enough to wonder what Rand's justification for having a replacement is, when the Constitution could not be clearer that control over health care is not among the powers delegated to the federal government?

Is there anything less libertarian than a federal government controlling the health care sector?

(Don't bother to answer, all the people with integrity abandoned this place long ago, and I have zero respect for the legions of hypocrites left.)

[presence]

Any healthcare system that relies upon licenses, prescriptions, regulations, approvals, patents, and care mandates will ALWAYS depend upon the government for funding.

[newbitech]

Suddenly, nobody has a problem with the federal government being involved where it shouldn't be, because Rand.

Isn't anyone here libertarian enough to wonder what Rand's justification for having a replacement is, when the Constitution could not be clearer that control over health care is not among the powers delegated to the federal government?

Is there anything less libertarian than a federal government controlling the health care sector?

(Don't bother to answer, all the people with integrity abandoned this place long ago, and I have zero respect for the legions of hypocrites left.)

it's obviously going to have to be a political transition, not a full blown repeal and replace with nothing. This is a smart move for Rand to understand this and make sure he starts paving the way for competitive free market health care and not just another cobbled together special interest boondoggle.

This puts libertarian ideas front and center in the public debate on what to do about healthcare.

What is your problem anyways?

[Rudeman]

Suddenly, nobody has a problem with the federal government being involved where it shouldn't be, because Rand.

Isn't anyone here libertarian enough to wonder what Rand's justification for having a replacement is, when the Constitution could not be clearer that control over health care is not among the powers delegated to the federal government?

Is there anything less libertarian than a federal government controlling the health care sector?

(Don't bother to answer, all the people with integrity abandoned this place long ago, and I have zero respect for the legions of hypocrites left.)

Have you read his replacement plan? If so, what is your issue with it?

[euphemia]

If the replacement law removes regulations and opens the market, then that might be less government.

Trump is listening.

[Anti Federalist]

threatening the trajectory of the party’s rush to repeal the law

No fucking around here...repeal this disaster, now, stomp a mud hole in its ass and salt the earth where it stood.

There never has been a more dangerous precedent set before: buy this product or else.

It is a tax on living.

[Matt Collins]

Suddenly, nobody has a problem with the federal government being involved where it shouldn't be, because Rand.

Isn't anyone here libertarian enough to wonder what Rand's justification for having a replacement is, when the Constitution could not be clearer that control over health care is not among the powers delegated to the federal government?

Is there anything less libertarian than a federal government controlling the health care sector?

(Don't bother to answer, all the people with integrity abandoned this place long ago, and I have zero respect for the legions of hypocrites left.)
No this is a very valid point.

Knowing Rand I am willing to bet that his "replacement" is 98% free market or more. He is doing a piss poor job of communicating that, as usual though.

And lots of the conservatives are starting to buy into the narrative that he is trying to actually delay replacement.

Rand is getting flanked on both sides, from the conservatives that don't think it should be replaced, and from conservatives that think that he is trying to stall and delay repeal. His communication is lousy, but then again, this is the norm.

[dannno]

Suddenly, nobody has a problem with the federal government being involved where it shouldn't be, because Rand.

Isn't anyone here libertarian enough to wonder what Rand's justification for having a replacement is, when the Constitution could not be clearer that control over health care is not among the powers delegated to the federal government?

Is there anything less libertarian than a federal government controlling the health care sector?

(Don't bother to answer, all the people with integrity abandoned this place long ago, and I have zero respect for the legions of hypocrites left.)

Hah, you're being ridiculous. Rand is replacing it with some free market reforms. He can't go to congress and say, "hey let's repeal Obamacare and institute some free market reforms" if he wants any of those fools to take him seriously. He has to call the free market reforms a "replacement" so that it is palatable. It is the best strategy for instituting free market reforms in our healthcare system. If you had a better strategy, then we would be seeing some action happening from your corner. But instead you are playing armchair quarterback and doing a really bad job at least in this instance.

[dannno]

Knowing Rand I am willing to bet that his "replacement" is 98% free market or more. He is doing a piss poor job of communicating that

Um, ya, that's the whole point. Know your audience.

[Origanalist]

Suddenly, nobody has a problem with the federal government being involved where it shouldn't be, because Rand.

Isn't anyone here libertarian enough to wonder what Rand's justification for having a replacement is, when the Constitution could not be clearer that control over health care is not among the powers delegated to the federal government?

Is there anything less libertarian than a federal government controlling the health care sector?

(Don't bother to answer, all the people with integrity abandoned this place long ago, and I have zero respect for the legions of hypocrites left.)

How the hell did you're obnoxious ass get back in here?

[Origanalist]

No fucking around here...repeal this disaster, now, stomp a mud hole in its ass and salt the earth where it stood.

There never has been a more dangerous precedent set before: buy this product or else.

It is a tax on living.

Don't you think free market principles should be laid out now instead of leaving a huge gaping hole for the statist to rush in and fill with something just as bad or worse?

[Origanalist]

818586079485956097

[Feeding the Abscess]

No $#@!ing around here...repeal this disaster, now, stomp a mud hole in its ass and salt the earth where it stood.

There never has been a more dangerous precedent set before: buy this product or else.

It is a tax on living.

When most of the GOP is talking repeal, they aren't talking about yanking it out, root and branch. They want to trim a few branches and give it fertilizer.

Repealing the mandate and leaving pre-existing conditions intact may well collapse the insurance industry, and the replacement could be single-payer.

My anti-Rand bonafides should be unquestioned, but he's right on this one.

[Anti Federalist]

Don't you think free market principles should be laid out now instead of leaving a huge gaping hole for the statist to rush in and fill with something just as bad or worse?

A valid point, but what I see as a bigger threat is the opportunity a "delay" will give the worthless GOP to mince, crawfish and backpedal on repealing this monstrosity.

A monstrosity they created and their 2012 candidate put in place first.

[LibertyEagle]

No this is a very valid point.

Knowing Rand I am willing to bet that his "replacement" is 98% free market or more. He is doing a piss poor job of communicating that, as usual though.

And lots of the conservatives are starting to buy into the narrative that he is trying to actually delay replacement.

Rand is getting flanked on both sides, from the conservatives that don't think it should be replaced, and from conservatives that think that he is trying to stall and delay repeal. His communication is lousy, but then again, this is the norm.

He is improving though. He got rid of your ass.

[LibertyEagle]

Until and unless the Congress rips out all the legislation that protects big pharma from having to compete with drug sales from other countries, forcing hospitals to treat illegal aliens with no ability to pay and thus creating the need for hospitals to suck the financial life out of anyone shut out of getting insurance and thus negotiated rates, shields any and all medical providers from transparency and competition, yes, they damn well better have a meaningful transition for people with preexisting conditions. Many here do not seem to realize that without insurance that has negotiated rates, medical providers can and do charge up to FOUR TIMES the amount for a given procedure. So, once again, over many years and much legislation, government has created this scenario. If you truly want a free market, ALL of it has to be ripped out. Not just rip out Obamacare and believe that it's all fixed now.

[jonhowe]

I thought the whole point of his not supporting the current bill was about balancing the budget? I hope he brings that up as an ACTUAL OPTION during the press he'll likely get for this headline.

[XNavyNuke]

Now the tough part, getting Rand's 'replacement' and not another doomed to failure intervention that will lead to public support fo Single Payer in 4-8 years.

I think this is where we finally see Rand's support of Mitch McConnell finally pay a dividend. If not now, I don't know when.

XNN

[jmdrake]

Suddenly, nobody has a problem with the federal government being involved where it shouldn't be, because Rand.

Isn't anyone here libertarian enough to wonder what Rand's justification for having a replacement is, when the Constitution could not be clearer that control over health care is not among the powers delegated to the federal government?

Is there anything less libertarian than a federal government controlling the health care sector?

(Don't bother to answer, all the people with integrity abandoned this place long ago, and I have zero respect for the legions of hypocrites left.)

The one thing the federal government actually has a right to do under the commerce clause is to stop states from interfering with interstate commerce. State laws that bar insurance companies from competing across state lines do just that. Also the tax code should be changed (scrapped really, but that's a fight for another day) so that health care expenses are "above the line" deductible. In other words you should get a dollar for dollar reduction in your tax burden for every dollar spent on healthcare, whether that is for paying your deductible, paying your premium, or just simply paying your doctor outright. And yes, the mandate should be sh&^canned.

[Brian4Liberty]

Suddenly, nobody has a problem with the federal government being involved where it shouldn't be, because Rand.

Isn't anyone here libertarian enough to wonder what Rand's justification for having a replacement is, when the Constitution could not be clearer that control over health care is not among the powers delegated to the federal government?
...

Yes, because Rand. Some of us have hope that Rand having influence here will result in a better outcome than other options that come from crony politicians and their lobbyist masters. On the surface, a no nonsense repeal sounds good, but this is also an opportunity to do things that open up competition.


Have you read his replacement plan? If so, what is your issue with it?

You have to pass it before you can see what is in it. ;)

I believe Rand is pushing for a more open process right now.


...Knowing Rand I am willing to bet that his "replacement" is 98% free market or more.
...

Which is why some of us see this as a step in the right direction.

[dannno]

I thought the whole point of his not supporting the current bill was about balancing the budget? I hope he brings that up as an ACTUAL OPTION during the press he'll likely get for this headline.

The amendment he gave to the bill allows congress to repeal obamacare at a future date and balances the budget. He already has the bills that have free market reforms that he has outlined to replace obamacare as well, several have been put forward and have consensus.

[PierzStyx]

it's obviously going to have to be a political transition, not a full blown repeal and replace with nothing. This is a smart move for Rand to understand this and make sure he starts paving the way for competitive free market health care and not just another cobbled together special interest boondoggle.

This puts libertarian ideas front and center in the public debate on what to do about healthcare.

What is your problem anyways?

The real libertarian solution to healthcare.


http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-no-matter-how-disastrously-some-policy-has-turned-out-anyone-who-criticizes-it-can-expect-thomas-sowell-57-18-33.jpg

[angelatc]

Suddenly, nobody has a problem with the federal government being involved where it shouldn't be, because Rand.

Nobody who voted for Trump voted for replacing Obamacare, that's for sure. OTOH, I trust Rand. We're not going to get what I want, which is a total implosion of the entire system leaving millions of old sick people with no tax-funded coverage, so I'll simply have to settle for taking pleasure in seeing the Democrats lose.

[fcreature]

Nobody who voted for Trump voted for replacing Obamacare, that's for sure. OTOH, I trust Rand. We're not going to get what I want, which is a total implosion of the entire system leaving millions of old sick people with no tax-funded coverage, so I'll simply have to settle for taking pleasure in seeing the Democrats lose.

I highly doubt he even read what Rand's "replacement" plan is. Because if he did he would know that it consists of measures that only reduce government involvement in health care.

[Matt Collins]

He is improving though. He got rid of your ass.
What the hell are you talking about? I never worked for his Senate office or the lousy 2016 PCC :confused::rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

What the hell are you talking about? I never worked for his Senate office or the lousy 2016 PCC :confused::rolleyes:

Yes, I know. :D

[Matt Collins]

Yes, I know. :D
Nor did I want to

[eleganz]

The purists are some of the least efficient people I've ever seen.

You don't just full blown repeal without some type of blowback. How short-sighted you must be to not see that. Obamacare was a massive overreach that lost democrats almost all of DC within the span of 8 years. I kind of like the dynamic with Trump so far and realistically speaking, I'd keep this over an Obama repeat or even Elizabeth Warren in 4 years because the left is only going more hardcore left after 2016.

I don't see many reasons to doubt that whatever Rand says, he is trying his best to be as free-market as he possibly can and thats good enough for me, considering the paths that this Obamacare repeal mess COULD'VE turned into if somebody else were lucky enough to get the spotlight.

Rand got lucky that Trump was seeing his interview on television and decided to call him for support, that type of sht doesn't just happen to the liberty movement everyday in DC.

You guys seriously want your cake and eat it too but the thing is, you'll never ever get the exact flavor you want.

So CHILL the f out

[CPUd]

A Health-Care Plan the GOP Could Get Behind


The GOP needs an alternative to Obamacare. Rand Paul’s plan is a good start. Like the proverbial dog that caught the car, Republicans in Congress are finding out that repealing and replacing Obamacare is a wee bit more difficult than their campaign slogans suggested. It is not, as Democrats suggest, that the Republicans have no plan — there are plans of virtually every stripe, from straightforward repeal to Obamacare Lite — but they have so far been unable to reach consensus on a proposal that is both good policy and politically palatable.

Now, however, Kentucky senator Rand Paul may have come up with a proposal that could offer a way out of the political corner Republicans have been painting themselves into. From the start, Paul has argued against proposals to set a sunset date for Obamacare today and come up with a replacement later. Paul wants to repeal Obamacare root and branch, of course, but he also wants Republicans to offer a replacement plan on day one. Democrats may block it, but then the political fallout will be on them.

Paul’s proposal draws liberally from the best ideas in other Republican plans, while avoiding many of the pitfalls that make some of those plans unworkable. He would, for example, dramatically expand health savings accounts (HSAs). HSAs shift control of health-care spending from employers to employees. Paul’s expansion would allow much larger tax-free contributions to these accounts, and would allow them to be used for a wider variety of health-related expenses, including insurance premiums. That would mean that you — not your boss — would be able to choose your insurance plan. Expanded HSAs would also mean increased portability for health insurance. Because you could use your HSA to pay your premium, you wouldn’t be as likely to lose your insurance if you changed or lost your job.

This would replace many of the subsidies in Obamacare without the dangers of government-designated insurance inherent in some of the tax-credit proposals that some Republicans have backed. (If the government offers a credit for insurance, it has to define what insurance qualifies for the credit.) Paul would also greatly expand competition and choice in the health-insurance market. He would expand association health plans and allow individuals to purchase health insurance through non-traditional groups, such as churches and civic associations. In theory, any person who wanted to purchase group insurance would have the opportunity to do so. And he would legalize the purchase of health insurance across state lines, challenging both the insurance cartels and overzealous state regulators, while allowing individuals to shop for the best price and quality they can find.

Importantly, Paul avoids one of the most significant pitfalls of many Republican plans by not retaining Obamacare’s pre-existing-condition rules. These provisions, which prohibit insurers from denying coverage or charging more to people who are already sick, are among the few popular parts of Obamacare. Yet they are also the reason behind some of the most damaging and unpopular provisions, such as the individual mandate.

Some Republicans are discussing ways to preserve the pre-existing-condition requirements as long as a person maintains continuous coverage, or creating an open-enrollment period during which the rules apply. But those proposals would still encourage people to game the system, jumping to more comprehensive plans or those with the best specialists after they become sick, knowing that insurers could not refuse them or increase their premiums. If Republicans simultaneously eliminate the mandate, this will only accelerate the adverse-selection death spiral that is already besetting Obamacare.

Paul would eliminate the pre-existing-condition regulations altogether (after a transition period), while his other reforms would significantly reduce the number of people who genuinely cannot buy health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. For those who still need help, Paul envisions responsibility for covering them being shifted to the states, possibly in conjunction with proposals to block-grant Medicaid.

This would give states the freedom to experiment with ways to cover people who are unable to buy their own insurance for whatever reason, whether pre-existing conditions or low income. Importantly, it prevents a small number of high-cost cases from distorting the rest of the insurance pool. It wouldn’t try to insure the uninsurable, but would provide their health care more directly. After all, it is health care that counts, not health insurance.

One can be forgiven for thinking that the last thing Republicans need right now is another health-care plan. And Senator Paul’s plan is certainly not perfect; there are nits to be picked. But it may well offer Republicans the best road map they can find out of the wilderness they have been wandering in.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443746/republican-health-care-plan-rand-paul

[Superfluous Man]

The question is, would Trump veto it for not being socialist enough?

[Krugminator2]

Something this article points out is that Rand is trying cut to the link between health insurance and employment. Rand mentioned this in an interview I just saw as well.

That is the single most important issue in terms of keeping prices high. Incentivizing high deductible plans and HSAs and shifting as much burden as possible onto the employee is a great way to start the process.

I suspect Rand and his staff just borrowed Milton Friedman's entire plan as well as the strategy for implementation. You could do a lot worse. http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/milton-friedman-medical-insurance-opinions-columnists-health-care.html

[Brian4Liberty]

A Health-Care Plan the GOP Could Get Behind (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443746/republican-health-care-plan-rand-paul)
by Michael Tanner - January 11, 2017


The GOP needs an alternative to Obamacare. Rand Paul’s plan is a good start.

Like the proverbial dog that caught the car, Republicans in Congress are finding out that repealing and replacing Obamacare is a wee bit more difficult than their campaign slogans suggested. It is not, as Democrats suggest, that the Republicans have no plan — there are plans of virtually every stripe, from straightforward repeal to Obamacare Lite — but they have so far been unable to reach consensus on a proposal that is both good policy and politically palatable.

Now, however, Kentucky senator Rand Paul may have come up with a proposal that could offer a way out of the political corner Republicans have been painting themselves into. From the start, Paul has argued against proposals to set a sunset date for Obamacare today and come up with a replacement later. Paul wants to repeal Obamacare root and branch, of course, but he also wants Republicans to offer a replacement plan on day one. Democrats may block it, but then the political fallout will be on them.

Paul’s proposal draws liberally from the best ideas in other Republican plans, while avoiding many of the pitfalls that make some of those plans unworkable. He would, for example, dramatically expand health savings accounts (HSAs). HSAs shift control of health-care spending from employers to employees. Paul’s expansion would allow much larger tax-free contributions to these accounts, and would allow them to be used for a wider variety of health-related expenses, including insurance premiums. That would mean that you — not your boss — would be able to choose your insurance plan. Expanded HSAs would also mean increased portability for health insurance. Because you could use your HSA to pay your premium, you wouldn’t be as likely to lose your insurance if you changed or lost your job.

This would replace many of the subsidies in Obamacare without the dangers of government-designated insurance inherent in some of the tax-credit proposals that some Republicans have backed. (If the government offers a credit for insurance, it has to define what insurance qualifies for the credit.)

Paul would also greatly expand competition and choice in the health-insurance market. He would expand association health plans and allow individuals to purchase health insurance through non-traditional groups, such as churches and civic associations. In theory, any person who wanted to purchase group insurance would have the opportunity to do so. And he would legalize the purchase of health insurance across state lines, challenging both the insurance cartels and overzealous state regulators, while allowing individuals to shop for the best price and quality they can find.

Importantly, Paul avoids one of the most significant pitfalls of many Republican plans by not retaining Obamacare’s pre-existing-condition rules. These provisions, which prohibit insurers from denying coverage or charging more to people who are already sick, are among the few popular parts of Obamacare. Yet they are also the reason behind some of the most damaging and unpopular provisions, such as the individual mandate.

Paul avoids one of the most significant pitfalls of many Republican plans by not retaining Obamacare’s pre-existing-condition rules.

Some Republicans are discussing ways to preserve the pre-existing-condition requirements as long as a person maintains continuous coverage, or creating an open-enrollment period during which the rules apply. But those proposals would still encourage people to game the system, jumping to more comprehensive plans or those with the best specialists after they become sick, knowing that insurers could not refuse them or increase their premiums. If Republicans simultaneously eliminate the mandate, this will only accelerate the adverse-selection death spiral that is already besetting Obamacare.

Paul would eliminate the pre-existing-condition regulations altogether (after a transition period), while his other reforms would significantly reduce the number of people who genuinely cannot buy health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. For those who still need help, Paul envisions responsibility for covering them being shifted to the states, possibly in conjunction with proposals to block-grant Medicaid.

This would give states the freedom to experiment with ways to cover people who are unable to buy their own insurance for whatever reason, whether pre-existing conditions or low income. Importantly, it prevents a small number of high-cost cases from distorting the rest of the insurance pool. It wouldn’t try to insure the uninsurable, but would provide their health care more directly. After all, it is health care that counts, not health insurance.

One can be forgiven for thinking that the last thing Republicans need right now is another health-care plan. And Senator Paul’s plan is certainly not perfect; there are nits to be picked. But it may well offer Republicans the best road map they can find out of the wilderness they have been wandering in.
...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443746/republican-health-care-plan-rand-paul

[newbitech]

The real libertarian solution to healthcare.


http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-no-matter-how-disastrously-some-policy-has-turned-out-anyone-who-criticizes-it-can-expect-thomas-sowell-57-18-33.jpg

that is such an obtuse comment. there is a difference between healthcare and heath insurance. the policy of government mandated health insurance is definitely a fire that needs to be put out. but it doesn't solve the problem of healthcare fire that has been raging long before obamacare.

i think the more prudent path to healthcare reform is recognizing that health care insurance is not the same as healthcare. Insurance as a whole is a gamblers market place. Everyone is going to get sick, everyone is going to have a terminal illness. There is not a pool of money big enough in the world to cover the expense of keeping everyone alive as long as possible.

The sooner we realize that, the sooner we'll put more focus on quality and affordable healthcare. Insurance is not the answer.

Rand Paul's plan recognizes this. You can't replace healthcare with nothing.

[Brian4Liberty]

there is a difference between healthcare and heath insurance.
...
i think the more prudent path to healthcare reform is recognizing that health care insurance is not the same as healthcare. Insurance as a whole is a gamblers market place. Everyone is going to get sick, everyone is going to have a terminal illness. There is not a pool of money big enough in the world to cover the expense of keeping everyone alive as long as possible.

The sooner we realize that, the sooner we'll put more focus on quality and affordable healthcare. Insurance is not the answer.

Rand Paul's plan recognizes this. You can't replace healthcare with nothing.

Exactly. One of the biggest frustrations is listening to pundits and politicians conflate insurance with health care. They are not the same thing!

And that is the essential problem. The free market has a hard enough time working rapidly and efficiently in the first place. Evolution does not happen over night, but to insulate customers from the price eliminates free market competition on price entirely. You then have what we have today. The only motivations on price are for the providers to increase them as rapidly as possible. There is no true incentive for prices to be reduced.

[Superfluous Man]

Nobody who voted for Trump voted for replacing Obamacare, that's for sure.

That's exactly what they voted for.

[timosman]

Exactly. One of the biggest frustrations is listening to pundits and politicians conflate insurance with health care. They are not the same thing!

And that is the essential problem. The free market has a hard enough time working rapidly and efficiently in the first place. Evolution does not happen over night, but to insulate customers from the price eliminates free market competition on price entirely. You then have what we have today. The only motivations on price are for the providers to increase them as rapidly as possible. There is no true incentive for prices to be reduced.

Executive summary: It's a scam!

[The Rebel Poet]

Suddenly, nobody has a problem with the federal government being involved where it shouldn't be, because Rand.

Isn't anyone here libertarian enough to wonder what Rand's justification for having a replacement is, when the Constitution could not be clearer that control over health care is not among the powers delegated to the federal government?

Is there anything less libertarian than a federal government controlling the health care sector?

(Don't bother to answer, all the people with integrity abandoned this place long ago, and I have zero respect for the legions of hypocrites left.)

Trump supporter saying Rand isn't libertarian enough, then calls those who support Rand (even tepidly) integrityless hypocrites. You can't be that stupid, so why do you waste your time here?

[euphemia]

You all do realize that government has been involved in the medical industry for decades, right? Long before Obamacare. Rand's plan to remove regulations and encourage personal/family HSAs is a really good first step. Trump has set a Feb 20 deadline for Congress to have a bill on his desk. For that to happen, the Senate will have to have it finished Jan 27. Rand is not on board with what everyone else is drafting, but I think he will get some parts of his plan in the new bill.

People currently in plans on exchanges will not lose coverage immediately. I have a feeling we are going to be stuck with this part for at least two more years.

[EBounding]

Something this article points out is that Rand is trying cut to the link between health insurance and employment. Rand mentioned this in an interview I just saw as well.

That is the single most important issue in terms of keeping prices high. Incentivizing high deductible plans and HSAs and shifting as much burden as possible onto the employee is a great way to start the process.

I suspect Rand and his staff just borrowed Milton Friedman's entire plan as well as the strategy for implementation. You could do a lot worse. http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/milton-friedman-medical-insurance-opinions-columnists-health-care.html


Yes the employer healthcare tax exemption creates a huge distortion. Replace it with unlimited HSAs and allow competition across state-lines.

Of course, you still have those with pre-existing conditions and can't afford treatment. There's two options for these people; they either won't get treatment or someone else will have to pay for it. But adjusting the tax code and making the other market oriented changes for insurance would reduce the cost of actual treatments and make the tax subsidies or charity more effective. The tax subsidies could wind down as people buy their own insurance plans earlier on in life.

All of that is a tough sell though since our culture generally thinks all medical treatments should be paid by a third party.

[Brian4Liberty]

Executive summary: It's a scam!

Pretty much. Any socialized pool of money is ripe for corruption, abuse, market distortion and theft. That is an ironclad law of nature.

[PierzStyx]

that is such an obtuse comment. there is a difference between healthcare and heath insurance. the policy of government mandated health insurance is definitely a fire that needs to be put out. but it doesn't solve the problem of healthcare fire that has been raging long before obamacare.

Rand Paul's plan recognizes this. You can't replace healthcare with nothing.

Sure I dropped a word by accident. But in context it should be clear enough what I'm talking about.

You repeal the ACA and replace it with nothing. This whole idea that you need to "replace" it with something is foolish. It is just another way to get the US government involved in the system when government involvement in the system IS the problem. It is why healthcare costs were crazy before the ACA and why they're crazy with the ACA and why they'll be crazy after the ACA.

Rand's answer isn't really liberty, he doesn't think the government should be out of the system. he just thinks his way of manipulating the system would be better than Obamacare. Which it probably would be, I'll be fair there. but that doesn't solve the central reason we have Obamacare in the first place, which is that government regulators think they have a right to regulate and control healthcare costs. It was why healthcare coverage was such a mess before the ACA and why it only got worse with the ACA. And no matter how far back Rand thinks he can pull the tide, it will only surge forward again because his "solution" won't "fix" anything. You can't fix scarcity, illness, and death. There will always be problems and as long as government regulators think they can use government force to dream up a system that will "fix" the issues of mortality, and as long as they have the historical precedent telling them to try, they will do so. Which means that whatever Rand's "fix" is will only go the way of the dodo eventually.

So the best you can do is mitigate the problem. And the way to best do that is to remove government distortion form the system in all its forms. Instead of government mandates and hand out and rules and regulations, you let the market function. Let people figure out for themselves the ways they can best serve one another.

Repeal the ACA. Replace it with nothing. Then start on the next thing. And the next. And the next. That way instead of putting out fires in one place only to start them elsewhere, you douse all the fires and let people build their own firepits.

[newbitech]

Sure I dropped a word by accident. But in context it should be clear enough what I'm talking about.

You repeal the ACA and replace it with nothing. This whole idea that you need to "replace" it with something is foolish. It is just another way to get the US government involved in the system when government involvement in the system IS the problem. It is why healthcare costs were crazy before the ACA and why they're crazy with the ACA and why they'll be crazy after the ACA.

Rand's answer isn't really liberty, he doesn't think the government should be out of the system. he just thinks his way of manipulating the system would be better than Obamacare. Which it probably would be, I'll be fair there. but that doesn't solve the central reason we have Obamacare in the first place, which is that government regulators think they have a right to regulate and control healthcare costs. It was why healthcare coverage was such a mess before the ACA and why it only got worse with the ACA. And no matter how far back Rand thinks he can pull the tide, it will only surge forward again because his "solution" won't "fix" anything. You can't fix scarcity, illness, and death. There will always be problems and as long as government regulators think they can use government force to dream up a system that will "fix" the issues of mortality, and as long as they have the historical precedent telling them to try, they will do so. Which means that whatever Rand's "fix" is will only go the way of the dodo eventually.

So the best you can do is mitigate the problem. And the way to best do that is to remove government distortion form the system in all its forms. Instead of government mandates and hand out and rules and regulations, you let the market function. Let people figure out for themselves the ways they can best serve one another.

Repeal the ACA. Replace it with nothing. Then start on the next thing. And the next. And the next. That way instead of putting out fires in one place only to start them elsewhere, you douse all the fires and let people build their own firepits.

I agree, government meddling in healthcare is disastrous. But if you are advocating getting rid of tax free health care savings rather than increase the amount in which I can contribute then you are advocating increasing my total tax liability.

The problem that you have is that Rand is dealing with one of many government overreaches. You can't burn obamacare without some fire walls for other areas of impact. Of course I understand your plan is to burn the whole thing. I get that.

But understand with that plan, you are here criticizing Rand's plan to use his power in government to do the best he can when you should simply criticize him for ever getting involved in the first place.

That's just not going to fly with me. The Paul family has always been about staking out positions of power within the government to hold back the tide of anti-liberty ideals. They have inspired millions to protest logically, take positive actions, and generally begin an intellectual revolt.

Many of the fruits of those early efforts are ripening in front of us right now. I remain optimistic in Rand's service to liberty and believe every inch of liberty he gains back within the confines of the senate translates to miles of liberty gained back across the land.

[eleganz]

Rand's answer isn't really liberty, he doesn't think the government should be out of the system. he just thinks his way of manipulating the system would be better than Obamacare.


Who the hell is this? And why is he shtposting?


PierzStyx isn't really liberty, he just talks a lot about ideas but doesn't care for any implementations of it in the real world. Because libertarian purism uber cool and anything that is short of pure free market isn't worth trying, even if you get nothing from attempting to get everything.

Purist libertarianism is just as bad as the entitled millennial SJW mentality we see on college campuses.

[Krugminator2]

Repeal the ACA. Replace it with nothing. Then start on the next thing. And the next. And the next. That way instead of putting out fires in one place only to start them elsewhere, you douse all the fires and let people build their own firepits.


Nobody wants free market health care at this point. It isn't even close to being an option. Tea Party people don't want free market health care. They will defend Medicare to the end of the Earth. . Anyone working for a business that provides health insurance doesn't want free market health care. Ron Paul doesn't even make a half hearted argument for a free market health care. He wants cut military spending to help entitlements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qojv1bR-S0

I read your paragraph as you want Canadian style healthcare, because what you are arguing for has zero chance of ever happening. Not even a 1% chance. Not even a 1/10 of 1% chance. It is infinitely more likely that we will have single payer health care than government completely out of health care. The better option is to start getting people used to paying for things out of their pocket. In my opinion having a system of high deductibles and HSAs like Singapore makes way more sense than keeping what we have and it might even be doable in the real world. Rand is basically trying to get us to copy the most efficient health care system in the world. https://qz.com/565420/the-best-healthcare-thinking-is-happening-in-singapore/

In the article I linked a few posts up, Rand just took Milton Friedman's ideas. Friedman knew that it was silly to even push your line of reasoning because it would be such a radical change.

[PierzStyx]

But understand with that plan, you are here criticizing Rand's plan to use his power in government to do the best he can when you should simply criticize him for ever getting involved in the first place.

That's just not going to fly with me. The Paul family has always been about staking out positions of power within the government to hold back the tide of anti-liberty ideals. They have inspired millions to protest logically, take positive actions, and generally begin an intellectual revolt.

Many of the fruits of those early efforts are ripening in front of us right now. I remain optimistic in Rand's service to liberty and believe every inch of liberty he gains back within the confines of the senate translates to miles of liberty gained back across the land.


Well, there are two points here.

1. I don't think he is doing the best he can. You don't need to replace the ACA with anything. There is just no reason for it. Rip it out, root and branch. Replace it with nothing. The argument that it would just go back to what it was before isn't convincing because that was better than this and it will be better than whatever government regulatory plans Rand is cooking up. If Rand were doing the best he could he would be arguing for just this course.

2. I am criticizing his involvement in government. But it is more than that. I accept that Ron got involved with government out of a sincere effort to at least have a public voice against it. I don't see that with Rand. Not a bit. Ron was willing to risk his position, influence, and power to do what he thought was right and to not violate his principles. Rand exchanges political favors, violating his supposedly libertarian principles for what he thinks will be a toehold in the door. Ostensibly this will position him for a Presidential run, but this is a delusional hope. Which is why we have President Trump. Not even Ted Cruz could get elected. There are no "ripening fruits" just rot hanging on the vine.


So, in choosing to betray myself for the blind chance I might be able to lie my way into power one day or actually maintaining true principles, I will choose true principles every day. At least then I'm not making anything worse.

[PierzStyx]

Who the hell is this? And why is he shtposting?


PierzStyx isn't really liberty, he just talks a lot about ideas but doesn't care for any implementations of it in the real world. Because libertarian purism uber cool and anything that is short of pure free market isn't worth trying, even if you get nothing from attempting to get everything.

Purist libertarianism is just as bad as the entitled millennial SJW mentality we see on college campuses.

Blah blah blah blah


Come off the cross already. Its winter. We could use the wood.

Also, apparently being for human freedom and free markets somehow makes me not "really liberty," whatever that means. I think you mean that libertarianism isn't really about liberty, in which case you're too stupid to have a real conversation with. You're just another Leftist whiner.

[PierzStyx]

Nobody wants free market health care at this point. It isn't even close to being an option. Tea Party people don't want free market health care. They will defend Medicare to the end of the Earth. . Anyone working for a business that provides health insurance doesn't want free market health care. Ron Paul doesn't even make a half hearted argument for a free market health care. He wants cut military spending to help entitlements. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qojv1bR-S0

In my opinion having a system of high deductibles and HSAs like Singapore makes way more sense than keeping what we have and it might even be doable in the real world. Rand is basically trying to get us to copy the most efficient health care system in the world. https://qz.com/565420/the-best-healthcare-thinking-is-happening-in-singapore/

In the article I linked a few posts up, Rand just took Milton Friedman's ideas. Friedman knew that it was silly to even push your line of reasoning because it would be such a radical change.


Rand is basically trying to get us to copy one of the most efficient health care system authoritarian governments in the world.

FTFY.

Seriously? Singapore? You realize you're just making my point, right? That Rand's program isn't about liberty but government control? Arguing that it is efficent government authoritarianism doesn't make it any better.


As for everything else, at one time no one wanted to end slavery, or allow women their right to own property or the power to vote, or end Jim Crow and segregation, or have a huge authoritarian centralized federal regime. Yet all those things, good and bad, have come to pass. And why have they come to pass? Because people of ideals pushed for them unceasingly until all others joined them. Arguing that no one wants to end MediCare now so we shouldn't be pushing for it is idiotic. That is exactly why no one will consider it, because those who know better, or should, are cowards, too afraid to stand for principles and facts because it threatens their positions and power. Follow your path and no one will ever get rid of Medicare or anything else, the government will only continue expanding.

Also, you're wrong about Ron. When asked specifically about how healthcare should be run he responded: "All services and goods are best delivered in the marketplace under a free system." He even talks about various ways an absolute free market system would work better than any government concoction.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWLwJyc0ZqI

[eleganz]

Blah blah blah blah


Come off the cross already. Its winter. We could use the wood.

Also, apparently being for human freedom and free markets somehow makes me not "really liberty," whatever that means. I think you mean that libertarianism isn't really about liberty, in which case you're too stupid to have a real conversation with. You're just another Leftist whiner.

Ok bubble boy,

Like a entitled brat, you neg'd me for calling you out. Jesus, grow a pair..

I'm pretty sure I accurately described you as a libertarian purist and you would agree with that as you've already stated you want nothing but the free market option and with that risk, if you lose, you get zero. Why do you get zero? Because Rand is the only one putting out product and if he gets shut down, everything is down the drain. The more accepted GOP idea passes and nobody will go back to re-vote on this healthcare bill unless it is equal or greater than the disaster that Obamacare was. You're learning now, keep reading.

I said you only care about the idea of liberty but you don't care about the actual implementation of it, prove me wrong. How are your ideas going to become reality? Trump doesn't even agree with full repeal and he is the only person that can make this law, where is your solution?

I'm for the free market but I'm also not all or nothing. So going with the leftist straw man BS isn't helping your case and it only makes you look like the whiner.

You have absolutely no clue how the real world works, you live in a libertarian online bubble of purity. Don't falsely accuse me of being a leftist simply because you cannot see out of that bubble and think that congress will suddenly become fans of Ayn Rand and accept the free market solution. Then blame Rand and assume he doesn't actually believe in free markets simply because what he's putting out (for a chance at passage) does not align with your bubble world, bubble boy.

You should read this, over and over again until you understand it.




what you are arguing for has zero chance of ever happening. Not even a 1% chance. Not even a 1/10 of 1% chance. It is infinitely more likely that we will have single payer health care than government completely out of health care. The better option is to start getting people used to paying for things out of their pocket. In my opinion having a system of high deductibles and HSAs like Singapore makes way more sense than keeping what we have and it might even be doable in the real world. Rand is basically trying to get us to copy the most efficient health care system in the world. https://qz.com/565420/the-best-healthcare-thinking-is-happening-in-singapore/

In the article I linked a few posts up, Rand just took Milton Friedman's ideas. Friedman knew that it was silly to even push your line of reasoning because it would be such a radical change.

[newbitech]

Well, there are two points here.

1. I don't think he is doing the best he can. You don't need to replace the ACA with anything. There is just no reason for it. Rip it out, root and branch. Replace it with nothing. The argument that it would just go back to what it was before isn't convincing because that was better than this and it will be better than whatever government regulatory plans Rand is cooking up. If Rand were doing the best he could he would be arguing for just this course.

2. I am criticizing his involvement in government. But it is more than that. I accept that Ron got involved with government out of a sincere effort to at least have a public voice against it. I don't see that with Rand. Not a bit. Ron was willing to risk his position, influence, and power to do what he thought was right and to not violate his principles. Rand exchanges political favors, violating his supposedly libertarian principles for what he thinks will be a toehold in the door. Ostensibly this will position him for a Presidential run, but this is a delusional hope. Which is why we have President Trump. Not even Ted Cruz could get elected. There are no "ripening fruits" just rot hanging on the vine.


So, in choosing to betray myself for the blind chance I might be able to lie my way into power one day or actually maintaining true principles, I will choose true principles every day. At least then I'm not making anything worse.

1.) is your opinion. he's doing better than anyone else that has liberty ideals at his root. You completely side stepped my point that ripping this completely out will cause damage in other areas that will make my taxes go up too. Even tho it's a small pittance, by ripping out the ability to contribute tax free earnings to my health care, you are causing me to have to pay more tax on my income. This is just a small example of how embedded the problem is. Ripping it out at this point from the root causes you to rip out a lot of other things with the domino effect of ultimately leading to a conclusion that an overthrow of government is required. Not the intellectual overthrow that Rand, Ron, and myself are looking for, but an armed bloody anarchist revolt. Not gonna happen.

2.) Well, I think your criticism is misplaced. Perhaps focus on getting such monolithic bastions as Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and their ilk tossed out of government. That is a good place to start. Attacking a nascent liberty up-welling despite the headwinds is like shooting yourself in the foot. Why would you do that?

There are plenty of fruits ripening. One big obvious one is the coalescence around a disruptive to the status quo candidate. Sure it's not the right candidate, but at least the minds are starting to shake off drone like mentality that government = good and actions are following. Plenty of other examples out there if you get out in the community and talk to people.

[newbitech]

If you can get past the whole religious thing, this parable is befitting the arguments in this thread.

Basically, don't go ripping everything out by the roots. Let the field grow out. The good and the bad together. Wait until harvest time to separate the bad. Rand (and the ideals of liberty) are still in the sowing phase. He's got some sprouts coming up. You go ripping up everything now and you lose anything beneficial to gain.

Understand this is a generational battle.

24Jesus presented another parable to them: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25But while everyone was asleep, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and slipped away. 26When the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the weeds also appeared.27The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’28‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.So the servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’29‘No,’ he said, ‘if you pull the weeds now, you might uproot the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest. At the proper time I will tell the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

[goRPaul]

2. I am criticizing his involvement in government. But it is more than that. I accept that Ron got involved with government out of a sincere effort to at least have a public voice against it. I don't see that with Rand. Not a bit. Ron was willing to risk his position, influence, and power to do what he thought was right and to not violate his principles. Rand exchanges political favors, violating his supposedly libertarian principles for what he thinks will be a toehold in the door. Ostensibly this will position him for a Presidential run, but this is a delusional hope. Which is why we have President Trump. Not even Ted Cruz could get elected. There are no "ripening fruits" just rot hanging on the vine.

So, in choosing to betray myself for the blind chance I might be able to lie my way into power one day or actually maintaining true principles, I will choose true principles every day. At least then I'm not making anything worse.

I agree that you're not making anything worse. I think eleganz was a bit harsh. But don't waste his and your time fighting with him. This is a very tired argument amongst libertarians, whether change is attainable outside of government or from within it. I firmly believe both avenues are effective. However, activists have to choose which one they'll take because purists can't be effective in government. Ron was terrific, but he didn't have a measurable effect on Washington. And it was a lot easier for him to be a purist in a small district. Senate seats are much harder to come by. Ron tried to get there and failed, but Rand did it. He wouldn't have if he didn't compromise. Yes, it hurts to see him endorse Romney and McConnell and campaign against libertarians, but he's gone forever if he doesn't. And his replacement will be much worse.

Purists should leave the "change from within" crowd alone, and vice-versa. Recognize the contributions by each other, help each other if it's convenient, but don't rely on the other or drag each other down.

[Krugminator2]

W

2. I am criticizing his involvement in government. But it is more than that. I accept that Ron got involved with government out of a sincere effort to at least have a public voice against it. I don't see that with Rand. Not a bit. Ron was willing to risk his position, influence, and power to do what he thought was right and to not violate his principles. Rand exchanges political favors, violating his supposedly libertarian principles for what he thinks will be a toehold in the door. Ostensibly this will position him for a Presidential run, but this is a delusional hope. Which is why we have President Trump. Not even Ted Cruz could get elected. There are no "ripening fruits" just rot hanging on the vine.


So, in choosing to betray myself for the blind chance I might be able to lie my way into power one day or actually maintaining true principles, I will choose true principles every day. At least then I'm not making anything worse.

No actually Ron was perfectly happy doing what was necessary to stay in office. And rightfully so. But Ron is no more principled that any number of people in Washington. His district was consistently in the top 10 districts receiving pork and he created a laughable excuse for it. Ron's stock answer on Medicare about closing military bases or something is ridiculous. Ron supported Newt against Dick Armey, who was the insurgent and later Freedomworks head, for Speaker. Ron endorsed numerous horrible people like Don Young against a libertarian Republican and Lamar Smith.

Ron was a good promoter of libertarian ideas. I give Ron very little credit for being "principled." Is going on Alex Jones to talk about globalist sea monsters principled or is that more pragmatic because Jones has a fringe audience that might be willing to donate to an outlier Congressmen? I give him credit because he was an effective salesman whose legacy includes a number of very good people in Washington and forums like this. I also give Ron credit because he put himself out there for ridicule just like Amash, Massie, and Rand do.

[eleganz]

Purists should leave the "change from within" crowd alone, and vice-versa. Recognize the contributions by each other, help each other if it's convenient, but don't rely on the other or drag each other down.

Sure I'm harsh, because its tiresome to see sideline quarterbacking from people who claim some moral high ground but never actually do anything because they're 'above it all'. I hear it all too much from the local anarcho-capitalists who are above it all (to avoid doing any actual work) but can never resist the urge to move their mouths.

The so called purists are so pure that they literally interject themselves into how government intervention should take place. I'm looking at them to put up or shut up, leave the system, don't depend or give into the system in anyway, which is what I try to do at the same time I support Ron/Rand/Justin/Thomas.

The whole, 'Rand is not Ron' talking point has been beaten to death x1000000, its really just a joke now and you can tell how serious people are about any actual change when they bring this point up. Ron preaches to the choir, and we love it. Rand takes the message, softens it up and presents it to a completely new audience that Ron was never able or meant to reach. Rand does it in a way where it forces people to agree or accept hypocrisy. Many agree publicly and become fans, many agree in secret and many are still holding out but he is doing his job and expanding the tent.

But the purists don't want to expand the tent, they like the exclusive club feeling that they know Mises and none of their friends have any idea what they're talking about.

[EBounding]

So have any other Republicans presented anything?

[CPUd]

So have any other Republicans presented anything?

LOL no. Rand mentioned the guy up for HHS has offered one in the past, though.

[goRPaul]

But the purists don't want to expand the tent, they like the exclusive club feeling that they know Mises and none of their friends have any idea what they're talking about.

Much of your criticism is accurate, but this statement is just frustration. Those working outside of government are spreading the ideas of liberty, just in a different way. I think we need a truce between the two camps. We share the philosophy, just differ in activism, which is quite alright. Any way liberty is spread is a good way.

[LibertyEagle]

Importantly, Paul avoids one of the most significant pitfalls of many Republican plans by not retaining Obamacare’s pre-existing-condition rules. These provisions, which prohibit insurers from denying coverage or charging more to people who are already sick, are among the few popular parts of Obamacare. Yet they are also the reason behind some of the most damaging and unpopular provisions, such as the individual mandate.

Paul avoids one of the most significant pitfalls of many Republican plans by not retaining Obamacare’s pre-existing-condition rules.

Some Republicans are discussing ways to preserve the pre-existing-condition requirements as long as a person maintains continuous coverage, or creating an open-enrollment period during which the rules apply. But those proposals would still encourage people to game the system, jumping to more comprehensive plans or those with the best specialists after they become sick, knowing that insurers could not refuse them or increase their premiums. If Republicans simultaneously eliminate the mandate, this will only accelerate the adverse-selection death spiral that is already besetting Obamacare.

Paul would eliminate the pre-existing-condition regulations altogether (after a transition period), while his other reforms would significantly reduce the number of people who genuinely cannot buy health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. For those who still need help, Paul envisions responsibility for covering them being shifted to the states, possibly in conjunction with proposals to block-grant Medicaid.

Rand has his head up his ass. Let me get this straight. Insurance companies have for decades lobbied Congress to pass regulations and have in fact written laws giving them a captive market. They contractually dictate to medical providers that they cannot provide their services for the same price as what they would receive from insurance. In fact, leading to people without insurance that has negotiated rates being charged four times the amount as what the medical provider would get from insurance. Then, the insurance company has the right to deny coverage to individuals. Sweet deal. Except for the person who is left paying 4 times the amount.

You want free market? Great. Start ripping out decades of regulations that have gotten us in this mess.

[osan]

Suddenly, nobody has a problem with the federal government being involved where it shouldn't be, because Rand.

Well hold on now. Let us stop and think on this for just a moment. Obama and a traitorous Congress saddled us with BammyCare over the course of eight years. Let us not forget that we are talking of what is essentially the largest market monopoly in the nation, speaking for the full 320++ millions of people. That's a very large ship that does not come about on a dime.

Before blowing a gasket, stop to think of what it would mean in real terms if Congress were to repeal BammyCare on Monday, cold turkey. Imagine people such as my wife who just underwent an 11-hour surgery, still in the hospital recovering. They are in a near-death state and in need of the closest monitoring and care. Were their means of paying for all that to go <poof> from one minute to another, chaos would ensue for millions, with plenty dying. Some hospitals would face terrible financial crises. In short, we'd be in a world of trouble.

Some people might say, "so what?". That's easy when you are in great health. Not so hot when you are in need of help.

Getting this huge vessel on another heading is going to take time, and the change from present course to ultimate will almost certainly have to come in stages.

Recall what I have been writing lately about incremental change. It has taken America 228 years to get to this sorry pass. Even under the best of plausible circumstances, it is going to take many years to make good headway from the precipice at which we now find ourselves.


Isn't anyone here libertarian enough to wonder what Rand's justification for having a replacement is, when the Constitution could not be clearer that control over health care is not among the powers delegated to the federal government?

The justification is the avoidance of crashing the "medical economy", which will certainly result in disasters for endless numbers of people. "Government", whether traitorous or merely inept, got us into this at the point of the sword. They are responsible for this fiasco and now have to take a staged approach away. I have NO idea whether all this talk issuing from Trump, Congress, etc. can be taken at face, or if its all just more bullshit designed to paint us into a different but equally lousy corner. I only know that cold-turkey would be a bad thing for huge numbers of people.

This is the bed we have allowed Themme to make for us. We must now lie in it until such time, hopefully, as we direct those we have hired to get us out of this mess.

Orthogonal point: this is a grand example of just how completely ill-architected our Constitution is and, far more significantly, how spectacularly we as a people have failed ourselves. We are more concerned with getting that new BMW in Teal Orchid Vomit and fretting over whether our girlfriends will master the craft of the blowjob, than we are with our freedoms. Theye have long ago assumed positions to which they had no right, and our forbears just sat idly by like ignorant, dull-witted miscreants and let them. It is high time we become a warrior culture. Otherwise, let us dispense with all this phony baloney pretense of being "free", lay down, and be openly that which we have become: low-rent whores willing to sell ourselves cheaply for the most meager of token offerings.


Is there anything less libertarian than a federal government controlling the health care sector?

Nothing comes immediately to mind, but we cannot just shut it off. Theye have been very clever, having us locked in a self-reinforcing loop that could cause terrible harms in the event it is tampered with in the "wrong" ways.

Just look at the military. We are now talking of TRILLIONS of dollars PER YEAR. This doesn't even rise to absurdity. Now think of the ways in which US foreign policy has been altered and carried forth just since 2001's most infamous day. We have pissed off a huge portion of the world, have "secretly" (har har har) given birth to organizations such as this so-called "ISIS", and helped set the global stage in such fashion that we cannot, under these prevailing conditions, afford to step-down our military.

Theye created modern China - not the Chinese - for without America, China would still be pulling rickshaws and living a 3rd century BC lifestyle. Theye ensured the Soviets rose to their ultimate heights, and then modern Russia. Theye conceived and fed all these "terrorist" organizations.

What's the payoff? Power. Make conditions such that the frightened people hand over their consent to your demented and evil designs, smiling and thankful that someone is keeping them safe. For Christ's sake, you can't make this stuff up.

We are being played at every turn by very clever and ruthless people.


(Don't bother to answer, all the people with integrity abandoned this place long ago, and I have zero respect for the legions of hypocrites left.)

I see, so now I am a hypocrite? Show us. You made the assertion; now pony up.

Your statement also raises the question of what your continuing presence here makes you.

[Anti Federalist]

The government enablers know how to set things up so that they can never, ever, go away, because of the situation you, and millions of others just like you, are in.

The sad truth is that it will go away, just not on our terms, but the cold hard terms of economic reality.

One of the untold horrors of the 20th century were the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people left in lurch when the USSR collapsed.

Many of those dependent on the Soviet system were reduced to utter poverty, many were left homeless, but many just died.


Well hold on now. Let us stop and think on this for just a moment. Obama and a traitorous Congress saddled us with BammyCare over the course of eight years. Let us not forget that we are talking of what is essentially the largest market monopoly in the nation, speaking for the full 320++ millions of people. That's a very large ship that does not come about on a dime.

Before blowing a gasket, stop to think of what it would mean in real terms if Congress were to repeal BammyCare on Monday, cold turkey. Imagine people such as my wife who just underwent an 11-hour surgery, still in the hospital recovering. They are in a near-death state and in need of the closest monitoring and care. Were their means of paying for all that to go <poof> from one minute to another, chaos would ensue for millions, with plenty dying. Some hospitals would face terrible financial crises. In short, we'd be in a world of trouble.

Some people might say, "so what?". That's easy when you are in great health. Not so hot when you are in need of help.

Getting this huge vessel on another heading is going to take time, and the change from present course to ultimate will almost certainly have to come in stages.

Recall what I have been writing lately about incremental change. It has taken America 228 years to get to this sorry pass. Even under the best of plausible circumstances, it is going to take many years to make good headway from the precipice at which we now find ourselves.



The justification is the avoidance of crashing the "medical economy", which will certainly result in disasters for endless numbers of people. "Government", whether traitorous or merely inept, got us into this at the point of the sword. They are responsible for this fiasco and now have to take a staged approach away. I have NO idea whether all this talk issuing from Trump, Congress, etc. can be taken at face, or if its all just more bullshit designed to paint us into a different but equally lousy corner. I only know that cold-turkey would be a bad thing for huge numbers of people.

This is the bed we have allowed Themme to make for us. We must now lie in it until such time, hopefully, as we direct those we have hired to get us out of this mess.

Orthogonal point: this is a grand example of just how completely ill-architected our Constitution is and, far more significantly, how spectacularly we as a people have failed ourselves. We are more concerned with getting that new BMW in Teal Orchid Vomit and fretting over whether our girlfriends will master the craft of the blowjob, than we are with our freedoms. Theye have long ago assumed positions to which they had no right, and our forbears just sat idly by like ignorant, dull-witted miscreants and let them. It is high time we become a warrior culture. Otherwise, let us dispense with all this phony baloney pretense of being "free", lay down, and be openly that which we have become: low-rent whores willing to sell ourselves cheaply for the most meager of token offerings.



Nothing comes immediately to mind, but we cannot just shut it off. Theye have been very clever, having us locked in a self-reinforcing loop that could cause terrible harms in the event it is tampered with in the "wrong" ways.

Just look at the military. We are now talking of TRILLIONS of dollars PER YEAR. This doesn't even rise to absurdity. Now think of the ways in which US foreign policy has been altered and carried forth just since 2001's most infamous day. We have pissed off a huge portion of the world, have "secretly" (har har har) given birth to organizations such as this so-called "ISIS", and helped set the global stage in such fashion that we cannot, under these prevailing conditions, afford to step-down our military.

Theye created modern China - not the Chinese - for without America, China would still be pulling rickshaws and living a 3rd century BC lifestyle. Theye ensured the Soviets rose to their ultimate heights, and then modern Russia. Theye conceived and fed all these "terrorist" organizations.

What's the payoff? Power. Make conditions such that the frightened people hand over their consent to your demented and evil designs, smiling and thankful that someone is keeping them safe. For Christ's sake, you can't make this stuff up.

We are being played at every turn by very clever and ruthless people.



I see, so now I am a hypocrite? Show us. You made the assertion; now pony up.

Your statement also raises the question of what your continuing presence here makes you.

[Brian4Liberty]

Bump.

[EBounding]

Trump isn't going to endorse this. I think he would sign it if it somehow got through to him, but he's wiped his hands clean of Obamacare and his supporters do not care.

[Superfluous Man]

His district was consistently in the top 10 districts receiving pork and he created a laughable excuse for it.

I see nothing unprincipled about his district receiving that port or his excuse. It was a flawless argument.

[Superfluous Man]

So have any other Republicans presented anything?

Yes. There are at least two repeal Obamacare bills that have been introduced in the House besides the one they just cancelled the vote on.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yes, because Rand. Some of us have hope that Rand having influence here will result in a better outcome than other options that come from crony politicians and their lobbyist masters.

Well, even though Rand got a jump on them, the crony backroom establishment still tried to ram their RyanCare plan down our throats. At least Rand and the Freedom Caucus prevented that from happening.