PDA

View Full Version : Let's discuss the details of Rand's health plan




jmdrake
04-02-2017, 08:49 AM
Hello folks. So right now Trump/Ryancare is stalled. They're going to try to bring it back eventually. And the dems are going to push Sandercare. (If Obamacare was so great, why did Bernie Sanders gain so much traction in the democratic primaries essentially running to repeal and replace Obamacare?) Yes, we all know Rand has put forward his own plan. And we know it's going to be "wicked good". But how many of us have taken the time to actually read and understand it? I have not...until today. I want this thread to be about the content of the plan. Forget all of the sideshow stories about who is or is not behind it. Forget, even initially, discussions of how his plan compares to other plans. We can do that later. First we need to understand what Rand is proposing. Once we understand that, we can move to phase two which is making sure conservatives outside the liberty movement understand it, and hopefully advocate for it. Ultimately I hope Rand and Ron Paul start doing virtual town halls on the issue where Ron/Rand Paul supporters around the country can meet up at designated spots to watch live streaming video where the plan is fully explained and a plan is put into place to advocate for this plan. Right now understanding and advocating Rand Paul's healthcare plan is the most important thing liberty loving people can do. Yes it's even more important RIGHT NOW, than is auditing and ending the Federal Reserve. Why? Because Americans have short attention spans. If we "win" this battle, we can keep voters attention for our next initiative.

So...step one. Read the dang bill. Here it the summary.

https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ObamacareReplacementActSections.pdf

Here is the actual bill.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/222/text

The summary is broken into sections. Read the whole thing from top to bottom. Then let's discuss the sections. (Really, this is so important an initiative that it's worth its own subforum IMO.) When you read the whole bill, please post in this thread "I read it." Even if you read it before, if it's been more than a month since you read it, read it again please. The good thing about Rand's plan is that it is only 4 pages. Only 4 freaking pages! And it's written in plan English. (Ryan's plan says stuff like "Line 25 of page 72 of the USC section blah is stricken and is replaced by blah blah blah.")

Seriously folks. We can do this. We can get to the point where we understand #RandPaulCare well enough to advocate for and explain it to others.

tod evans
04-02-2017, 09:01 AM
I really like this;


This provision would allow states to make changes to their Medicaid plans without interference from
Washington.

juleswin
04-02-2017, 09:33 AM
I read all 3 and a half pages and I saw a lot of things I like about the bill. The part that annoys me is the contradictions in the bill. Rand talks about how he is going to repeal


Individual and employer mandates, community rating restrictions, rate review, essential health benefits requirement, medical loss ratio, and other insurance mandates.

Which is good but he then follows it up with


Protecting Individuals with Pre-Existing Conditions
Provides a two-year open-enrollment period under which individuals with pre-existing
conditions can obtain coverage.

The deception in the title of the section is what is going to trip him off. You cannot give individuals and insurance companies all this freedom while protecting insurance coverage of people with pre existing condition(PEC) (which is a term that I sorta hate cos just about every human being has some medical issues going on with them). The truth that Rand would not tell you is that individuals with severe PEC will be left out of his bill. Yes, he may lower the cost of healthcare for everybody but those people will not benefit from individuals pooling together to form associations or being given a 2 yr window to enroll for health insurance.

Also, the idea that individuals would pool together to get better insurance deals is another nonsense idea that he keeps bringing up. If that was such a good idea, how come people do not pool together to buy car insurance? I like the bill, but if he doesn't remove those contradictions in the bill and start being honest with the voters, his bill would not go anywhere.

ultimately, I think the majority of democrats and republicans like some very socialistic portions of Obamacare like kids being able to be covered by their parents insurance until they turn 27(which Rand said he would not remove) and protection of people with PEC. The best conservative bill is the one Trump and the rep establishment pushed, what Rand is talking about would be soundly rejected by the majority socialists that want govt protection from big bad corporations once the contents on the bill is exposed to said public.

I think it was a big mistake to reject the Paul Ryan plan cos that is the best we can get.

francisco
04-02-2017, 12:33 PM
I read it.

twomp
04-02-2017, 03:00 PM
Why do we even need health insurance companies? Health care is the only industry dominated by the insurance companies. If you have a cough, you should go to a doctor who specializes in coughs, pay him/her and be done. Why is it necessary to pay another person and have that person pay the doctor? It should be the same with any other health issue. The insurance companies are making a killing off this scam.

Krugminator2
04-02-2017, 03:16 PM
Why do we even need health insurance companies? Health care is the only industry dominated by the insurance companies. If you have a cough, you should go to a doctor who specializes in coughs, pay him/her and be done. Why is it necessary to pay another person and have that person pay the doctor? It should be the same with any other health issue. The insurance companies are making a killing off this scam.


Well....Everyone who owns their home and has a mortgage has home insurance. So there is that industry. Most people would like to have the option of paying a small amount to transfer risk in order to keep living and not go bankrupt if the cost of a medical procedure runs into the millions.

It is pretty safe to say health insurance would come about in a perfectly free market.

opal
04-02-2017, 03:27 PM
I'll start with the first line
"the following provisions of Obamacare are
repealed"

actually.. just part of the first line. Provisions rather than all of is my problem with it.

juleswin
04-02-2017, 03:39 PM
I'll start with the first line
"the following provisions of Obamacare are
repealed"

actually.. just part of the first line. Provisions rather than all of is my problem with it.

I think that is because you have a very unrealistic expectations about what is politically achievable. I have come to the realization that most people regardless of what they claim to be anti statists, libertarian, conservative etc etc want govt in their lives to make their lives better. People have real fears of getting sick and not being able to pay for it and they love the idea of big brother coming to their aid. This is one reason why I have tempered down my internet political activism and now spends my free time watching netflix(for now).

Just look at this forum and count the number of people who would gladly accept govt restricting what we can import through taxes (which is theft) just as long as it brings back the jobs. This is why I think the freedom caucus should have accepted the compromise in Paul Ryan healthcare package cos what they are trying to offer would be even more unpopular than Ryancare. It was considerably better than Obamacare and better than what we had before Obamacare.

CPUd
04-02-2017, 03:49 PM
Individuals who receive health insurance through an employer are able to exclude the premium amount from their taxable income.

Shouldn't this deduction go to the employer instead?

tod evans
04-02-2017, 03:52 PM
Shouldn't this deduction go to the employer instead?

Both employer and employee should be able to deduct any cost they incur relevant to the policy.

opal
04-02-2017, 04:02 PM
This is where I'd start the repeal process.
*from the obamacare bill text

‘‘(1) INITIAL FUNDING.—There is hereby appropriated to
the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $30,000,000 for the first fiscal year for which
this section applies to carry out this section. Such amount
shall remain available without fiscal year limitation.
‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each fiscal
year following the fiscal year described in paragraph (1), such
sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.’’.

‘‘(c) GRANTS IN SUPPORT OF PROCESS.—
‘‘(1) PREMIUM REVIEW GRANTS DURING 2010 THROUGH 2014.—
The Secretary shall carry out a program to award grants to
States during the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year 2010
to assist such States in carrying out subsection (a), including—
‘‘(A) in reviewing and, if appropriate under State law,
approving premium increases for health insurance coverage;
and
‘‘(B) in providing information and recommendations
to the Secretary under subsection (b)(1).
‘‘(2) FUNDING.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Out of all funds in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated to the
Secretary $250,000,000, to be available for expenditure for
grants under paragraph (1) and subparagraph (B).
‘‘(B) FURTHER AVAILABILITY FOR INSURANCE REFORM
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION.—If the amounts appropriated
under subparagraph (A) are not fully obligated under
grants under paragraph (1) by the end of fiscal year 2014,
any remaining funds shall remain available to the Secretary
for grants to States for planning and implementing
the insurance reforms and consumer protections under part
A.

H. R. 3590—25
from applying or enforcing such paragraph or other provisions
under law with respect to health insurance issuers.
(f) OVERSIGHT.—The Secretary shall establish—
(1) an appeals process to enable individuals to appeal a
determination under this section; and
(2) procedures to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse.
(g) FUNDING; TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is appropriated to the Secretary,
out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
$5,000,000,000 to pay claims against (and the administrative
costs of) the high risk pool under this section that are in
excess of the amount of premiums collected from eligible
individuals enrolled in the high risk pool. Such funds shall
be available without fiscal year limitation.

jmdrake
04-03-2017, 08:17 AM
Hello everyone. Great responses so far! I'm hoping through this process we can really understand and be able to promote and defend Rand's plan. And I think we should forward to him suggestions for improvement. I'm really excited by the fact that Trump went from threatening to primary the Freedom Caucus to inviting Rand to go golfing with him to discuss healthcare. Rand is the de facto leader of the Freedom Caucus even though he's in the senate. This is probably the most important battle of this congressional session and will likely define the mid term elections. And unlike legalizing pot or ending U.S. adventurism overseas or auditing/ending the Federal Reserve, this is a battle that rank and file grassroots republicans and conservative talk show hosts actually agree with us on, at least in concept. Republicans hate Obamacare. That's the key. And....let's be honest. Much of it is hatred for Obama period. Mitt Romney would have pushed through a similar plan. (I do believe that's part of the reason why he lost the general election because there are principled republicans that just couldn't come out and vote for him and stayed home.) But we also need to convince republican voters that much of what Obamacare promised can be achieved through the free market. That's how I read Rand's plan. Take the pre-existing conditions provision. He didn't put in a pre-existing condition "mandate" (beyond the two year "open enrollment" period...which needs to be spelled out in greater detail), but rather he put forward proposals that should make it easier for people with pre-existing conditions to get health insurance in the free market. I think the only way to really get this bill is to go through it line by line. And it's short enough to do that. Now to the comments:



I really like this;
This provision would allow states to make changes to their Medicaid plans without interference from
Washington.


I like that too. Healthcare is, for the most part, delivered at the state level. The one exception is the VA system. Policies tend to be done better when the decisions are made as close to the point of delivery as possible. The one right that should be taken away from the states is the right to block interstate commerce when it comes to health insurance plans. That's the whole point of the interstate commerce clause. And Rand addressed that.


I read all 3 and a half pages and I saw a lot of things I like about the bill. The part that annoys me is the contradictions in the bill. Rand talks about how he is going to repeal

Individual and employer mandates, community rating restrictions, rate review, essential health benefits requirement, medical loss ratio, and other insurance mandates.

Which is good but he then follows it up with

Protecting Individuals with Pre-Existing Conditions
Provides a two-year open-enrollment period under which individuals with pre-existing
conditions can obtain coverage.

The deception in the title of the section is what is going to trip him off. You cannot give individuals and insurance companies all this freedom while protecting insurance coverage of people with pre existing condition(PEC) (which is a term that I sorta hate cos just about every human being has some medical issues going on with them). The truth that Rand would not tell you is that individuals with severe PEC will be left out of his bill. Yes, he may lower the cost of healthcare for everybody but those people will not benefit from individuals pooling together to form associations or being given a 2 yr window to enroll for health insurance.

Also, the idea that individuals would pool together to get better insurance deals is another nonsense idea that he keeps bringing up. If that was such a good idea, how come people do not pool together to buy car insurance? I like the bill, but if he doesn't remove those contradictions in the bill and start being honest with the voters, his bill would not go anywhere.

ultimately, I think the majority of democrats and republicans like some very socialistic portions of Obamacare like kids being able to be covered by their parents insurance until they turn 27(which Rand said he would not remove) and protection of people with PEC. The best conservative bill is the one Trump and the rep establishment pushed, what Rand is talking about would be soundly rejected by the majority socialists that want govt protection from big bad corporations once the contents on the bill is exposed to said public.

I think it was a big mistake to reject the Paul Ryan plan cos that is the best we can get.

I appreciate your comments. I don't think Rand made a contradiction. Here's why. In the first part that you quoted he didn't mention insurance companies, he mentioned insurance mandates. Being told that your health plan has to cover maternity care even though you are a male or past menopause or had a hysterectomy is an insurance mandate. Further, if the insurance companies only have to cover pre-existing conditions for a two year open enrollment period (and again, I need clarification on what that means), then that is certainly an increase in freedom to the insurance companies.

As to your risk pooling point, car insurance is fundamentally different from health insurance for one reason. Car insurance risk is determined mostly by your driving record. Health insurance risk has a lot to do with lifestyle but also a lot to do with things beyond your control like genetics. You can change car insurance pool (they do call them pools) but avoiding accidents and tickets for three years and they drop off your record. If you have multiple sclerosis....that doesn't just drop off. We already see health insurance pools. They are called corporations. If you are a UAW worker you can get affordable insurance even if you have multiple sclerosis because your risk is distributed among all of the healthy people. That's a result of health insurance being tied to employment thanks to misdeeds of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Rand's just saying change the law so that other groups can take advantage of the same idea. That requires a change in the tax code.


I read it.

Good for you! Plus rep!


Why do we even need health insurance companies? Health care is the only industry dominated by the insurance companies. If you have a cough, you should go to a doctor who specializes in coughs, pay him/her and be done. Why is it necessary to pay another person and have that person pay the doctor? It should be the same with any other health issue. The insurance companies are making a killing off this scam.

Insurance is a way to guard against risk and it's a systematic way to "save for a rainy day." Take house insurance. You could save money for the replacement value of your house. Most people aren't that disciplined. And even if you are that disciplined, what happens if your house burns down before you build up your house replacement value account? That said, health savings accounts allow people to do more of what you just said which is simply go to the doctor and pay cash for the treatment that you want. Rand's plan encourages health savings accounts by taking away some of the artificial restrictions put on them. Someone posted recently about a doctor's office that doesn't take any insurance and only deals in cash and they charge much less. I think that's great. HSA's all the way!


Well....Everyone who owns their home and has a mortgage has home insurance. So there is that industry. Most people would like to have the option of paying a small amount to transfer risk in order to keep living and not go bankrupt if the cost of a medical procedure runs into the millions.

It is pretty safe to say health insurance would come about in a perfectly free market.

Agreed. But the federal government tax code and wage freeze by FDR artificially stimulated the health insurance market. The wage freeze is gone but the bad tax code remains. That needs to be changed and Rand's plan seeks to change that.


I'll start with the first line
"the following provisions of Obamacare are
repealed"

actually.. just part of the first line. Provisions rather than all of is my problem with it.

But that misses an opportunity to fix other things that a wrong the way the federal government interferes with healthcare. Why should you not be allowed to deduct your healthcare expenses? (Get rid of the income tax completely...but one fight at a time.) Why are there government restrictions on health savings accounts? There are problems with are healthcare system for sure. But government has caused many of them. Take the high cost of prescription drugs for instance. That comes from government created monopolies called patents. I think it's fine to have patents to encourage innovation, but they don't have to be to the point where they allow price gouging for life saving medication. This isn't part of Rand's plan, but I would support patent reform so that if a company price gouges like the Epipen people did they risk losing patent protection.


I think that is because you have a very unrealistic expectations about what is politically achievable. I have come to the realization that most people regardless of what they claim to be anti statists, libertarian, conservative etc etc want govt in their lives to make their lives better. People have real fears of getting sick and not being able to pay for it and they love the idea of big brother coming to their aid. This is one reason why I have tempered down my internet political activism and now spends my free time watching netflix(for now).

Just look at this forum and count the number of people who would gladly accept govt restricting what we can import through taxes (which is theft) just as long as it brings back the jobs. This is why I think the freedom caucus should have accepted the compromise in Paul Ryan healthcare package cos what they are trying to offer would be even more unpopular than Ryancare. It was considerably better than Obamacare and better than what we had before Obamacare.

We believe the free market can improve things. For years (since the New Deal), the government has interfered in the free market when it comes to healthcare. It's one thing to simply say "Give us more freedom." It's another to say "Give us more freedom...and it will improve everyone's lives." That's the message we need to get out IMO.


Shouldn't this deduction go to the employer instead?

No. That's the source of the problem with healthcare! Employer's already get the deduction and that's why there is "employer based healthcare." Note there is typically not "employer based car insurance." Note how many more car insurance options there are as a result.



Both employer and employee should be able to deduct any cost they incur relevant to the policy.

Yep.


This is where I'd start the repeal process.
*from the obamacare bill text

‘‘(1) INITIAL FUNDING.—There is hereby appropriated to
the Secretary, out of any funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, $30,000,000 for the first fiscal year for which
this section applies to carry out this section. Such amount
shall remain available without fiscal year limitation.
‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS.—There is
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for each fiscal
year following the fiscal year described in paragraph (1), such
sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.’’.

‘‘(c) GRANTS IN SUPPORT OF PROCESS.—
‘‘(1) PREMIUM REVIEW GRANTS DURING 2010 THROUGH 2014.—
The Secretary shall carry out a program to award grants to
States during the 5-year period beginning with fiscal year 2010
to assist such States in carrying out subsection (a), including—
‘‘(A) in reviewing and, if appropriate under State law,
approving premium increases for health insurance coverage;
and
‘‘(B) in providing information and recommendations
to the Secretary under subsection (b)(1).
‘‘(2) FUNDING.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Out of all funds in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated to the
Secretary $250,000,000, to be available for expenditure for
grants under paragraph (1) and subparagraph (B).
‘‘(B) FURTHER AVAILABILITY FOR INSURANCE REFORM
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION.—If the amounts appropriated
under subparagraph (A) are not fully obligated under
grants under paragraph (1) by the end of fiscal year 2014,
any remaining funds shall remain available to the Secretary
for grants to States for planning and implementing
the insurance reforms and consumer protections under part
A.

H. R. 3590—25
from applying or enforcing such paragraph or other provisions
under law with respect to health insurance issuers.
(f) OVERSIGHT.—The Secretary shall establish—
(1) an appeals process to enable individuals to appeal a
determination under this section; and
(2) procedures to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse.
(g) FUNDING; TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is appropriated to the Secretary,
out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
$5,000,000,000 to pay claims against (and the administrative
costs of) the high risk pool under this section that are in
excess of the amount of premiums collected from eligible
individuals enrolled in the high risk pool. Such funds shall
be available without fiscal year limitation.

Just defund it? I'm not against that. We still need to free market reforms especially to the tax code and the HSAs.

opal
04-03-2017, 09:02 AM
Snip



But that misses an opportunity to fix other things that a wrong the way the federal government interferes with healthcare.

You say in the next line - one fight at a time.. remove the cancer first.

Why should you not be allowed to deduct your healthcare expenses? (Get rid of the income tax completely...but one fight at a time.)

That process was not new to obamacare

Why are there government restrictions on health savings accounts?

Why can't we decide what we save our own money for?

There are problems with are healthcare system for sure. But government has caused many of them. Take the high cost of prescription drugs for instance. That comes from government created monopolies called patents.

Drug patents did not originate in obamacare.

I think it's fine to have patents to encourage innovation, but they don't have to be to the point where they allow price gouging for life saving medication. This isn't part of Rand's plan, but I would support patent reform so that if a company price gouges like the Epipen people did they risk losing patent protection.

Again.. another battle - one thing at a time. That would best be accomplished by disallowing lobbying in DC (better yet.. illegal)

snip

Well evidently wrapping responses in your quotes does not count toward post character count.. it said I need more than two characters.. *eye roll*

helmuth_hubener
04-03-2017, 10:36 AM
Health insurance risk has a lot to do with lifestyle but also a lot to do with things beyond your control like genetics. The vast majority of lifestyle for most people is controlled (or at minimum highly influenced) by genetics, too. :cool:

Reality does not care about your conceptions of unfairness.

helmuth_hubener
04-03-2017, 10:39 AM
And yes, I've skimmed it. But this is not the bill. It's a summary. My problems with the summary:

It's poorly written, dry and hard to understand. If you're gonna write a summary...... come on!
It would be nice if, for instance, Rand/ the staffer would distinguish between things they are lamenting, and things their bill proposes implementing:

Individuals who receive health insurance through an employer are able to exclude the premium
amount from their taxable income. However, this subsidy is unavailable for those that do not
receive their insurance through an employer but instead shop for insurance on the individual
market.

I have some problems with the actual proposals, too. But I'll graciously and politely keep those to myself.

jmdrake
04-03-2017, 01:25 PM
Well evidently wrapping responses in your quotes does not count toward post character count.. it said I need more than two characters.. *eye roll*

I'm not sure why you feel you need an eyeroll...but if it makes you feel better I'll give you one. :rolleyes: Government interference in the healthcare market since the days of FDR. Getting to where we need to be on healthcare means more than just getting rid of the "cancer" of Obamacare. Only focusing on Obamacare is myopic at best and self defeating at worst. Sure we need to be able to decide how to spend our own money. Expanding HSAs is a move in that direction. Yes drug patents predate Obamacare. That doesn't mean they can't be looked at now as a free market approach to reducing healthcare costs. Reforming the tax code, allowing purchases of health insurance across state lines etc are all free market approaches to decreasing costs and improving access. Simply being "anti Obamacare" is a losing proposition.

jmdrake
04-03-2017, 01:27 PM
The vast majority of lifestyle for most people is controlled (or at minimum highly influenced) by genetics, too. :cool:

Reality does not care about your conceptions of unfairness.

True. I was making the contrast between health insurance and life insurance. You have a lot of control over the type of car you by. Not so much over the body you inherit. ;) You have choice in what happens to your body that you have.

jmdrake
04-03-2017, 01:35 PM
And yes, I've skimmed it. But this is not the bill. It's a summary. My problems with the summary:

It's poorly written, dry and hard to understand. If you're gonna write a summary...... come on!
It would be nice if, for instance, Rand/ the staffer would distinguish between things they are lamenting, and things their bill proposes implementing:

Individuals who receive health insurance through an employer are able to exclude the premium
amount from their taxable income. However, this subsidy is unavailable for those that do not
receive their insurance through an employer but instead shop for insurance on the individual
market.



Glad you've skimmed it. I agree that there are parts of the proposal that are open to interpretation and should be nailed down. So how would you improve the section you quoted?


I have some problems with the actual proposals, too. But I'll graciously and politely keep those to myself.

Well I think if there are improvements that should be make we should talk about them too. Who knows...may "the Collins" can get them to Rand. ;)

helmuth_hubener
04-03-2017, 01:43 PM
Glad you've skimmed it. I agree that there are parts of the proposal that are open to interpretation and should be nailed down. So how would you improve the section you quoted?

Prefix with "Currently"? Suffix with "This is unacceptable."? That would help. But the lamentation of the problem is under a bullet point just like all the proposals for change are. That's confusing. It's an organization problem.

The whole document just needs to be rewritten, in my opinion. When I can't bring myself to read every word because it's too painful, that tells me it is just too painful!

r3volution 3.0
04-03-2017, 01:51 PM
jmdrake

The link in the OP goes to a summary.

The bill itself can be found here (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/222/text).

jmdrake
04-03-2017, 02:47 PM
jmdrake

The link in the OP goes to a summary.

The bill itself can be found here (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/222/text).

Thank you. I will update the OP to reflect that.

dannno
04-03-2017, 04:28 PM
Which is good but he then follows it up with


Protecting Individuals with Pre-Existing Conditions
Provides a two-year open-enrollment period under which individuals with pre-existing
conditions can obtain coverage.

That is totally fine as a transitional measure, it's a good idea actually. The issue is that because government has regulated insurance so much, that people have to get health insurance through their job, sometimes they lose their insurance because they switch jobs or for whatever reason they have no access to the same coverage. So when we go back to a free market system, if we didn't have that in place then people who were damaged by the government regulated system would be held liable for bad government programs. So this gives them protection - as prices fall and the structure of the insurance system changes, people will be able to keep their insurance much more easily.

The other reason why it is put in the bill is to make this option palatable to those who aren't big free market advocates, so that it can pass, and eventually we can have a more free market system.




I think it was a big mistake to reject the Paul Ryan plan cos that is the best we can get.

That is completely ridiculous. Are you saying that you think Paul Ryan's plan is better than Rand Paul's plan??



Also, the idea that individuals would pool together to get better insurance deals is another nonsense idea that he keeps bringing up. If that was such a good idea, how come people do not pool together to buy car insurance?

Um, let's see... rental car agencies, taxi cab companies, uber and plenty of other companies all have commercial auto insurance designed to handle large numbers of customers, so there is some incentive.

So maybe what you should be asking is whether it is legal for an entity to setup something like that for the general public?

Brian4Liberty
04-03-2017, 05:54 PM
849022044624875521
https://twitter.com/kwelkernbc/status/849022044624875521

phill4paul
04-03-2017, 06:06 PM
849022044624875521
https://twitter.com/kwelkernbc/status/849022044624875521

Let's hope.

Jan2017
04-04-2017, 08:39 AM
I'm not sure why you feel you need an eyeroll...but if it makes you feel better . . .

Someone needs an eyeroll (?)

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/presidentrandpaul001a_zpsli2b4rng.gif (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/presidentrandpaul001a_zpsli2b4rng.gif.html)

jmdrake
04-04-2017, 09:29 AM
Someone needs an eyeroll (?)

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/presidentrandpaul001a_zpsli2b4rng.gif (http://s372.photobucket.com/user/sunblush/media/presidentrandpaul001a_zpsli2b4rng.gif.html)

LOL. Best eyeroll ever. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Jan2017 again. Rand's looking like Elvis.

jmdrake
04-04-2017, 09:32 AM
849022044624875521
https://twitter.com/kwelkernbc/status/849022044624875521

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ctCrrzrTDmE/UyCiY4pa-8I/AAAAAAAB0ss/wzgtUyv4mtc/s1600/20111111035156!Rand_and_Ron_Paul.png

This is getting gooder and gooder.