Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 73

Thread: Rand Paul Plan to Repeal and Replace Obamacare

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    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.


    “Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    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.
    * Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

    * No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

    * Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

    * End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.




    Reprinted from http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/ [Nov. 29, 2011]

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    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.

  5. #34

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    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
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  6. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    What the hell are you talking about? I never worked for his Senate office or the lousy 2016 PCC
    Yes, I know.
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  7. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Yes, I know.
    Nor did I want to
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  8. #37

    Default

    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
    Undeniably effective strategy
    1) REGISTER - email : iowa@randpaul2016.com to request login.
    2) LOGIN & CALL - www.callingfromhome.com
    3) WIN

    Don't pay the media to attack Rand
    Every time you click on the attack articles, you are literally paying them for attacking Rand. If you really want people to see, quote the entire article and break the link.

    be ACTIVE, be EFFECTIVE, be ORGANIZED, be STRATEGIC, be VICTORIOUS.

    How to plug a TWEET in post [ TWEET] [/TWEET ]

  9. #38

    Default A Health-Care Plan the GOP Could Get Behind

    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/articl...plan-rand-paul
    “I don’t think that there will be any curtailing of Donald Trump as president,” he said. "He controls the media, he controls the sentiment [and] he controls everybody. He’s the one who will resort to executive orders more so than [President] Obama ever used them." - Ron Paul

  10. #39

    Default

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

  11. #40

    Default

    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/mil...alth-care.html
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 01-11-2017 at 03:57 PM.

  12. #41

    Default

    A Health-Care Plan the GOP Could Get Behind
    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/articl...plan-rand-paul
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  13. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    The real libertarian solution to healthcare.


    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.

  14. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    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.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  15. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelatc View Post
    Nobody who voted for Trump voted for replacing Obamacare, that's for sure.
    That's exactly what they voted for.

  16. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    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 essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

  17. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    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?
    ΟΥ ΓΑΡ ЄCΤΙΝ ЄξΟΥCΙΑ ЄΙ ΜΗ ΥΠΟ ΘЄΟΥ

    "Patriotism should come from loving thy neighbor, not from worshiping graven images" - Ironman77

    "ideas have the potential of being more powerful than any army....The concept of personal sovereignty was pulled screaming from the ether into this reality by the force of men believing in a self evident truth, that men are meant to be free." - The Northbreather

    "People who place their trust in government don't like competition from charities." - Origanalist

  18. #47

    Default

    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.
    "There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought."~~Charles Kingsley

  19. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    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/mil...alth-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.
    Protest the NSA! Send encrypted e-mails!
    My PGP Key
    PGP Fingerprint: 3A2E 6218 3722 3701 09C9 54CA 9BB3 104C 5049 B6B2

  20. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    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.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  21. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post
    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.
    “Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan

  22. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    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.

  23. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post

    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.
    Last edited by eleganz; 01-12-2017 at 03:47 PM.
    Undeniably effective strategy
    1) REGISTER - email : iowa@randpaul2016.com to request login.
    2) LOGIN & CALL - www.callingfromhome.com
    3) WIN

    Don't pay the media to attack Rand
    Every time you click on the attack articles, you are literally paying them for attacking Rand. If you really want people to see, quote the entire article and break the link.

    be ACTIVE, be EFFECTIVE, be ORGANIZED, be STRATEGIC, be VICTORIOUS.

    How to plug a TWEET in post [ TWEET] [/TWEET ]

  24. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post

    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-healt...-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.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 01-12-2017 at 04:50 PM.

  25. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newbitech View Post

    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.
    “Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan

  26. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eleganz View Post
    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.
    “Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan

  27. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    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-healt...-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.

    “Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan

  28. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    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-healt...-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.
    Last edited by eleganz; 01-12-2017 at 06:14 PM.
    Undeniably effective strategy
    1) REGISTER - email : iowa@randpaul2016.com to request login.
    2) LOGIN & CALL - www.callingfromhome.com
    3) WIN

    Don't pay the media to attack Rand
    Every time you click on the attack articles, you are literally paying them for attacking Rand. If you really want people to see, quote the entire article and break the link.

    be ACTIVE, be EFFECTIVE, be ORGANIZED, be STRATEGIC, be VICTORIOUS.

    How to plug a TWEET in post [ TWEET] [/TWEET ]

  29. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    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.

  30. #59

    Default

    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.”’”

  31. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-07-2017, 12:21 PM
  2. Rand Paul: Repeal all of Obamacare and replace immediately
    By Origanalist in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-06-2017, 02:24 AM
  3. Mitt Romney Mitt Romney's repeal and replace of Obamacare???
    By whippoorwill in forum 2012 Presidential Election
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-16-2012, 11:03 AM
  4. Rand Paul: Repeal Obamacare!
    By Orgoonian in forum Obamacare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-03-2011, 11:53 AM
  5. ObamaCare: Repeal, Replace or What?
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum Obamacare
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-28-2010, 01:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •