Don’t try to improve it. END IT!!!!! NOW!
Socialism has many names and it’s approved by congress and senate.
It is better than Obamacare, but only marginally. They could do so much better.
How about re-passing the plan Obama vetoed? Apparently, it had enough support to pass, so why not pass it now when you have complete control of the government?
Even better — the Paul plan.
Fortunately, I don’t think Ryancare will pass the Senate, even if it gets out of the House. (They can lose 22 Republican House members and 2 Republican senators.) I believe there are already three Republican senators against — Cruz,. Paul, and Lee. I wouldn’t be surprised if Sase turns out to be a no vote also.
They might not even get the opportunity, hopefully. Amash has already declared against the Ryancare plan. Hopefully, hte Freedom Caucus will stand against it.
Obamacare 2.0, as Rep. Justin Amash called it.
Seven years after vowing to repeal ObamaCare, Republicans have labored to produce plan that replaces ObamaCare with …. ObamaCare. It repeals ObamaCare's multitude of largely hidden but no less destructive taxes on health insurance plans, medical devices, flexible spending accounts and so on.
Except for one of the worst ones -- the Cadillac tax, which it simply defers to 2025.
It gets rid of ObamaCare's individual mandate and the job-killing employer mandate.
Yet re-enacts it in a different form by including a 30 percent penalty when you re-insure after being uninsured. IOW, the mandate via the back door.
It expands the amount of money that can be contributed to Health Savings Accounts, the one health reform that has actually worked to lower costs.
One of the few good features.
It's age-based, refundable tax credit for individual insurance is an improvement over ObamaCare's unpredictable, Rube Goldberg subsidy scheme.
Putting aside the apostrophe where it doesn't belong, refundable tax credits ARE subsidies.
But, as Vox.com's Sarah Kliff noted: "A curious thing has happened to the Republican replacement plan as it has evolved through multiple drafts: it has begun to look more and more like ObamaCare itself."
Way too much like Obamacare. Only marginally different. I don't want to tinker around the margins. I want to get rid of it.
We'd go further and say that this bill would end up putting Republicans on record as supporting all the key elements of ObamaCare:
Yep -- Trumpcare. The Republicans own it now.
All the more reason why we must kill it, and we must kill it with Republican votes.
Regarding Trumpcare, patriots are reminded that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate healthcare purposes, Obamacare wrongly established outside the framework of the Constitution imo. This is evidenced by the excerpts in the last part of this post.
So the feds have the following options concerning “government” healthcare for citizens.
The feds can review all healthcare related laws and regulations and take out of the books the ones that they cannot justify under Congress’s limited Commerce Clause powers. And I wouldn't be surprised if this is probably most of them. This approach essentially turns government control of healthcare to the states, each state able regulate, tax and spend for its own healthcare program, ultimately depending on what the citizens of a given state want.
Otherwise, if Trumpcare requires new federal government powers beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause then Pres. Trump will need to do the following. He will need to work with the states and Congress to successfully propose a healthcare amendment to the Constitution to the states, the states not obligated to ratify any proposed amendment.
Below are excerpts, one from the writings of Thomas Jefferson, the rest from Supreme Court case opinions, which clarify that the states have never expressly constitutional delegated to the corrupt feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes.
Regarding the constitutionality of the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. Regardless what lawless Obama’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to think about the insurance mandate, the excerpt from Paul v. Virginia clarifies that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons [emphasis added], our property, our reputation and religious freedom.” —Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphases added] of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” —Linder v. United States
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. …” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist justices off of the bench.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed above.
Republicans just cannot bring themselves to repealing entitlements for the Takers. The media would depict them as meanies. They are cowards.
The uniparty strikes again.
There is not one scintilla of difference between the gop-e and the rat-e.
Drain the swamp.
If you use Obamacare, which is a welfare system, you should not vote, period, and show wish to eventually get your own insurance.