Posted on 03/07/2017 7:54:56 AM PST by IBD editorial writer
Health Reform: Seven years after vowing to repeal ObamaCare, Republicans have labored to produce plan that replaces ObamaCare with …. ObamaCare.
The plan released Monday — called the American Health Care Act — has some good parts. 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. It gets rid of ObamaCare's individual mandate and the job-killing employer mandate.
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. It's age-based, refundable tax credit for individual insurance is an improvement over ObamaCare's unpredictable, Rube Goldberg subsidy scheme.
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."
We'd go further and say that this bill would end up putting Republicans on record as supporting all the key elements of ObamaCare:
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
This is typical RINO knowing how to lose. These fools not take “ownership” of this monstrosity. What fools. Typical though. Get rid of nobamadon’tcare and let the free market take over. What loving-losing morons.
I guess all the Paul-tards and other non-conservatives should have tried to boost voter turnout so we could pass a conservative healthcare bill?
Just read DJT’s tweet. Calming down now. lol
First hospital stay without insurance and you are wiped out.
The 24k a year you save paying the premium is eaten in two days, easy.
About 4 years ago, my husband had a gall bladder attack. They kept him the hospital for 4 days delaying the surgery. The whole time the nurse had her little iPad itemizing and racking up the charges.
Our insurance, even then, was much better so we met the deductible and it was done. But we kept seeing the bills--well over 100k.
If there is STILL ANY LAW LEFT at all, it will suffer from endless ‘feature-creep’ until it is back to single-payer government health care.
Yep.
This is why I’m continually working to get my “taxable” income as low as possible.
Obamacare-lite.
PING!
12k a year. Not sure where I got 24k. It’s not that early. (:
We only have Fifty freakin’ Two in the Senate, and less than 45 of those are even close to being moderately conservative.
What do people expect?
From my perspective, the competition over state lines is critical and any bill lacking it is “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic “.
Don’t try to improve it. END IT!!!!! NOW!
Socialism has many names and it’s approved by congress and senate.
So it removes the part of the law that was supposed to control costs and the part of the law that paid for the insurance subsidies. But kept all the expenses. Good plan.
It’s not perfect, because it still has the feds involved in health care. But if those two things are gone, that’s the core. It will allow competition for health care, including low-cost alternatives which people will prefer when they’re paying, to emerge. It’s competition that will cause NannyGovernmentCare to become an alternative to be avoided.
What will cause insurance rates to fall is younger and healthier people buying insurance. Obamacare's downfall was that it was the old and sick that took advantage of it and the young and the healthy avoided it. As a result the insurance companies were getting people who bought insurance because they needed insurance. And who filed claims way out of proportion to what they paid in premiums. So premiums skyrocketed. Trumpcare does nothing to change that.
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.
Nobody should be forced to buy insurance, EVER!! As long as people are forced to have coverage, there is no incentive to either keep prices down or to work for low-cost alternatives. Are you seriously supportive of either people being forced to get health insurance or the government paying anything toward the care for those that don’t?
As long as the government subsidizes only sick and elderly buy insurance there is no way to keep premiums down or find a low cost solution. Then only people buying insurance are those who make the most claims.
Are you seriously supportive of either people being forced to get health insurance or the government paying anything toward the care for those that don’t?
I am for the government getting the hell out completely and removing any and all subsidies.
As am I.
I'd like to see first-aid clinics where people who can't afford or don't want to pay more get basic care. That's what will keep prices down. Wouldn't it be wonderful if people had to pay out of their own pocket if they decided an expensive medical choice is worth the money?
Define "basic care".
Wouldn't it be wonderful if people had to pay out of their own pocket if they decided an expensive medical choice is worth the money?
If they have the money. Kind of sucks for them if they can't pay for their cancer treatment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.