Sen. Rand Paul: Graham/Cassidy does NOT repeal ObamaCare and I oppose it

[ABX]

It is pretty much guaranteed that if the GOP gets to pass a bill that does little to nothing to remove the onerous provisions which eliminated insurance for many of us, and then rebrand it as their 'fix' that no meaningful progress will be made on the issue. Period. They will deem it "fixed", and that, as they say, will be that.

But on all of us, how many here have called their Congressman and asked him to support Paul's clean repeal bill?  (I took for granted myself that Gohmert would support the clean bill, I think I was wrong).

[jmyrlefuller]

So, I heard some expert talking about the future of Government healthcare.
Obamacare would lead us to single payer in about 5 years.
Reforms that have been voted on this years would lead us to single payer in about 8 years.

In other words, this bill buys us three more years to keep working.

Do nothing, it leads us to single payer.
Do something, it leads us to single payer.

The only real solution is to repeal.

Repeal has been rejected, repeatedly. So continuing to push clean repeal is pushing for doing nothing, because repeal won't pass as long as the current Senate is in control. As I noted before, this bill buys us three years which gives a better opportunity for the next Congress, which given Dem landslides in '06 and '12 should have room for some more conservatives to find their way in.

We were always told by these politicians that it would be (1) Repeal, and (2) Replace.
Some said repeal only.

Nothing says it has to be done at the exact same time.

Unless you live in the states where these rogue Senators are based, it doesn't matter what our votes do. Living in New York, neither of my state's Democrat senators ever promised repeal and are actively fighting it. The GOP is hopelessly corrupted and incompetent.

I'll counterpoint that nothing says it has to be done in that order, either. Start with this and keep working.

[RoosGirl]

If you think, as long as the current Senate is in power, that a wholescale repeal is ever happening in one fell swoop, you're wrong. There are too many turncoats.

It is perfectly fine to say that this does not repeal Obamacare. It is NOT OK to reject any and all efforts to scale back Obamacare until it is repealed, because it doesn't do it all at once (something that, again, was rejected once by the Senate and will be rejected again).

It is long past time for the Republican Party to start thinking about the Long War. Obamacare was, to the Democrats' far-left wing, a stepping stone for the coming push for government monopoly on health care payment (single payer). They did not push single-payer on us at once. They are chipping away, bit by bit, piece by piece. We on the right need to start taking the same approach.

So you think it more likely that, if this version is passed, that some future Republican Congress will look at it yet again, and change it further to our liking?  I have some serious doubts about that.  In the meantime, a crap sandwich is still a crap sandwich, no matter if there's more or less crap between the bread.

[kevindavis007]

@McCormackJohn


Odd that Rand Paul backed skinny repeal, which kept all of Obamacare's $, but opposes bill that block grants $

[kevindavis007]

Sen. Rand Paul: Skinny repeal is better than no repeal:
http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2017/07/26/sen-rand-paul-skinny-repeal-is-better-than-no-repeal.html

[Fishrrman]

Fishrrman's credo:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.

obamacare is an edifice that is best torn down several blocks at a time.

Trying to demolish it in one fell swoop ain't gonna work.

[roamer_1]

Fishrrman's credo:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.

obamacare is an edifice that is best torn down several blocks at a time.

Trying to demolish it in one fell swoop ain't gonna work.

In fact, it is the only thing that will work.

[Smokin Joe]

In fact, it is the only thing that will work.

Somewhere in all this babble about "how much", the central argument got lost.

What in the Hell is the Federal Government doing mucking about requiring or mandating or micromanaging Health Insurance anyway?  By what Constitutional Authorization?

[roamer_1]

Somewhere in all this babble about "how much", the central argument got lost.

What in the Hell is the Federal Government doing mucking about requiring or mandating or micromanaging Health Insurance anyway?  By what Constitutional Authorization?

That's it. Anything less than repeal is accepting an unconstitutional mandate. The LAST gasp at preserving the truth is for the Republicans to reject it and set things right.

[TomSea]

This Republican is Opposing the Senate Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood
National   Steven Ertelt   Sep 19, 2017   |   11:05AM    Washington, DC

....

But Senator Rand Paul is a no vote and Senator John McCain, who voted against the last bill to defund Planned Parenthood, is uncommitted.

Continued: http://www.lifenews.com/2017/09/19/this-republican-is-opposing-the-senate-bill-to-defund-planned-parenthood/

It defunds the beast. I'd vote aye.

[TomSea]

Fishrrman's credo:
Reality is what it is. It is not what we believe it to be.

obamacare is an edifice that is best torn down several blocks at a time.

Trying to demolish it in one fell swoop ain't gonna work.

 

And per the prior post, this bill will defund Planned Parenthood. There are no easy answers; I respect what others say but I'd support this as being of primary importance.

[Oceander]

So, given a choice between Obamacare and Less than Obamacare (with the option to pursue even less later down the road), Senator Paul, with only two weeks left before reconciliation expires, chooses Obamacare.

Some Tea Party conservative he is.

[corbe]

   It doesn't appear to be defunding the Beast, @TomSea
   It is just shifting the burden to the States, through block grants and Federal Regulation at the order of HHS Price.
   Repeal has proven a delusion, with this Congress, this party and this President, and probably all future Congresses.
   It's over, they won, obummercare is their vehicle to Single payer, we are so screwed.

[Jazzhead]

It defunds the beast. I'd vote aye.

Bingo.  This bill deserves conservative support.

[Jazzhead]

Right. The guy standing on sound principle is in your way. Go figger that out, why not.

The guy "standing on sound principle" is the one directly responsible for sustaining ObamaCare.  The proposed reform would replace the entitlement  with block grants.   Whatever else may become of ObamaCare, that  would be an important conservative victory. 

 I used to love Rand Paul.  This guy's a flamin' idiot.   

[roamer_1]

The guy "standing on sound principle" is the one directly responsible for sustaining ObamaCare.  The proposed reform would replace the entitlement  with block grants.   Whatever else may become of ObamaCare, that  would be an important conservative victory. 

 I used to love Rand Paul.  This guy's a flamin' idiot.   

EXACTLY WRONG. It is those SAVING it that sustain it. Not those opposed to saving it.
Repeal this unconstitutional bullshit.

[DB]

In other words, this bill buys us three more years to keep working.
 Repeal has been rejected, repeatedly. So continuing to push clean repeal is pushing for doing nothing, because repeal won't pass as long as the current Senate is in control. As I noted before, this bill buys us three years which gives a better opportunity for the next Congress, which given Dem landslides in '06 and '12 should have room for some more conservatives to find their way in.
 Unless you live in the states where these rogue Senators are based, it doesn't matter what our votes do. Living in New York, neither of my state's Democrat senators ever promised repeal and are actively fighting it. The GOP is hopelessly corrupted and incompetent.

I'll counterpoint that nothing says it has to be done in that order, either. Start with this and keep working.

Right now the Democrats own Obamacare. As soon as the Republicans diddle around the edges they own it. It can't be "fixed". If they do diddle around the edges they're idiots. Either get rid of it and own that or stay far away from the coming wreck. And if people demand their foreseeable wreck then let them have it.

[txradioguy]

Trying to demolish it in one fell swoop ain't gonna work.

How do you know?

We...or more specifically Congress has never tried.

They gave up before even taking a swing.

[Right_in_Virginia]

   It doesn't appear to be defunding the Beast, @TomSea
   It is just shifting the burden to the States, through block grants and Federal Regulation at the order of HHS Price. ...   

Statehouses had historically regulated the health insurance industry (prior to Obamacare) ... including insurance carriers, eligibility and coverage.  It is my understanding that HHS does not dictate these features of health insurance, that each state would set up a system to meet the needs of its citizens.  This being the case, the bill would not be shifting a "new burden" to the states, but returning the power back to them. 

[RoosGirl]

Statehouses had historically regulated the health insurance industry (prior to Obamacare) ... including insurance carriers, eligibility and coverage.  It is my understanding that HHS does not dictate these features of health insurance, that each state would set up a system to meet the needs of its citizens.  This being the case, the bill would not be shifting a "new burden" to the states, but returning the power back to them.

And that would be great except that it appears that almost all of the ACA taxes remain in place, and the State has to appeal to FedGov to be able to remove the "essential" healthcare coverage that will still be required.

[Smokin Joe]

Statehouses had historically regulated the health insurance industry (prior to Obamacare) ... including insurance carriers, eligibility and coverage.  It is my understanding that HHS does not dictate these features of health insurance, that each state would set up a system to meet the needs of its citizens.  This being the case, the bill would not be shifting a "new burden" to the states, but returning the power back to them.

It isn't shifting power back to the States. What it shifts is the responsibility to conduct their business as the Federal Government demands, with funding withheld in the event they do not.
The Feds retain the regulatory power.
If the health insurance business relationship with the government was to be honestly described, it is fascism at this point. Making the States the middlemen just adds another layer of bureaucracy and expense to an already insanely expensive system.

[RoosGirl]

It isn't shifting power back to the States. What it shifts is the responsibility to conduct their business as the Federal Government demands, with funding withheld in the event they do not.
The Feds retain the regulatory power.
If the health insurance business relationship with the government was to be honestly described, it is fascism at this point. Making the States the middlemen just adds another layer of bureaucracy and expense to an already insanely expensive system.

And thinking more about it, how does that not jack the price up even more?  Now each state needs some kind of Board or Committee or new Department just to show management at the State level.

[XenaLee]

And that would be great except that it appears that almost all of the ACA taxes remain in place, and the State has to appeal to FedGov to be able to remove the "essential" healthcare coverage that will still be required.

So if/when the states have to go begging to the FedGov for anything.... it's not really returning power back to the states.  It's still the FedGov regulating and controlling it.  And as we all know... once the FedGov gets control of something.... they never ever let go of it.

[Emjay]

So, given a choice between Obamacare and Less than Obamacare (with the option to pursue even less later down the road), Senator Paul, with only two weeks left before reconciliation expires, chooses Obamacare.

Some Tea Party conservative he is.

There's no way I can read this bill or completely understand it, but does anybody know if it contains anything worth passing.

Obviously, it's not what we want but is it a step in the right direction?

I understand Rand Paul's objection ... I don't believe he was even for the bill with the Ted Cruz amendment ... although I could be wrong.  He wants a really good bill and obamacare repealed but it's become obvious that we're not gonna get that for a while.

So is there anything in this proposal that makes it worth passing?

[RoosGirl]

There's no way I can read this bill or completely understand it, but does anybody know if it contains anything worth passing.

Obviously, it's not what we want but is it a step in the right direction?

I understand Rand Paul's objection ... I don't believe he was even for the bill with the Ted Cruz amendment ... although I could be wrong.  He wants a really good bill and obamacare repealed but it's become obvious that we're not gonna get that for a while.

So is there anything in this proposal that makes it worth passing?

@Emjay There are a couple of things that are an improvement, if you can believe the news articles.  One is that it increases the amount you can contribute to your HSA and your HSA can be used to pay the insurance premiums.

The empolyer mandate is supposedly gone.