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

[Free Vulcan]

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.

That's my worry of the bill. While the insurance mandate and tax goes away, the remaining taxes and regs don't. States won't be able to make it float if they have no leeway to make decisions outside the federal box they are put in.

[roamer_1]

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.

In fact, it becomes yet another Sword of Damocles in the hand of the fed, hanging over the head of the State.
This is a very bad idea.

[Smokin Joe]

That's my worry of the bill. While the insurance mandate and tax goes away, the remaining taxes and regs don't. States won't be able to make it float if they have no leeway to make decisions outside the federal box they are put in.

What eliminated my health insurance was the coverage demands of the ACA. My (then) high deductible hospital surgical policy didn't meet all the criteria, and with that, my insurance carrier quit offering health insurance in my state. Period. Effectively, by requiring too much of the company (more than I wanted them to cover), the ACA cost me my health insurance. Now the 'cheap' plan offered on the exchange here costs more than 4 times as much with a deductible nearly three times what my old deductible was. I have not had insurance since a little while after the ACA passed, because I can't afford to dump 28K a year into insurance. In the average year, the premiums are over 3 times the cost for care for a family of 4.

[XenaLee]

What eliminated my health insurance was the coverage demands of the ACA. My (then) high deductible hospital surgical policy didn't meet all the criteria, and with that, my insurance carrier quit offering health insurance in my state. Period. Effectively, by requiring too much of the company (more than I wanted them to cover), the ACA cost me my health insurance. Now the 'cheap' plan offered on the exchange here costs more than 4 times as much with a deductible nearly three times what my old deductible was. I have not had insurance since a little while after the ACA passed, because I can't afford to dump 28K a year into insurance. In the average year, the premiums are over 3 times the cost for care for a family of 4.

So the Democrats' destruction of the American middle class (the ones they consider to be their political opponents.... since they embraced blue-collar minorities, instead) has been very successful.  And THAT is why they lost in the last election.  The American middle class struck back at them.  Too bad the GOP, thanks to the RINOs and establishment morons, are going to trash that victory.... as usual.

[roamer_1]

I have not had insurance since a little while after the ACA passed, because I can't afford to dump 28K a year into insurance. In the average year, the premiums are over 3 times the cost for care for a family of 4.

Look into a Christian Brotherhood plan... There are several out there, and they 'count' as insurance. My brother was 28k/12k ded(per person) on the TN version of GubOMintCare ... He's now running about 400/mo for a fam of 4

[roamer_1]

Too bad the GOP, thanks to the RINOs and establishment morons, are going to trash that victory.... as usual.

Careful not to be sucked into the idea of their stupidity - It is not stupidity. It is collusion.

[XenaLee]

Careful not to be sucked into the idea of their stupidity - It is not stupidity. It is collusion.

I am under no illusions that their treachery is due to their stupidity.  It's due to their greed, mostly.  They fear any 'real' draining of the swamp that might upset their game.  They have nothing to fear in Trump, however.   If anything, they will get fatter and richer.  And the corruption will go on unfettered.

[Emjay]

@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.

Thanks.  So, that being said, is there any fatal downside into passing this bill.  I mean, will passing it make it harder somehow to get a really effective bill passed down the road.

[RoosGirl]

Thanks.  So, that being said, is there any fatal downside into passing this bill.  I mean, will passing it make it harder somehow to get a really effective bill passed down the road.

I can't see anyone revisiting the subject.  The Republican song will be that they've given us the best bill they could pass and move on.  At least imo.

[Sanguine]

I can't see anyone revisiting the subject.  The Republican song will be that they've given us the best bill they could pass and move on.  At least imo.

That's how I see it too.  McConnell will be able to say: "see, we passed the best bill we could, just like we promised."

[Free Vulcan]

Thanks.  So, that being said, is there any fatal downside into passing this bill.  I mean, will passing it make it harder somehow to get a really effective bill passed down the road.

There is one factor that long term may tip the balance - the fact that this is going to fall on the states. Generally that's a very good thing if the FedGov gives them the proper leeway.

Except for getting rid of the mandate and the penalty, they aren't doing that right now. It does though open the door in the future for beneficial tweaks. For example allowing companies to pool across state lines by reciprocity agreements, exclusions/carve outs, incentives for companies to take high risks but not jack their premium, etc.

But, it is a fundamental structural shift to boot it to the states, even if the motive likely is to get it out of the Congress critters hair. That does end alot of the FedGov bureaucratic control over it via the Executive branch, as long as the states obey the parameters.

[Emjay]

There is one factor that long term may tip the balance - the fact that this is going to fall on the states. Generally that's a very good thing if the FedGov gives them the proper leeway.

Except for getting rid of the mandate and the penalty, they aren't doing that right now. It does though open the door in the future for beneficial tweaks. For example allowing companies to pool across state lines by reciprocity agreements, exclusions/carve outs, incentives for companies to take high risks but not jack their premium, etc.

But, it is a fundamental structural shift to boot it to the states, even if the motive likely is to get it out of the Congress critters hair. That does end alot of the FedGov bureaucratic control over it via the Executive branch, as long as the states obey the parameters.

Thanks.  Sounds like it may pass and that may be okay.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I can't see anyone revisiting the subject.  The Republican song will be that they've given us the best bill they could pass and move on.  At least imo.

I think you're close, you just forgot to mention that they will always refer to it as repeal.  And the media and the Dems will go right along with that so they can:

1) Campaign on the evil republicans taking away medicine from children and minorities.
2) Not worry about actual repeal, since the narrative is that that already happened.

[XenaLee]

Thanks.  Sounds like it may pass and that may be okay.

But.... how would we know if it is okay?  Has anyone (other than Congresscritters) actually seen or read the bill?  I can't find it anywhere.  So much for that "transparency" BS.  I don't think they want us to know what's in it (channeling Nancy Pelosi) before it's passed.

[RetBobbyMI]

But.... how would we know if it is okay?  Has anyone (other than Congresscritters) actually seen or read the bill?  I can't find it anywhere.  So much for that "transparency" BS.  I don't think they want us to know what's in it (channeling Nancy Pelosi) before it's passed.

That’s exactly how they swamp works. They can’t be challenged if they keep the public who elected them in the dark.

[XenaLee]

I think you're close, you just forgot to mention that they will always refer to it as repeal.  And the media and the Dems will go right along with that so they can:

1) Campaign on the evil republicans taking away medicine from children and minorities.
2) Not worry about actual repeal, since the narrative is that that already happened.

Spot-on.

[Applewood]

But.... how would we know if it is okay?  Has anyone (other than Congresscritters) actually seen or read the bill?  I can't find it anywhere.  So much for that "transparency" BS.  I don't think they want us to know what's in it (channeling Nancy Pelosi) before it's passed.

I wonder how many of the congresspersons actually read it.  I'll bet most of them won't.  As I've said many times before, they are all eager to pass any old bill, call it "repeal" and be done with it.

[Applewood]

I think you're close, you just forgot to mention that they will always refer to it as repeal.  And the media and the Dems will go right along with that so they can:

1) Campaign on the evil republicans taking away medicine from children and minorities.
2) Not worry about actual repeal, since the narrative is that that already happened.

Agreed. 

[jmyrlefuller]

That's how I see it too.  McConnell will be able to say: "see, we passed the best bill we could, just like we promised."

And if it goes down, he'll be able to say: "see, we tried our best, put forth every possible bill we could, just like we promised, but we couldn't get it passed so there's no point in revisiting it."

[txradioguy]

And if it goes down, he'll be able to say: "see, we tried our best, put forth every possible bill we could, just like we promised, but we couldn't get it passed so there's no point in revisiting it."

Pssst....hey guess what?

He's going to do that anyway.

[TomSea]

Prayerfully, Senator Paul changes his mind.

Pro-Life Senators like Senator Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz support this bill. I commend them.

[DB]

Thanks.  So, that being said, is there any fatal downside into passing this bill.  I mean, will passing it make it harder somehow to get a really effective bill passed down the road.

From what I've seen it takes us closer to single payer. States need federal permission to go further away from single payer but no permission to go towards single payer under this legislation. In other words, it has a bias towards single payer. So states like California and New York can go full bore single payer with federal dollars with no questions asked. If Texas wants to go the opposite direction it has to get permission from the Feds to do so.

[txradioguy]

I wonder how many of the congresspersons actually read it.  I'll bet most of them won't.  As I've said many times before, they are all eager to pass any old bill, call it "repeal" and be done with it.

@Applewood I'd guess about as many as the number that read the ACA before it was shoved down our throats.

[txradioguy]

From what I've seen it takes us closer to single payer. States need federal permission to go further away from single payer but no permission to go towards single payer under this legislation. In other words, it has a bias towards single payer. So states like California and New York can go full bore single payer with federal dollars with no questions asked. If Texas wants to go the opposite direction it has to get permission from the Feds to do so.

@DB shhhhh don't say that too loudly.  There's some here that think this bill promotes Conservative principals and empowers the states.

[GrouchoTex]

@DB shhhhh don't say that too loudly.  There's some here that think this bill promotes Conservative principals and empowers the states.

Partial Federalism, isn't Federalism.
The 14th will over-ride the 10 amendment, (in the Federal Government's mind) as at has over and over again