Freedom Caucus balks at Republican leadership's Obamacare replacement

[geronl]

The individual mandate was perhaps the least offensive aspect of the ACA, and its symbolic power to the TEA party right has always puzzled me.

It is probably the most offensive

[Bigun]

Correct me if I'm wrong though...but those are rules set by the individual states and not the Federal government right?

That's right.  And that is exactly why there is nothing about being able to buy health insurance across state lines in their so called Obamacare repeal bill.

[LonestarDream]

That's right.  And that is exactly why there is nothing about being able to buy health insurance across state lines in their so called Obamacare repeal bill.

The core point is , if it is possible to buy life, car, and P&C insurance from many different carriers across state lines, then why not health insurance.  ?


The point is to encourage more carriers to operate in more states for more competition.

No mandates, individual or corporate.

[txradioguy]

The core point is , if it is possible to buy life, car, and P&C insurance from many different carriers across state lines, then why not health insurance.  ?


The point is to encourage more carriers to operate in more states for more competition.

No mandates, individual or corporate.

Not up to the Government to encourage said competition.  Not their job.  Let the states work it out between themselves.

[LonestarDream]

Not up to the Government to encourage said competition.  Not their job.  Let the states work it out between themselves.

It is that is the point of the commerce clause.  Undue regulations and tariffs restrict commerce between the states. 

[jmyrlefuller]

Getting rid of the the mandate in its current form would moot the damage that John Roberts did.

Not quite, because that precedent means it can come back under whatever administration wants to impose a coercive tax.

If he had ruled it unconstitutional, it could never happen again.

[Cyber Liberty]

Not quite, because that precedent means it can come back under whatever administration wants to impose a coercive tax.

It was referred back to Congress.  It's one thing to pose a coercive tax like that, it's quite another to pass it, all the way to a President's signature.  It was well known at the time:  If the "mandate" was pitched to Congress as a tax it would have failed by at least a dozen votes.

[Jazzhead]

Correct me if I'm wrong though...but those are rules set by the individual states and not the Federal government right?

That's correct -  but it's still a mandate to purchase insurance.   Few of us can get by in life without driving on public roads.

The difference, of course, is that auto insurance is real insurance with real choices.   One must (generally speaking) at a minimum purchase insurance to address one's liability as a driver doing harm to others;  you can choose whether or not to purchase insurance regarding the theft or casualty of your vehicle.   And you certainly don't have to pay for expensive insurance to cover oil changes and other routine maintenance - unlike the ACA where every policy must cover check-ups and many preventive items free of charge.   

That's paternalism -  the government's edict that we won't care enough about taking care of our own health to avoid big bills later,  so the check-ups and vaccines and birth control pills have to be "free".  Except they're not - they're built into the premium cost of every policy.   

I see no reason why medical policies can't be as flexible in the choices available as auto policies.  Creating the conditions in the market for such flexibility must be a key priority of any GOP measure to replace the ACA.   

[Jazzhead]

Not quite, because that precedent means it can come back under whatever administration wants to impose a coercive tax.

If he had ruled it unconstitutional, it could never happen again.

As a Constitutional matter, there's nothing particularly unique about ACA's individual mandate as a tax.  It's a (relatively) modest tax penalty that can be avoided by prescribed behavior -  but it's hardly the first time that tax policy has been used as an instrument of social policy.   How many of us give bucks to charity before the end of the year in order to reduce our taxable income?    How many of us take advantage of tax breaks to save for retirement?    In a perfect world,  tax policy would be solely about raising revenue to finance government's operations.  But social policy lies behind so much of the Tax Code that it is pointless to cite the ACA individual mandate as an unconstitutional aberration.   

[Jazzhead]

It is probably the most offensive

I understand -  but as has been pointed out the states have required drivers to purchase insurance for many years now.   The objection to the mandate is that it is enforced by means of the Tax Code.   Folks who instinctively oppose the IRS are the most vehement critics of the mandate,  and the GOP has listened to those objections in the AHCA which abolishes both the individual and employer mandates.   Instead, the cancer of free riders is addressed by the market - insurers can penalize those who wait until they get sick to purchase insurance.   

[libertybele]

As a Constitutional matter, there's nothing particularly unique about ACA's individual mandate as a tax.  It's a (relatively) modest tax penalty that can be avoided by prescribed behavior -  but it's hardly the first time that tax policy has been used as an instrument of social policy.   How many of us give bucks to charity before the end of the year in order to reduce our taxable income?    How many of us take advantage of tax breaks to save for retirement?    In a perfect world,  tax policy would be solely about raising revenue to finance government's operations.  But social policy lies behind so much of the Tax Code that it is pointless to cite the ACA individual mandate as an unconstitutional aberration.   

Giving to a charity is NOT mandated by the government.  Purchasing healthcare IS mandated by the government and a penalty incurred for non-compliance. A modest penalty?  Tell that to someone who is struggling and can't afford healthcare and is penalized at the end of the year. If you think forcing people to pay for something they don't want isn't unconstitutional, then you and I see things very differently.

[INVAR]

That's correct -  but it's still a mandate to purchase insurance.   Few of us can get by in life without driving on public roads.

Ahhh... the Elizabeth Warren Talking Point.  How positively Leftist you are!

Hey bub - driving is a choice, breathing isn't - but of course tyrant cheerleaders and despot applauders like yourself don't see the difference.

I see no reason why medical policies can't be as flexible in the choices available as auto policies.  Creating the conditions in the market for such flexibility must be a key priority of any GOP measure to replace the ACA.

Get government OUT of the insurance industry PERIOD.

Government cannot create flexible market conditions in a free market and impose them on the private sector without negative consequences.

But you are all about Statist expansion of government anyway, so the concept of limited government escapes your comprehension.

[Jazzhead]

Giving to a charity is NOT mandated by the government.  Purchasing healthcare IS mandated by the government and a penalty incurred for non-compliance. A modest penalty?  Tell that to someone who is struggling and can't afford healthcare and is penalized at the end of the year. If you think forcing people to pay for something they don't want isn't unconstitutional, then you and I see things very differently.

The individual mandate is modest in amount in comparison to the cost of medical insurance.  It's far less "coercive" than most state laws that require drivers to affirmatively maintain insurance. 

Sure it's an incentive - an incentive to be responsible.   Anyone who "can't afford healthcare" is going to pass his medical costs on to you and me.  The ACA's failure isn't the mandate, but the lack of affordable choices in the marketplace.  The AHCA can hopefully fix that - and effectively replace your hated mandate by allowing insurance companies to penalize free riders with higher premiums.   

[Jazzhead]

Ahhh... the Elizabeth Warren Talking Point.  How positively Leftist you are!

Hey bub - driving is a choice, breathing isn't - but of course tyrant cheerleaders and despot applauders like yourself don't see the difference.

Get government OUT of the insurance industry PERIOD.

Government cannot create flexible market conditions in a free market and impose them on the private sector without negative consequences.

But you are all about Statist expansion of government anyway, so the concept of limited government escapes your comprehension.

Chest-beating and insults,  from this board's leading font of mythology and ignorance.   

[libertybele]

The individual mandate is modest in amount in comparison to the cost of medical insurance.  It's far less "coercive" than most state laws that require drivers to affirmatively maintain insurance. 

Sure it's an incentive - an incentive to be responsible.   Anyone who "can't afford healthcare" is going to pass his medical costs on to you and me.  The ACA's failure isn't the mandate, but the lack of affordable choices in the marketplace.  The AHCA can hopefully fix that - and effectively replace your hated mandate by allowing insurance companies to penalize free riders with higher premiums.

I still disagree with you in regards to the mandate.  That is exactly why it failed ... forcing people to purchase something they can't afford.  That's like telling someone who has an older model refrigerator that they have to go out and buy a new one because that's what the government now demands of them.

As far as the marketplace; you and I agree on that one.  However, it is my understanding that the AHCA doesn't allow for free markets.

[txradioguy]

That's correct -  but it's still a mandate to purchase insurance.   Few of us can get by in life without driving on public roads.

The difference, of course, is that auto insurance is real insurance with real choices.   One must (generally speaking) at a minimum purchase insurance to address one's liability as a driver doing harm to others;  you can choose whether or not to purchase insurance regarding the theft or casualty of your vehicle.   And you certainly don't have to pay for expensive insurance to cover oil changes and other routine maintenance - unlike the ACA where every policy must cover check-ups and many preventive items free of charge.   

That's paternalism -  the government's edict that we won't care enough about taking care of our own health to avoid big bills later,  so the check-ups and vaccines and birth control pills have to be "free".  Except they're not - they're built into the premium cost of every policy.   

I see no reason why medical policies can't be as flexible in the choices available as auto policies.  Creating the conditions in the market for such flexibility must be a key priority of any GOP measure to replace the ACA.

Look it's painfully obvious to everyone who's read your posts that you're in favor of Big Government and the Nanny State providing all of us what they think we need whether we want it or not.  the 9th and 10th Amendments mean nothing to you in situations like this and you think that anyone who doesn't want what you're saying they should take is greedy and lazy.  Or in your world...they are trying to shove their Christianity and "morals" down peoples throats.

Those are the traits of Liberalism.  And when it comes to big government forcing it's "morals" on us...you have no problem with that.  Funny how that works.

You're all for forcing people to take and accept things as long as it fits your Liberal view of the world...but want to shut people down and put them into a little cubby hole of Christian "moralists" when they don't accept your big government progressive agenda.

This defense of an unconstitutional individual mandate and calls for punishing people who don't want to buy in...is the best exhibit you've given us yet of this Progressive mindset you have.

You'd have a lot more respect from people here if you'd quit trying to pretend you're some kind of Conservative of any stripe and just admit who you really are and what you really stand for.  You're not going to get bounced from here for being a Liberal...you should know that by now.

[INVAR]

Chest-beating and insults,  from this board's leading font of mythology and ignorance.   

Go run and complain to the Mods like the big victim you portray yourself.

BTW, your Christian-hating Atheism is really beginning to show itself for what it truly is.

[Jazzhead]

Go run and complain to the Mods like the big victim you portray yourself.

BTW, your Christian-hating Atheism is really beginning to show itself for what it truly is.

Au contraire, I object to your pantload of crap because of my abiding belief in Jesus Christ (disaffected Christian though I may be).   I think your values are a disgrace and a mockery of what Christ taught.   

[Jazzhead]

Look it's painfully obvious to everyone who's read your posts that you're in favor of Big Government and the Nanny State providing all of us what they think we need whether we want it or not.  the 9th and 10th Amendments mean nothing to you in situations like this and you think that anyone who doesn't want what you're saying they should take is greedy and lazy.  Or in your world...they are trying to shove their Christianity and "morals" down peoples throats.

Those are the traits of Liberalism.  And when it comes to big government forcing it's "morals" on us...you have no problem with that.  Funny how that works.

You're all for forcing people to take and accept things as long as it fits your Liberal view of the world...but want to shut people down and put them into a little cubby hole of Christian "moralists" when they don't accept your big government progressive agenda.

This defense of an unconstitutional individual mandate and calls for punishing people who don't want to buy in...is the best exhibit you've given us yet of this Progressive mindset you have.

You'd have a lot more respect from people here if you'd quit trying to pretend you're some kind of Conservative of any stripe and just admit who you really are and what you really stand for.  You're not going to get bounced from here for being a Liberal...you should know that by now.

Tend to your own house, sir.   You may disagree whether I'm a conservative,  but I am certainly a Republican - and have been for over 40 years.   And who made you pope of this dump?   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I'm getting just a tad tired of the really unoriginal meme of "If you don't agree with me 100% then you're not a conservative".


This is despite the fact that Jazz and you probably voted for 90% of the same people in the last 40 years.

[INVAR]

Au contraire, I object to your crap because of my belief in Jesus Christ.   I think your values are a disgrace and a mockery of what Christ taught.

You employ all the traits of a Grand Liar and a Deceiver.  You have proven countless times you are totally and completely ignorant of both the bible and what Jesus Himself said and taught.

You call Homosexuality 'virtuous'.  You call abortion an inherent 'right'.  You defend Islam at every opportunity.  You are the epitome of Isaiah 5:20 and prove it as such virtually every single time you post here.

Your use of the term 'mythology' in reference to Christianity was the dead giveaway to your hatred and Atheism/hostility to biblical Believers, of whom you have no understanding of whatsoever.

[MOD4]

  And who made you pope of this dump?   

Excuse me? 

[Cyber Liberty]

And who made you pope of this dump?

Dump?  Did you just call TBR a "dump?"

Nice. 

[INVAR]

Dump?  Did you just call TBR a "dump?"

Nice.

The true colors of what Jazzhead really is are starting to reveal themselves.

His hatred of biblical Christians, this board, it's members and love of all things Leftist and Big Government is plain for all to see with his posts.

Since he will not openly admit it and continues to deceive by insisting he is a "Christian Conservative" (of which I assert he is not by his own words), I submit we continue to point out that he is our resident Secular Liberal Big Government Leftist.

[don-o]

I have an idea. Instead of accusing members of not being conservative or of not being conservative enough, when that idea comes to mind, bring enlightenment by pointing out exactly why they are off the conservative rails.

The other way is clearly nothing more than flame bait.