Republican Health-Care Plan: Rand Paul Makes a Good Start
Sigh...HSA's are a wonderful idea FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. As soon as you make it a government function(tax) it is no longer an individual choice and opens the door for federal exploitation and corruption. FEDGOV GET THE HELL OUT OF HEALTHCARE. The entire matter is beyond the fedgov's Constitutional mandate and I'm sickened that a Paul wouldn't recognize and promoted government extraction from the matter altogether.
Less government. Less government regulation. More free market options for the individual, competition is how you bring costs under control.
Less government. Less government regulation. More free market options for the individual, competition is how you bring costs under control.
Health insurance is NOT HEALTH CARE.
AJA is a much better representative for the people that Rand Paul.
GET OUT OF THE WAY, RAND!
Rand has been in DC and has been listening to the media too long . He has forgotten his oath of office and his reason.
Establishment Republicans don't like it because of their statist-collectivist premises. You see that every time they shriek their slogan "repeal and replace", with a big emphasis on "replace". Why "replace"? "Replace" with what? Repealing Obama health controls does replace it -- with the relatively freer system replaced by the Obamacare Democrats rammed through as all the statism they could get at the time.
When Republicans, including Trump, shriek for and emphasize "replace" they mean replace with another government run system not much different than what they think are the "popular" parts of Obamacare and no way to pay for it. They don't want to go back to pre-Obamacare, let alone actually improve on that. There is too much of the predicted constituency for not giving up the latest round of subsidies, and the Republicans are too ignorant and too afraid to advocate for freedom and rights of the individual. The way they are going Obama was right when he said that they will modify his system and call it something else. "Me too but slower".
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/HCRef...
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvesp...
“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.” [quoted in Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...]
In 2000, @realDonaldTrump released a book called "The America We Deserve" where he advocated for universal healthcare and single-payer. http://pic.twitter.com/k25Wsawf66
— Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) January 13, 2017
...
For quite some time, Trump has been in favor of government-funded health care. He admitted to it on CBS’ Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes in September of 2015:
Scott Pelley: What's your plan for Obamacare?
Donald Trump: Obamacare's going to be repealed and replaced. Obamacare is a disaster if you look at what's going on with premiums where they're up 40, 50, 55 percent.
Scott Pelley: How do you fix it?
Donald Trump: There's many different ways, by the way. Everybody's got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say because a lot of times they say, "No, no, the lower 25 percent that can't afford private. But--"
Scott Pelley: Universal health care.
Donald Trump: I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now.
Scott Pelley: The uninsured person is going to be taken care of. How? How?
Donald Trump: They're going to be taken care of. I would make a deal with existing hospitals to take care of people. And, you know what, if this is probably--
Scott Pelley: Make a deal? Who pays for it?
Donald Trump: the government's gonna pay for it. But we're going to save so much money on the other side. But for the most it's going to be a private plan and people are going to be able to go out and negotiate great plans with lots of different competition with lots of competitors with great companies and they can have their doctors, they can have plans, they can have everything.
They have one. It's a rarely seen thing that works more efficiently than anything else ever devised and it's called THE FREE MARKET."
(National Review is just another CINO statist propaganda rag that long ago lost any intent to support liberty and free market capitalism.)
Company paid health insurance began as a competitive thing. To get around price controls imposed during WWII, companies began to offer ‘benefits’ to workers to hire them and retain them. Think about that for a minute.
Government mandated portability destroys one of the primary reasons companies paid for health insurance to begin with. But now government is requiring companies to pay for health insurance if they are of a certain size. A consequence of this is that companies don’t want to grow past that threshold.
It would seem that no one in government understand the ‘Law of Unintended Consequences’ but I think at least some of them do AND they relish the chaos they cause because it gives them more to regulate. That in turn means more have to be hired and job security increases.
This whole mess starts with the wage freezes the government imposed during WWII. Funny thing is, I can’t find that part of the government’s powers anywhere in my copy of the Constitution. Maybe liberals have something different in theirs?
I’ll find something different to whine about tomorrow :-(
it is the old two-step forward one step back that fascism and socialism use to creep closer to total govt control of it's serfs (i mean citizens)...it is why Conservatism will fail...and we will all lose our liberty and freedom....
Personally I could give a rats ass what she or anyone else thinks/thought of me. I'm a Constitutional Conservative.
Ayn Rand's rejection of religious conservativism is true, not "anti-individual".
Not caring about "consistency" or "giving a rat's ass" about what Ayn Rand thought, in the name of "individualism", is not an argument
My biggest concern (one of those nits in an overall good thing) with Paul's proposal is what to do with people who are irresponsible in that they have no wealth, maintain no insurance, and then they need medicine. It's easy to say, "that's not my problem," but those people will find a way to freeload.
I hate to focus on "framing", but they should sell this thing to Democrats too "HSAs shift control of health-care spending from employers to employees." --> "HSAs shift control of health-care decisions from corporations to workers" It's a little different, but it happens to be true. Democrats should support a plan along the lines of what this article says Paul is proposing.
It was never intended to work in the form the Democrats passed it. They knew it would not work but deliberately set out to entrench into law as many statist-collectivist premises they could, expecting that it would cause chaos in the insurance industry followed by a public clamor for a stronger government "solution". It's the classic pattern of more government controls promoted to "solve" problems caused by government controls, exploiting collectivist premises to rationalize progressively intensifying all of it.
Why would he propose something he knows is unconstitutional?
He has never been the supporter of liberty and limited govenment that his father was.
He is a moderate Republican, not libertarian.
I can only speculate its incrementally dismantling what O setup. If true, the question then becomes why be incrementalist? The republicans have the House and the Senate and DT said he'd sign. All that need be done is defund O-care. Why this p*ss approach. Just do it.
And incrementally taken apart of not the entire assumption of authority in this matter is not stated in the Constitution and is firmly in the domain of the States, if their people allow it.
Taxation is theft for a HSA or not.
I simply don't get how an HSA is a tax.
What Government is is a parasite who feeds off others wealth. To get that wealth it has to attach itself in every conceivable way it can devise in order to feed. They are deliberately impeding my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and infringing on my property to feel the financial gluttony. The host, America, is dying and this unconstitutional mental mindset has to stop.
Tenth Amendment. Free Market.
I know. I've been doing it voluntarily for about 10 years. Unlike Roths, there're no income limits. It's tax-deductible going in, grows tax free, and is tax free coming out when used for medical expenses. You can invest it in stock and bonds. I don't even take money out for healthcare; I use other funds. You can only put $7k a year in, but it's worth doing. It's one form in the bound book of tax papers my CPA generates.
It would be great if there were no booklet of taxes, but as tax headaches go, I consider HSAs a plus.
We just got dinged for $4k for sending employees' withholding in using paper checks, even though I sent them in on time with Form 941 perfectly correct; you're supposed to use electronic remittance. The funny thing is we sent a letter asking if we can get the penalty forgiven, and they sent back a snail mail letter saying they received our letter and are doing an administrative process to make a decision that could take months. So they sent a letter saying, "ah, let me think about it."
Given all the other other hassles, I consider HSAs to be one of the wonders of the tax world.
Amazingly, this country survived for hundreds of years before government mandated healthcare. I believe that if they simply repealed Obamacare, that the states would fill the void...just like they were doing, before the Liberals botched everything.
Yeah, take this point too.
Sheesh. I miss Lets Shrug.
That was one hell of an exit-speech.!