Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Rand Paul Have an Alternative to the Failed AHCA?
IWB ^ | Gabrielle Seunagal

Posted on 03/26/2017 8:53:19 AM PDT by davikkm

From the birth of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was vehemently against it. In an interview with MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Paul noted the problematic rising premiums that Obamacare engenders in the individual market. He elaborately explained the much needed demand to eradicate Obamacare’s insurance mandates and high prices. The AHCA would have earned popularity among conservatives if Rand Paul was involved with the crafting of the bill. Speaker Ryan remained woefully out of touch with the AHCA’s dismal unfavorability; his determination to persist with the proposal serves as evidence of such.

Senator Paul was one of the central AHCA critics. He, along with many other conservatives, referred to the bill as Obamacare Lite and suggested removing many of Speaker Ryan’s policies, due to the current legislation allowing half of the subsidies that Obamacare did. Paul also suggested terminating all regulations and creating a buying group via budget regulation. This course of action would have drastically decreased the costs associated with the AHCA. Paul’s sensible proposition resonated with a plethora of conservatives across this nation. Why was he not involved in the formation of the American Health Care Act?

(Excerpt) Read more at investmentwatchblog.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: ahca; alternative; blogpimp; randpaul; randsconcerntrolls; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 03/26/2017 8:53:19 AM PDT by davikkm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: davikkm

I have one.

It’s called free enterprise.


2 posted on 03/26/2017 8:57:09 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davikkm
There's only two plays here....Pass it and get criticized...or don't pass it and get criticized.

It'll happen....in time.

The problem was setting a deadline to start with.

Trump did right to move on. Even Cramer suggested it.

3 posted on 03/26/2017 8:57:53 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davikkm
(Excerpt) Read more at

Why not post the whole thing?

It's your own lame blog, after all.

4 posted on 03/26/2017 8:59:13 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“I have one.

It’s called free enterprise.”

The “free enterprise” insurance companies wrote Obamacare, remember?

Companies gladly dumped their staff off the company plans and into it that system in order to save them a buck.

Those same insurance companies are waiting gleefully for the deluge of people that will need to buy new insurance plans when Obamacare is gone.

Plans that will be sold at a huge mark-up.

Now besides the sloganeering, what is the plan so that people, without insurance and in need to buy, dont have a choice between none and going broke buying from the crooked insurance companies that gave us O-care?


5 posted on 03/26/2017 9:02:52 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: davikkm
Can we stop with this "failed" narrative? We didn't fail, we just didn't get it on the first try. Saying we failed just says that we'll only get one chance and blew it.

We'll get other chances, and we'll have a better chance once Trump's policies of bring jobs back and rebuilding our infrastructure start to bear fruit.

This didn't go as planned, but let's not allow ourselves to be boxed into this "failed" narrative, especially since Trump has only been in office two months.

6 posted on 03/26/2017 9:09:15 AM PDT by TwelveOfTwenty (Prayers for our country and President Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

Insurance is a business. If the purveyors of insurance are dishonest, then the consumer needs to be cautious in dealing with them, same as any other business.

It’s always been that way in a free society.


7 posted on 03/26/2017 9:31:04 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: davikkm

The GOP should not be tinkering with the mechanism of oppression, hoping for a better result. The only rational choice is the blow up the system and let free people make free decisions about health insurance.

Once the GOP admits that government has a central role in the health insurance market, they have lost.

Repeal it all. People managed to get medical care and arrange insurance before the government got involved. Given the opportunity, they would do so again.


8 posted on 03/26/2017 9:35:55 AM PDT by Haiku Guy (eliminate perverse incentives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

No. Health Insurance as business with a caveat emptor facet was not always the case.

The early insurance companies were often the work of doctors themselves pursuing their professional mission of healing to serve all people.

That morphed into the present day insurance companies with shareholders and greed and profit driven motives hell bent on their dollar while cutting quality and physician and patientdecision making out of the equation to the extent they can.

It is heartless just like Ryan the policy/ numbers wonk appears to be.

Clean that swamp too. The failure to get rid of these vultures assures us of death panels.


9 posted on 03/26/2017 10:00:40 AM PDT by amihow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Haiku Guy

Tactics defeat policy every single time. Trump is president because he made extra trips to Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Had some message discipline his final 2-3 weeks.

Build the Wall. Repeal and Replace. Bring jobs back to those areas.

But he is president because of the tactics of THOSE AREAS.

Now he has the audacity to not be a politician and try to do what he promised his voters (who are not conservative, those states voted for Obama twice).

He promised them Repeal and Replace. Tactics overwhelm policy every time. He needs a bill crafted to get past the Senate, and have no doubt here, the Senate after this election is shaky. Nevada is a blue state now and we have a GOP senator up from there 2018. He can’t vote right wing. So of 52 you lose him for a hard core right wing bill. And Susan Collins, too. And Murkowski. And Flake, from a now wobbly Arizona that elected him with just 46% in 2012. He ain’t voting hard core right wing either.

So look at the Senate and craft your bill. Or hell, you can even craft your bill and look at the Senate.

As for putting forth a hardcore right wing bill, there should properly be quid pro quo. If the chambers decide to waste the time to do that, you have to agree to accept its failure and participate in crafting a bill that can pass. Because tactics are everything and it will take tactical genius to get through the Senate.


10 posted on 03/26/2017 10:06:22 AM PDT by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Owen

We should fight, then settle.

Who knows... we might even win.

But if we accept the premise that government should be running healthcare, we have already lost.


11 posted on 03/26/2017 10:16:45 AM PDT by Haiku Guy (eliminate perverse incentives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner
(Excerpt) Read more at

Why not post the whole thing?

It's your own lame blog, after all.

Perhaps we should help him out.

From the birth of the American Health Care Act (AHCA), Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was vehemently against it. In an interview with MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Paul noted the problematic rising premiums that Obamacare engenders in the individual market. He elaborately explained the much needed demand to eradicate Obamacare’s insurance mandates and high prices. The AHCA would have earned popularity among conservatives if Rand Paul was involved with the crafting of the bill. Speaker Ryan remained woefully out of touch with the AHCA’s dismal unfavorability; his determination to persist with the proposal serves as evidence of such.

Senator Paul was one of the central AHCA critics. He, along with many other conservatives, referred to the bill as Obamacare Lite and suggested removing many of Speaker Ryan’s policies, due to the current legislation allowing half of the subsidies that Obamacare did. Paul also suggested terminating all regulations and creating a buying group via budget regulation. This course of action would have drastically decreased the costs associated with the AHCA. Paul’s sensible proposition resonated with a plethora of conservatives across this nation. Why was he not involved in the formation of the American Health Care Act?

Moreover, Senator Paul was one of many Americans who believe the President was deceived (by Speaker Ryan) into the notion that the AHCA was the only alternative to repealing and replacing Obamacare. To quote the Senator: “He has been told this is the only vehicle, and Paul Ryan has been saying it for weeks, it’s a binary choice, you take it and it’s my way or the highway. I think he has been fed a bill of goods on this thing, and there’s a bill we could pass that would bring down costs and this bill doesn’t do it.” Following the AHCA’s failure and the announcement of Obamacare’s continuation, countless Americans expressed their fury, much of it aimed towards Speaker Ryan. Several prominent conservatives are already calling for his resignation.

Obamacare will inevitably continue to fail. Within a few years, it will crash and burn, leaving a plethora of wounded Americans in its wake. The premiums and unaffordability continue to rise. Perhaps the utter collapse of Obamacare will serve as an incentive for Republicans (and Democrats) to join forces and form an affordable health care bill that earns a reasonable degree of popularity. Speaker Ryan announced that Republican leaders are now “moving on” from healthcare reform and focusing their attention on other policies. This unfortunate disposition does not negate the reality that healthcare reform will have to be addressed very soon.


12 posted on 03/26/2017 10:19:54 AM PDT by gunsequalfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Insurance is a business. If the purveyors of insurance are dishonest, then the consumer needs to be cautious in dealing with them, same as any other business.

It’s always been that way in a free society.

That isnt an answer. You guys are simply telling people that they are just going to have to get screwed.....”but dont take out your anger on us...please!!?”.

Like I said, the right had better come up wit ha plan to move people off of OCare as painlessly as possible because platitudes and a “have a nice day” isnt going to cut it.


13 posted on 03/26/2017 10:20:51 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Haiku Guy

“Repeal it all. People managed to get medical care and arrange insurance before the government got involved.”

So do you have any idea what people are going to do between repealing O-Care and getting that insurance?

Is there any plan for people getting insurance without the few companies left charging them extortion prices after they all colluded to write O-Care?

The problem is that our side only gives a crap about repealing O-Care, but has not the foggiest idea about the chaos afterwards.

What is the plan to move people out of this system, and back into the “free market” without them getting gouged and fleeced by sky-high premiums?


14 posted on 03/26/2017 10:24:26 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Haiku Guy

You know what? Ryan is probably okay with offering a hardcore right wing bill, provided there is quid pro quo — meaning when the House GOP moderates say no, then the right wing has to accept their defeat and work towards Replace, as well as Repeal.

In fact, Ryan probably started from that position, learned quickly from the conference that there was only tiny House support for such a thing, and then wisely crafted a bill that had a chance to get through Reconciliation.

The problem here is the extremists don’t want to govern. Simply that. They want to generate speaking fees, but not actually produce legislation that will pass the Senate, which is what is required to govern.


15 posted on 03/26/2017 10:26:29 AM PDT by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty
Good comment, Twelve!

Some things have been accomplished. First of all, we learned that Ryan is not a legislative whiz. Trump trust him but Ryan failed to deliver.

Ryan did not work with the Senate and he proved that he's not fit to be speaker.

Rome was not built in a day. And it never gets built if the legislative leaders are incompetent -- or have a secret agenda.


16 posted on 03/26/2017 10:29:21 AM PDT by poconopundit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: davikkm

here’s what i think:

The enemedia and RINO NeverTrump articles about this so-called “failure” are all delusional, and the best part is that they actually believe their own delusions.

I heard President Trump say a few weeks ago that his administration wouldn’t be addressing obamacare repeal and replace until late 2017 to early 2018 (basically when obamacare would be facing complete collapse), so I can’t wait to watch these fools freak the F out when his administration introduces a REAL repeal and replace bill 9 months from now.

As far as President Trump was concerned, RyanCare was nothing but a red herring intended to take Paul Ryan out of all future equations about everything.

RyanCare was a real abortion of a bill, written by the insurance companies who were the only ones who were going to benefit from its passage. The insurance companies clearly had this bill already in hand, and I feel certain had cut a deal with Paul Ryan BEFORE the election, fully expecting HILLARY CLINTON to be President, but believing that some Pub House votes would be needed to get the bill through the House.

RyanCare was actually SUPPOSED to have been HillaryCare, which was why the original RyanCare bill preserved 99.9% of obamacare, and it supposed to have been Hillary’s gift to the insurance companies, while simultaneously shafting Trump’s voters, who are the people who would have suffered the worse under HillaryCare/RyanCare, with even higher premiums than we pay now.

Ryan went ahead with HillaryCare anyway, thinking he could bulldoze the House into screwing their own constituencies even worse than happened with obamacare. If this had passed, Ryan also knew that it would totally sink Trump’s ship before four years was out, which was another major goal of Ryan’s, namely, to try to destroy President Trump before 2020.


17 posted on 03/26/2017 10:49:02 AM PDT by catnipman ( Cat Nipman: Vote Republican in 2012 and only be called racist one more time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

I don’t think it would be as bad as you assume.

If people know when they are transitioning, they will make arrangements in advance.

The government should permit any company that can demonstrate sufficient reserves to write medical insurance, and should only regulate them to the extent necessary do ensure that they are not engaging in deceptive marketing.

The transition can be arranged in ways to minimize shock, such as phasing the transition dates, so that only 2% of the population transitions in any given week.

Broaden competition, and the price gouger will get very little business.


18 posted on 03/26/2017 12:37:10 PM PDT by Haiku Guy (eliminate perverse incentives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: davikkm
Why don't doctors post prices?

I want to see prices posted for routine care and common treatments.

I want to be able to comparison shop. I want to know which doctors have a reputation of doing a good job and which don't. Just as with anything else.

I understand that treatment for serious problems may be open ended. The proper role of insurance is to handle such events. Insurance is for high consequence/low probability events. Insurance is not for routine care such as a physical exam, common illnesses, common childhood injuries, etc.

Caring for combat veterans and for those who have a permanent physical or mental disability must be provided for, but these are entirely different sets of circumstances and the needs differ from those of most.

A one-size-fits-all "comprehensive" government program which seizes control of individuals and corporations is monstrously abhorrent. It is not only morally objectionable but is doomed to failure. History is piled high with failed centrally planned programs.

19 posted on 03/26/2017 12:41:43 PM PDT by Ray76 (DRAIN THE SWAMP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: davikkm

“Why was [Rand Paul] not involved in the formation of the American Health Care Act?”

Because Ryan’s lobbyist handlers did not want Rand and his free market ideas anywhere near this bill.


20 posted on 03/26/2017 1:25:49 PM PDT by SharpRightTurn (Chuck Schumer--giving pond scum everywhere a bad name.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson