The GOP Repeal Plan Sucks. But Is it Better Than Nothing?

First of all, the preferred free-market plan for health care policy should be no plan whatsoever. The idea that we need a federal top-down strategy to manage a huge chunk of the economy is at the very heart of the problem. We don't need a federal plan for health care. Yet Republicans have allowed liberals to frame the entire health insurance debate in these anti-market terms.

So the American Health Care Act, or AHCA, is obviously weak tea, falling far short of a promised free-market solution, much less a full "repeal" of Obamacare. It's a half-measure that endeavors to fix Obamacare with small doses of deregulation while failing to repeal its core. It's almost as if Republicans were trying to mollify their constituents and save Obamacare at the same time.

President Donald Trump tweeted something about a three-phase rollout, but the specifics of the other two parts have yet to be confirmed. Perhaps the full proposal will reflect better on Republicans. But considering the noise moderate senators have been making and Trump's own views on entitlement programs, it's unlikely to meet conservative expectations. So what can be done?

In a piece highly critical of the plan, the Washington Examiner's Philip Klein, who has done some of the most insightful writing on Obamacare, states, "the GOP will either be passing legislation that rests on the same philosophical premise as Obamacare, or will pass nothing at all, and thus keep Obamacare itself in place." What if this is the choice?

We know the Democratic Party's plan for health care: Constrain markets to create monopolies that can be controlled by a federal regulatory regime (this is why liberals oppose markets expanding across state lines); and rather than worrying about access, choice or cost, continue to incentivize the growth of the welfare state. When this situation becomes untenable, pass single-payer. What Democrats understand but Republicans often don't is that you can reach your goals incrementally.

Obamacare was ignored as soon as it was passed. A law that was sold as a tool to reign in rising costs quickly became a moral edifice that alleviated an imaginary humanitarian crisis (the defense of it is now almost exclusively focused on people losing Medicaid). Meanwhile, Obamacare was used as a tool for social engineering and coercion, allowing technocrats to dictate how a third of the economy functions. If you control the bureaucracy, laws become incredibly malleable. One day, Democrats will be back and, without even partial repeal, all the same mechanisms will be available to them.

Halting federal funding of the nation's largest abortion mill is a victory. Offering states more flexibility to run their own Medicaid programs is a victory. Expanded health savings accounts and the creation of real-life illustrations of successes is promising. Getting rid of the individual mandate is a victory, as is allowing consumers to purchase insurance across state lines. Repealing nearly all of Obamacare's taxes -- other than a postponement of the Cadillac tax -- is a win.

It's possible, of course, that AHCA negotiations will begin with moderate proposals and transform into something free market-oriented. With widespread opposition from conservative groups -- Heritage Action for America, FreedomWorks, etc. -- the American Health Care Act looks like a non-starter. Then again, who are we kidding? The truth is that conservatives probably find themselves in the same situation frustrated liberals did in 2009. Despite prevailing mythology, Democrats never compromised in good faith with the opposing party; they compromised with their own moderates. It only takes a few senators to hold an entire party hostage.

It's also worth pointing out that no federal entitlement program has ever been repealed or replaced, or really even weakened. This was the fight that spurred Republicans to win hundreds of seats and take the House, Senate and presidency. The fact is that many politicians who benefitted most from Obamacare's failures were lying to their constituents. Either these Republicans don't have the mettle to back a full repeal or they don't have the ideas to create a new plan. So perhaps Obamacare Lite is preferable to Obamacare because it's the best this crop of legislators is going to do. Also, as history has shown, making substantive policy changes doesn't get any easier as a term wears on. This might be the last chance to do anything.

Another infuriating aspect of this fiasco is that Democrats will treat any Obamacare "repeal" bill as if it were an assault on all that is holy and patriotic. This rhetoric shouldn't have inhibited Republicans; it should have freed them to pass bills that incorporate the ideas they supposedly believe in. Why would they let the same people who told America that Obamacare would be a political and functional success now lecture them on how unpopular a repeal bill will be?

Republican Factions Continue Healthcare Infighting…

Posted on March 10, 2017 by sundance

In the largest measure, the basic problem is in 2009 Harry Reid passed the ObamaCare legislation in the Senate with 60 votes. The House then passed the exact same bill, and the Democrats moved to immediate reconciliation to remove the House concerns (Gator-Aid, Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase etc.).

In 2017 the Republican congress are attempting to repeal and replace that ObamaCare legislation with only 52 Senate votes available, well, maybe.

Unfortunately for the GOP there are not even 52 votes for repeal. Portman, Thune, Collins, Murkowski, Graham, McCain, Blunt, Cochran, Cornyn, Hatch, McConnell and others, are not necessarily on board; that's 11. (Leaving only 41).

No amount of byzantine rule changes surrounding “reconciliation” are going to overcome that factual vote hurdle. In 2009 Senator Reid started with 60 votes. In 2017 Senator McConnell starts with 52.

So anything coming from the House of Representatives has to keep this reality in mind. Even if support or opposition is based on ideological principle, it still has to pass – or it's moot.

There's no doubt the Paul Ryan proposal holds the worst U.S. CoC aspects demanded by Tom Donohue. Heck, Donohue poured a lot of lobbying money into the entire architecture in ’09/’10 and he's paid republicans in congress hundreds of millions to make sure his interests in keeping ObamaCare around are protected. Ryan is big GOPe and he's supported by the Big Club.

And, as much as Paul Ryan is beholden to Donohue to retain some form of ObamaCare, so too are the Rand Paul / Ted Cruz types paid by billionaires like Cary Katz (Conservative Review); who want an abject repeal without compromise.

Everyone has a financial agenda, and almost every large website and media outlet on the conservative side of the equation has financial underwriting determining their projected position. The scope of their financial leverage in direct proportion to the severity of their opposition or support of ObamaCare.

The Conservative Review is on one ideological billionaire side. Salem Media Communications is on another. Money, not moral or guiding principle, is really the driving force within these media-promoted arguments.

CTH has no financial interest at all. None. We're structurally and ideologically ambivalent to the outcome and simply choose to look at the entire situation from a perspective of politics. What can be reasonably expected to happen; what cannot happen; and how will any chosen direction influence the future stakes and bigger picture.

One of the best examples of the politics can be highlighted in a recent interview with Senator Rand Paul where he is promoting his bill as an option.

As you watch the interview remember Rand Paul has no co-sponsors, because he's all alone. Listen carefully to him explain that his job is not to advance legislation that can pass, but rather to advance legislation that he alone is able to believe in.

TuckerTime: 3/9/17 Tucker Carlson Tonight Ed Henry and Rand Paul Obamacare Replacement Bill

Signals that people avoid:

♦ Rand Paul's bill has no republican co-sponsors. Why Not? He doesn't even try to make it appear he can get to 51 votes, let alone 60 votes.

♦ Rand Paul essentially admits his bill has no-chance of passage; and his argument is that it's better than the alternative.

♦ Rand Paul falsely claims in 2015 the Senate repealed ObamaCare. They didn't. It's just simply a false statement. The senate passed a bill that defunded ObamaCare using reconciliation. They offered no alternative accompanying bill, and Obama vetoed it.

♦ Additionally, […] The 149 page Paul bill also would create a health insurance tax credit against payroll taxes. The new credit is complicated, but its general effect is straightforward. It offsets payroll tax liability, while the new deduction reduces income tax liability. The credit is thus especially valuable to workers with modest wages, since they often pay more in FICA taxes than in income taxes.

If the bill stopped there, it would consist largely of conservative staple. But there's a twist: These new tax provisions do not replace the Obamacare refundable credits. Paul's tax breaks would exist side-by-side with Obamacare’s. (continue reading)

(Secretary Price and Speaker Ryan's Plan)

I really think Joninmd22 hits the key points in this comment:

The Constitutionalists’ argument that we should not be perpetuating an entitlement is sound. However the battle over Health Care being a right was lost with the McCain campaign for President in 2007. As a matter of fact that position was not even defended by the nominee.
That doesn't mean that the arguments for the free market were not sound nor put out by conservatives nor did they lack in their passion. That doesn't mean that the battle cannot be re-fought at some time in the future after the Trump Administration's economic growth and government reforms start to wean people away from welfare.
If you make the American electorate choose the free market or dependency cold turkey today they will vote democrat in millions in 2018 and 2020.
This is the reality we're in not the world we'd like to be in. Now you can continue on this march to defeat the Trump Administrations repeal and Reform plan but consider the consequences.
If this current plan goes down now they'll have to put up a replacement. Senator's Cotton and Senator Paul are both well meaning gentleman but… They Don't Have 60 Votes In The Senate. [Heck, they don't even have 51]
There it is, like it, lump it ,or build a shed around it these bills will not pass. Which 8 democrats will crossover to deconstruct a government entitlement?
Consider how the democrats will use your defeat to gain seats in 2018?
Where that leaves Constitutionalists is either they can continue the banzai charge to defeat… Or work to make the Ryan bill better.
Now to the those supporting the Ryan Plan.. It sucks.
Written in secret and loaded down with contradictions it does represent an Insurance companies wish list in many aspects.
Supporters of Ryancare should adopt a more conciliatory tone and start working with Constitutional critics. Crafting and moving legislation Isn't a my way or the highway proposition, nor are all critics closed minded Constitutional zealots.
Take the weekend all; and consider what will occur if we work together. Neither side can get it all but the Democrats are the big winners if we don't work together. ~link~

The President supports the proposed path. HHS Secretary supports the proposed path. The Speaker of the House supports the proposed path. The Senate Majority Leader supports the proposed path.

Republicans really need to learn how to govern.

Or else, Trump will be facing Democrats’ in oppositional control of at least one house of the legislative branch of government.

Then again, maybe that's really what congress wants.

And then there's this.

Blue State Blues: How ‘Art of the Deal’ Explains the Obamacare Replacement Debate

[...]
In The Art of the Deal — which liberals ought to study as carefully as conservatives studied Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals if they want to begin to understand a president they have only demonized and caricatured thus far — Trump explains that one of his core negotiating principles is: “Protect the Downside and the Upside Will Take Care of Itself.”
Today, the upside is obvious, but extremely elusive: a replacement for Obamacare that does not create new headaches for millions of patients. The downside is failure — either no deal, or a deal that hurts enough people to create a new opposition constituency.
President Trump has used the launch, and decline, of the American Health Care Act to highlight the downside — and take some wind out of the sails of the politicians and policy wonks who convinced themselves they had all the answers. As the bill falters, the next, inevitable step will be for nervous Republican leaders to ask Trump to offer a new plan.
And that plan will be more of a classic Trump bargain — one that does what Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama refused to do: namely, bring all of the stakeholders together, including doctors and patients, to hash out something everyone can accept.
[...]

We live in interesting times.

Healthcare is one-third of the economy, ONLY when the government is involved. Otherwise, it’s millions of Americans, buying insurance from a myriad of insurance providers, at market limited costs, to protect their families.

Democrats - throughly steeped in their lust for power and money, looked out across the land for a new reason to raise taxes, and came up with Obamacare. The Marxist meme of “control the healthcare, control the people” was their main thrust, the new, tax windfall was their side benefit. We won’t even get into the perks and feed backs from the healthcare and insurance industries.

My wife, not yet old enough for Medicare, was paying her employer share for great insurance, before Obamacare...$235 a month. Along came Obamacare, and her employer opted out of the program. She opted to carry it forward, and the premiums jumped TP $400 a month.

Within a year, it jumped to $800 a month, with the projected increase to over $1,000 per month. That was just for her! Well past child-bearing age, with no significant health problems.

I’m covered under Medicare, so I’m not affected as much. Medicare advantage, actually, but mine has gone from $75 a month to over $140 a month in the last year.

My wife’s premium alone, is more than our mortgage. Ridiculous.

A chart I saw shows that, under RINOCARE, the premium for seniors will be over $10,000 per year, how will two retired persons, on social security, afford that?

RINOCARE IS Obamacare lite.

FULL REPEAL, OR NO DEAL!

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.