Posted on 06/22/2017 9:57:04 AM PDT by ColdOne
The 142-page draft of the bill, which also prohibits states from opting out of key protections for patients with preexisting conditions, eliminates much of former President Obama’s signature health care legislation.
The measure would repeal tax increases Obama's law imposed on higher-income people and medical industry companies to pay for expanded coverage. And it would end the tax penalty Obama's statute imposes on people who don't buy insurance -- in effect, ending the so-called individual mandate.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
We could have a discussion about debt, which I don’t think represents what you think it does. But overturn Roe? No. Not in my lifetime. I do think it’s possible to achieve major inroads against it. That’s realism.
As for eliminating government agencies, that is possible, though difficult. Reagan eliminated one tiny agency in 8 years, the Civil Aeronautics Board. But I do think achieving a little more than that is possible. Will you eliminate either the DOE or DOED in our lifetimes? Nope. Can you begin actually cutting them-—not just the rate of growth but cutting them? Yes. It’s possible.
Going back to “the way it was” before Obamacare? Not in a million years. Absolutely impossible, because many, many insurance companies have either gone completely out of business or completely changed their business models, and in the meantime, tens of thousands of people have lost coverage.
We on FR recorded those as they happened, you might recall. That is toothpaste you cannot put back into the tube. So any health care bill that has any hope of being signed by Pres. Trump will have to make allowances for all those people screwed by the government. It will have to make them whole. That’s realistic.
Yet the fact is that ANY and EVERY piece of legislation benefits someone or some company and harms another. It’s the way of the world. If your goal is to make sure no one “benefits” from a program or regulation, we would never have any.
So it’s a false argument. The question is, given that there will NOT be a “free market” health care plan (especially since we already have Medicare), what is the minimal level you can redesign government’s role so that the LAST consideration is “what company benefits?” That’s the goal, or at least my goal.
That’s an absurd argument, let people with pre-existing conditions pay the full cost of their insurance.
It’s not possible...people with diabetes, cancer, hbp, strokes, heart disease, etc., won’t be able to pay $4,000 to $5,000 per month. Could YOU pay that much?
The reality is that they have to be subsidized, or...we could just have them die in the streets, as a few foolish Freepers have suggested in the past.
Ed
Obamacare1 would collapse by 2020 election. Obamacare2 will also collapse unless it is very heavily subsidized.
This new plan is the Obamacare rescue plan. It is preserving Socialism.
Yes, fools like us might as well be calling for someone like Donald Trump to be elected president, right?
Your brand of wheezy, gentrified Republicanism is what has got us into the hellish mess we're in, and not just regarding health care.
Maybe you should go sell it, and your books too, somewhere else.
I have a pre exsisting condition had breast cancer I was also self employed and self insured my healthcare WAS 450.00 a month until OCARE after OCARE my premium went up to 1200.00 a month with an 8,000 deductible!!! I went out and found a job just to purchase healthcare on a group plan I was still able to maintain my catering business and work part time to maintain my healthcare through the company I work for!!! Since when did conservative folks BEGIN TO FEEL that the government should HAVE TO subsidize them for ANYTHING!!! My post is NOT absurd I believe people NEED to take care of themselves and their families WITHOUT government involvement, what the HELL did people do BEFORE the government decided to hoist OCARE on us????
‘Scuse me but I was here a decade before you and will be here a decade after.
As for Donald Trump, do you have a citation for him calling to end SS? Or Medicare? As I recall, he pretty much LIKES the current bill.
So, buzz off, turkey. You’re not welcome here.
Aw geez.
That’s exactly my point, tired old wheezers trying to cling to their tiny slice of establishment pie.
We happen to disagree, and we’ve both expressed an opinion or two.
If you think that means I’m not welcome here, well, I disagree with you about that as well.
Meanwhile, back in the real world...the Republicans are not going to kill or repeal Obamacare. It just isn’t going to happen. The fact of the matter is they sold the voters a bill of goods by promising they would get rid of Obamacare, and by doing so, they successfully gained control of both houses and the presidency. Politicians say one thing and do another. They say whatever people want to hear.
And their gambit worked. Just like it has with many other of their false promises. Government expansion and the erosion of liberties continues apace even when Republicans win.
The Republicans don’t want to repeal it because (1) they like big government and (2) they are afraid of facing the barrage of criticism from angry voters and the media back in their home home states and districts. They also fear the likely consequences of this blow back. We see this as political cowardice, but that is simply hard political reality. To believe otherwise is engaging in wishful thinking.
Removing most of Obamacare’s destructive features would be a couple of steps in the right direction and increase the possibility of chipping away even further at what’s left of the program. I too would prefer that it be completely repealed, but as we’ve seen time and again, the GOP is just not up to the job.
Aw geez, FreeRepublic is hardly establishment
Then, by your own admission they are unworthy of trust, and if unworthy of trust, why do they hold positions of Public Trust?
You claim I'm not living in reality, but here's the truth: what you are endorsing is the breakdown of civilized society, degenerating legitimate authority into rulership, lorded over and enforced upon the people by the Rule of Force.
In short, sir, acceptance and endorsement of lying politicians
is nothing less than the endorsement of the continued decline of civilization; but you know this because you say the following:
And their gambit worked. Just like it has with many other of their false promises. Government expansion and the erosion of liberties continues apace even when Republicans win.
These are things I am against: I do not want liberties eroded, I do not want tyranny and despotism increased. I want Truth, and Justice.
I don't care if prosecuting corruption (e.g. Hillary, the Clinton Foundation, the DNC's fraud) is going to take out large portions of high-government along both the elected and bureaucratic veins, in needs to be done because it is the right thing to do.
The Republicans don’t want to repeal it because (1) they like big government and (2) they are afraid of facing the barrage of criticism from angry voters and the media back in their home home states and districts. They also fear the likely consequences of this blow back. We see this as political cowardice, but that is simply hard political reality. To believe otherwise is engaging in wishful thinking.
But here's the thing, it is cowardice -- you've just shown it to be so -- or else it's their big government proclivities.
If anything, you're proving that the Republican party ought to be disbanded completely as it is unworthy of any and all of its votes, being made on the false promises
both of the individuals and of the party platform.
Talkin’ about you, gramps.
But you do well for an old duffer.
Hang in there!
If anything, you’re proving that the Republican party ought to be disbanded
***********
You are reading waaaayyy too much into my comments based on emotionalism my friend. Moreover, I am clearly not “endorsing the breakdown of civilized society” That is a ridiculous and unfounded assertion.
I’m not suggesting in any way the Republican Party be disbanded. That is another absurd falsehood. I’m just saying it doesn’t represent conservatives. If people want to vote for, support and contribute to the GOP, that’s their prerogative in a free country. That said, I think it would be good to have another party as a third alternative, one that is committed to conservative principles and which actually stands for something instead of buying votes and holding onto their seats at all costs.
You’d be surprised.
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.