> I hope Rand Paul is just confused on this one.
I’m torn. I’m for this because doing nothing would likely be disaster for individuals as Obamacare collapses. And this seems like the only “something” possible.
But I think the Rs are buying into the D definition of “the proper role of government” by passing this. And that’s a long-term disaster both in health insurance and other areas.
IOW
Is it good NOW? — yes
Is it a good idea? — no
I think Rand Paul is more concerned about the 2nd question and I understand that.
Obamacare is already a disaster. When you are paying $1800 per month for insurance with a $10,000 deductible ($20,000 out of network) I'd call that a disaster. Of course the subsidized policies are worse - they have no limit, but don't cover you outside of your local medical providers. So if you a really sick and you need serious specialty care you have no insurance at all. Even today the media repeats endless stories of how little Johnny with the rare disease is dependent on Obamacare, without telling the public that little Johnny probably doesn't have any coverage under Obamacare at all, since the research hospital that can save him isn't in the provider group for the plans offered under Obamacare.
If the whole mess collapses the system that replaces it will be better.