peter11937 Loc: NYS

Indeed, the Worst president until Obama. Possibly we have a baby step dialing this back today...we will see.

CounterRevolutionary

Maybe you are right. What is so astounding is that Socialism (aka Progressivism), is in its structure, deliberately designed to fail, no matter what race is operating the centralized planned economy. Both presidents are ego-maniacs, and will not listen to us little peons. I don't know what the answer is when people are truly concerned, nobody pays any heed.

CounterRevolutionary

Here is the answer we have been waiting for:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rand-paul-unveils-obamacare-replacement/
Rand Paul unveils ObamaCare replacement

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) unveiled an ObamaCare replacement bill Wednesday as part of his effort to urge the GOP to speed up work on an alternative to the healthcare law.

Paul has been pushing his colleagues to have a replacement plan ready to pass simultaneously with repeal of ObamaCare, a demand that has recently been gaining support inside the party. His office noted that President Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have also reacted favorably to that idea.

"There is no excuse for waiting to craft an alternative until after we repeal Obamacare, and the Obamacare Replacement Act charts a new path forward that will insure the most people possible at the lowest price," Paul said in a statement.

Paul's plan comes the same week that two other Republican senators, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Susan Collins of Maine, introduced a different ObamaCare replacement, also with the hope of spurring their party to move forward on an alternative in addition to repealing the Affordable Care Act. That plan was more centrist, keeping ObamaCare's taxes and letting states choose to keep the existing healthcare law if they wanted.

Paul's plan includes a tax credit of up to $5,000 per person to use as part of a Health Savings Account to pay for medical care. That tax credit appears to be larger than those offered in other Republican healthcare plans.

The plan would abolish many of the central elements of ObamaCare, including the mandate that everyone has coverage. It would eliminate the minimum standards for which health services an insurance plan must cover, which Republicans argue would allow for cheaper, less comprehensive plans.

It would also eliminate some of ObamaCare's protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Instead, Paul proposes a two-year period where people with pre-existing conditions could get coverage. After that, people with pre-existing conditions would be protected if they continuously maintained coverage. ObamaCare, on the other hand, also protects people who are uninsured and signing up for the first time.

The plan would retain the exclusion of employer-sponsored health plans from taxation, while adding a tax deduction for health insurance so that people buying insurance on their own could receive the same tax benefit.

Barry Jackson Loc: Montreal, Canada

Abolish and replace? Why replace? That means the government continues to politicize what ought to be a transaction between the citizen and his doctor. Leave the fumbling, bumbling, greedy, incompetent politicians out of the equation and before long freely-acting people will come up with the solutions themselves, without any intrusive, meddling government intervention. Anyone who truly believes that politicians are honestly and earnestly looking out for our best interests is hopelessly delusional. I'm a Canadian. Our ten provinces now reserve 50% of their yearly budgets for health funding. This is clearly unsustainable. Is anyone listening?

Quakerwidow Loc: Chestertown, MD

[quote=Louie27]You are right there is a budget but within that budget there has, almost always, been money that was budgeted but had to be borrowed from somewhere just because the money coming in was less than what would be spent. That has happened for more years that I can count. How about the shovel ready jobs that did not materialize? That was not Bush's fault. As far as Clinton being a savior of the people's money, that was the Republicans pushing for a balanced budget. That was not Clinton's idea. As for Bush he had the right idea about getting rid of the corrupt government in Iraq because of the information received of them having weapons of mass destruction. That was false as far as anyone knows. But Democrats also voted for that war. The budgets for 2008-2011 were made by Democrats Who controlled Congress. How can you dispute those years of over spending? Also for the last few years the interest rate paid by the government has dropped since 2010.[/ ]

Does not change the fact that Democrats raise the taxes to pay for things while the Republicans borrow.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Very astute observations.[quote=Quakerwidow]

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

[quote=Quakerwidow]

The politicians almost always expect more revenue than the government receives. I have said the same thing about 2008-2011 and the interest rate being lower since Obama was in the White House. In 2007 the Democrats would not pass a budget until Obama was in office.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

After re-reading your post I disagree slightly with one of your comments Democrats do raise taxes, but not to pay anything off. The same bunch that raised our taxes then turns around and increases spending. [quote=Quakerwidow]

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

I agree with you on that point.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

Not exactly, the Dem's spend, tax AND borrow, especially BHO.

[quote=Quakerwidow]

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

All true.

smithdw55 Loc: Texas

Peter S. Why do I detect a Wolf wrapped in a Sheep skin? I read UR comments and then look at U quoting Sinclair Lewis. First off he was nothing more than a writer, a good writer, but certainly no one with any kind of experience in politics, economics or health care. So I see U as a progressive liberal skulking around as a sudoe conservative attempting to persuade less observant of UR liberal ideas by passing them off as soft conservatism.

Secondly, the original premise of this blog makes far more sense than anything I've seen put out by any politician on either side. Going back to pre-2009 with our health care policies wouldn't hurt anything. Then begin to look at a fix for those that are uninsurable. Those with preexisting conditions. Those that don't want to carry insurance can't be helped. So let them pay the price when they become ill or injured. How? Bill them. Hound them till they pay or make arrangements for payments to be made. That's what happened to my parents and I'm sure the parents of millions of others when they were not insured and they needed health care for them or their children. It's a debt that needs to be paid. U had a choice to get insured to help offset those debts. U consciously made a choice to not participate. Deal with it. Work on fixing the problem of the small % of uninsurable. Our country is being run to ruin by this inane law that was literally forced down the throat of 70% or better of the population. Bottom line is Gov has NO business having crap to say about a persons health choices, be it their Dr., what hospital they are going to, the procedures they are having done or who they are being insured by. NONE! U want to make some changes that would benefit all. Open up the Health Care industry so that they could sell health insurance across state lines. Do away with all the Insurance restrictions and let the market dictate what they can do, to who, when, where and how much it will cost.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Well stated! I would add if I am forced to subsidize someone else's healthcare I should have something to say about the kind of lifestyle they live.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

Subject, of course to a BBB rating or better from a recognized financial responsibility rating organization like Best or another of equal merit.

Hemiman Loc: Communist California