Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Two bills have been introduced in the US Senate; one to repeal the ACA, the other to institute a permanent free market solution to the problems and issues the ACA created. First, the repeal:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/554/text

Then, the solution:

https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ObamacareReplacementActSections.pdf

While his co-workers in Congress were grandstanding and sending 'DOA' bills to Obama for veto, Rand Paul was quietly working on his own version of 'repeal and replace' that actually has real teeth. The repeal is naturally long-winded and intricate. Reversing thousands of pages of legislation takes a greater effort than just saying 'repealed'. It's more like an instruction set on how it will be resigned to the trash can of history.

The replacement, in contrast, is short, sweet and to the point.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

My God. Why would anyone send a child to public school? The parents should be more outraged than they are.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

My bad. How this quote ended up on this thread is beyond me.

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

Larry the Legend wrote:
Two bills have been introduced in the US Senate; o... (show quote)
----------------
I'm glad you explained that the first bill was the repeal. The bill S.554 states "- A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 2002 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2017." Unless you read the entire bill, and know all the intricacies of Obamacare, I would be hard pressed to know this was the repeal bill.

After reading the replacement bill, it sounds like a simple, well thought out bill, that allows individuals individuals to take control of their health insurance needs without government interference. This is a good thing.

It is difficult to find any detailed analysis of this proposal. I suspect that one of the major complaints we will hear will be from those that were added to the medicaid roles (15 million individuals?). Will they remain on medicaid or be removed off medicaid's role if Paul's bill were to be enacted?

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

Thanks for clarifying. I was scratching my head on this one!

woodssprite 17

You don't listen to or watch any new except Fox (foux ) news apparently. The repeal is dead. Ta back to the drawing board, with many Republicans voting against it.

woodssprite 17

[quo by where have you been? te=ACP45]Larry the Legend wrote:
Two bills have been introduced in the US Senate; o... (show quote)
----------------
I'm glad you explained that the first bill was the repeal. The bill S.554 states "- A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 2002 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2017." Unless you read the entire bill, and know all the intricacies of Obamacare, I would be hard pressed to know this was the repeal bill.

After reading the replacement bill, it sounds like a simple, well thought out bill, that allows individuals individuals to take control of their health insurance needs without government interference. This is a good thing.

It is difficult to find any detailed analysis of this proposal. I suspect that one of the major complaints we will hear will be from those that were added to the medicaid roles (15 million individuals?). Will they remain on medicaid or be removed off medicaid's role if Paul's bill were to be enacted?[/quote]

Paul's bill is dead in the water. We shall see what they try to bull past Congress next. I hope you have independent health insurance

buffalo Loc: Texas

Any plan that keeps private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations as the profit extracting middle men in the US health CARE system will not lower medical costs and make health CARE anymore available to the average citizen. Especially those older citizens that still do not qualify for Medicare and self employed individuals. The poor must just settle for what CARE health bone is thrown at them. They can neither afford ridiculous premiums nor can they afford to SAVE money for anything, much less health CARE.

Improved and Expanded Medicare for All (HR676) would solve this dilemma and save billions. But it is painfully obvious that big, private, for profit health INSURANCE and PHARMA organ ginders have politicians as their monkeys to protect their interests at the expense of the US taxpayer.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I hope the bill is dead. I would like to see Obamacare implode like it was designed. Then listen to all you whiney freeloaders bitch. Hey, it's what you are good at.

Paul's bill is dead in the water. We shall see what they try to bull past Congress next. I hope you have independent health insurance[/quote]

woodssprite 17

But The all mitt dollar is is strong incentive against any kind of real change

woodssprite 17

Meant to say all mighty. Sorry

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Buffalo. I generally agree with you. I think the Medicare for all being cheaper, better, and more accessible is a falacy. I could be wrong. Maybe a choice between government run health care and true private insurance is the way to go. Frankly I don't know. But my research recently shows countries with universal healthcare are having lots of problems.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2013/05/14/why-medicare-for-all-is-not-the-answer/

buffalo Loc: Texas

Why do those "40 million of the sickest Americans" start being covered with Medicare at age 65? Yes they have paid into the Medicare system all their working lives (at least since 1967) and still pay premiums into Meidcare. They are covered with Medicare because they ARE, in fact, the sickest and, therefore are not profitable to the private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations.

Why are the poorest Americans covered with Medicaid? Because they cannot afford the high premiums and deductibles that the private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations would charge them because they also are not profitable, as they are the second sickest group of 40 MILLION.

Government already pays 64.7% of ALL medical expenses in the US, while private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations extract $500 billion from that health CARE system in profits.

Canada's and England's health care systems are not the same. England, like the US Veterans Administration is socialized where as the hospitals are government owned and operated and the doctors and medical personnel work for the government. Canada's Medicare for All is like our Medicare system. The US private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations are spreading propaganda, myths and even LIES about the Canadian system. Canadians do NOT flock to the US for health CARE. In fact less than 1/10th of 1% come to the US for medical CARE.

Got company, more later.

woodssprite 17

[quote=JFlorio]Buffalo. I generally agree with you. I think the Medicare for all being cheaper, better, and more accessible is a falacy. I could be wrong. Maybe a choice between government run health care and true private insurance is the way to go. Frankly I don't know. But my research recently shows countries with universal healthcare are having lots of problems.

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2013/05/14/why-medicare-for-all-is-not-the-answer/[/quot

Totally agree with you. Greed based insurance systems are here to stay as long as the party in the Whitehouse supports it. The key is making it worth their while or getting them out of office, if there is to be any hope for a truly functional medical insurance for all to be possible.

woodssprite 17

It's usually the other way around. US. citizens going to Canada for medical treatment.