Health Care

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

Not necessarily.


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.

So the question remains: Is something better than nothing?

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?

It's just one of the many mysteries of the GOP.


NEXT: Scott Pruitt Climate Change Freakout: Stay Calm and Carry On

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yet Republicans have allowed liberals to frame the entire health insurance debate in these anti-market terms.

    I wrote to my senators and congressman about this exact thing. I said that I want them to repeal ObamaCare. If they don’t (1) ObamaCare survived and Obama and the Democrats will not been utterly defeated with that pipe dream (2) Republicans will be seen as very similar to Democrats in the next election and lose seats (3) Democrats will take whatever is left of ObamaCare and run with it next time they control Congress and the presidency.

    1. Obama and the Democrats will not been utterly defeated with that pipe dream

      And here is the real problem. The Republican base’s primary policy goal isn’t free markets, improving healthcare, or anything worthwhile. It’s purely a desire to humiliate their political opponents.

      Unfortunately, that is hard to sell to the general public, who don’t share the GOP’s childish obsessions.

      1. Unfortunately, that is hard to sell to the general public, who don’t share the GOP’s childish obsessions

        Are you serious? Because there’s a guy in the top chair right now who embodies that attitude, and it came about in no small part because the Democrats’ base are the exact same way.

        1. There’s degrees to this sentiment, no? I can totally understand conservative-types cheering for a guy who says things that piss off liberals (this kind of trolling mentality is pretty universal to humans, I think), but still stop short of wanting to get rid of government programs and policies they personally benefit from, even if it comes from “the other side.”

          This gets to something I think Republicans fundamentally have to grapple with: their core policies are not especially popular. Pluralities if not majorities of voters like things like accessible healthcare with broad benefits, and SS, and they don’t mind taxing the rich to get it. This runs opposite to the GOP’s positions. This inherent clash is compounded by the defacto leader of the party being a populist.

          1. That’s pretty close to the mark. So will politics stop in a democracy when they run out of identifiable classes of persons to screw, & thus hit equilibrium?

            1. The people who believe in social democracy / the Welfare state don’t believe they’re screwing anybody. Some of them might believe that other, ideal arrangements would be better than the Welfare state, but they’re pretty sure they’re not going to get them, and they don’t care for a social order in which untrammeled capitalism runs its course and the poor, and maybe they themselves, die on the streets because they didn’t luck out. The only error in mortiscrum’s picture of the situation is ‘taxing the rich’; more and more of the proles (us) seem to have come to understand that the rich simply aren’t really taxed.

              In fact in the case of Obamacare and its successor(s), which liberals correctly pointed out would be pretty much alike a long time ago, we not only observe the rich not being taxed but large amounts of wealth being moved from the proles to the rich by government command. I’ve pointed this out to my soc-dem friends and they say it’s the best they can get. Some of them are people who might be the ones dying in the streets without the Welfare state, so it’s a strong issue with them.

              There are other ways of solving the problem but none of them start with ‘Qu’ils mangent de la brioche’ as so many of you libertarians seem to think.

          2. Pluralities if not majorities of voters like things like accessible healthcare with broad benefits, and SS, and they don’t mind taxing the rich to get it.

            Well, yeah, if you think someone else is going to pay for your shit and a strongman will make it happen, of course it’s going to be popular.

      2. The Republican base’s primary policy goal isn’t free markets, improving healthcare, or anything worthwhile. It’s purely a desire to humiliate their political opponents.

        Unfortunately, that is hard to sell to the general public, who don’t share the GOP’s childish obsessions.

        But the Republican base is a large chunk of the general public. And unfortunately I think a lot of that is for real among the general public, i.e. snickering over their co-workers, relatives, etc. just as they might over spectator sports.

      3. Not even that. The primary goal of any politician of any stripe is to get re-elected. The primary goal of any political party is to grow their power base and make it easier for incumbents to get re-elected and to keep their donor base happy.

    2. I called my congressman’s office and told them if she voted for this turd that I would not only vote for someone else i the primary, but that I would give them every dime I could spare.

    3. Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2008 to 2010, 1992 to 1994, and I think the first two years (or was it all four) of the Carter administration. So, about every 16 years, Democrats get back in control. I have no reason to believe this will not be the case in 2024, especially with Republicans seeming to do everything they can to throw their own majority away. I wouldn’t be at all surprised by a Democrat president in 2020.

  2. It’s worse than nothing. A lot worse than nothing. It’d be better, politically, to do nothing and just let it die. Enforce all provisions and let the chips fall.

    But that’d hurt a lot of people. So I get the “need” to do “something”.

    But why not try small things and, if they don’t work, then try something else. I’ve done tech support on cell phones and computers in my life and a total factory reset was never the FIRST step I took. I tried smaller things first before trying to more annoying things.

    1. The political problem is that when the small change doesn’t work, that small change will be blamed for the failure.

      1. And we will never, ever get the factory reset.

        1. Actually, we *can* get the factory reset. Unfortunately, in politics, the factory reset involves lots of blood in the streets, and it’s very likely to mean a major loss of freedom, too…

  3. Repealing and making one at a time tweaks is much better.

  4. 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.

    Exactamundo. Unless you’re a doctor treating patients, health care really isn’t all that complicated. What’s complicated is devising schemes to redistribute the costs of healthcare, all the while seeking to ensure that everyone thinks he’s the one getting the better end of the deal.

    1. Sure, but “the idea…at the very heart of the problem” is in firm control of the whole world’s population, and is likely to be made moot?by the entire popul’n’s becoming so rich that scarcity ceases?before it ever loses its grip. Yes, I’m saying it’ll be easier to become fabulously wealthy than to make significant progress against this tide of thought. In the meantime only 2nd-best partial remedies are worth pursuing.

      1. Actually it might not require fabulous wealth overall, but enough in this specialized field so everybody will have a robot doctor taking care of them.

  5. Human beings have a basic human right to free healthcare. And free food, housing, education, a good job at a good wage, childcare, retirement income, support if they’re old or sick or handicapped or just plain fat, stupid and lazy, and a whole host of free stuff to enjoy the standard of living entailed in a minimally decent quality of life. Nobody should be forced to endure a below-average quality of life, we shouldn’t rest until the government guarantees an above-average life for everybody. In this, the richest nation ever to exist on Earth, there’s simply no excuse for not ensuring that every single one of its citizens is above average. How can you possibly justify the morally outrageous situation where people who are better off than other people are better off than other people simply because they’re better off than other people? Everybody deserves to be better off than everybody else.

    1. Jerry,
      I think you just recited the stump speech of:
      Castro, Mao, Stalin, Ho, and Kim.

      No wait, they just killed millions using that premise. No need to stump when you can just murder and plunder.

    2. “Everybody deserves to be better off than everybody else.”

      Everybody I know is above average!

      1. I see some really nice cars in the projects and a lot of flat screens in bad neighborhoods. Are the poor and unfortunate in American really having that bad of a life?

        Most of them are living better then 20 year olds starting out in life.

        1. I always liked Thomas Sowell’s answer to Jane Fonda’s complaints about poverty in America when somebody pointed to the homeless in New York City sleeping on steam grates and bathing in public restrooms and scrounging food out of dumpsters – in truly poor countries there are no steam grates to sleep on or public restrooms to bathe in or dumpsters to scrounge food out of. Poverty, disease, violence – that’s the natural state of Man in nature. The question isn’t why some people still have to endure a life of wretched misery, the question is how have some managed to escape it? Capitalism and the free market provide unequal benefits, but they provide benefits to everybody. It’s the worst system we could come up with, except for everything else human beings have ever tried.

          1. somebody pointed to the homeless in New York City sleeping on steam grates and bathing in public restrooms and scrounging food out of dumpsters

            Those people are almost entirely made up of mentally ill folks who refuse the generous assistance provided by the city at enormous cost to the productive class.

          2. Bingo Jerry.

            Washington DC read what you just said once and passed out. Then they woke and ran for office knowing they could sell the exact opposite.

            Marxism and government provide equal benefits and they afford that benefit to all by ………………………..well your kids can worry about that.

  6. I agree the plan sucks, but it does repeal the individual mandate. That makes up for a lot of the shittyness, IMO. The individual mandate is a horrible abomination.

    1. Yeah but how is that different than requiring auto-insurance? I mean we don’t really have the option *NOT* to drive a car, especially since

      1. stupid squirrels.

        … especially since *insert hometown here* does not spend enough on public transportation, so I am FORCED to drive a car!

        / prog derp

        1. What stops someone dfrom buying a fleet of buses and offering mass transit?

          1. The fact that only poors are expected to ride them so you can’t charge enough to make a profit?

            1. Where I used to live in Southern Indiana there was a private bus company that did quite well for itself taking over where the public one failed.

    2. Yeah but how is that different than requiring auto-insurance? I mean we don’t really have the option *NOT* to drive a car, especially since

      1. Because driving a car around other people imposes risks on them.

        1. Every interaction with others necessarily involves some risk. That, in no way, implies that auto insurance is necessary.

          There are necessary laws (for public roads) that clearly outline under what conditions someone is responsible for the damage caused in an accident. Being responsible in no way means that a company that you do not own has to pay for the damages caused by the accident. The only thing preventing you from paying instead of an insurance company is the law. In fact, the more you actually think about it, the less it makes sense to mandate car insurance.

    3. You know what else would repeal the individual mandate? Repealing the whole thing.

      Of course, if the Supreme Court would just do its job, the whole thing would already be gone. If part of a law is unconstitutional, then the whole thing is and it should be invalid. If congress doesn’t like it, then they can make more narrowly focused laws.

      1. “Of course, if the Supreme Court would just do its job, the whole thing would already be gone.”

        If the Supreme Court had been doing it’s job all along about 95% of what government is doing now would have been ruled unconstitutional before it ever got started.

        Every single law predicated on the bogus expansionist interpretation of the interstate commerce clause would never have been enacted.

        Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, etc. etc. would never have been enacted as they are not pursuant to any enumerated power delegated to the federal government in the text of the Constitution as is required by the 10th Amendment.

    4. I think they’ll need to get a few Democrats on board. Republicans do not have a filibuster-proof Senate majority. This brings up the question as to how Democrats go the ACA through using reconciliation. I’d think the same gimmicks would be necessary to undo it.

  7. Let me know when Republicans truly disavow socialist medical programs. Where is the clamoring among patriotic, free-market Republicans for the repeal of Medicare? Is that off the table because Obama didn’t invent it?

    1. People become pretty socialistic when their wallet is impacted.

      Never mind that they should save and plan for contingencies….like the fact that our government will fail.

      1. You could repeal Medicare if they cashed out the beneficiaries at their projected rate of return.

  8. I don’t understand how anyone can defend Obamacare. It has failed in its stated mission: Lower Costs, Higher Quality, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. All those were a lie.

    I guess if your feelings are all that matter then it’s working great. Go team blue!

    1. Slightly more people were covered, though.

      1. To quote an acquaintance: “None of that matters. My friend with a pre-existing terminal condition was able to buy an insurance policy. Obama is a saint.”

        1. Another thing scarcely mentioned is that the chronically ill experienced a “race to the bottom” in terms of quality thanks to the pre-existing condition rule.

          Basically, the pre-existing mandate allows people to switch into whatever insurance currently offers the best coverage for their particular ailment. So everyone with a chronic condition immediately moved to the best deal whenever they could, choked out that coverage, and that insurance program was forced to be taken off the market.

          Over time, we’re simply left with absolute shit coverage for everyone.

          So, yeah. You get your pre-existing condition covered. With the absolute worst possible quality.

          1. I’m still waiting for “pre-existing conditions” to be applied to other insurance as well.

            My Dad died several years ago. We need to get life insurance for him!

            My car was just in an accident. I need pre-existing coverage for auto insurance!

            My home was flooded before it caught on fire. Isn’t it the perfect time to get pre-existing condition insurance for my house?

            Heck, why limit it to insurance? I have the right to claim pre-existing lotto numbers, and when I visit the casino, I should be able to place bets in poker, black jack and roulette *after* I see the cards or after the wheel has spun!

            I can’t possibly imagine *anything* horrible going wrong when we require covering pre-existing conditions for insurance, or for probability-based activities in general! Nope, nothing whatsoever. I’m just *confident* that all these insurance companies and casinos are just *waiting* to pay out on all this pre-existing conditions stuff!

  9. So why don’t they just ram through whatever they want like the Dems did when they passed Obamacare in the first place. Not a single GOP vote for that, and several Democratic defections too

  10. So why don’t they just ram through whatever they want like the Dems did when they passed Obamacare in the first place. Not a single GOP vote for that, and several Democratic defections too

    1. God damn squirrels have infected me today

    2. On Wilkow’s show, he referred to Paul Ryan as a trans republican . Basically a democrat who insists on identifying as a republican. He wants it to say R on his driver’s license, he wants to us the R bathroom, but then gets upset when he is on a fate with another R and they are offended with his democrat bits. Insisting on treating him as a democrat.

      So I guess I’m transphobic.

      1. Nah, it’s the ones with principles who are the freaks.

      2. What/who exactly is a Republican at this point? Trump shat on a bunch of things the GOP supposedly stood for, yet he won the nomination and the presidency.

        1. What “exactly” is a member of any large political party at any point? You can’t get huge #s of people to agree on anything, let alone a bunch of things at once. Yet it’s said that the separation of opinions between the major parties in the USA is the widest it’s been in many decades.

        2. If you listen to a lot of the more extreme conservatives, the majority of Republicans in Congress are RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), which of course does not make a whole lot of sense.

    3. The Republicans don’t have 60 votes in the Senate, that’s why. They’re limited pretty significantly by that.

  11. all of these bills ignore the elephant in the room- prices by health care providers.

    we do not use auto insurance to pay for oil changes and brake pad replacements because the costs are reasonable.

    What we need are strong price controls like Japan has.

    1. Price controls work really well.

      I remember when price controls of rents in new York city resulted in new investments in maintenance and repair in old buildings.

      Or when price controls in sugar and other agricultural commodities resulted in new competition coming to market with better innovations and lower prices to the consumer.

      1. And of course, price controls keep prices low, making health care affordable.

        1. Well who pays for the unintended consequences of price controls then?

          There is inflation, wages, capital costs, population migrations, research and development, new diseases, technological advancements and investments, displacement of labor, insurance and benefit burden to employees.

          What about all of those people working in the healthcare field who have the gall to want to make more money as their career advances and that have the temerity to want to improve their lives by harder work and more achievement?

    2. Price controls won’t do it, but deregul’n will…but only for the “routine” things we unnecessarily see MDs for. For the really big stuff, it’s going to be expensive because there will be few who can do them. And few will be capable of doing them because the volume of biz doesn’t justify having a brain surgeon on every corner. Still deregul’n is worth pursuing because those routine costs, while not the major part of the world’s bill for medical care, are still significant. And when you factor in semi-routine stuff like delivering babies, the benefits to deregul’n are even greater.

      1. It’s like undertaking; you’re going to need their service exactly once. You could never increase the demand to make it a high enough volume biz to get prices down.

    3. The costs are reasonable because the people who use them are the same people as those who pay for them so they price shop and check prices *before* they have the work done. Because auto shops aren’t controlled by the government so they *have* to actually *compete* with each other in giving the best service for the lowest price. If you want to get an insurance policy to cover your everyday car needs, ring up Lloyds of London. They’ll insure just about anything … for a price that will be something more than they statistically expect their payouts to be.

  12. The AHCA is also known as the “Polish the Turd Act”…..

    The subsidy was replaced by a tax credit, which is a fancy name for a subsidy. Other provisions are similar, same as the ACA but sporting different color eyeliner. Obama gave us a pig, and the Republicans are replacing that pig with a different pig. With makeup.

    1. As long as you can get insurance once you get sick, the checks and balances should work out.

      I can see a lot of companies getting on board with being forced to sell a product without a profit.

      1. Why not expans the AHCA to cover all types of insurance?

        1. I everyone could just get paid more then the government could tax more people to pay for insurance coverage for everyone.

    2. Trump looks shiny enough.

    3. No, a tax credit is your own $; a subsidy is other people’s $. (Not refundable credits, which aren’t really necessarily tax credits at all, but just plain credits.)

  13. Lurking in on a progs facebook feed — they all hate obamacare but because it doesn’t prog hard enough. This is why you can never reason with these people, no matter how failed their ideology is, they can never accept responsibility. its always someone else’s fault. Like Venezuela blaming the ‘evil capitalists’ —- as long as there is some corporation somewhere, or some republican somewhere, it’s all their fault

    1. One of them blamed the insurance companies, not Obamacare, for the rise in insurance premiums.

      1. Nameless Progressives on Facebook blaming insurance companies for raising rates?

        How silly!

        Smart libertarians at are doing the wave over a plan they have no idea of the costs which do not matter, obviously.

        1. Who is doing the wave over a patched up subsidy driven boondoggle that will not only implode but also create debt loads that will saddle generations to come?

          Anyone with a brain knows that total repeal is the only hope to possible right the ship of a massive socialist program that was the inevitable outcome of other massive socialists programs such as social security, medicare, medicaid and the prescription drug benefit.

          Abandoning free markets in the name of security is reaping its consequences.

  14. If they’re gonna replace the subsidies with subsidies by a different name, why not at least have the guts to make it a part of something more impactful, such as a replacement of Medicaid? That could actually be a substantial positive change, rather than the window dressing changes here.

    1. They will.

      1. No they’re not. At most they might roll back Medicaid expansion somewhat. That’s about it.

        1. It would be quite victory for Republicans to roll back Medicaid expansion (the grandfathering provision won’t have much impact) and shift Federal funding to per capita block grants. Using the numbers in the bill, it would reduce Federal spending on Medicaid by $350B between 2020 and 2027.

  15. Ok, two days. A bit late but finally came around.
    An unscored plan is better because it is Republican.

    1. I think this is even worse – a govt plan being better than no govt plan. Let that roll around in your head a bit. You read it on a site that professes to be libertarian. How long before the “some restrictions on guns are okay” pieces trickle out?

      1. Where are you getting that from?

        I find it interesting how this article was simultaneously taken as proof of Reason being in the tank for Republicans, and also big-government shills (setting aside the fact that the writer doesn’t work for Reason).

  16. Hillary-care cost Dems the Congress in ’94. The Heritage plan drawn as a possible counter so intrigued Pubs that it was never brought to a floor vote. O-care is a cluster. And now we have this. I wonder if there is a conclusion to be drawn.

    1. Probably that health care is complex as fuck and it’s really hard to get right.

      1. Actually, except for the actual doctor treating the patient, it’s not complex at all.

  17. I have a question about conservative/libertarian thought –

    What drives the fixation on “giving choice back to the states.” It seems to me that libertarians in particular shouldn’t really care where the regulation is coming from; interference in the market is bad. It’s unclear to me why decreasing the size and scope of the federal government is such a central topic among free market and right wingers. A state’s jurisdiction is smaller of course, but they can regulate just as hard as the Fed can. Why is it considered such a win when something is “kicked back to the states”?

    1. Well for one thing if some states decides NOT to regulate, then people who don’t like the regulation can vote with their feet and move to one of them.

      With the Feds, someone would have to move out of the country to escape.

      1. That is a point, but it feels like it’s a very weak one. A company might move their operation if regulations get too onerous, but I strongly suspect the only time a private individual would be spurned to action over regional regulations is if they’re extremely rich and are looking for special tax advantages. The vast majority of people bitch about the regulation(s) to their friends and continue on with their life.

        1. Quite a few people have been moving out of high tax and high regulation states to low tax states for a long time.

          Plenty of people are moving out of New York and California every year.

          1. And Illinois and out of welfare cities like Detroit and Baltimore and Newark.

  18. RE: The GOP Repeal Plan Sucks. But Is it Better Than Nothing?
    Not necessarily.

    Here’s an idea.
    Eliminate Obamacare and deregulate the healthcare industry (among others) so the market (and competition) can bring down prices and increase medical services.
    Oh wait.
    That makes sense.
    My bad.

    1. Shouldn’t you wait till the coal mines are reopened after their deregulation? That’ll ensure that the demand is high enough.

  19. It’s also worth pointing out that no federal entitlement program has ever been repealed or replaced, or really even weakened.

    OK, but how many of them are there? This is like saying no major auto manufacturer has gone completely out of biz.

    A stronger bit of evidence would be that the USA is an extreme rarity among countries in not having socialized medicine. Really, it’s a wonder we made it this far given the strong worldwide tide of opinion.

  20. But obamacare broke the old system, which cannot be rebuilt. People did the right thing, paid for insurance while young, developed conditions, and now are uninsurable under the pre-obamacare rules.

  21. What Democrats understand but Republicans often don’t is that you can reach your goals incrementally.

    Apparently you don’t understand it either.

    The Republican strategy is explicitly *incremental*.

    Step 1
    Lacking 60 Senate votes, make the changes you can through reconciliation.
    Step 2
    With those changes in place, make changes on the regulatory end.
    Step 3
    With a NonObamacare baseline in place, try to go back to the Senate for votes for an improved alternative.

    The Repubs are actually playing to win, instead of making a statement. Take the ground you can first. Then see if you can pick off Dem votes for a comprehensive solution.

    1. Yes, better.

  22. You can’t repeal Santa Claus. Next time, stop the Man in Red at the top of the chimney before he hands out cheap gifts.

  23. True enough. FedGov have NO place to be messing about with health care, insurance of any kind, or any market whatever. NOT assigned them in the Constitution, thus prohibited to it.

    but then, who of those who have sworn that oath to uphold, protect, defend, that “document” have ever even read it? Perhaps Ron Paul and his Son Rand… and MAYBE one or two of the recently seated folk.

    What these clowns fail to remember is the definition of FASCISM: defined, it is “government control of private means of proiduction”. Medical care is privatey owned as a means of production. But the degree of government control in it has gone far past the point of being fascism.
    Get FedGov OUTT, now. Full repeal. no replacement. Remove ALL the fetters on the market place.

  24. Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result. Best Of Luck for new Initiative!


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.