Obamacare

The House Just Passed a Bill to Rewrite Obamacare

House Republicans say their bill repeals the ACA. Instead, it leaves the essential structure of that law in place.

|

Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom

Congress just took a major first step toward overhauling Obamacare. On a party-line vote of 217 to 213, House Republicans passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), crossing the threshold for passage by a single vote.

The bill, which Republicans billed as a way of repealing and replacing Obamacare, leaves much of the core structure of Obamacare intact, albeit in an altered form. It replaces Obamacare's insurance subsidies for lower income individuals with new subsidies, disbursed through the tax system, for individuals purchasing coverage on the individual market. The new subsidies would range from $2,000 to $4,000, and would increase with an individual's age.

Obamacare's major regulations, including rules prohibiting insurers from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, would be left in place at the federal level. However, an amendment negotiated with the House Freedom Caucus would allow states to apply for a federal waiver to opt out of those rules, under some conditions.

States could also opt out of Obamacare's essential health benefits requirements, which require insurers to offer certain categories of health coverage, such as maternity care. It's not clear, however, whether any states would actually use the waivers, at least as they are currently understood. So far no governors, even from Republican states, have said they would apply for waivers.

The bill would also provide more than $130 billion in funding over the next decade for a state stability fund that states could draw on to fund high risk pools and other programs.

Under the AHCA, Obamacare's Medicaid expansion would be converted into a system of per capita block grants starting in 2020, although the delay has left some observers skeptical that the rollback will ever happen.

At the time of the vote, there was no estimate of how much this version of the bill would cost, or its overall effect on the deficit. A previous version of the bill without the state opt-out amendment and several other provisions was scored by the Congressional Budget Office as reducing the deficit by $150 billion over a decade. The CBO also said that the earlier version of the bill would likely result in 14 million fewer people with insurance coverage next year, and 24 million fewer covered in a decade. (A leaked estimate produced internally by the White House found an even larger coverage decline.) Under the previous version of the bill, the CBO estimated that premiums would rise by 15 to 20 percent through the end of the decade, relative to current law. In the next decade, premiums would be lower than under current law by about 10 percent, but would still be higher than they are now.

The bill is also enormously unpopular. A poll in March found that just 17 percent of voters approved of a previous version of the bill.

Following passage in the House, the bill will go to the Senate, where it faces long odds in its current form. Republican senators have criticized the bill, with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) saying that the changes won by the Freedom Caucus have merely made the bill "less bad." Other GOP Senators have promised to rewrite the bill. If the Senate changes the bill and passes it, the House and the Senate would then have to renegotiate compromise legislation, which could prove tricky, since the changes that garnered support from House conservatives would likely turn off Senate moderates.

Some House Republicans have also suggested that they might continue to press for changes to the bill, depending on the results of any CBO score that is eventually released. It is unlikely, then, that this bill, in its current form, will ever become law.

But it allows House Republicans to claim that they have voted to repeal and replace Obamacare. "A lot of us have been waiting seven years to cast this vote," Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said in a floor speech today. Ryan framed the vote as a fulfillment of the GOP's promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. "This bill delivers on the promises that we have made to the American people," he said.

Instead, what House Republicans have really done today is vote to keep Obamacare's essential subsidy and regulations scheme in place, but in a form that is arguably worse than Obamacare itself.

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

105 responses to “The House Just Passed a Bill to Rewrite Obamacare

  1. This is a good thing, right?

    1. Good-ish. Maybe. Doesn’t sound like much of a difference, really.

      1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do.,.,.,.,. http://www.careerstoday100.com

      2. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

        This is what I do..,.,.,.,.,. http://www.careerstoday100.com

    2. It might be good, in the sense that it shows people that Republicans are just as idiotic as Democrats when it comes to health care legislation. It’s good for people to know that.

  2. Amash voted ‘yes’ and Massie voted ‘no’. Square that one

    1. I imagine that would just be a philosophical difference over whether a small improvement that basically ends the healthcare debate for five years beats no improvement with options open to try for better.

      1. I guess that Rand Paul, Amash, Massie orgy has been postponed.

        1. They’re all fighting to be the “bottom” in that pile.

    2. Smash had to vote yes. I forget the exact percentage, but when ~80 percent of the Freedom Caucus agrees on something, they all vote that way. Massie is not a HFC member.

      1. As I understand it, the HFC members are allowed a certain number of exemptions every year or so even if that 80% is reached.

  3. I feel safer already.

  4. As a reconciliation, I reckon this is about as close to tolerable as it was going to get. I’m not “happy” this passed but nothing particularly good was going to come of it failing again.

    It probably won’t survive the Senate anyways, so much ado about nothing.

  5. blah blah blah 24 MILLION UNINSURED!!!!!!!!!!!1111

    / prog derp

    1. Ah but they are eligible to be insured as the coverage, even under PPACA, is available. The fact that these folks do not want to avail themselves of the goodies is their tough shit. And PPACA mandates can’t even punish them as they probably are not eligible for refund on their federal taxes, because they do not extend interest free loans to the IRS (bastards), from which the ‘mandate’ can be deducted (double bastards).

    2. And here you see precisely why libertarianism will never catch on. You mock people’s empathy and don’t give a flying f about 24 million people that will be uninsured.

      You can have ideas about how to fix the situation that differ but when you openly mock and deride your opponents, you’re presenting a pretty shit option for someone to look at.

    3. make that 23,000,001 uninsured.

  6. House Freedom Caucus would allow states to apply for a federal waiver to opt out of those rules, under some conditions.

    Pretty weaksauce.

    Turd status: Polished

  7. “The CBO also said that the earlier version of the bill would likely result in 14 million fewer people with insurance coverage next year, and 24 million fewer covered in a decade. (A leaked estimate produced internally by the White House found an even larger coverage decline.)”

    Isn’t this a meaningless metric, since the current healthcare system mandates that you purchase insurance? So, a decline in coverage would be a result of people choosing not to buy insurance? I’m not seeing how that’s a bad thing

    1. I listened to about the last 15 minutes of debate before the vote, the amount of “not giving is taking”/”not requiring is outlawing” equivalences by the Dems was too damn high. They’ll ride that horse until voters get smarter, and I’m sure it’ll keep working.

      1. me not paying for your shit is denying you access.

        I should show up at their fucking house and demand to sleep the night, and if not they are denying me access to housing.

    2. That’s an excellent point WW. One that I missed completely.

      1. That’s an excellent point WW. One that I missed completely.

        If by ‘excellent’ you mean ineffective, sure. At least, the argument carried no weight when we successfully insured 24 Million people whether they liked it or not. Not that it can’t or shouldn’t be raised.

    3. Repealing the mandate is a major reason the number is so large, but “insurance coverage” is a metric that sounds nice, and so it’s one that Trump’s team has still tried to use.

      1. People that are no longer fined for having insurance, though, won’t fret too much about the number.

        1. I’ll likely drop my coverage if the mandate does get repealed and enjoy the extra couple hundos a month, but there are people out there who nevertheless weep for the perceived bad fortune of others. Especially if part of the reason they drop their insurance plan is because the premiums shot up again.

          1. Maybe. The premiums is a fair point. This was a lose, lose from the get go. The only real chance we had at fully repealing Obamacare was the 2012 presidential election and the American people chose to keep it. Once a social program is given it is nearly impossible to end it. Even welfare was just trimmed around the edges and not completely repealed.

            1. “The only real chance we had at fully repealing Obamacare was the 2012 presidential election”.
              Which is why I will always believe that it was “won” by 0blama, through fraud. He couldn’t take the chance that so few people would be impacted.

        2. “for *not* having insurance”

    4. Under Trumpcare the individual mandate was technically in place (the penaltax replaced by higher subsdiies to the insurance companies if you forego continuous coverage) so the estimates of people to be uninsured might be even more meaningless. And the “new” subsidy might insulate any increase in subsidies.

      And Obama didn’t seriously enforce the mandate. People turned in tax returns with no mention of healthcare. I’m guessing a lot of them sort of skated by.

      1. He didn’t ‘seriously enforce it’ because it didn’t even kick in until he was virtually out of office.

  8. something something perfect enemy of the something

  9. Under the AHCA, Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion would be converted into a system of per capita block grants starting in 2020, although the delay has left some observers skeptical that the rollback will ever happen.

    Ya gotta have faith.

  10. “Repeal and replace”. Agile Cyborg might summon the proper words to describe my contempt for Eddie Munster and his POS Democrat-lite RINO dirtbag buddies and their mighty-morphin’ “repeal the first day” -> “repeal and effing *replace*” strategy, but I can’t even begin.

    Republicrats will never get a penny of my money or a minute of my time. I’ll be voting Libertarian or American Constitution party instead of Repub. every chance I have. And my kids will be raised to damn well understand that the Republican philosophy is just as toxic as that of the Democrats.

    They completely screwed the pooch on this one.

  11. I want two things from healthcare reform.

    1) An end to the individual mandate.

    I’m surprised Suderman’s piece, here, doesn’t seem to mention the individual mandate (did I miss it?), but other sources are reporting that the individual mandate is gone.

    Using the coercive power of government to force people to buy something by virtue of their existence is morally unconscionable from a libertarian perspective.

    2) An end to the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion.

    “Under the AHCA, Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion would be converted into a system of per capita block grants starting in 2020, although the delay has left some observers skeptical that the rollback will ever happen.”

    There’s never any assurance that some future Congress won’t do something in the future. They could repeal the First Amendment in 2024–no reason not to support pro-free speech bills today.

    Far as I’m concerned, if it has those two things and they can get that through the House, then this is about as good a bill as can be reasonably expected under the circumstances.

    1. In the original replacement plan the individual mandate penaltax was replaced by higher subsidies. So if you didn’t have continuous coverage and decided to get insurance the minute you got sick, you would pay a penalty the insurance company, not the government. Or at least that’s how I understand it.

      I would accept an Obamacare lite with zero or a watered down individual mandate – for now. The GOP has more tweaking to do. Officially killing the Cadillac and medical device tax (which wer delayed but still due, if I’m not mistaken) seems like a no brainer. They need to revive cancelled plans, which should give states some incentive to apply for the essential benefits waiver.

      70-90% of the people gnashing their teeth at this muddled replacement bill haven’t bought insurance through the exchange. They either have insurance through their jobs (170 mil) or they’re on medicaid. All this hysteria is partisan hyperbole. Almost no one will negatively affected, minus the 24 MILLION Americans who will voluntarily forego coverage without the individual mandate. Oops, I mean people who would LOSE coverage.

      1. Pretty much this. I never saw the logic in screwing over the vast majority of American’s for people who were actively choosing not to buy health insurance and were also not eligible for Medicaid.

        It’s clear the government wants that gap to close, but the reason those people are uninsured range from ‘they don’t want it’ to ‘they can’t get it’ so lumping them all in together was always a propaganda tool. Personally, if I could opt out of coverage with my employer and get that in cash I would do it without a second thought. Employer sponsored healthcare should be illegal anyway, because they leverage their groups in such a way that it precludes me from being able to get that money in my paycheck instead of sending it to the insurer as a prerequisite for employment.

        Plenty of people can’t afford lots of things that might save their lives. Nature is a cruel mistress and personal choices can have long-lasting health consequences that shouldn’t be shouldered by everyone else. I have zero faith that the government can at all tell the difference between gaming their system and legitimate need. Let charity figure it out.

    2. You forgot:

      3) Repeal the employer mandate.

      This is going to allow employers to freely higher people to work over 30 hours a week without requiring the employer to give them healthcare. This is the number one reason so many people are working two part time jobs. This mandate caused chaos with seasonal employers forcing them to hire twice as many part-time employees which led to massive logistical headaches, reduced productivity and led to poor service.

    3. I only want TWO changes in our health care system.. FedGov OUT, at every level……. truly free market operation, which would be made possible when Uncle Stoopid gets his ugly mug OUT of the industry.

  12. It’s important to remember that if the American people don’t support a more libertarian, free market response to healthcare, that isn’t the GOP’s fault. That’s the fault a) of the American people and b) my fellow libertarians for failing to persuade the American people.

    As I’ve written elsewhere, the Roman empire wasn’t destroyed in a day, and it may take more than one bill to set things right. Getting the Republicans to vote 1) to kill the individual mandate and 2) to cut an entitlement program like Medicaid is a triumph, but we still have a long way to go.

    A libertarian’s job is never done. Fight the good fight.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT1ircqQklo

    1. Ken: WTF? It absolutely is the GOP’s fault for their shitty messaging.

      Besides, why should the GOP let poor polling stop them from doing what they promised? At least the Dems. acted on principle: they understood in advance they were going to get creamed over the ACA’s passage and they went ahead and rammed the bill through anyway.

      1. rammed the bill through anyway.

        rammed = 6-10 months of debate with the Senate passing it in December and the House in March after much discussion of the CBO score.

        Really, wingnut idiocy is rampant.

        This vote today is closer to a ram-job – the GOP fears that the CBO score will scare voters.

        1. It took them a while to bribe their members into voting for it. Do you not remember the ‘corn husker’ kickback?

        2. “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it”. Does that ring a bill Turd?
          How about the word “reconciliation”? Is that normally used to pass a non-rammed bill?

          Oh, and since I’m channeling Napolitano, what exactly is a “wingnut”? Is that the word you use to describe anyone who doesn’t regurgitate your Party line?

          1. The ACA was certainly not “rammed” through. It was over a full year of ad nauseam debate which gave time to formulate all kind of DEATH PANEL! lies.

            The PATRIOT Act (another reason to hate the GOP) was debated for just days and passed in mid October after 9/11. That is classic “ramming”.

            1. Your partisanship is showing again

            2. You forgot to address my questions.

              Oh, and pro-tip: tu quoque doesn’t carry much weight on this site.

            3. This is where progs start to ‘member history as they choose it.

              1. PB isn’t a prog — he’s a full-on commie.

                1. And you’re a goddamn fascist/NAZI.

                  1. And you know this how? Could you please point me to any post I’ve made indicating fascist tendencies?

                    Pay your bet shitstain.

                    1. Could you please point me to any post I’ve made indicating fascist tendencies?

                      And I am no communist nor have ever posted anything that would lead to anyone believing such.

                      I am a liberal capitalist like Hayek, Soros, and Buffett. And just like them I don’t like conservatives.

                      In fact, I hate you bible-beating motherfuckers with your Biblical/Koran regard for modernity and science.

                      So you rush out an ad hominem just because I don’t vote GOP. I mostly vote libertarian except when some fucking ultra-conservative asshole is ruining the country.

                    2. I am a liberal capitalist like Hayek, Soros, and Buffett.

                      “…if they had all been low-IQ cokeheads who did incredibly stupid things with money.”

                    3. I am a liberal capitalist like Hayek, Soros, and Buffett.

                      …’who put $100,000 into options that ended up worthless

                      …and didn’t even pay the bet he lost afterward, being both skint and a scumbag

            4. The ACA was certainly not “rammed” through.

              Bullshit, you Proglodyte liar.

              1. Can you guys define “rammed through”? Are you talking about some of the amendments or changes made during reconciliation? That no Rs voted for it? Because the bills sat around for months before something got to Obama’s desk, with plenty of debate and push-pull in between.

                1. Are you talking about some of the amendments or changes made during reconciliation? That no Rs voted for it?

                  Yes.

                  And: Volokh

      2. The libertarians we need in Congress are already there.

        Remember George Wallace’s, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”? That disappeared a few years later when public opinion on segregation changed. If the American people of the time had embraced libetarianism, he’d have become a libertarian–or he’d have been thrown out on his ass.

        Don’t put the cart before the horse. When the American people want free market healthcare, the GOP will be falling all over themselves to give it to them. The sad fact that not even Rand or Ron Paul will dare say out loud is that the American people are their own biggest obstacle to freedom.

        We don’t have a free market in healthcare because the American people don’t want it.

        I’ll take victories when they come. I never thought I’d see legal recreational cannabis in my lifetime. People’s minds changed. A majority of self-described Christians now favor gay marriage.

        Segregation disappeared when the American people didn’t want it anymore, and when the American people want free markets in healthcare, Congress won’t stand be able to stand in their way.

        The vote was, what, 217-214? That’s as close as it gets. More freedom in the bill, and we would have failed to repeal the individual mandate.

        Now it’s incumbent on us to make the American people want even more.

        1. “The vote was, what, 217-214? That’s as close as it gets. More freedom in the bill, and we would have failed to repeal the individual mandate.”

          20 Republicans voted against it.

          Any more freedom in the bill, and it wouldn’t have passed.

          This is the best they could do under the circumstances, and there’s an awful lot to like about cutting Medicaid and getting rid of the individual mandate.

  13. Yay! The Stupid Party has once again defied the odds and managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! I for one welcome the new Democrat majority in both the House and the Senate in 2019. And, fuck it, who needs 23 different kinds of health insurance anyways? It’s good to see the bipartisan support for the government-knows-best top-down central planning that works so much better than that nasty old free market shit where people are left alone to manage their own affairs on the silly premise that the general population isn’t too stupid to know what’s for their own good.

    1. Right. They’re setting themselves up for a fall in 2018 and getting absolutely nothing in return.

      1. BUT TRUMP PROMISED THE GREATEST HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE AND THE LOWEST PREMIUMS!

        1. And I’m going to trust the words of a guy who switched political parties to run for POTS because…?

          Oh, and Turd, your caps lock is stuck.

        2. Yeah he’s an asshole.

      2. I think the Democrats still have a long haul to retake Congress. They may come close in the House, but they have virtually no chance in the Senate in 2018. Divided government is good, though. Nothing gets done.

        1. Divided government is good, though.

          That was the best case for Hillary.

          Gridlock is our only hope.

          1. Correction: there were zero good cases for Hillary

            1. You forget the first decade with the Bushpigs. They fucked everything up and left office in disgrace.

              Bill Clinton was a goddamn George Washington in comparison.

              1. Ah, so your case for Hillary boils down to “she isn’t Bush”? That’s pretty weak, even by your standards.

                1. so your case for Hillary boils down to “she isn’t Bush”?

                  My recent expectations were indeed that low.

              2. Bill Clinton left us with the memory of a lot of really good lies and accounting tricks. Amusingly, go watch Bill Clinton give Trump speech’s back in 1995. You wonder why Trump and Clinton are such good friends? It’s because they have the same opinions on the issues by and large. (Not to mention pretty much an identical opinion on women.)

                I suspect that Bill was laughing his ass off at his wife while she was in the debates with Trump. I don’t think he can stand her either judging by the amount of women who have come forward to level charges of sexual harassment and rape against him. ^_-

    2. I’ve seen several predictions that this will cost the Rs a huge number of seats, and sometimes they’re contradictory or rely on events that are still to come (this is only the House bill; we still have the Senate and then conference committee). What is your reasoning? That this will worsen many voters’ health care costs in the next year? That voters will be mad at the insufficient repeal and vote D?

      1. CNN is already going full-retard on how this bill is going to be the end of the world.

        1. From what I read somewhere, CNN is totally non-partisan. This is known

          1. I think you read that here on Reason, actually, by Mr. Soave.

      2. Leftists are just concern trolling. Like they give a crap about that.

        Hell they even bragged about how reps knew they would lose their seats over ObamaCare, but they would vote for it again since it’s “the right thing to do”, etc.

        Fucking, please. And Republicans are so stupid to actually believe that crap from the media.

  14. It may not have changed things very much, but the proggies on Derpbook are still squealing like stuck pigs. That’s kind of funny, since the ones squealing the loudest didn’t really like Obamacare anyway; the only thing they want is their precious “single payer” (cutesy euphemism for “government run” which they know better than to say out loud).

    1. Was talking with my Aunt about this. They are moderates, Republican leaning I guess in San Diego. She kept saying how a coworker constantly posts political stuff online, and freakin loved Obama for his whole 8 years, yet constantly bitches about Obamacare. Like… seriously??? You got what you wanted, and you are complaining???

  15. Not only are they cutting Medicaid, my understanding is that the bill allows states to make Medicaid eligibility contingent on work.

    Are you kidding me?

    I’m going out to celebrate.

    1. / dies in the senate

      remember if you arn’t GIVING someone something, that means you are TAKING IT AWAY, YOU MONSTER!

      If Republicans are the stupid party, what makes these leftists? Clueless? Evil?

      1. These people who are bashing the bill are mostly doing it because of what it doesn’t do–not what it does.

        If you focus on what it does, it’s all good.

        If this is all they could get with a 4 vote margin, then that’s all they could get for now.

        Yeah, the Democrats are against it because they thought ObamaCare was a stepping stone to single payer.

        My fellow libertarians snipping at the bill along with a bunch of progressives is . . . unseemly.

        1. It is the way the Kochs want it.

        2. Why is it unseemly? Am I not supposed to call this shit sandwich a shit sandwich because TEAM?

          Read the two paragraphs below then tell me this bill’s designed to do anything other than check a campaign promise box.

          Obamacare’s major regulations, including rules prohibiting insurers from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions, would be left in place at the federal level. However, an amendment negotiated with the House Freedom Caucus would allow states to apply for a federal waiver to opt out of those rules, under some conditions.

          States could also opt out of Obamacare’s essential health benefits requirements, which require insurers to offer certain categories of health coverage, such as maternity care. It’s not clear, however, whether any states would actually use the waivers, at least as they are currently understood. So far no governors, even from Republican states, have said they would apply for waivers.

          1. They couldn’t get it passed without leaving the prohibition on discriminating against people with preexisting conditions at the federal level–but they’ve improved that situation by making it possible to get around that at the state level. That’s an improvement. How can an improvement over what we have now be a bad thing?

            Letting the states opt out of ObamaCare’s essential health benefits requirements, likewise, is a good thing. If I’m a single male, why should insurers be required to charge me for the cost of maternity care, treating UTIs, yeast infections, and birth control pills? Why shouldn’t they be free to offer me a discounted policy without those things covered?

            From the examples you gave, you don’t seem to be able to tell the difference between a good thing and a bad thing.

            1. “There is not one place in this country where a gas station that refused to tell you how much the gas cost until after you pumped it and disclosed who you had your car insurance through, then charged a price that was 1,000% or more different between different people based on their insurance company and the make and model of the car would be in business for more than 30 minutes. If any material percentage of gas stations in a town or region (that’s known as “market power”) got together and decided to do this sort of thing in concert they would all be under arrest and indicted for conspiring to restrain trade, fix prices and force tied sales, all of which are illegal under laws that have stood for more than 100 years — all of which you pretend do not exist when it comes to medically-related firms despite not one but two Supreme Court decisions that say otherwise.” – Karl Denninger

          2. P.S. The individual mandate wasn’t there to compensate insurance companies for treating preexisting conditions. They can charge their own members to make up for the cost of that. The individual mandate was meant to compensate insurance companies for getting gouged by providers for some 50% in excess of average costs–because providers lose so much money treating Medicaid and Medicare patients.

            http://tinyurl.com/lcayz2f

            Moving patients from Medicaid to private insurance obviates the need for the individual mandate–and takes the pressure off of premiums going forward. It’s basically a libertarian solution. If you like school vouchers better than public schools, replacing Medicaid with subsidies to go buy yourself a policy on the private market is basically the same thing.

            It isn’t perfect. I wish the government were out of both the health insurance business and the education business, but if they’re going to be in them–vouchers to go buy yourself a policy on the open market is a hell of a lot better than Medicaid.

            1. As currently constituted Medicaid pays the price of service after the fact. The patient has no idea of the cost and there’s little to control costs other than overt price controls such as the government stating they’ll only pay a certain amount, which then drives providers out of the market.

              Vouchers instead help pay the price of purchasing insurance. It is a step in the direction of putting the patient/consumer in control or the purchasing decisions (even if, as Dick Gephart once said, “Choice is confusing”)

              When the first version of this bill was up for a vote I wrote to my congresscritter, Keith Rothfus, urging him to vote now. I provided a list of principles I wanted addressed in the bill. I don’t think I got many, but the voucher reimbursement by age caught my eye. What I had proposed was to create a formula that would suggest what the cost of insuring a person would be, primarily based on their age. Then looking at each individual or head or household, seeing how many others they needed to cover, would provide an expected cost of insurance for that person. Then compare to a person’s income, which suggests their ability to pay those premiums. The subsidy would be the difference between how much one has and how much one needs.

  16. Trumpkins reassert government’s authority to regulate medicine, claim victory over socialism.

    1. Progtards post progtard bullshit.

      News at 11.

  17. It’s pathetic, and I site Ryan as the primary offender of liberty. All of D/C wants federal control of the nation’s health care system. They are Marxist swine!! Ryan is right there.

    ber

  18. The Republicans are showing their true colors. Since the inception of the Republican Party in 1854, they have advocated Big Central Government. Somehow, they have managed to convince the people that they are the party of small Government. They are lying.

  19. The Republicans are showing their true colors. Since the inception of the Republican Party in 1854, they have advocated Big Central Government. Somehow, they have managed to convince the people that they are the party of small Government. They are lying.

  20. 20,000 pages added – Obamacare: Seven Feet of Job-Killing Regulations

    Senate Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell sent out a shocking photo showing what it looks like if you stack every page of Obamacare regulations one on top of the other. The stack reaches to more than seven feet in height and is so big it might take a 3-D printer to print it all.
    “This is over 20,000 pages and measures 7? 2.5?,” McConnell said of the amazing photo. “These are all the Obamacare regulations published in the Federal Register up through last week. Then last Friday they added another 828 pages.”

    1. Obamacare isn’t just a harmless stack of paper though, McConnell says. Hidden in those thousands of pages is a myriad of job-killing rules that have already had real-world consequences.

      The warnings started as soon as Obamacare was born. Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, said in February of 2011 that Obamacare could cost 800,000 jobs. Recently, the Federal Reserve has stated that Obamacare is the reason for thousands of “planned layoffs.”

      On March 6, The Hill reported, “The Federal Reserve on Wednesday released an edition of its so-called ‘beige book,’ that said the 2010 healthcare law is being cited as a reason for layoffs and a slowdown in hiring.”

      That same day, The Hill also said, “Higher healthcare costs were also reported in the districts of Chicago, and the Kansas City district reported ‘changes in health care policy and fiscal uncertainty as reasons for delayed hiring.'”

  21. 20,000 pages added – Obamacare: Seven Feet of Job-Killing Regulations

    Senate Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell sent out a shocking photo showing what it looks like if you stack every page of Obamacare regulations one on top of the other. The stack reaches to more than seven feet in height and is so big it might take a 3-D printer to print it all.
    “This is over 20,000 pages and measures 7? 2.5?,” McConnell said of the amazing photo. “These are all the Obamacare regulations published in the Federal Register up through last week. Then last Friday they added another 828 pages.”

    1. Obamacare isn’t just a harmless stack of paper though, McConnell says. Hidden in those thousands of pages is a myriad of job-killing rules that have already had real-world consequences.

      The warnings started as soon as Obamacare was born. Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, said in February of 2011 that Obamacare could cost 800,000 jobs. Recently, the Federal Reserve has stated that Obamacare is the reason for thousands of “planned layoffs.”

      On March 6, The Hill reported, “The Federal Reserve on Wednesday released an edition of its so-called ‘beige book,’ that said the 2010 healthcare law is being cited as a reason for layoffs and a slowdown in hiring.”

  22. “There is not one place in this country where a gas station that refused to tell you how much the gas cost until after you pumped it and disclosed who you had your car insurance through, then charged a price that was 1,000% or more different between different people based on their insurance company and the make and model of the car would be in business for more than 30 minutes. If any material percentage of gas stations in a town or region (that’s known as “market power”) got together and decided to do this sort of thing in concert they would all be under arrest and indicted for conspiring to restrain trade, fix prices and force tied sales, all of which are illegal under laws that have stood for more than 100 years — all of which you pretend do not exist when it comes to medically-related firms despite not one but two Supreme Court decisions that say otherwise.” – Karl Denninger

  23. Day chust doan geddit, do day?

    What MUST happen is to make OhBummerTax disappear, as in, vapourise, as in, cease to exist on any level.

    Don’t those clowns remember that Oath of Office they all swore? WHERE in the Constitution do FedGov have ANY AUTHORITY to mess with health care, medicine, insurance, or ANY other stuff OhBummerTax thinks it must mangle?

    Dump it already. As in, Buh BYE…. I don’t want, don’t need, won’t use, won’t get any gummit mandated health care racket.

  24. “Effect on the deficit”? Release the military’s death grip on the economy and see what effect that has on the deficit.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.