MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Two Senators Want a Bipartisan Deal to Prop Up Obamacare

A new proposal from Sens. Murray and Alexander would fund the health law’s insurance industry subsidies for two years.

Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/NewscomTom Williams/CQ Roll Call/NewscomAfter President Trump announced last week that he would be cutting off payment of a set of insurer subsidies under Obamacare, potentially disrupting the health law's government-run insurance exchanges, at least in the short term, there was some discussion about whether the move would prompt Congress to finally act.

After all, the Trump administration, in announcing the end of the payments, cited a court decision that the payments had not been appropriated by Congress and thus were illegal. Perhaps this would be the cue for the legislative branch to step in.

Yesterday evening, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), announced that they had reached a bipartisan agreement to officially appropriate the insurer subsidy payments that Trump cut off, while also providing money to advertise the law that the administration slashed, and some additional flexibility for states to seek implementation waivers.

Technically, it's a temporary deal, lasting just two years. But if passed, it would almost certainly become quasi-permanent. For all intents and purposes, it is a deal that would prop up Obamacare for the foreseeable future.

The deal has already encountered resistance, and it may never become law. Yet regardless of the outcome, it shows the limits of Republican thinking when it comes to Obamacare, and the hurdles created by a president who does not understand the policy ideas he is tasked with ushering into law.

The deal is structured as a bipartisan trade. Democrats would get two years of funding for the health law's cost-sharing reduction (CSR) subsidies—about $7 billion a year in payments to insurers in order to offset the cost of providing expanded benefits to individuals with lower incomes who buy insurance on the exchanges—plus the restoration of an additional $106 million in promotional funding for the health law that Trump also cut off recently.

Republicans, in turn, have negotiated a little more wiggle room for states that want to try novel implementations of Obamacare, as well an agreement to encourage the sale of health insurance across state lines. Individuals over the age of 30 would also be allowed to buy less expensive catastrophic plans on the exchanges without claiming financial hardship.

In theory, then, the deal provides more funding and certainty in exchange for more flexibility. But while the funding would be real, the flexibility would mostly be meaningless.

The changes to Obamacare's state waiver process would make almost no difference in practice. The catastrophic plans would make cheaper plans that provide less coverage available for some people, but all of those plans would still be subject to Obamacare's insurance regulations. The provision allowing for the sale of health insurance across state lines merely asks the administration to issue rules regarding a provision for state compacts that already exists in Obamacare. The restored outreach funding might make the spending essentially mandatory by removing administrative discretion.

The two-year window, meanwhile, would merely set up a legislative cliff, at which point Congress would be pressured to further extend payment of the insurer subsidies. Once appropriated, it is hard to imagine to imagine that any future Congress would decide to end the payments.

The deal, then, is best understood as a bipartisan agreement to prop up Obamacare's exchanges while attempting to provide Republicans with some amount of political cover. That this sort of deal is being proposed at all shows the smallness of Republican thinking on Obamacare. This is the corner that the party has backed itself into. If passed, it would effectively represent a total capitulation.

Granted, even though there are reportedly multiple co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle, it is not at all clear that GOP leadership is interested in pursuing the deal. "We haven't had a chance to think about the way forward yet," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said yesterday when asked about the proposal. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said today that he opposes it.

If the deal does go through, it will be with the backing of President Trump. But the signals from the Oval Office so far have been contradictory. Trump initially said yesterday that he viewed the agreement as a "short-term solution" that will "get us over this immediate hump," which sounds like support.

This morning, however, Trump muddled his position, tweeting that although he supported Sen. Alexander and the "process" he "can never support bailing out" insurance companies who have participated in Obamacare.

It's hard to tell exactly what this means.

On the one hand, it suggests that Trump, who would have the opportunity to veto any such legislation that came to his desk, would oppose any bill that funded Obamacare's CSR payments. On the other hand, it's hard to see how Trump can support the Murray-Alexander "process" while opposing CSR funding, because that process has largely been an effort to secure some level of bipartisan support for funding Obamacare's CSRs in an effort to stabilize the exchanges. If Trump supports the process, then he implicitly supports appropriating money to pay the CSRs. Which is it?

All of this is further complicated by Trump's statement earlier this week declaring that, "Obamacare is finished, it's dead, it's gone. . .You shouldn't even mention it. It's gone. There is no such thing as Obamacare anymore." But Obamacare is neither gone nor finished. Most of its spending and regulatory architecture remain in place. And cutting off the CSR funding is likely to cause short-term turbulence in the exchanges, but could end up increasing the number of people insured and subsidized under the law over the next decade.

Republican lawmakers don't seem clear on Trump's position either. Asked today about Trump's views on the CSR bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said only that the president is "evolving."

Trump's conflicting signals mean that it is simply not clear what policy outcome the president actually wants from this process. In all likelihood, he does not have a meaningful preference for anything beyond a deal that he can call a political win, which is part of the reason that Republicans ended up in this awkward position to begin with. It's yet another instance in which Trump's aversion to understanding basic policy mechanics has gummed up the already difficult process of crafting and passing legislation.

The president may think Obamacare is already dead, but it isn't. And if Trump eventually signs onto legislation that looks what Sens. Murray and Alexander have outlined, he will be delivering Democrats a deal that puts the law on firmer ground. He will be helping to ensure that Obamacare has a better chance of living forever.

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.

  • Bubba Jones||

    I don't get it. Trump ended illegal payments. How is that not an unequivocal good from a libertarian perspective?

    Meanwhile he has congress to negotiate a solution in the context of a president who would like to see Obamacare dead. Again, how is that not a good thing?

    The only thing better would be for Trump to hunt Obamacare down and kill it, but he doesn't have the power to do that.

  • JWatts||

    "How is that not an unequivocal good from a libertarian perspective?"

    Suderman hates Trump and isn't going to say anything positive about him, even if Trump did exactly what Suderman wanted him to do on this issue on an article from last month.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Yeah, I don't get it either. Superman, care to explain further?

  • magellannh||

    "I don't get it. Trump ended illegal payments. How is that not an unequivocal good from a libertarian perspective?"

    The reason is Trump's action doesn't really stop the CSR subsidies and increases the deficit.

    Here's why. Halting CSR reimbursements to insurers results in insurers increasing premiums. Most state regulators instructed insurers to limit premium increases to only silver plans, because those are the only plans eligible for CSRs. Silver plan premiums determine the size of the (legal) premium tax credits, which are available to low income folks earning below 400% of the poverty level.

    So first, the CSRs get paid in full indirectly because premium tax credits will increase just enough to cover them. Low income people will get their CSRs from insurers and insurers will get reimbursed for the CSRs because feds pay more in (legal) premium tax credits.

    But here's the kicker. Because premium tax credit subsidies are tied to the cost of a silver benchmark plan, and silver plan premiums are getting increased by around 20% to pay for the halted CSR payments, low income folks who earn too much to qualify for CSR subsidies and buy any non-silver plan end up getting a 20% more generous premium tax credit as a windfall.

    So basically, Trump's action doesn't change the end result of the CSR program and it inadvertently gives out 20% higher subsidies to folks who qualify for a premium tax credit and don't buy a silver plan.

  • magellannh||

    The big question is what will Democrats demand in exchange for giving up the windfall 20% increase in premium tax credits that Trump just handed over to their base?

    Trump just hugely strengthened the Democrats' negotiating position on the bipartisan bill.

    I doubt he even realizes what he did.

  • BYODB||

    Is there going to actually be a 'bipartisan' reform bill regarding the ACA? Democrats have so far voted lock-step against all efforts whatsoever, what will change that from how it's played out for the past 8 or 9 years?

  • magellannh||

    I agree.

    My best guess is that Republicans will eventually do something without an Dem votes, but I have no guess what that might be or when it might happen. I'd expect after the primaries probably.

  • TxJack 112||

    You do realize the Silver plans have a deductible of $2500? If a person is living 400% below the poverty line, where in the hell are they gonna come up with $2500 for the deductible? The fact they can make the premium payments is irrelevant because since they cannot cover the deductible, they still have no health insurance. This one fact is the true unspoken lie about Obamacare. Democrats pretend being able to pay the premiums means you have healthcare. Obamacare is a backdoor plan for the redistribution of wealth while simultaneously destroying the private healthcare system. Do you really want the type of care the VA provides vets? The VA proves the government is incapable of providing quality healthcare. BTW, to qualify for Medicaid, you must have less than $2000 in assets. Democrats keep talking about how many people will be covered on the expanded Medicaid roles but they neglect to talk about this regulation that is a key factor in determining eligibility. I know because I deal with the system daily in my job.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Two Senators Want a Bipartisan Deal to Prop Up Obamacare

    Oh, good.
    More government healthcare from the dimwits from both political parties.
    Gee, we're so lucky in this country to have a bunch of dumbasses micromanage our lives because we're all to stupid and weak to live without the government.
    Lucky us.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Anytime a law passes with Bipartisan Support it indicates that it was a pretty bad law.

  • BYODB||

    Bipartisan support means the stupid and evil party have come together to do something both evil and stupid.

  • Curmudgeon44||

    Tax Reform Act, 1986.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Given the fact that there has not been a bill proposed to either the Senate or the House, much less passed, it is bit early to draw any conclysions about the congressional GOP, much less Trump.

  • damikesc||

    Should be vetoed.

    The losers campaigned for YEARS on repeal.

    Now they want to save it?

    And I'm supposed to be worried that these same duplicitous assholes don't much like Trump? That is a bonus to me.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    If it does pass and is not vetoed will you blame Trump?

  • damikesc||

    Absolutely. Trump was the least of the evils last election. Clinton is evil. Johnson is a fucking moron. The other Republicans, outside of Cruz and Paul, were useless.

  • Tony||

    Wait you like Ted Cruz? You're rarer than a unicorn! Nobody likes Ted Cruz!

    His face isn't even punchable, because no one wants to be that close to it.

  • BYODB||

    Here's a fun question, do you think Trump or Cruz was more terrible?

  • Tony||

    That is a fun question, and it's the same one I often ask myself about Trump vs. Pence.

  • mortiscrum||

    Pence > Trump > Cruz.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Ted Cruz is awesome, if for nothing else, that he brings pain to trash like you Tony.

  • rudehost||

    I'll agree that if you take the 4 major parties we got 4 candidates as dumb as a box of rocks. That said I'm not clear how you can call Johnson a moron without acknowledging that if Johnson and Trump were related that Trump would be Johnson's dumber older brother.

  • Tony||

    Oh no we should definitely take him at his word. There is no Obamacare, thus no Obamacare to blame for your alleged insurance premium hikes. I'm sure y'all will be all over Trump the next time that happens, for sure.

  • BYODB||

    'Alleged insurance premium hikes' makes it sound like you don't believe every single last source in the United States of America that recognize that premium prices have all gone up (in places that measure them) by at least double digits, and in some places triple digits.

    Oops.

  • Tony||

    But only partisan hacks blame it all on the ACA rather than recognizing that insurance rates go up all by themselves and always have, and in fact the ACA, if anything, bent the "cost curve" down.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Premiums for individual market coverage have increased significantly since the
    Affordable Care Act's key provisions have taken effect, but most estimates have
    focused on annual increases and have not captured the comprehensive increase in
    premiums since 2013, and thus do not accurately capture the ACA's true effect.
     Comparing the average premiums found in 2013 MLR data and 2017 CMS MIDAS
    data shows average exchange premiums were 105% higher in the 39 states using
    Healthcare.gov in 2017 than average individual market premiums in 2013. Average
    monthly premiums increased from $232 in 2013 to $476 in 2017, and 62% of those
    states had 2017 exchange premiums at least double the 2013 average.

    DHHS ASPE Data Point, "Individual Market Premium Changes: 2013-2017, 5/23/17

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    The findings, assembled by the Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, show that since 2013, one year before the Obamacare regulations were fully implemented, premiums have risen from an average of $2,784 in 2013 to $5,712 in 2017 on the federal exchange, healthcare.gov. This represents an increase of $2,928, or 105 percent.

  • Tony||

    That study is looking at a slice of products that predictably increased in cost because of added coverage mandates, but it doesn't take into account subsidies that lower costs for customers, and is generally not an apples-to-apples comparison between 2013 and 2017, where the insurance marketplace had significantly changed. The exchanges are not without problems though and too-high costs, and nobody is saying that.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    The insurance market has indeed changed, such that you can't just buy a policy specifically structured to your individual needs; no, it HAS to include maternity care and of course they HAVE to offer insurance regardless of risk [pre existing conditions]; it is government mandated so free market constraints can no longer operate to anyone's advantage or disadvantage, so it costs everyone more. Rightly or wrongly, that is the case.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Lest I forget, the "subsidies" are entirely tax funded albeit not budgeted by Congress, so they are both costly [and essential to ACA as no one buys this crap at actual cost] and illegal.

  • Tony||

    A free market in health insurance means if you have a pre-existing condition, you don't get insurance, the very problem the law tries to solve, much as people wish to believe it was an insane communist power grab done for the sake of being evil.

    Insurers are lucky we don't have a government strong enough to simply eliminate them but instead one that paid them back for the service.

    And don't you see how the concept of an insurance policy tailored to individual needs makes no sense? A hedge against future unpredictable costs, tailored to individual needs? What?

  • retiredfire||

    Typical lying commie.
    People with pre-existing conditions could get insurance.
    It was just that, as with any legitimate insurance product, the cost was commensurate with how much the policy would be used.
    What your commie ilk want is for everyone else to pay for their care, as well as their own.
    Typical.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Tony, pretty much everything you do is for the sake of evil, or getting your ass fucked.

  • rudehost||

    " it doesn't take into account subsidies that lower costs for customers"

    Why should we take that into account? Subsidies only shift the costs for the subsidized. They still cost the system as a whole so your subsidy (and I have no doubt you get one) makes the cost of your care cheaper but makes it more expensive for people who pay taxes and by extension the subsidy. It's a wash and the fact is that post Obamacare we are now seeing costs and inflation accelerating which is the exact opposite of what was promised.

  • magellannh||

    Are these adjusted for the average actuarial value of the policies? As I understand it, previously there were a lot of crazy low (eg 20-30%) actuarial value policies that have been replaced with 60-80% actuarial value policies.

    (btw - I'm not arguing that premiums have spiked - they clearly have imo)

  • BYODB||


    (btw - I'm not arguing that premiums have spiked - they clearly have imo)


    That is the thing. Another thing would be to mention what was the ACA intended to do? Bring down premiums. What has it not done? That. So what possible reason is there to keep it?

    Reasons that have nothing to do with price, since we already know they will force prices higher, faster. We knew this at the time of course, but it's sort of ironic that this is the exact opposite of the stated intent, so any answer you can give is going to be a rationalization after the fact I.E. Not the real reason, but rather a comfortable lie to placate fools. That, or an outright lie.

    Of course, that is why Tony believes so absolutely. He must, and he is a fool.

  • Tony||

    The actual point was to deliver access to healthcare to millions of people who lacked it, which it did.

  • BYODB||

    Well, it's nice to see you admit that Obama and the entire Democrat party lied through their teeth to get it passed. That's surprisingly honest of you.

  • rudehost||

    "The actual point was to deliver access to healthcare to millions of people who lacked it, which it did."

    Something something bend cost curve down something something keep your doctor.

    I don't remember this sold to the American people as a boon for the free shit army and doubt it would have passed if it was.

  • Tionico||

    didn't deliver healthcare to any of the many uninsured I know, inclluding myself. I've been delivering my OWN healthcare out of my pocket for decades.

    WHY should I pay $8600+ for one year's INSURANCE (complete with deductibles and co-pays) when I have not spent the sum of half that in paying cash at time of service for ALL my healthcare needs for four decades or more? DO gummit think Im nuts? Or are THEY the ones gone barmy?

  • Tionico||

    Correction: OhBummerTax was enacted to begin the process of enforcing government run healthcare and related "insurance" costs into the stratosphere, thus enabling FedGo vto step in with fully socialist medical care forced upon all..... lthat "care" would of course include the ability for government to decide who gets what care, when, etc.

  • TJJ2000||

    "ACA, if anything, bent the "cost curve" down" -- You've GOT TO BE KIDDING right? ACA caused my premium to jump $100/month overnight. That is NOT a "kidding".

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    "But only partisan hacks blame it all on the ACA rather than recognizing that insurance rates go up all by themselves and always have, and in fact the ACA, if anything, bent the "cost curve" down."

    Sure, you fucking asshole. My insurance rates went up steadily, but never jumped over 350% in threes years prior to ACA going into effect. Do you really believe you can sell a line of bullshit like that? Maybe whatever passes for your friends are that disingenuous and/or stupid, but that isn't going to fly here.

    I look forward to the day when actual Americans have their sense of self preservation kick in and all you progs end up face down in landfills.

  • BYODB||


    ...and the hurdles created by a president who does not understand the policy ideas he is tasked with ushering into law.


    What the fuck?

  • BYODB||


    This is the corner that the party has backed itself into. If passed, it would effectively represent a total capitulation.

    I absolutely agree with the first sentence, but the second sentence is bullshit. Total capitulation happened when they stopped saying 'repeal' and started saying 'repeal and replace'. That's because, as it turns out, Republicans aren't against nationalized healthcare and that is the central thing they capitulated on. Anything past that is barely worth remarking on.

  • Tony||

    In their defense there is no free-market solution to the problem, and it's not good politics to say "If you can't afford health coverage, you should man up and die so I can keep my tax cut."

  • BYODB||

    There is a free market solution, they have rejected such a solution.

    Idiots like yourself, of course, continue to refer to health insurance as healthcare. You might want to stop doing that, at least with people who actually work in healthcare. Your friends probably won't call you on it, as they have no idea how it works either.

  • Tony||

    I know the difference. What is your point?

    I am glad to hear that you've come up with a way to achieve universal healthcare access that requires no government intervention. Do tell.

  • BYODB||

    If you know the difference, why do you eternally conflate them? I mean, there is an example immediately above this of you doing it. I don't need to go far to illustrate you doing this.

  • Domestic Dissident||

    Lamar Alexander should get his teeth knocked out of his skull.

  • Tony||

    The deal, then, is best understood as a bipartisan agreement to prop up Obamacare's exchanges while attempting to provide Republicans with some amount of political cover.

    This assumes that Republican primary voters are dumb as a box of dumb rocks. So it should work perfectly.

  • SoCal Deathmarch||

    I agree. The average Republican primary voter probably has an IQ of about 90. That puts the you and your ilk at about an average of 80, borderline retarded.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Coming on to a site where everyone will hate you, posting things that are both dumb and easily refuted: must be a form of virtual masochism.

    ?: Does this come with a cat-o-nine tails?

  • Tony||

    So you're saying Republican primary voters are both intelligent humans and willingly nominated Donald Trump and Roy Moore for high offices?

  • BYODB||

    The general assumption is that Tony is some other user who posts this type of thing to either get a reaction, or perhaps to be some sort of foil. No one, as far as I know, has totally ruled out self flagellation.

  • Tony||

    I've explained this many times. I don't like always talking to people who agree with me about everything, and you guys are the only right-wingers I can find on the Internet who don't immediately start saying we should literally kill all black people as an answer to everything. That's a compliment, by the way.

  • BYODB||

    You aren't looking very hard then.

  • retiredfire||

    If we start saying that all black people should be killed, will you stop coming here?

    I'll start:
    THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING IS THAT ALL BLACK PEOPLE SHOULD BE KILLED.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Actually, I would rather off them a cut of the assets controlled by progtards like Tony in return for the blacks killing all the slaver progtards. It's a win-win for everyone. At least everyone who actually counts.

  • Agammamon||

    . . . and the hurdles created by a president who does not understand the policy ideas he is tasked with ushering into law.

    It has never been the President's responsibility to 'usher into law' anything. That's Congress' job - they make the law, they set all that up - his branch just executes. A good chunk of our problems have come because Congress has left the 'make this work' part up to the Executive.

    In any case - its also not the President's responsibility to mind-read the intent of Congress either. *Those* people were the ones who set the law up as it is and then couldn't be arsed to appropriate funds - leaving the President to either break the law to uphold their intent or do his duty to uphold the law and then get shit on because of it.

    Yeah, yeah, I know - its Trump and everything he does is horrible. But I don't understand what's going on here. The one time he uses the power of his office to obey the law and everyone is freaking out about it because it means he's not picking up the slack left by the Legislative's laziness.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Congress is not being "lazy". They defunded tbe program because the current majority does not like it. That is why you have appropriations bills every year. That is the Congressional power of the purse.

  • zombietimeshare||

    "But while the funding would be real, the flexibility would mostly be meaningless."

    Everything you hate about Washington, and more. Let the thing die already, and the quickest way to kill it is to enforce it as written—not that anyone ever read it.

  • Earthfarmer||

    Why is this so difficult? Get the government out of health care as quickly as possible by whatever means possible.

  • swampwiz||

    The real reason the Red Team is capitulating is that the status quo of not having the subsidies paid would cost $200G over 7 years. Why be the baddie and have spending go up?

  • Rockabilly||

    You can't prop up communism - it's an utter moral failure.

  • AngelaM||

    The idea of selling insurance across state lines is one of those sounds good but will never work propositions. Insurance companies could have done this in several states, years ago but the cost of developing new networks of doctors and hospitals is very high, especially when these groups are becoming more and more monopolized. The start-up costs are very high. Entire new networks and rules must be implemented and recouping the costs of developing the new networks could take years. It just doesn't make economic sense to expand into new states when doing so means starting from scratch.

  • magellannh||

    Selling policies across state lines isn't the panacea that many claim. However, the suggestion that insurers can't build multi-state networks just isn't true.

    Most major insurers operate in multiple states already and have multi-state and national networks that large employers use. In addition, intermediaries like First Health sell access to their multi-state network to other smaller insurers.
    http://firsthealth.coventryhealthcare.com/

  • TxJack 112||

    Yes and no. They do have representation in multiple states, but each "company" in a separate division within the larger because each state has its own set of regulations. The regulations for companies in NY is very different than in Texas, so you cannot buy a policy from a company in Texas that follows Texas regulations if you live in NY. You have to buy a policy from a NY based network. Selling across statelines means this barrier is eliminated. Since a Texas policy is likely to be much lower in cost than a NY policy, the person in NY saves money.

  • Tionico||

    If Murray is for it, be against it. She is the ultimate big government socialist.

    Tell her to get the money from her husband's boat building business, money FedGov put into that through some skullduggery she managed.

    WHY are FedGov intent upon taking money out of MY pocket to put into someone else's?

    ALL tax bills MUST originate in the House of Representatives. OhBummerTax arose from the Senate. Thus the entire thing is a scam and must be terminated.

  • AndyWingall||

    The GOP has sat on its fat butt on this issue for 8 years. Many of the current reps were voted into office specifically to repeal Obamacare. What is going on with these bozos? Is the corruption any more clear?

  • TxJack 112||

    I really wish the media and Congress would stop lying about what these subsidies are and why they are needed to keep Obamacare afloat. They are nothing more than pay offs to insurance companies so they will insure people who hurt their profit margin. The payments do not "reduce premiums", they eliminate the need for the companies to raise premiums to cover the additional expense of covering more and sicker individuals. They are nothing more than bribes used to create a phony system that never had any prayer of actually working and was only intended from day one to force us all into a single payer, government system. If the subsidies are so vital to keep the exchanges viable, why have so many companies left so many exchanges already? Companies have pulled out of every state where they are unable to maintain their expected profit margins. Obamacare was never intended to actually work because only a complete idiot would actually believe a young adult starting their first job would willing pay outrageous insurance premiums to subsidize the healthcare of older people who have more money and assets. In addition, all the mandates forcing people to buy coverage they will never use and Obamacare's insane deductibles prove it was never about insurance coverage but simply destroying the private healthcare market leaving the government healthcare system as the only option.

  • ||

    Am using this entitlement to publish the mystery power of herbs. it is very obvious that civilization has made us neglect the healing power that is embodied in Natures plant as in plant for healing(herbs). we now rely on scientific med a lot. even the scientific med is an extract of some certain plants of nature and are not as effective compared to herbal that the ancients used to live longer life.I think those who has tried all scientific means of getting cure , but to no avail should give herbal remedy a try. I am Moesha from Atlanta Georgia ,i got cured of ALS by herbal prescription from dr. kpomosa (dr.kpomosa@outlook.com), Email i saw on natural health support forum.Same disease many medical doctor find difficult to treat, to them its seems like a mystery, its not , its Nature. Do not be deceived, every problem has a solution,likewise every sickness has a definite cure , just that we are ignorant to them. all thanks to natural health support On Facebook. And to dr.kpomosa for his wisdom, that God has given him to get knowledge of the right herbs to fight all disease, i endorse herbs for all who has run out of idea on what to do to get healing, what ever it is, either be it; Parkinson disease ,Stroke, diabetes type 1 and 2, kidney disease, heart disease,blood disease ,brain tumor , cancer,even infertility, fibroid and weight losing herbs, obesity etc. any sickness that has proven difficult for medical doctors, trust me natural herbal is the only and last resort.

  • ||

    Am using this entitlement to publish the mystery power of herbs. it is very obvious that civilization has made us neglect the healing power that is embodied in Natures plant as in plant for healing(herbs). we now rely on scientific med a lot. even the scientific med is an extract of some certain plants of nature and are not as effective compared to herbal that the ancients used to live longer life.I think those who has tried all scientific means of getting cure , but to no avail should give herbal remedy a try. I am Moesha from Atlanta Georgia ,i got cured of ALS by herbal prescription from dr. kpomosa (dr.kpomosa@outlook.com), Email i saw on natural health support forum.Same disease many medical doctor find difficult to treat, to them its seems like a mystery, its not , its Nature. Do not be deceived, every problem has a solution,likewise every sickness has a definite cure , just that we are ignorant to them. all thanks to natural health support On Facebook. And to dr.kpomosa for his wisdom, that God has given him to get knowledge of the right herbs to fight all disease, i endorse herbs for all who has run out of idea on what to do to get healing, what ever it is, either be it; Parkinson disease ,Stroke, diabetes type 1 and 2, kidney disease, heart disease,blood disease ,brain tumor , cancer,even infertility, fibroid and weight losing herbs, obesity etc. any sickness that has proven difficult for medical doctors, trust me natural herbal is the only and last resort.

  • ||

    Am using this entitlement to publish the mystery power of herbs. it is very obvious that civilization has made us neglect the healing power that is embodied in Natures plant as in plant for healing(herbs). we now rely on scientific med a lot. even the scientific med is an extract of some certain plants of nature and are not as effective compared to herbal that the ancients used to live longer life.I think those who has tried all scientific means of getting cure , but to no avail should give herbal remedy a try. I am Moesha from Atlanta Georgia ,i got cured of ALS by herbal prescription from dr. kpomosa (dr.kpomosa@outlook.com), Email i saw on natural health support forum.Same disease many medical doctor find difficult to treat, to them its seems like a mystery, its not , its Nature. Do not be deceived, every problem has a solution,likewise every sickness has a definite cure , just that we are ignorant to them. all thanks to natural health support On Facebook. And to dr.kpomosa for his wisdom, that God has given him to get knowledge of the right herbs to fight all disease, i endorse herbs for all who has run out of idea on what to do to get healing, what ever it is, either be it; Parkinson disease ,Stroke, diabetes type 1 and 2, kidney disease, heart disease,blood disease ,brain tumor , cancer,even infertility, fibroid and weight losing herbs, obesity etc. any sickness that has proven difficult for medical doctors, trust me natural herbal is the only and last resort.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online