As the numbers are being examined, the House American Health Care Act, aka RINOCare, is actually making the case that a full repeal of Obamacare and installation of a true free market plan would be much better and potentially cover more people than either Obamacare or Obamacare Lite. This was proven in a 2015 Congressional Budget Office report.
As we have warned before going into this dog and pony show with the Republicans, establishment types like Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) don't really want to get rid of Obamacare as much as they want to rename it and control it so they can claim credit for it. However, as we have demonstrated, it continues to be a form of socialism and enslavement of the people and companies. Thus, the House Republican plan is not a free market plan, but a big government plan.
While the Democrats are busy blasting the plan for how many people won't have insurance in a number of years under RINOCare, establishment Republicans are happy that not as many as they thought would lose coverage. The fact is that though the CBO had its issues with the numbers of Obamacare, it has previously found that a full repeal of Obamacare would be best for the nation. Not only that, it would actually be constitutional, which means unlike Obamacare, a full repeal of it would actually be lawful.
Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner comments:
In 2015, CBO evaluated a straight full repeal of Obamacare, without any replacement, and it found that coverage would actually be slightly better than what it would be under the House Republican plan being pushed by Speaker Paul Ryan. Whereas the Ryan plan would, according to the CBO, leave 51 million uninsured in 2025, two years ago, the CBO projected under a full repeal (without a replacement), 50 million would be uninsured. Now, it's quite possible that the CBO would score full repeal differently now, given a different set of underlying assumptions. But it's hard to see how the basic picture would change much.
How could that possibly be? How could a Republican plan that spends hundreds of billions of dollars offering tax credits to individuals and winds down Obamacare over several years cover no more people than a straight, immediate, full repeal would have? The reason is that the Republican replacement preserves many of Obamacare's regulations that drive up the cost of insurance. So, in essence, the GOP alternative would be asking people to purchase expensive Obamacare plans, with less financial assistance. In contrast, while full repeal would offer no assistance, because it would get rid of Obamacare's regulations, it would make insurance cheaper.
So, if the baseline assumption is that full repeal only covers about the same number of people as repeal and the House Republican replacement, it's fair to say that adding free market elements to full repeal — such as large health savings accounts or deductions toward the purchase of insurance — would help boost coverage numbers somewhat. Given the importance that the CBO places on the individual mandate and the fact that any repeal would significantly reduce Medicaid spending, it's clear that the CBO would still say that full repeal plus a market-based alternative would cover a lot fewer people than Obamacare. However, even if a free market replacement covers only a few million people under the CBO model, it would still be covering more than what House Republicans have come up with.
Republicans are going to get attacked by Democrats no matter what they do. The issue at stake is are they going to be lawful constitutionalists or are they going to pursue a path towards socialism. To be honest, establishment Republicans have been following behind their Communist and socialist Democrat comrades for decades. The new conservatives are tomorrow's liberals in most cases. Yet, they still wear the "R" on their jersey.
So, if Republicans are going to catch it for what they put forward, why not put a plan forward that is both constitutional and will be the basis of a free market in health insurance. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), a doctor himself, has put forward such a plan. Why are people not looking at that?
While Klein says that the biggest argument against such a measure is a practical one, namely "that changing regulations couldn't be done through reconciliation, which allows legislation to pass through the Senate with a simple majority provided that its provisions are strictly budgetary," he goes on to say that no one can be sure about that unless it is tried, which I agree with.
What House Republican should be immediately presenting is a one line bill that fulfills their promise to the American people. I can help them with that. Here it is:
"Upon the signing of this legislation by the President, every single aspect, regulation, tax, penalty, demand, non-profit organization that was created in the Affordable Care Act is hereby repealed and no further funding or subsidies will be provided to anything contained therein."
I know, I'm not a lawyer, but the fact is that we need simplicity in this matter. Do that, and we won't keep throwing money in a pit. Furthermore, if people will be upset because people lose insurance this way, guess what? In the free market, if an insurance company goes under, people will have to look elsewhere for insurance. Why should it be any different with government subsidies for health insurance, which they are unconstitutionally providing? Think about it!Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.