Rand Paul's Proposed Replacement for 'Obamacare,' Thoughts?

Yep, I noticed he tried to dodge the preexisting question too. I think he may be right about the age 26 cap though, it does appear that is a particularly popular provision and it is already law.

I'm intrigued by this idea about pools for those with preexisting conditions, but have my doubts too. That said, people in that category are currently facing coverage problems, so this may offer a viable option. I'd like to see the meat of that argument.

Would you oppose this effort outright for the reasons you cited?

Hello again, F:

I'll support ANY plan that works..  Paul's plan doesn't..

If insurance companies are FORCED to cover sick people, and healthy/young people are NOT forced to buy insurance, there are ONLY four outcomes available:  1)  Premiums will skyrocket, 2) insurance companies will go broke, 3)  tax payers will make up the difference, or 4) the deficit WILL explode.. 

I can't get passed that.

excon This post was edited by excon at January 11, 2017 6:00 PM MST

So, no? Thanks

Hello again, F:

I'm a simple man.  If we make health care like your fire department, it would work fine.  Everybody pays IN, and EVERYBODY gets the benefits..  I know, I know.  You don't LIKE the comparison..

excon

You already know *my opinion.

We aren't currently forcing young people to buy insurance, we're fining them for not buying it. That means they're still waiting to purchase coverage until they have no choice, which is a problem for many because those with preexisting conditions are still being denied the coverage they actually need and in turn the system is still insolvent.


So on the whole, I disagree that this system offers the provisions many declare must be present in a replacement proposal. It's a convenient tactic for dems, but deflection isn't substantive, it gets nothing done. So, that's where I'm at on it.

I do appreciate your participation in my question and your thoughts on the ideas mentioned above :) This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at January 11, 2017 11:26 AM MST

Hello again, F:

I don't disagree with what you said..  Obamacare DOESN'T work.  But, I'm NOT here supporting Obamacare. I'm here supporting universal heath insurance.  Everybody pays IN, and everybody gets the benefits..  I have no problem with the insurance industry participating in that system.  We'll save zillions of $'s and zillions of lives.  ALL that money going to CEO's and ALL that money going to the pharmaceutical companies would go toward healthcare.. 

By the way.  What is YOUR opinion on prescription drugs being SOLD ON TV, instead of being prescribed by your doctor..  Personally, I'm APPALLED by it.  Absolutely APPALLED.

excon

I have noted you're a proponent of single payer, you know my opinion on that also. I think we both know Repubs aren't going to propose that and are unlikely to support the attempt. So we must look at what is on the table for now.

I think Big PHARMA is dangerous and doesn't deserve to be considered an agent of 'modern medicine' in a rational conversation about health care. This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at January 11, 2017 11:09 AM MST

Here is why he dodged it. He gets rid of it.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443746/republican-health-care-plan-rand-paul

Yes, he noted that, in an unnecessarily round-about way.

Actually he claimed they kept it by pooling the people together. 

That is the claim, I'm skeptical, but eager to see a substantive argument favoring that position.

The thing for me is I reject the narrative that those with preexisting conditions are default covered under the current system. It sounds great aloud and on paper, but there are still ways to limit their access to coverage they need (particularly with cancer patients) thus negating the argument that anyone, regardless of their health condition and income status, automatically gets the coverage they need. It just doesn't hold water.

IDK. The only article I could find talking about it said it was gotten rid of. It said the Patients with preexisting conditions would be shifted to the states to decide how to handle them. 

He pointed that out, none of these are new ideas, some have been floated for decades. He thinks what makes this plan different is that it's a compilation of relatively popular provisions yet devoid of controversy. I'm just curious what voters think of these ideas.

I like being able to get insurance from any company in the US. Health care savings accounts are good but does not help those who can not afford it now. These people don't have to worry about the tax write-off.  

For some it might. I know a single mom who actually might benefit from the write-off, will remain to be seen. She is currently paying the penalty because she can't afford to keep coverage for herself and her employer fails to provide it. She falls into that small category of earners who are just over the subsidy, but not capable of purchasing with the current premiums, much less pay* the massive deductible required to actually benefit from the coverage.

I do wonder how this might work in conjunction with his proposed tax plan. This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at January 11, 2017 5:13 PM MST

Maybe they can help a few....I don't think they are a bad idea. But it is not new in fact they are available NOW with or without a repeal of OC. They have been available for decades. You should let your friend know.

I'm sure she's looked into it, but I'll mention it to her. Like I said, she sits in that blurry area where there's little assistance yet too much cost. Thanks for participating :)

So, opposed to this proposal?

You didn't let me finish, Fork. 

I am not interested in any thought that comes out of his rattled skull.

Rand Paul: The Most Interesting Conspiracy Theorist in Washington
Bilderbergers, the Iraq invasion, Alex Jones—the GOP senator has routinely flirted with America's paranoid fringe.

David CornOct. 20, 2014 5:05 AM

David Becker/Zuma Press

This past summer, Rand Paul, the libertarian senator from Kentucky and a potential 2016 presidential wannabe, was the GOP's It Girl. The New York Times Magazine splashed his mug on the cover and asked, "Has the 'Libertarian Moment' Finally Arrived?" It noted that Paul possessed a "supple mind" and was a "preternaturally confident speaker." Washington Post political prognosticator Chris Cillizza pronounced Paul the "most interesting voice in the GOP right now," and Politico gave him the No. 1 spot on its list of the 50 "most important people changing American politics through the power of ideas." When Paul, an ophthalmologist, trekked to Guatemala as part of a group of doctors providing free care to indigent patients, he was accompanied by a documentary crew, two political ad makers, and reporters from the Post and NBC News. And last week, Time magazine ran a cover story on Paul, anointing him, "The Most Interesting Man in Politics."
Which Dad is More Embarrassing: Ron Paul or Rafael Cruz?

As this government-bashing tea partier moves toward a White House bid, journalists scrutinize his every wiggle and whisper. But one core component of his political personality has largely escaped exploration: The senator is close to being a full-blown conspiracy theorist.

In 2010, before winning his Senate seat, Paul sat for an interview with Luke Rudkowski, a libertarian YouTube personality who specializes in quizzing political leaders about the plot to establish a "one-world socialist government."* Rudkowski asked what Paul knew of the Bilderberg Group, a collection of government and business leaders whose annual conference is a favorite target of conspiracy-mongers. Paul replied, "Only what I've learned from Alex Jones." That's right: Alex Jones, the radio host who claims that Bilderberg is a key part of a global plot to create a "scientific dictatorship" that will exterminate the "useless eaters," a.k.a. 80 percent of the human population.

Paul described the group to Rudkowski in unequivocally Jonesian terms, as "very wealthy people, who I think manipulate and use government to their own personal advantage. They want to make it out like world government will be good for humanity. But guess what? World government is good for their pocketbook." The previous year, Paul had appeared on Jones' radio show, noting that he had watched his host's videos and expressing support for the effort to "expose people who are promoting this globalist agenda." (In turn, Jones urged his listeners to send money to Paul's Senate campaign.)

It wasn't until after reaching the Senate in 2011 that Paul clammed up about the Bilderbergers. In 2012, Rudkowski confronted Paul on a Washington street, challenging his endorsement of Mitt Romney, who'd attended Bilderberg sessions. The senator walked on as an aide tried to shoo Rudkowski away. When, earlier this year, the conservative Washington Free Beacon asked a top Paul aide if the senator had ever bought into the Bilderberg conspiracy theory, he jokingly dodged the question, saying Paul believes "Build a Burger would be a great name for a fast-food chain."

Jones' show has also been a hub of the so-called truther movement, which claims that the 9/11 attacks were mounted or permitted by the US government. During Paul's 2010 Senate campaign, it was revealed that his campaign spokesman was a truther (as well as a death-metal musician with racist and satanic tendencies). When a Kentucky newspaper asked if Paul agreed with this view, his campaign replied that it was a "complicated situation" with "truth on both sides."

Paul had his own conspiracy theory about 9/11. In speeches in 2008 and 2009, he warned about the influence of military contractors and zeroed in on Halliburton, the corporation that Dick Cheney headed before becoming vice president. Cheney, he noted, opposed the advance of American troops into Baghdad when he was defense secretary during the first Gulf War. Yet as veep he changed his mind because, Paul explained, the war would benefit Halliburton with a "billion-dollar no-bid contract."

Critics have long questioned the Bush administration's motives for invading Iraq. But Paul's claim that a leader of his own party sacrificed American lives not for a misguided view of national security, but for naked greed—practically a charge of treason—was remarkable. After Mother Jones reported on his statements earlier this year, the senator backpedaled. When he was asked by ABC News if he really believed Cheney had been motivated by financial ties to Halliburton, Paul replied, "I'm not questioning Dick Cheney's motives."

Paul also has embraced one of the conspiracy theories promoted by his father, former Texas Rep. Ron Paul: that leaders from the United States, Canada, and Mexico are seeking to merge their countries into a socialist megastate that would issue the "Amero" currency to replace US and Canadian dollars and the Mexican peso. (Anti-feminist campaigner Phyllis Schlafly and Jerome Corsi, who led the 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, are among the key proponents of this idea.)

At an appearance for his father's 2008 presidential campaign in Bozeman, Montana, Rand Paul was asked what steps his dad would take to thwart the scheme to impose a North American superstate. The first thing to do, he said, was "publicizing that it's going on" and pushing Congress to "stop it." He insisted the Amero push was "a real thing" but cautioned, "If you talk about it like it's a conspiracy, they'll paint you as a nut. It's not a conspiracy, they're out in the open about it. I guarantee it's one of their long-term goals—to have one sort of borderless mass continent." He did not specify who "they" were.

Asked about these comments after entering the Senate in 2011, Paul hedged: "It's not a matter of what I believe. It's just a matter of whether or not there are viewpoints who believe that joining together as a North American Union" would be a good thing. But, the interviewer shot back, who's actually calling for that? "A lot of writers," Paul answered. "You can do an internet search."

Before he was a senator, Paul freely swam in dark conspiratorial waters. After being elected, he shut up. So did he not believe all that stuff? Or did they get to him? Perhaps Rand Paul fears that many voters cannot handle the truth—his truths—and that the only way he can reach the White House is via, yes, a conspiracy of silence.

* Editor's note: After this story was published, Luke Rudkowski contacted Mother Jones via Twitter to insist that even though he is described on several websites (such as this one) as a journalist who grills politicians about their plans to implement "one-world socialist government," he has not used that particular phrase. "I said one world order before way back years ago but not socialist," he says. He also says he is not a libertarian.
Get the scoop, straight from Mother Jones.


Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

David Corn

David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter and Facebook.

Mother Jones is a nonprofit, and stories like this are made possible by readers like you. Donate or subscribe to help fund independent journalism.
Related

Rand Paul Flubs the Facts on the Minimum Wage
Tim Murphy
Rand Paul to Appear at Event Featuring Neo-Confederate Aide He Had to Fire
Andy Kroll

Top News
Torture Allegations Shadow Rex Tillerson's Time at Exxon Mobil
Samantha Michaels
Russia Allegations Lead to Donald Trump's Dumbest Tweet Ever
David Corn
Republicans Try to Rewrite Sessions' History on Race
Pema Levy
view comments

I got that you're suspicious of him. I'm not a fan of him either, probably for different reasons, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. imo I really don't care what he believes if he presents solid ideas. Same goes for Obama, Sanders, Clinton and even Trump. I just want to see it fixed, don't care who does it.

I've *got you down as uninterested. Please know that I mean no offense either, you're totally entitled to your opinion and I appreciate you participating in my question :) This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at January 11, 2017 5:59 PM MST