Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
For heaven’s sake – another tax credit?
How hard is it to explain to Congress that we’re broke. They should skip the tax credits and lower the tax rates with a commensurate decrease in federal spending instead of passing out welfare by another name.
Stomp all over states’ ability to be as stupid as they want with their insurance regulations? If we’re going to do that, then the national standard needs to be for a very basic catastrophic type plan that doesn’t pay for stupid [expletive] like birth control or drug abuse counseling.
How many people are in the individual market really anyway? Isn’t all this “law making” being done on behalf of a vanishingly small percentage of the citizenry?
There are many of us in the individual market.
A joke that fixes nothing. Bribed politicians flush with Big Insurance money make a little gesture. It goes nowhere.
Paul Ryan is hydrated well with the devil’s water. No saint he, just another sausage maker in a vile meat factory.
Of course it’s not going to fix anything. It would never get past PBO. This is a move to gain footing in the sand as the tide goes out. The initiative that matters is the one that comes after Trump is displaced as the nominee in a delegate mutiny at the convention.
I think positive and simple proposals are VERY GOOD. Even if they are “only” posturing.
If Congress had repeatedly sent up bills to build a border wall, there would be no Trump phenomenon. Even if Obama had vetoed all of them.
Any bill that increases individual freedom is good. Allowing purchases across state borders deregulates. It would be like having a driver’s license or Concealed Carry permit from Utah, while living in New York?
Good. Now’s the time to flesh out the “replace” part of “repeal and replace Obamacare.” It would be nice if the candidate did it, but since he’s not it’s good for the Congressional R’s to be doing it.
It’s important to flesh it out the details not because undecided voters care, but because Congressional candidates need to avoid being labeled as uninformed or stupid. I’m guessing part of many candidates stump speeches will be how Obamacare has driven prices up and been terrible overall, and calls to action like “vote for me to help repeal and replace Obamacare”. When members of the media ask them what they’ll be replacing it with, this is a decent answer.
Agree sir.
I am pretty sure if I tried to carry a handgun in NYC with my Texas LTC they would throw me under the jail. And there would be much rejoicing round these parts.
Clearly all likes for your comment are regarding this prospect, not the broader point made.
I’ll take it
More importantly, permitting sales across state lines and permitting more direct sales would let those of us in the individual market join trade groups/associations to take advantage of the better rates that only companies get now. We used to do this in the old days and it was a better solution using market forces and purchasing power. I’d rather see that than tax credits from my “only here to help you” Big Brother.
For low/no income constituents I’d rather see Medicaid revised with a subsidized schedule of payment- to–no-payment based on income.
This from someone (yeah, me) who just saw a $266 per month increase in premium for the exact same policy from the same company after having my deceased husband’s COBRA run out from his employer.
From the staff anyway.
Is there any meaningful difference between “advanceable, refundable tax credit” and “subsidy”? I sure don’t see one.
However, in defense of this not-really-a-plan plan, Obamacare is already loaded with subsidies, so it’s not a question of “new” subsidies/tax credits, but how they compare with the old ones. This could still be a net boon to our budget.
I don’t think so either – really it’s a way to pass out government largesse to “deserving” groups of taxpayers like the mortgage interest rate deduction, child tax credit etc.
While it is technically touted as a replacement for the awful, poorly thought out Obamacare subsidies it’s still not very conservative and not sustainable over the long term.
Rather than a vague list of individual items, I’d rather hear what the underlying principles of this healthcare system would be.
As horrible as Obamacare is, its planners at least made it very clear from the beginning what its ground rules and goals were.
How would the Republican proposal deal with people who choose not to buy any health care: do they still get care even if they can’t pay, or do they get turned away? I don’t see how a market system can work if people know they will be covered for free in a pinch.
Agree on both counts.
Tax credits are essentially the term (and vehicle) for subsidies used by politicians who are too embarrassed to admit they’re giving away subsidies.
And this plan is far from a real free market plan. But would that type of plan ever be politically viable? I highly doubt it.
Quite. And yet, we get to do it with Drivers Licenses.
Sounds like something Milton Friedman would be for. Good enough for me.
Hard to be broke when we’re the ones printing the money.
I understand that we are broke. But we won’t be able to get rid of all government subsidies for healthcare because that is amazingly unpopular.
The best we can do is get rid of Obamacare and replace it with a cheaper more dynamic alternative. I understand that libertarian ideas work but they aren’t popular.
From what I’ve skimmed of the House plan (PDF), Trump’s website gets at a point I don’t see concisely addressed in the House plan – that people need prices to make better healthcare choices (and drive down costs):
I’m surprised that this point isn’t discussed more… I think many people can relate to asking a healthcare provider what something will generally cost, hearing “I don’t know/depends on your insurance” from the person at the front desk, and then being somewhat surprised by the dollar amounts they see on the explanation of benefits form they get from their insurer a week later.
Do you think that Trump understands this and will educate the people about how competitive capitalism will improve peoples lives?
I think most people intuitively understand it, but I can’t say that anyone is effectively making the case for free markets to the public generally. To your point, no, I don’t expect that Trump (or Clinton) will educate people on much of anything.