Bevin: Simultaneous Repeal and Replace of Obamacare 'Makes Great Sense'

[Cebu_4_2]

Bevin: Simultaneous Repeal and Replace of Obamacare 'Makes Great Sense'

http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/BrightCove/694940094001/2017/01/10/780/438/694940094001_5277250431001_5277222916001-vs.jpg

As seen on Your World with Neil Cavuto (http://insider.foxnews.com/show/your-world-neil-cavuto)

Repealing and replacing Obamacare is high on the to-do list for President-elect Donald Trump as he assumes office.
The state of Kentucky alone has provided a microcosm for the best strategy of how to accomplish this task.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is calling for a quick repeal of Obamacare, while Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) wants to repeal and replace the law at the same time.

Republican Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin joined "Your World with Neil Cavuto" Tuesday to discuss his personal stance on how to best approach this issue.
Sessions' Former Aide: 'Immoral' for Critics to Attack a Man They Don't Know (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/10/sessions-former-counsel-immoral-protesters-attack-man-they-dont-know)
Spicer: Cabinet Picks Will Implement Trump's Agenda, Not Their Own (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/10/sean-spicer-outnumbered-donald-trump-transition-cabinet-confirmation-hearings)
MTV Writer Slammed for Tweets About Sessions' Asian-American Granddaughter (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/10/jeff-sessions-asian-granddaughter-mtv-ira-madison-tweet-senate-confirmation-hearing)
"I think in general the majority of Americans are with Senator Paul in theory and that is, if you're going to replace something, do it at the time that you're repealing that which you are going to be replacing. So to do this simultaneously I think makes great sense," Bevin said.

Bevin said Trump must rely on democracy, rather than monarchy, to take a pragmatic approach in finding the best way forward.
"Any measure taken at the federal level that affects health care is going to have a significant impact on Kentucky, so I personally would like to see us come to a conclusion where we can replace this at the very same time that we repeal it," he said. "If that is not practical, then let's at least get it out of the way and come up with the very best approach that we possible can."
Bevin said he is not concerned with the mixed messages his party is sending about how to proceed with Obamacare.

"Great leaders find a way to thread that needle. ... I have absolute confidence that this is going to be one of the greatest administrations we've seen in our lifetimes," he said.

Watch the above video for more on Bevin's conversation with Neil Cavuto.
GOP Rep Slams Dems for Hanging Painting Depicting Police as Pigs in U.S. Capitol (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/10/rep-hunter-painting-cops-pigs-us-capitol)
Giuliani: What's Wrong With Trump Putting Successful People in His Cabinet? (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/10/rudy-giuliani-donald-trump-transition-administration-cabinet-picks)
Conway: Congress Must Repeal, Replace ObamaCare in 'Quick Succession' (http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/09/kellyanne-conway-must-repeal-replace-obamacare-quick-succession-donald-trump-republican)

[monty]

Their is no authoriztion in the constitution for governmnet to provide any social program, hence the reason Social Security and Obamacare are 'voluntary' programs. What is wrong with returning health care to the free market? It worked very well in when I was a young man. My oldest son was born in 1963. Ipaid the hospital $150 and the doctor $150 or $160.

Doctors still had private practices, many made house calls. There was no healthcare crisis. Also health insurance was reasonably priced.

[Spectrism]

Their is no authoriztion in the constitution for governmnet to provide any social program, hence the reason Social Security and Obamacare are 'voluntary' programs. What is wrong with returning health care to the free market? It worked very well in when I was a young man. My oldest son was born in 1963. Ipaid the hospital $150 and the doctor $150 or $160.

Doctors still had private practices, many made house calls. There was no healthcare crisis. Also health insurance was reasonably priced.


Yes, this is my argument too. The reason they would "replace" this monster with another is to increase government controls and pretend to care about the poor who have no financial means for healthcare or insurance.

[Neuro]

Their is no authoriztion in the constitution for governmnet to provide any social program, hence the reason Social Security and Obamacare are 'voluntary' programs. What is wrong with returning health care to the free market? It worked very well in when I was a young man. My oldest son was born in 1963. Ipaid the hospital $150 and the doctor $150 or $160.

Doctors still had private practices, many made house calls. There was no healthcare crisis. Also health insurance was reasonably priced.

Third party payer systems is the main and probably the only reason for the galloping disease-care costs. Every Dr and nurse has to feed the ever growing bureaucracy of hospitals and insurance providers with not only their earnings but also spend a lot of time, which otherwise could have been spent on patient care, in filling out forms. And then the shareholders of the hospital, insurance company and pharmaceutical/medical tech industry should have their cut too. I suspect they actively purchase ever more high tech equipment with dubious use, just to dazzle patients to justify their astronomical insurance fees too. That's why a cancer treatment with an oncologist may run up to 1 million dollar, people realize they would never be able to afford that on their own. But rarely they reflect if it is worth it, despite the results being mediocre.

[crimethink]

Their is no authoriztion in the constitution for governmnet to provide any social program


There is no authorization in the Constitution for the US Air Force, either.




What is wrong with returning health care to the free market?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli




It worked very well in when I was a young man. My oldest son was born in 1963. Ipaid the hospital $150 and the doctor $150 or $160.

Doctors still had private practices, many made house calls. There was no healthcare crisis. Also health insurance was reasonably priced.

That was an era when "love thy neighbor" was still considered a commandment from God. It was also an era when company executives lived in modest homes, like the rest of us, and usually topped out in the six-figures. That mindset is long past.

Major corporations must be removed from the equation, or instant bankruptcy is the "reward" for anyone unfortunate enough to get seriously injured or chronically sick without having affordable health coverage. That means the elimination of corporate-written "Obamacare" but likewise no so-called "free market solutions," either. See again "Martin Shkreli."

[crimethink]

This was signed into law by Mike Pence:

https://www.in.gov/fssa/hip/

If something similar is proposed to replace corporate-written "Obamacare," it could work. If the premiums and/or co-pays are kept affordable and fantasy requirements are restrained, it will work.

However, keep in mind "conservative thinking" also involves submitting to "recommended health goals" like taking whatever pills or injections a committee says you must:

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinion/2016/01/29/gov-pence-hip-improves-hoosiers-lives/79520104/

Those who make consistent contributions can access vision and dental benefits and those who complete required preventative care can use their remaining balance to offset future contributions.

[Neuro]

There is no authorization in the Constitution for the US Air Force, either.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli




That was an era when "love thy neighbor" was still considered a commandment from God. It was also an era when company executives lived in modest homes, like the rest of us, and usually topped out in the six-figures. That mindset is long past.

Major corporations must be removed from the equation, or instant bankruptcy is the "reward" for anyone unfortunate enough to get seriously injured or chronically sick without having affordable health coverage. That means the elimination of corporate-written "Obamacare" but likewise no so-called "free market solutions," either. See again "Martin Shkreli."

I think that Shkreli is an interesting case, in that he is essentially gaming the system. The drug in itself is incredibly cheap to manufacture, but it is a life saver for the small subset of the population that must have it (I don't remember exactly what the drug was for. I am quoting from memory). The drug has no patent any longer, but it still expensive to start manufacturing it since FDA (or some other drug regulating agency), has to licence the manufacturing process (an infringement on free market principles), and this cost a lot of money and time. The potential market is small, so unless you can charge a high price for it the ROI will take a long time. If Shkreli would get a challenge from another manufacturer for the drug, he can just keep a high price on the drug until application process is finished and manufacturing capacity is constructed, and then he can lower it to well below break even for the competitor. Of course a competitor understand that this is what Shkreli most likely would do and decide not to call him out. The drug is sold retail in India if I recall correctly for less than a dollar a dose, but because of US drug regulations those can't be legally imported to the US (another impingement of free market). Further insurance companies and hospitals are required by law to provide this treatment. They are not allowed to say we ain't buying from this gamer like they could say if it was a true free market.

The only reason why Shkreli could do this price gouging is because he is gaming a non-free market over-regulated system, designed to favor the crooks in the pharmaceutical industry. Normal pharma companies do it with "reason" though, they usually don't ask for more than a thousand or a few thousand percent above manufacturing price for retail.

[StreetsOfGold]

Their is no authoriztion in the constitution for governmnet to provide any social program, hence the reason Social Security and Obamacare are 'voluntary' programs. What is wrong with returning health care to the free market? It worked very well in when I was a young man. My oldest son was born in 1963. Ipaid the hospital $150 and the doctor $150 or $160.

Doctors still had private practices, many made house calls. There was no healthcare crisis. Also health insurance was reasonably priced.

SPOT ON!!

Insurance companies are nothing less than an UNNECESSARY middle man, which soaks up BILLIONS of dollars which neither you nor the doctor now have. (preferably you)

[monty]

SPOT ON!!

Insurance companies are nothing less than an UNNECESSARY middle man, which soaks up BILLIONS of dollars which neither you nor the doctor now have. (preferably you)

Exactly. See Neuro's response at post #4.

[monty]

There is no authorization in the Constitution for the US Air Force, either.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli




That was an era when "love thy neighbor" was still considered a commandment from God. It was also an era when company executives lived in modest homes, like the rest of us, and usually topped out in the six-figures. That mindset is long past.

Major corporations must be removed from the equation, or instant bankruptcy is the "reward" for anyone unfortunate enough to get seriously injured or chronically sick without having affordable health coverage. That means the elimination of corporate-written "Obamacare" but likewise no so-called "free market solutions," either. See again "Martin Shkreli."

The major corporations are the problem, they exist because of their powerful lobbying intersts. My relatives were selling their family farms and moving to the cities in the 1950s.

That is still no reason to replace Obamacare. The country will never go back to the 'love thy neighbor' era. It will self destruct first.

[monty]

Before Obamacare there was 'love thy neighbor' and what follows is a true story!



"HOW OLD IS GRANDPA





This may surprise some of you youngsters, but it is quite factual.





One evening a grandson was talking to his grandfather about current events.
The grandson asked his grandfather what he thought about the shootings at schools, the computer age, and just things in general.
The Grandfather replied, "Well, let me think a minute, I was born before:
' television
' polio shots
' frozen foods
' Xerox
' Contact Lenses
' Frisbees
and the pill

There were no:
' credit cards
' laser beams or
' ball-pointpens

Man had not invented :
' pantyhose
' air conditioners
' dishwashers
' clothes dryers
' andthe clothes were hung out to dry in the fresh air,
' space travel was only in Flash Gordon books.

Your Grandmother and I got married first,... and then lived together..

Every family had a father and a mother.

Until I was 25, I called every woman older than me, "maam".

And after I turned 25, I still called policemen and every man with a title, "Sir."

We were before gay-rights, computer-dating, dual careers, daycare centers, and group therapy.

Our lives were governed by the Bible, good judgment, and common sense.

We were taught to know the difference between right and wrong and to stand up and take responsibility for our actions.

Serving your country was a privilege; living in this country was a bigger privilege.

We thought fast food was eating half a biscuit while running to catch the school bus.

Having a meaningful relationship meant getting along with your cousins.

Draft dodgers were those who closed front doors as the evening breeze started.

Time-sharing meant time the family spent together in the evenings and weekends;-not purchasing condominiums.

We never heard of FM radios, tape decks, CDs, electric typewriters, yogurt, or guys wearing earrings.

We listened to Big Bands, Jack Benny, and the President's speeches on our radios.

And I don't ever remember any kid blowing his brains out listening to Tommy Dorsey.

If you saw anything with 'Made in Japan ' on it, it was junk! And the term 'making out' referred to how you did on your school exam.

Pizza Hut, McDonald's, and instant coffee were unheard of.

We had 5 &10-cent stores where you could actually buy things for 5 and 10 cents.

Ice-cream cones, phone calls, rides on a streetcar, and a Pepsi were all a nickel.

And if you didn't want to splurge, you could spend your nickel on enough stamps to mail 1 letter and 2 postcards.
(What are ‘Post Cards’, you ask!)

You could buy a new Ford Coupe for $600, ... but who could afford one? Too bad, because gas was 11 cents a gallon.
In my day:
' "grass" was mowed,

' "coke"was a cold drink,

' "pot" was something your mother cooked in and

' "rock music" was your grandmother's lullaby.


' "Aids" were helpers in the Principal's office,

' "chip" meant a piece of wood,

' "hardware"mwas found in a hardware store and

' "software",wasn't even a word.

And we were the last generation to actually believe that a lady needed a husband to have a baby. No wonder people call us "old and confused" and say there is a generation,gap or from the archives.

How old do you think I am?
Are you ready?





This man would only be




70 years old today.

GIVES YOU SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

PASS THIS ON TO THE OLDER ONES;

THE YOUNG ONES WOULDN'T BELIEVE IT…

Ouch!...and I remember all that stuff.

(BUT IT WAS GOOD STUFF!)

[crimethink]

That is still no reason to replace Obamacare.

The easy solution is to simply expand Medicare to cover all citizens. The next-easy solution is to keep the Medicare expansion provision in place, and get rid of the anti-constitutional* mandate and the insurance corporation-driven "exchanges."

People have the right to not have health insurance; but conversely, must be willing to accept disability and death if they choose not to contribute/participate.




* I regard things done in good faith but not constitutional as "un-constititional," and things done in bad faith as "anti-constitutional."

[monty]

If I remember correctly it was when we got Medicare that the American Healthcare industry took a big shit. If you want to screw something up get the government involved.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-11-08/end-social-security-medicare-and-the-welfare-warfare-state/


http://youtu.be/di6Ss2zycHs

https://youtu.be/di6Ss2zycHs


End Social Security, Medicare, and the Welfare-Warfare State!

RonPaul.com (http://www.ronpaul.com/author/tmartin/) November 8, 2010 (http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-11-08/end-social-security-medicare-and-the-welfare-warfare-state/) Economy (http://www.ronpaul.com/category/economy/), Ron Paul's Writings (http://www.ronpaul.com/category/ron-pauls-writings/), Texas Straight Talk (http://www.ronpaul.com/category/texas-straight-talk/)

Date: 11/08/2010

Reject the Welfare/Warfare State
by Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul.com/)

Last week’s midterm elections have been characterized as a victory for grassroots Americans who are fed up with Washington and the political status quo. In particular, the elections are being touted as a clear indicator that voters demand reductions in federal spending, deficits, and debt.

If the new Congress hopes to live up to the expectations of Tea Party voters, however, it faces some daunting choices. For all the talk about pork and waste, the truth is that Congress cannot fix the budget and get our national debt under control by trimming fat and eliminating earmarks for “Bridges to Nowhere.”

Real reductions in federal spending can be achieved only by getting to the meat of the federal budget, meaning expenditures in all areas. The annual budget soon will be $5 trillion unless Congress takes serious steps to reduce spending for entitlements, military, and debt service. Yet how many Tea Party candidates who campaigned on a platform of spending cuts talked about Social Security, Medicare, foreign wars, or bond debt?

With regard to entitlements, the 2010 Social Security and Medicare Trustees report tells it all. It paints a stark picture of two entitlement programs that cannot be sustained under even the rosiest scenarios of economic growth. No one, regardless of political stripe, can deny the fundamental problem of unfunded future liabilities in both programs.

We should understand that Social Security was intended primarily to prevent old widows from becoming destitute. Life expectancy in 1935 was only about 65, when there were several workers for each Social Security recipient. The program was never intended to be a general transfer payment from young workers to older retirees, regardless of those retirees’ financial need. Yet today Social Security faces an unfunded liability of approximately $18 trillion.

First, Congress needs to stop using payroll taxes for purposes not related to Social Security, which was a trick the Clinton administration used to claim balanced budgets. Second, Congress should eliminate unconstitutional spending – including unnecessary overseas commitments – and use the saved funds to help transition to a Social Security system that is completely voluntary. At some point in the near future Congress must allow taxpayers to opt out of federal payroll taxes in exchange for never receiving Social Security benefits.

Medicare similarly faces a shortfall of $30.8 trillion in unfunded future benefits. The Part D prescription drug benefit accounts for approximately $15.5 trillion, or half of the unfunded Medicare liability. Congress should immediately repeal the disastrous drug benefit passed in 2003 by President Bush and a Republican Congress.

Fiscal conservatives should not be afraid to attack entitlements philosophically. We should reject the phony narrative that entitlement programs are inherently noble or required by “progressive” western values. Why exactly should Americans be required, by force of taxation, to fund retirement or medical care for senior citizens, especially senior citizens who are comfortable financially? And if taxpayers provide retirement and health care (http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/) benefits to some older Americans who are less well off, can’t we just call it welfare instead of maintaining the charade about “insurance” and “trust funds”?

Military spending and interest on the national debt similarly represent large federal expenditures that Congress must address by rethinking our foreign policy and exercising far greater oversight over the Federal Reserve (http://www.ronpaul.com/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/) and the Treasury department.

I have for a long time criticized our interventionist foreign policy and the Fed, and I will continue to do so. It’s time for Congress to face the fundamental problems that affect Social Security and Medicare, and show the courage necessary to make real changes to both programs by rejecting the welfare/warfare state.

»crosslinked«