Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Obamacare Repeal or Obamacare 2.0? By Ron Paul

Via Billy

This Thursday, the House of Representatives will vote on a Republican bill that supposedly repeals Obamacare. However, the bill retains Obamacare’s most destructive features.

That is not to say this legislation is entire without merit. For example, the bill expands the amount individuals can contribute to a health savings account (HSA). HSAs allow individuals to save money tax-free to pay for routine medical expenses. By restoring individuals’ control over healthcare dollars, HSAs remove the distortions introduced in the healthcare market by government policies encouraging over-reliance on third-party payers.

The legislation also contains other positive tax changes, such a provision allowing individuals to use healthcare tax credits to purchase a “catastrophic-only” insurance policy. Ideally, health insurance should only cover major or catastrophic health events. No one expects their auto insurance to cover routine oil changes, so why should they expect health insurance to cover routine checkups?

More @ LRC


  1. Ron Paul was always a bit of a loon. I went back and read his article and discovered that he is loosing his ability to write focused thoughts. I recall he used to do a better job organizing complex ideas.
    I am against health savings accounts because they are NOT free market or privately controlled solutions. They are another government solution that no one asked for. The simplest way would be just allowing every American to write all medical expenses off his taxes. BOOM. Same effect. No special accounts, book keeping or planing ahead needed.

    This is what the Free market looks like:
    Public: We need health care.
    Government: Good for you!
    Public: Give it to us.
    Government: Not my problem. Get it yourself.

    1. Where does the Constitution give the federal government the power to get involved? I don't think it's legal.

      I like growing the middle class. But yea, we don't need involvement in healthcare.

      Malpractice insurance needs to be reduced by fixing the courts. A doctor should only be found guilty if he's truly guilty. It shouldn't be a lottery. And we might need more doctors to lower costs. I don't mind reform in those areas.

    2. we might need more doctors to lower costs.

      The VA is using more and more nurses.

    3. I want to say the same trend exists throughout the US, nurses used more. And that might work. Technology might allow nurses to do more.

      One concern I have is the claim that less skilled foreign doctors are brought in.

      Another concern I have is the accusation that medical schools intentionally restrict the number of students they take in, in order to maintain a higher income for doctors.

      From what I've seen, I assume doctors find it difficult to reduce their hours for, say, family or a semi-retirement. And this is because of the high cost of malpractice insurance. So, they end up working very long hours, some of them do anyway. The medical profession appears to vary. Dermatologists have it easy!

    4. the high cost of malpractice insurance.

      Yes and my father retired from being a country doctor because of increasing regulations and this was in the early 70's. He almost quit when they said he had to have a RN count pills instead on me! :)