"It's A Train Wreck": Conservative Groups Revolt Against GOP Healthcare Plan

Tyler Durden's picture

As discussed earlier, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort, derisively called by some either "Obamacare Lite", "RyanCare", "ObamaCare 2.0",  and even Trumpcare". is running into major hurdles as prominent consevative groups threaten to derail Trump's broader economic agenda.

While The Trump administration on Tuesday formally backed the House GOP's plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare, early hurdles emerged after tea partiers Rand Paul and Mike Lee both said that the proposed plan will not pass because it is too similar to the original healthcare law, while GOP senator Roy Blunt said that the plan as it stands may not be able to get the support needed to pass the Senate.  "What I don't like is, it may not be a plan that gets a majority votes and let's us move on. Because, we can't stay where we are with the plan we've got now," Blunt said on KMBZ, as first reported by CNN.

The two are just the tip of the iceberg.

As The Hill writes, outside conservative groups on Tuesday blasted House Republicans’ newly unveiled healthcare proposal, saying it doesn’t live up to the GOP’s promise of fully repealing ObamaCare. Here are some of the more prominent objectors:

The Club for Growth dubbed the proposal “RyanCare” and threatened to record names of Republicans who vote for the bill unless it includes significant changes.

Americans for Prosperity/Freedom Partners called the plan "Obamacare 2.0"

The Cato Institute called the plan a "TrainWreck"

Heritage Action, FreedomWorks and the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity, a group aligned with billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, also issued scathing statements highly critical of the "American Health Care Act," which was released on Monday.

FreedomWorks panned the GOP bill as "ObamaCare-Lite," while AFP labeled it "ObamaCare 2.0." “This is simply not a full repeal of ObamaCare. It falls far short of the promises Republicans made to the American people in four consecutive federal elections,” AFP President Tim Phillips said in a phone interview Tuesday. “The proposed legislation trades one form of government subsidy for another government subsidy, and doesn’t roll back the mandate of ObamaCare. It's a poor first attempt.”

In short, conservatives don't like the bill in its current form, and as the Hill puts it, "the seemingly coordinated statements — all released within an hour of each other — from these four big-money, influential conservative groups create a huge headache for Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and the two authors of the House bill: Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas)."

Assuming all members vote and all Democrats vote no, it would take 22 House GOP defections to kill the bill. Just three Republican votes could sink the legislation in the Senate.

As noted above, two Tea Party darlings, Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), have already come out against the GOP plan, as have former House Freedom Caucus Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and conservative Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Dave Brat (R-Va.). As we explained yesterday, many on the right are objecting to the plan’s refundable tax credits, which would replace ObamaCare insurance subsidies.

“If it’s a new federal plan, I do not like it because the federal government has shown itself unable to constrain itself when it comes to fiscal matters,” Brat told The Hill. “As a result, Medicare and Social Security are insolvent and our health system will be next.”

Club for Growth said it will “key vote” the bill, meaning it will include how lawmakers vote on it when calculating grades for members of Congress, and whip votes against the House proposal unless major changes are made.

“The problems with this bill are not just what’s in it, but also what’s missing: namely, the critical free-market solution of selling health insurance across state lines,” Club for Growth President David McIntosh said in a statement. “Such an injection of competition would lead to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings, nullifying any argument by Congressional Republicans that this provision cannot be included in the current bill.  “Republicans should be offering a full and immediate repeal of Obamacare’s taxes, regulations, and mandates, an end to the Medicaid expansion, and inclusion of free-market reforms, like interstate competition.”

Meeting a tide of early criticism, the plan's architects were busy defending it starting Tursday morning. Brady, a main architect of the bill, pushed back on the conservative objections at a joint news conference with Walden on Tuesday. Brady said the bill is similar to legislation from then-Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), now secretary of Heath and Human Services, which "had 84 cosponsors including members and leaders of the Freedom Caucus, the RSC and the Republican conference."

"As Republicans we have a choice,” Brady said. “We can act now or we can keep fiddling around and squander this opportunity to repeal ObamaCare and begin a new chapter for the American people.”

For now, at least, it appears that many would prefer to fiddle, even if that means risking alienating some of their core constituents, a point made by the AFP's Phillips who, fresh from an anti-ObamaCare rally by the Capitol, warned that there will be electoral consequences for Republicans if they don’t fully repeal the current health law. He said 88 percent of House Republicans have previously voted for full repeal in the past, as have 97 percent of Senate Republicans.

“This is not a new issue. It’s been out there for eight years and Republicans have been unambiguous about repealing ObamaCare,” Phillips told The Hill. “The American people took their word for it and gave them the largest majority in the House. 

‘But this will be shortest-lived majority in the modern era if they fail to fully repeal ObamaCare.”

The vice president himself appeared to lash out at hold outs in the Senate saying "My message to GOP Senate: If you like ObamaCare, you can keep it, but people want change & fact is ObamaCare must go."

In addition to ripping the House plan, FreedomWorks national director of campaigns, Noah Wall, also called out four GOP senators — Rob Portman (Ohio), Shelley Moore Capito (W.V.), Cory Gardner (Colo.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) — for saying they could not support the House bill because it did not assist people in their states who are covered by ObamaCare’s expanded Medicaid program.

"Sens. Portman, Capito, Gardner, and Murkowski would be in jail with Bernie Madoff if they had orchestrated such a fraud in the private sector. They have scammed the American people,” Wall said in a statement. “They supported a strong repeal bill when they knew President Obama would never sign it, and now they won’t support the same language because President Trump might sign it.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration formally backed the GOP plan in a letter Tuesday, with Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price writing that it would serve as a good first step. "These proposals offer patient-centered solutions that will provide all Americans with access to affordable, quality healthcare, promote innovation and offer peace of mind for those with pre-existing conditions," Price wrote.

To sum up, here is a great cheat sheet courtesy of Axios of all those who have so far expressed objection to the plan in its current form.:



Finally, for those who missed it, here is Goldman Sachs again explaining why any delays in passing the Obamacare alternative plan, will lead to major delays for the rest of Trump's economic agenda:

"the slow process on ACA repeal signals that tax reform is likely to take longer than initially expected and that the final tax legislation that Congress enacts is likely to be less radical than the early proposals from House Republicans and the Trump campaign. That said, while tax legislation looks likely to be delayed we expect it to move forward eventually."

And putting it all together, here is Goldman's chart showing "the long year ahead" and where we are right now.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
froze25's picture

Have I mentioned that Paul Ryan sucks? He's like a used car salesman but has nothing that could have potential value. One greazy dude and a Globalist Puppet to boot. He did nothing to slow down Obama and he undermines Trump at every turn. He still thinks he can be president.

38BWD22's picture



Perhaps the simplest thing they can do right away is to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines.

An easy & tangible accomplishment.

TANGIBLE accomplishments would be nice to see now...


FrozenGoodz's picture

Perhaps the notion of 'get this out there so they have something to talk about' isn't foolproof

Insurrector's picture

The problem is that they sold it as golden, been baking for 8 years, and was ready to serve.

If they had instead pitched it as a line in the sand to dance around until they could redraw it better, then who knows?

ParkAveFlasher's picture

Pence's tweet is pretty snarky.  Just saying.

xythras's picture
xythras (not verified) ParkAveFlasher Mar 7, 2017 4:59 PM

RyanCare will be a fiasco, because GOP is in disarray and most of the prominent republicans are in bed with the never-Trump democRATS. Especially RYAN, he's so desperate to make a name for himself that is willing do bend over sideways for every donor cock.

GOP Grapples as it Shifts from Opposition Party to Governing


Embrey's picture

Trump will never convince any significant number of Democrats to do anything but oppose, oppose, oppose. We should all accept that.

I know Trump has dreams of achieving an agenda with these mythical Republicans in Congress. He must stop dreaming. This is going to be like urban warfare - block by block and house to house. The agenda of the first two years is exposing the phony Republicans who do not agree with the President and have rarely supported the wishes of their constituents. He must drive a wedge between the people and the Republican Congressional leadership. In 2018, if Trump is successful, he will be greeted by Representatives and Senators more in tune with the will of the people they represent.

Until then:
Repeal Obamacare - or let it fail on its own (de)merits
Cut regulations that only serve to strengthen monopolies
Cut taxes
Create an international trade policy that encourages industry to expand in the US
Enforce border security
Build the wall
Enforce the law

Escrava Isaura's picture

Do you think that the current healthcare is bankrupted? Well, you ain’t see nothin yet.

How am I so sure?

Just read the conservatives solution:

“The problems is what’s missing: namely, the critical free-market solution of selling health insurance across state lines,”

Now, Zero Hedge:

32 States Now Officially Bankrupt: $37.8 Billion Borrowed From Treasury To Fund Unemployment; CA, MI, NY Worst

Believing that the free-market and states can address healthcare properly is conservative stupidity, not reform.



Embrey's picture

For the sake of argument I will agree with your premise.
Let it implode or repeal it.
I suggest you look at Chupacabra's plan below.

It seems like insurance companies serve the same purpose in the healthcare sector as central banks do in the economy, to drain the blood (figuratively or literally) of the people.

I am not implying there shouldn't be insurance or banking, I am saying central banks and TBTF insurance companies have been weaponized to the point that their involvement in our society has the opposite effect of their original intent.

BeanusCountus's picture

Can you give me a link to the Direct Care concept? Sorry, not familiar with it.

Escrava Isaura's picture

Reader be aware when you hear state-line, because it’s a partisan maneuver to mislead by the Republican establishment, and a party that is very good in misleading the American people on these “big issues” such as healthcare. Let me show you:

Health care is a truly national issue because—as Massachusetts has found out—any state that attempts to address health care prices has to subsidize the uninsured from other states who move there to take advantage of the benefits it offers.

Writing for the majority in Helvering v. Davis, Justice Benjamin Cardozo explained that “A system of old age pensions has special dangers of its own, if put in force in one state and rejected in another. The existence of such a system is a bait to the needy and dependent elsewhere, encouraging them to migrate and seek a haven of repose. Only a power that is national can serve the interests of all.”

Overturning the Affordable Care Act would be a shame. Rising health care costs are depressing our standard of living. Already millions of Americans have no way of affording the costs of dealing with medical emergencies. The Affordable Care Act may not be a great law, but it is the only major health care reform bill Congress has been able to pass in forty years of trying. Republicans don’t seem to offer any real alternative. Medical tort reform may be a good idea on its own, but it isn’t going to solve the larger problem.

The truth is that until recently requiring people to buy health insurance through the market was the Republican alternative. Democrats generally preferred a single-payer “public option” modeled on Medicare. It was only when a Democratic president began to support the mandate that Republicans decided it constituted an unprecedented assault on it.



Anon2017's picture

The article EI referenced is dated May 2010. California's unfunded pension liabilty for state employees is much much higher.

Red states will only make their problems worse by making it harder for poor colored girls to terminate their unwanted pregnancies.

What do religious conservatives think of Obamacare 2.0?


BeanusCountus's picture

Getting you politically correct here, that also applies to poor white girls. But your concept is correct from a fiscal standpoint.

Zorba's idea's picture

I'll pass on beginning with all due respect, obviously you wouldn't know a free market if it landed on your pointy head. Free market capitalism means that the federal government does not restrict trade with all kinds of nefarious rules and regulations, which  is plain to see for most americans, except the free shitter's, who realize you cant make chicken salad out of chicken shit...that is the definition for fallacy of composition.  The states have been getting all kinds of unfunded mandates shoved down their throats from the Federal government for decades. The plumbing is all backed up, not even a tanker full of liquid drano could clear things up. In my state, my business had a couple HUNDRED HC Insurance companies competing for our company's Health insurance back in the 80's. Today, we have three major providers. That is better than some states who have one last mohican. Oshitcare, wrapped chickenshit around what was a turd and added clever mandates, penalties and IRS muscle, if you as a citizen didn't buy their shitty HC, which for many households is now more than their mortgage payments!  No surprise that "The Unsustainable/Unaffordable faux HC", destroyed small businesses who have been traditionally relied upon for job creation. Combine this with the lasting effects the Mortgage Backed Security debacle has had on small/regional banks, limiting their capacity to provide capital to the "small's" and wah lah! Employment is adversely effected, so much so, some states normal accruals methods for  SUI (state unemployment insurance), couldn't keep up with the Obumass's economic miracle and the resulting flood of unprecedented unemployment claims, which subsequently exhausted their reserves. Repeal and Replace is a major challenge for all Americans, especially given the scope of the "ACA"s utter and complete failed design. Removing all the impediments will go along way towards fixing Oshitcare.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Perhaps in the future, you may consider a more well considered fact based explanation about a country which appears to remain quite foreign to you. BTW, your meme's pursuit of freedom without knowledge is well, just a romantic novel.

Escrava Isaura's picture

First: Free market never, ever existed but in one’s indoctrinated brain.

Second: Capitalism for dummies: You work for the owners of capital, the bankers/investors. Capitalism core is to maximize personal gains at the expenses of others. Now try to run a family under these values. The family will self-destruct. “Capitalism is the theory that the worst people, acting from their worst motives, will somehow produce the most good”. – John Maynard Keynes


The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order Bernard E. Harcourt



Syrin's picture

It won't be long from now until Trump starts Tweeting about Ryan and the worthless republicans.  The heat is about to be turned to boil.

prime american's picture
prime american (not verified) Syrin Mar 8, 2017 2:00 AM

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... http://bit.ly/2jdTzrM

Withdrawn Sanction's picture

"RyanCare will be a fiasco..."

Yes, it will.  It contains bail out provisions for insurers, mandatory coverage requirements, AND fines for non-compliance...paid to whom?  You guessed it...


Zorba's idea's picture

To all those wisconsonites in the first congressional district...Thanks for nothing!!! Wake the fuck up for Christ Sakes. 

Jon_Locke's picture

But even that needs to have limits. Otherwise, you end up with insurance companies too big to fail. they should only be allowed to cross borders to neighboring states. That should provider ample competition.

In 1994, they changed the banking laws to "allow competition" by allowing them to cross state lines(if my source is correct). This contributed to the monstrosities of banking we have today.

N2OJoe's picture

1) Repeal in it's entirety

2) Sell across all state lines

3) Move on to something else

FireBrander's picture

"Sell across all state lines"

LOL...what the fuck is that going to solve?

Pray tell, which State has those "affordable" policies they can only sell in one state?

Dude, your plan is no plan.

FireBrander's picture

I've said this before and I'll say it again...there are 2 options here:



There is nothing in the middle; The cost of insurance, and the cost of what the insurance is paying for, is WAY BEYOND what people can afford. If you are not willing to SOLVE THAT PRICING PROBLEM, then the only other option is to pump more money into the system...THAT IS WHAT OBAMACARE IS ALL ABOUT...PUMPING MORE MONEY INTO THE SYSTEM!

Insurrector's picture

It's the cost of healthcare that is going up - the insurance companies just add on their percentage for profit.

FireBrander's picture

ObamaCare limits that profit to 20%...I didn't see where that would be kept in the new deal...UNLIMITED PROFITS will certainly go a long way to reducing prices (/sarc) in these monopolies.

Billy the Poet's picture

The insurers might raise the cost of every policy to a gazillion dollars. Then we will have to pay them a gazillion dollars each and they will be super rich.

But maybe there's something wrong with that premise.

Buckaroo Banzai's picture

You clearly don't understand "cost plus" business economics.

QUESTION: When your profit is limited by law to a fixed percentage markup on costs, how do you increase profits?

ANSWER: drive costs to the fucking moon.

shovelhead's picture


You don't like paying for birth control and sex change operations in your insurance coverage?

Whaddaya? Some kind of Commie?

stonehands's picture

Yeh sure, the innocent insurance company has my well- being in mind...pffft

Jim in MN's picture

I've said this before too.  But here it is again.

A Competitive ‘Big Bang’ for U.S. Health Care Reform: Joint Operations-Premium Yield (JOPY) Fund

February 2017   Washington D.C.

The 2016 Presidential election has created a unique moment in American politics.  The ground has shifted and the apple carts of both major parties, as well as the national media, have been upset. 

Health care is directly in the new Administration’s sights.  There is immense appetite for change.  If the next reforms fail, systemic collapse or a national single-payer scheme become by far the most likely outcomes.  Facing this extreme strategic risk, it is clear that the President-elect has an opportunity to bring in the executives of the Nation’s health care insurers, major care providers, and pharmaceutical firms.  He can make, and expect to win, very tough demands and come to very big deals with these executives.

The question is—what does he ask for?

Replacing the Affordable Care Act has been an elusive quest for the establishment Republicans.  On the Democratic side, a mix of timid incremental fixes rests uneasily with an urge to socialize the entire health care sector. 

Now is the time for a fresh proposal—one based on the fundamentally American and bipartisan tenets of liberty, free markets, and the quest for innovation.  A proposal that blows by the status quo and the short-sighted strategies of the industry powers that be.  A proposal, most importantly, that can be implemented quickly, offer premium relief to Americans, and create a permanent shift in an industry that makes up 20 percent of the U.S. economy.

The basis of this proposal is twofold: First, that the executives of the industries can and will make major changes under existential threat (indeed, this is the only means to induce such change); and second, that significant cost efficiencies are possible in health care delivery and administration, but have not been incentivized due to the baroque, opaque, and often nonsensical regulatory tangle that both stifles competition and allows profiteering to those who learn to game the system.

What the President-elect should demand is the creation of a $100 billion fund, paid for up front by the industry.  We call this the Joint Operations-Premium Yield fund or JOPY.  This fund would be used to pay the profits for those elements of the industry that demonstrate significant efficiency gains over the following three years.  In other words, profitability would become conditional on meeting performance targets, rather than gaming the system. 

For the first time, corporate boardrooms would be seeking lean and efficient cost structures rather than padding and gold plating (to inflate or hide excess profits).  Insurance companies, hospitals, medical partnerships, and patients would all share a common goal, to meet needs at the lowest cost.   In practice, the key notion is to embed bidding and arbitrage throughout the system.  At least five competitive sources should be sought, or if necessary created, for as many cost points as possible. Foreign providers and procedures should be allowed to compete in open marketplaces.  Rewards, bonuses and other incentives should be developed at many levels to spur innovation and efficiency.

 In this manner, one three-year ‘big bang’ would be the genesis of a culture of competition and, one can hope, excellence in service delivery.  The notion of a ‘big bang’ transition to competition is not unique to this proposal.  The finance and energy sectors in several disparate countries and regions, from the City of London to the Asian financial markets to the European electric power market, have used similar strategies.  This is the possibly unique time and political climate for the U.S. health care sector, and the American public, to seek the benefits of a tested yet radical approach to competition and reform.

But there will be another use of the $100 billion JOPY fund.  Immediate and significant premium relief for Americans can provide the Trump Administration (and bipartisan backers) with their critically needed big win.   It is also fair, and well deserved.  A $100 billion fund would be sufficient to bring $1,000 of premium relief to every American household.  But not all households use private insurance.  So even more would be available to those that do, at least $100 per month, perhaps double that. 

What if the industry succeeds in bringing competitive efficiency to play, but the JOPY fund has been used already for premium relief?  In that event, further sources of funds would be considered, such as a bond securitization.  But if this plan succeeds, so much productive investment and cost-cutting would be unleashed that industry profitability should be greatly enhanced.  Perhaps the JOPY fund is an investment that pays for itself.  The scale and inefficiency of the U.S. health care system today certainly suggests the possibility.

Other reforms are also called for.  Catastrophic care should be paid for directly via a Federal cost reimbursement model, with long term lifestyle and wellness approaches prioritized.  The ‘long tail’ of catastrophic risk needs to be cut off so the vast majority of Americans can have more choices, including the choice of no insurance coverage, in a normally functioning free market.  Incentives can be provided to make self-insuring against catastrophic risk an attractive deal, without forcing its purchase.

Pharmaceutical companies have been parasites on all of us for long enough.  The proposal outlined here is not for them.  The Trump Administration should simply demand an immediate discount sufficient to wipe out the past five years of excess revenue (not ‘profit’ since the drug firms tend to hide excess revenues in their research and development programs, among other games).  The new small-p politics of the big deal make this another immediate win that can, along with significant premium relief from the JOPY fund, turn a true guns and butter issue into a turning point in American political economy.

We offer this proposal for the use of all participants in the health care debate.  For an idea like this to succeed, industry participation is vital.  Congress and the Administration must work with the executive leadership of the health care industry—encompassing providers as well as insurers—to develop the JOPY funding mechanism, establish valid competitive performance metrics, and target interim premium relief.  States may need to participate, or under certain circumstances be asked to stand aside.  Profitability limits may need to be superseded as the transition takes place.  Structural change to allow or ensure depth of bidding markets for specific goods and services will be critical for long-term success.

Reform that delivers the power of competitive arbitrage in the service of greater efficiency is, simply, no longer an option in the U.S. health care system.  It is ‘do or die’.  By using the JOPY fund and the concepts already in practice in other economic sectors, we believe the time is ripe to ‘do’. 


--Publius Plorabilis

BeanusCountus's picture

You need to go see Trump, Mr Jim. Not sure whether it can all work but plenty of good thinking here to consider. You should be a party in coming up with the solution. Probably lots of politics that will make it hard. But do it.

Socratic Dog's picture

Sure Jim.  All we need is a new federal bureaucracy to be set up to plan, organize and evaluate it all.  More white coats looking over the shoulders of doctors and nurses.  That should fix it.

You can't centrally plan your way out of a pile of shit like this.  As the poster above said, accept status quo and keep shovelling money at it, or gut it.  There's nothing in between.

I favor gutting it.  Just like I favor gutting the centrally-planned state. It's going to happen eventually, like it or not, better to get it over with.  Let the chips fall where they may.

Zorba's idea's picture

Beyond the interesting propasal is the question...why would President Trump let such a spineless RINO run lead on perhaps the defining moment of his presidency.  Trump has to get out in front and lead. Get all the players together and advise them they can be part of a solution but not part of a failed healthcare system! Jump Ryan and the establishment pol's by visiting their respective states to whip up support for bonefied repeal and replacement with honest  and sustainable, affordable and unfettered HC. GET the FEDERAL's out of the HC rackett!

NAVIGATOR0832's picture

Need to get rid of the pre-existing conditions clause, otherwise it is no longer "insurance"  

BeanusCountus's picture

Gave you an up, after ripping ya last night. Sorry. But this one acknowledges that it's a cost thing that can't be shifted by magic. And it's right.

Akzed's picture



What if five states had one auto manufacturer selling cars in each? Maybe I don't understand your point.

Insurrector's picture

I think Trump is planning to get into the health insurance business.

Donald J. Trump's picture

I don't know how these insurance companies are structured, but it seems there are only a few monstrous insurance companies already, just different divisions for each region.  BCBS is in how many states?  Are they like independent franchises?

swmnguy's picture

Yes, they are independent franchises.

The reason insurance can't be sold across state lines is that the Insurance companies don't want to be supervised under the Interstate Commerce Clause and Anti-Trust laws.  One of the most cynical and disingenuous things they do is to pretend they're hamstrung by not being allowed to sell across state lines.

The insurance companies got the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1947 passed to prevent them from being under the Interstate Commerce Clause and Anti-Trust laws, and federal oversight.  They prefer to go state-by-state, as they are able to influence state regulatory boards much more effectively for the most part.  In some states, like my home state of Minnesota, state boards hold them to a higher standard.  In fact, Minnesota was among the states least affected by ACA, since we already had higher standards for policies than almost any other state.

Overall, it works to their advantage.  They ruthlessly prevent anyone from repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act.  The only reason they're even letting it be discussed now would be that they've gotten some sort of promise to be exempted from the laws that affect every other interstate business.

Withdrawn Sanction's picture

Banks, pre-1994, used to be the same way.  No branching across state lines, even for federally chartered banks.  It's supremely ironic in that the interstate commerce clause was always applied to goods (as in Maryland could not levy taxes on Virginia-produced goods), but it was never applied to banking (money being the lifeblood of commerce).  

Then, in the late 70s and the 80s, some states began relaxing their own internal rules against branching in neighboring states realizing the inefficiencies (at last) of a system that had held on since the 1790s.  Congress finally ran to the head of the parade that had left w/o them in 1994, passing the Riegle Neal Act finally authorizing interstate branching.  

BeanusCountus's picture

It will not help. Every carrier uses the same actuarial tables, adjusted for costs and trends by state, to arrive at what they charge. It will do nothing to reduce premiums.

Billy the Poet's picture

LOL...what the fuck is that going to solve?


I'm done doing folks thinking for them. Stop LOLing and think about the impact of increased competition, a larger marketplace and reduced regulation on prices. Then come back and discuss things like an adult.

FireBrander's picture

1. DO NOT WASTE Political Capital "repealing/replacing ObamaCare".

>Remove the mandate.

>Allow for high deductable catastrophe plans.

>Forget about the rest of it for now.



>Drugs costs - Total fucking ripoff.

>Up down, left right, prices are WAY TOO FUCKING HIGH!

>CUT THE COST of care and then it WILL BECOME "Affordable" all on it's own.



1. Break the connection between having a job and having insurance...totally STRANGLES ENTREPRENEURISM!

2. Insurers should pool people by state/region/etc...NOT BY COMPANY or INDIVIDUAL that results in WILD/EXTREEM price difference for the SAME PRODUCT!

Akzed's picture

But that would disrupt the insurance fiefdoms the two parties have constructed in the states, silly.

BrownCoat's picture

Perhaps the simplest thing is to repeal Obamacare NOW. They can worry about the shakedowns and bribes in other legislation.

BrownCoat's picture

And... perhaps after repealing Obamacare entirely, they can eliminate the Dept. of Education and the EPA.

crossroaddemon's picture

The fallout from a straight repeal would be way worse than you think. I'm guessing Trump wouldn't even complete his first term.

John_Coltrane's picture

The intersection of the sets of
1)People who benefit from Obamacare and
2)People who voted for Trump
Is the null set.
So just cut off the mandate, all taxes and the subsidies via reconciliation, let the phoney "private insurance" exchanges collapse quickly and then

Move on to the 2018 mid-terms when the repeal of the mandates will be rewarded by the same 2/3 majority we now enjoy among governors in the senate too: a filibuster proof 60 votes! Then all the regulations and other parts of this 2000 page horrorshow can be stripped from the books forever. Eliminated along with the Dept of Education, Energy, and the TSA-for starters. For now, patience grasshoppers-the welfare state cannot be deconstructed in a day. We all know the key: elimination of the anticompetitive cartel known as the FED.

Let the donning of KKK protest uniforms by libtard feminazis and generalized snowflake whining begin right now until 2018. We have our popcorn and beer for the fake news MSM protest coverage.