Ron Paul: Obamacare Repeal Or Obamacare 2.0?

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

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 entirely 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?

Unfortunately the bill’s positive aspects are more than outweighed by its failure to repeal Obamacare's regulations and price controls. Like all price controls, Obamacare distorts the signals that a freely functioning marketplace sends to consumers and producers, thus guaranteeing chaos in the marketplace. The result of this chaos is higher prices, reduced supply, and lowered quality.

Two particularly insidious Obamacare regulations are guaranteed issue and community ratings. As the name suggests, guaranteed issue forces health insurance companies to issue a health insurance policy to anyone who applies for coverage. Community ratings forces health insurance companies to charge an obese couch potato and a physically-fit jogger similar premiums. This forces the jogger to subsidize the couch potato’s unhealthy lifestyle.

Obamacare’s individual mandate was put in place to ensure that guaranteed issue and community ratings would not drive health insurance companies out of business. Rather than repealing guaranteed issue and community ratings, the House Republicans’ plan forces those who go longer than two months without health insurance to pay a penalty to health insurance companies when they purchase new policies.

It is hard to feel sympathy for the insurance companies since they supported Obamacare. These companies were eager to accept government regulations in exchange for a mandate that individuals buy their product. But we should feel sympathy for Americans who are struggling to afford, or even obtain, healthcare because of Obamacare and who will obtain little or no relief from Obamacare 2.0.

The underlying problem with the Republican proposal is philosophical. The plan put forth by the alleged pro-free-market Republicans implicitly accepts the premise that healthcare is a right that must be provided by government. But rights are inalienable aspects of our humanity, not gifts from government.

If government can give us rights, then it can also limit or even take away those rights. Giving government power to enforce a fictitious right to healthcare justifies government theft and coercion. Thievery and violence do not suddenly become moral when carried out by governments.

Treating healthcare as a right leads to government intervention, which, as we have seen, inevitably leads to higher prices and lower quality. This is why, with the exception of those specialties, like plastic surgery, that are still treated as goods, not rights, healthcare is one of the few areas where innovation leads to increased costs.

America’s healthcare system will only be fixed when a critical mass of people rejects the philosophical and economic fallacies justifying government-run healthcare. Those of us who know the truth must continue to work to spread the ideas of, and grow the movement for, liberty.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
xythras's picture
xythras (not verified) Mar 20, 2017 9:19 PM

Question is, DOES Trump Family trust it to use it on their very own, or not?

They'll have the opportunity soon:

First Family is Getting Bigger: Eric and Lara Trump are Expecting a Baby Boy


I'm pretty sure NOT, therefore scrap it.

Dyler_Turden's picture

Trump doesn't need healthcare. He eats the veal burnt and with ketchup. 

That's how you keep in shape.

beemasters's picture

"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."

Letting the (equally) irresponsible vampires keep the money is supposed to be positive??? How? Another ponzi scheme, if you ask me.

Art Van Delay's picture

Everything ran by the gov is Ponzi scheme.

MagicHandPuppet's picture

Dr. Paul is right... again.  It's just too bad there aren't more "republicans" who have similarly good sense and ethically sound positions.

techies-r-us's picture
techies-r-us (not verified) MagicHandPuppet Mar 20, 2017 10:03 PM

Agree. Unfortunately, the long arm of government is much longer than Ron Paul's.

stizazz's picture

Whatever government touches ends up worse. I guess it's that loooooong arm.

wee-weed up's picture

Yep, that cartoon shows exactly the way the vile Dims designed ObozoCare - just like a giant malignant tumor that would kill the patient if anyone ever  tried to remove it. Despicable bastards!

JamesBond's picture

If you accessed your homeowners insurance policy for a leaky faucet, warped baseboard, and then a lost shinge, they would cancel your policy.  Food for thought.



cue in cue's picture
cue in cue (not verified) JamesBond Mar 21, 2017 7:14 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...

red1chief's picture

You are on the right board, a lot of people here will jump at your great opportunity!

red1chief's picture

Yes, ethically sound to not call for the reimportation of drugs... He's a good talker and makes some sense on a few things, but just more controlled opposition.

Arnold's picture

The Pauls are commies, John McCain told me so.

red1chief's picture

...And you're smart, so you'd never get involved with a Ponzi scheme. Better ditch that Social Security and Medicare, it's just Ponzi. George Costanza would approve.

thesonandheir's picture

Free market health care 


Single payer NHS UK style 





What do you Yanks want? To me it seems easier to go for single payer now as that's all Ocare was supposed to be the wedge for.

DaveA's picture

Do both, Australia-style, but the free-market patients enter through a different door and go straight to the doctor, without even seeing the single-payer waiting room.

Forcing your paying customers to wait in line next to the moochers they're subsidizing is a great way to go bankrupt, because those paying customers are usually healthy enough to fly to another country and get prompt medical attention for a fraction of the cost, even including airfare.

Big Hugh's picture

As long as the "single payer" is the patient.

Giant Meteor's picture

I be more in favor of hooking up bicycle to run the utilities meter in reverse .. Americans shed weight, health care expenses plummet. But fucking handing over more chips for the squids to gamble with ..

You bet your ass its a Ponzi scheme, as is everything else ..underwritten by the "dolla" ..

Still, I say let her ride, let the whole thing tap out on one bad throw ..

The sooner, the better ..

philipat's picture

And BTW, can we please ensure that whatever the outcome, Congress has to live by the same Regulation as we ordinary plebs. WIth Obamacre, they are exempt and don't have to use it.

red1chief's picture

They get government single-payer, and always will.

Shaten's picture

sadly this isn't fully true.


over the LIFETIME of a patient, smokers, overweight, etc cost around 120,000 less to insure. The majority of cost is in the final years and healthy people linger longer.


So it is actually in the federal government's best intrest to not have health people as it saves them on medical cost and retirement cost.

Giant Meteor's picture

Ah you caught me. Well, it was a nice thought anyway.

Top of the mornin too ya !

runswithscissors's picture

Can I at least buy "medical" weed with my HSA?

red1chief's picture

Actually to them it is not equally irresponsible, as the point is to shift the government largesse more toward the rich.

Zorba's idea's picture

Agreed! much of the non subsidized insured are paying premium + dedectibles that are as much as their mortgages or rent. All for for decapitated best 80/20...more and more common 65/35. HC american style is a sham most americans understand. If we can figure out how to keep our whores in CONgress from rolling over on their backs for the corporate piggies I believe we could fix HC. Unfortunately, CONgress has been auctioned off to the highest bidders and our Constitution is "of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations". The coup de gras to all of this corruption was our "Supremes" creatiing corporate citizens out of mortar and balance sheets. Term limits, campaign finance reform and electoral reform is one avenue to cleaning house. The "Freedom caucus" could become another avenue to constructing our own internal "brexit" from the oligarchs, elitist and deep staters. Last but not least, it could come down to a bloody insurrection if all this corruption remains irreconciable within the captured system. Without Repeal, any talk of reform is a lie and will perpetuate this broken unsustainable racket. In a couple of decades, instead of two jobs to pay for HC, we'll be auctioning off our grandchildren to the highest bidders. Imagine that! Seriously, imagine that.

Art Van Delay's picture

I trust Ron Paul any day over those rotten GOP members

ne-tiger's picture

I respect Dr. Paul. But there are only 2 solutions, either:

1) single payer

2) Money out of personal pocket.

Either way, we have to get rid of for profit insurance comapnies.

Billy the Poet's picture

What if I'm just plain stupid with money to burn and I want to buy some insurance CEO a new towel rack for his cabana? Do you propose to stop me from doing so?

red1chief's picture

You said it best, I think you are plain stupid. But you need money first in order to have it to burn, so I doubt that part.

Billy the Poet's picture

Has it ever occurred to you that some of the 300 million individuals in this country might chose to spend their money and attend to their medical needs in ways other than you would? And yet you insist, "No one should be allowed to purchase medical insurance!"

Oh, and did I mention, fuck you?

red1chief's picture

I did not insist that ""No one should be allowed to purchase medical insurance!" that's a lie. And most in the country favor single-payer, it's the most efficient. In countries such as Britain there are cheap private supplemental plans, still overall less expensive. 


Typical troll using "F" words after a lost argument. I will not pay you when you pop out from under the bridge anymore, or when you get sick.

QuantumEasing's picture

Wow, nothing brings out the leftist trolls like the galvanic death spasms of OblahblahScare.

red1chief's picture

The Republicans are actually considering single-payer, as under the current circumstances it is the best outcome. 

Billy the Poet's picture

I'd consider making you the single payer.

red1chief's picture

I pretty much am, with all the freeloaders out there who don't buy insurance and head to the emergency room. They cry about a mandate, but are glad for the "free" care when they get sick. They are probably bankrupt anyway, or brainwashed wing-nuts. 

Billy the Poet's picture

Then we agree. You will pay for everyone's medical needs and so ends the debate. Finally, a redistributionist who is willing to put his money where his mouth is.

red1chief's picture

Single-payer would lower costs for most, with better outcomes. Ignorance is holding it back. You guys just don't get the fact that the government is the best solution for healthcare. It's not the same as if the government owned the grocery stores and the car companies. Problem with so many wing-nuts is they think everything is black and white.

red1chief's picture

Single-payer would lower costs for most, with better outcomes. Ignorance is holding it back. You guys just don't get the fact that the government is the best solution for healthcare. It's not the same as if the government owned the grocery stores and the car companies. Problem with so many wing-nuts is they think everything is black and white.

just the tip's picture

upvoted you for the emergency room reference.   when it became law that a hospital had to treat you regardless of your ability to pay, that was the camel's nose under the tent.  that is what drove some hospitals to bankruptcy, that and illegals just not paying.  if you show up at an emergency room it damn well better be an emergency pedro.

Billy the Poet's picture

when it became law that a hospital had to treat you regardless of your ability to pay, that was the camel's nose under the tent.


If you agree that government intervention caused the problem then I hope you're not looking for a government solution like so called single payer.

Abbie Normal's picture

healthcare, education, defense -- three areas that are not intended For-Profit

ZD1's picture

No on the single payer big government control of healthcare. 


How about getting big government and for profit insurance companies out of health care completely?

Mustafa Kemal's picture

This would easily be solved if congress would get the same health care plan that we do.

Zorba's idea's picture

The people should rise up and mandate that...oh bother

QuantumEasing's picture

Xythras, go cuddle a barracuda.

And the worst part of Obamacare was the penalty for not purchasing a product.

red1chief's picture

I take it you don't purchase the product? Why should I pay when you get sick? Freeloaders heading to the emergency room are another reason for the high costs.

Billy the Poet's picture

Lots of folks don't feel the need for medical insurance and pay their own way. But you can probably find a reason to complain about that too.

red1chief's picture

Lots of folks don't, that' a lie. Insurance companies negotiate prices much lower than the "rack rate". Paying full price is a much faster way to BK, unless you already are.

QuantumEasing's picture

I fix myself. You don't pay for anything.