House Conservatives Unveil Plan to Replace Obamacare

House conservatives offered their plan Thursday for repealing President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul and replacing it with tax breaks and other changes.

But they're divided over whether to replace Obamacare's subsidies for lower-earning people should the Supreme Court annul them this month, underscoring potential problems ahead for the GOP.

The Republican Study Committee, which represents about 170 conservative GOP House members, would void Obama's 2010 law and create new tax deductions, let small businesses create pools for buying coverage, make it harder to sue doctors and create a $15 billion fund for federal medical research.

The bill makes no mention of healthcare subsidies that millions of Americans get under Obama's law.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on a case brought by conservatives asserting that subsidies the administration is paying to millions of people in more than 30 states are illegal. They say the law limited the aid to people in states that create their own insurance marketplaces, not those that use the federal government's HealthCare.gov website.

GOP congressional leaders have been working behind the scenes to craft legislation that would temporarily replace those subsidies should the court strike them down, while curbing some of the statute's coverage requirements. They have yet to find unity behind such a plan, which they say they will unveil after the court issues its decision.



Read more: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Congress-Health-Overhaul/2015/0... 

Views: 290

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

What is wrong with the idiots who we send to Washington ?  Even the so called Conservatives ?

REPLACE  say what?

how about just Eliminate and let States or individuals decide ~

Get out of my business and my pocket ! 

RID US OF IT.

Can these bstards be forced to take a constitution class?  HOW STUPID ARE THEY!!

We never needed Obama(don't)care anyway...every state already had its own medical assistance program established in some form or other.  I wish the R's would just get the feds out of it all together, abolish the wrongly-called ACA and let the states handle it again.  Again, language such as  "make it harder to sue doctors" will be seen by many low-info voters as favoring the rich over the poor and work against the R's at election time.

Obama care loved by thousands,hated by millions.

We don't want it replaced  as millions has said and screamed  we want it replace with common sense alternatives.  Work with doctors and hospitals etc to get the exact answer for all.  GIven this is a huge undertaking - I doubt any party will even try.  We are all forced to buy something we don't want and had ripped away that which we were happy with.  It was cruel and death panels are never acceptable.

It aint that freakin hard to have a plan , You better come up with something , youre gonna look STUPID if you dont , what about buying insurance across state lines , make the ins business competirive  to bring down rates . Come up with something or pack your bags , youre going out with obamacare and the trash , Were sick of your incompetence .

Why should anyone get subsidies. Most of us cannot get a subsidy. We make too much money (HA HA HA)

We had a medical system before that needed to some reform but still enabled people to sign up for Medicaid in their own states. All states had that available. Now its sooo screwed up who knows whats going to happen.

The email for this thread said, "Democrats passed Obamacare with not one Repub vote. Shouldn't the Repubs just let it lapse?" How can a law lapse unless there is an expiration clause in the law?  I've never seen an expiration date in PLAW-111publ148 (the Obamacare law).

Think about this:  Would you rather have some healthcare supported by government (state or federal) or Hillary Clinton for 4-8 years? Whatever deal the GOP proposes has to somehow cover the poor and allow for treatment ore-existing conditions in some way, form or fashion.  Failure to have a viable way to do it is about 120% guaranteed to give the presidency to Clinton if she is not jailed first. And if the Obamacare replacement does not clearly help the poor, it won't make any difference if Hillary is in jail or not. The left will win again, and that will be the end of our freedom, unless there is a civil war. We will end up with single payer - every single taxpayer pays for every one who doesn't pay...it might be worse than Obamacare (if that's possible) and it will be called Hillarycare, naturally.   For those who want a complete market solution without any consideration for the poor, I have yet to see anyone propose a way to do it that will show the GOP as "caring".  I don't particularly care about being seen as "caring", but I do care about the votes in 2016, because I care a lot about retaining freedom (rather getting it back). I'd like the government out of it completely, but there are too many voters that do not understand anything about economics, and they do not care when they need medical treatment. Just try saying that some people will not get health care because they can't pay and see the reaction.  If the GOP and the actuarials can figure out a market solution that gives some kind of coverage to the poor with them paying some nominal amount for normal care and emergency care to avoid wasting the time of medical staff   that would be great, but I will believe it when I see it.

There was nothing wrong with our insurance system before Obama showed up,he screwed up everything,take the Government out of our business,they manipulate every thing in our life

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Al Goodwyn

ALERT ALERT

Gohmert: Dems Will Drag Out Impeachment — Try To Get ‘Best Socialist’ Nominated For President

During an appearance on Huntsville, AL radio’s WVNN on Thursday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) offered his best assessment of what House Democrats were trying to accomplish with their impeachment efforts.

Gohmert told WVNN’s “The Jeff Poor Show” impeachment could tie up the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign efforts but predicted Democrats would use the occasion to nominate “the best socialist” they can.

“They would lose in the Senate,” Gohmert said on impeachment. “And besides that, the entire time it was on trial in the Senate, the Democrats who are running for president wouldn’t be allowed to campaign. That’s in the Constitution. They wouldn’t be able to campaign. I just can’t imagine them wanting to do that because if they send it to the Senate, they have now perfectly set up the scenario of 1996, where they will reassure Donald Trump is reelected as president. They don’t want to do that. They’re probably going to drag this thing out as long as they possibly can … through Iowa, through primaries — try to get the best socialist they can to be nominated.”

“Then just end up and say, ‘Now we’re close enough to the general election. We’ve thrown mud at the president through the House,’” he continued. “What they’re really doing — they’re using taxpayer funds to campaign against Trump. That’s all this is — a campaign fund that taxpayers are paying for in order to try to throw mud at the president. I’ll be surprised if they have that vote, but I can’t imagine they want to set up this president for reelection by having a trial in the Senate where they lose.”

Veteran's Day Tribute

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service