Politics

The First Step to Replace Obamacare

The First Step to Replace Obamacare and Get the Federal Government Out of the Healthcare Business

Senator Chuck Schumer made some news when he said you can’t just repeal Obamacare or there will be chaos. He has made a good point; a replacement plan must first be put in place to allow a gradual transition from the disastrous government oriented program to a patient/doctor focused plan. Here is how it will work.

Trumpcare, as it may soon be called, will begin with creating a new, super Health Savings Account (HSA), that will encompass all the health care needs of the patient.

The HSA will consist of three parts, a local doctor (Direct Primary Care Physician), a large deductible catastrophic health insurance plan and a savings account. The patient picks a local doctor whose practice operates by charging a set monthly fee that includes regular visits, checkups, shots and basic medical tests- with no deductible or co-payment. A typical fee would be approximately $100 per month for an individual with slight additional fees to cover a spouse and children.

Direct Primary Care doctors are the fastest growing practices in health care. Several years ago, there were only 400 such practices but today they number over well over 4,000. The reason they are flourishing is because these offices reduce the cost of operating, allow the doctors to spend their time with patients while increasing their earnings. Obamacare and insurance companies impose a terrible burden of paperwork on doctors, Direct Primary care all but eliminates the paperwork!

When a patient purchases an HSA, the monthly fee is automatically sent to the doctor eliminating the need to send bills. Likewise, the monthly premium for the high deductible insurance policy is automatically paid to the insurance carrier.

One of the problems with Obamacare is that even when there is coverage, the patient faces a huge deductible, often $6,000 or more before insurance coverage kicks in.

Here is where the savings part of the HSA comes into play. The purpose of the savings account is to accumulate money to cover the cost of the deductible that comes with the insurance policy. For example, if $200 per month is deposited in the savings part of the HSA, $2,400 per year is saved. In less than three years enough money is saved to pay for a $6,000 deductible on a typical insurance policy. Should there not be enough savings at a time when a major-medical procedure is required, an automatic loan provision is triggered to cover the shortage. The loan would be paid off by applying part of future savings account deposits to the loan balance.

The monthly cost for a comprehensive HSA for a middle-aged person in Florida would be approximately $550, broken down like this; $115 for a Direct Primary Care physician, $255 for the high deductible health insurance policy and $180 for the savings account.

Individuals, couples and families could immediately begin enrolling in HSA’s as soon as enabling legislation is passed that allows a tax deduction for these new plans. Of course, insurance companies would have to file new plans in the various states which would greatly streamline their normal approval processes.

Group HSA plans would be available where employers could contribute a portion of the monthly cost. These plans would be much more affordable to both the worker and the employer than present plans. In addition, workers with low incomes would be eligible to have government subsidies to help pay for their portion of the HSA’s.

Trumpcare would be phased in so eventually most Americans would have an HSA that covers them for routine visits to their local doctor with no copayments for visits, and complete coverage for surgeries without having to pay any out of pocket deductible.

This is the first in a series of articles that outlines how Trumpcare could revolutionize our health care. Next, how to reduce health care costs through the free marketplace.

Dan Weber is president of AMAC (The 1.3 million-member Association of Mature American Citizens).


If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!


Subscribe
Notify of
48 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Larry
5 years ago

AMAC should join with Dr/ Sen Rand Paul and find out what they could save 50-64 year olds if they banded together and went to market as a group for insurance.

Jarhead
5 years ago

Get FED/GOV out of the Health Insurance BUSINESS……defund ACA and VA immediately. Both useless & massively corrupt.

Olive Devine
5 years ago

I don’t like the idea of replacing the ACA with an almost identical plan with the name changed to Trumpcare. The fastest growing area in healthcare is “Concierge Doctors.” Of course that would not work for many people. So there will be vouchers/allowance for primary care doctors, what about specialists and specialty areas of medicine? Why is it necessary to introduce the deductible amount of $6,000-? That is part of the problem created by the ACA. I certainly hope the Republicans can come up with something better. Maybe we should go back to “fee for service” healthcare.

Rik
5 years ago

What Republicans should say, … Eh, Mz. Pelosi, now that we’ve read it, and YOU PEOPLE implemented it, IT STINKS!!! … And it’s got to go in its entirety! … Free market Capitalism reigns supreme Mz Pelosi/Begossi, go cry in your spaghetti.

Wayne Peterkin
5 years ago

The biggest missing item in the discussion is really serious Tort Reform. There is simply no excuse for a doctor having to pay from $100,000 – $200,000 out of pocket annually for malpractice insurance! Every dollar of that cost along with the high expense for office facilities and nurses/administrative people is passed on in the doctor’s fees as they must be. The same comparable liability insurance rates are borne by hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. Why? Only to help make lawyers wealthy. Proof? Watch TV on any day and listen to the ambulance chaser’s ads. “Call us and we’ll get you the settlement you deserve.” It’s madness and it must stop. Real medical costs could drop, and perhaps by a substantial amount, with serious Tort Reform. That reform could include the complete elimination of “pain and suffering” awards and strict limitations on what a lawyer can take in fees. In addition, if the government were to have any role at all, perhaps they could provide alternative liability insurance to health care providers, but I really don’t favor government involvement at all. Truly bad doctors should have their licenses revoked! One possible avenue for repeal of Obamacare is to set a series of stages where Obamacare is gradually erased along with a set timetable by which any replacement legislation must be in place with no extensions. If the Democrats really care about the public, force them to get on board with whatever replaces Obamacare and work to make a new plan workable. Obamacare is a disgrace of historic proportions!

Judy - Kalamazoo, MI
5 years ago

How absolutely ingenious! R.I.N.O. II…..!!! :) I watched the most frightening documentary the other day which is a follow-up
to two previous ones: “Agenda” and “Agenda 2 – Masters of Deceit” both by former Senator C. Bowers. Contact the following:
AgendaDocumentary.com. Bulk pricing is available on these and the next one that nearly made me physically ill as to what’s
happening to what’s left of our nation. If you watch anything & share with folks who care about our nation’s survival, go to:
http://www.EnemiesWithinMovie.com & be prepared for the unprepared you’re going to learn. This health care, SS and such is just
chicken feed to what this last listed dvd has to offer. All three hinge one upon another, but the last one was 20-years in the
making. I wish ALL the conservative talk show hosts with their vast followings would especially view this last one & then get
started on informing the masses who’ll never read this post. Respectfully submitted………………………………..

Rick
5 years ago

May be time to start looking for a true conservative alternative to AARP – AMAC doesn’t seem to remember they’re supposed to be it!

Peter
5 years ago

The first and easiest thing for the government to do is eliminate the penalties for not having insurance/Obamacare. People then would do as they please and in affect destroy this terrible law.

Noelle Levesque
5 years ago

“Senator Chuck Schumer made some news when he said you can’t just repeal Obamacare or there will be chaos.”
NO THERE WILL NOT BE CHOS!
THE CORRUPT AN TYRANNICAL US GOVT HAS OT RIGHT OR ROLE TO CONTROL HEALTHCARE!
ENOUGH WITH THE BS! REPEAL AND NEVER REPLACE THE ACA AKA OBAMACARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Noelle Levesque
5 years ago

Chaos*
We ALL must RISE UP and tell Congress TO NEVER REPLACE THE ACA BUT REPEAL THE WHOLE THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO where in the Constitution does it GIVE CONGRESS THIS POWER!!!!!!!!!!

Wayne Peterkin
5 years ago

Healthcare costs are not likely to decrease very much as long as healthcare providers are paying vast sums for liability insurance. When a doctor is forced to pay between $100,000 and $200,000 per year for malpractice insurance he/she cannot reduce their fees all that much! The same is true for hospitals, pharmaceuticals, medical device manufacturers, etc.

Major Tort Reform is absolutely required to help bring down real medical costs no matter how much the stinking lawyer lobby hates that and they will fight it tooth and nail. There is a reason the Democrats are sometimes called the Trial Lawyers Party and why they avoided all discussion of tort reform when cramming Obamacare down our throats! The ambulance-chasing devils are dominating our television advertising these days so we know its a big deal!

Competition among insurers is also needed of course, and that appears to be part of the reforms being considered already. Insurance marketing across state lines with standardized policies can help reduce insurance costs, but those costs will remain relatively high unless the actual medical costs are reduced; so I’m back to the major tort reform requirement. If insurers can pay less to the providers because fees were reduced and there is competition among insurers, then insurance costs can be reduced. Seems pretty simple to me.

Then we have to address the popular Obamacare options like “free” preventative care, Preexisting condition coverage, no lifetime maximums, and the ability to keep offspring on parents’ insurance until nearly middle-age. Every one of these niceties add cost to the insurance companies and those costs are passed down to policy holders in higher premiums. The Democrats presented these added benefits with Obamacare as if they were free (which may be why they seem popular), and we know they are not free at all. We pay for every one of those benefits and I suspect the cost to each of us is significant.

So, I suggest the following:

Honestly quantify the cost of each of those benefits. Determine how much is added to every health insurance premium for each one of those things and tell every American what that cost is. Then leave it up to them, perhaps even in a national referendum, to determine whether they are willing to pay that additional cost. Let the people decide whether those benefits are worth it to them. If the people decide, for example, that the preexisting condition coverage is not worth the cost, perhaps some government assistance could be considered to help those with life-threatening conditions afford treatment. But that must be a last resort.

It could even be left to each state to decide if the added cost were appended as a rider on the health insurance premiums in a state that chose the added coverage. Example: If California chose the preexisting condition coverage and Texas did not, then California health insurance premiums could have a percentage added to premiums to cover that cost and Texas would not.

There are free market solutions without socialized medicine. We need to implement them. After all, this is America, not Cuba.

PaulE
5 years ago
Reply to  Wayne Peterkin

Very well articulated. You are absolutely correct on all points. Get the federal government OUT of health care insurance. The only thing I expect from the federal government is to pass a law that cleans up our tort mess, so the excessive surcharge (massively high insurance rates at the provider level) and pass through to the patient is wrung out of the system. The pre-existing conditions issue is a relatively cheap and easy stand alone fix to accomplish. So that one is simple and doesn’t entail up-ending the whole health care insurance market.

It is up to individual states to set the parameters for the policies sold in each state. Those parameters should be minimal, with individuals able to do a la carte add-ons for whatever they deem necessary for themselves. That way insurance cost reflects one’s need, rather than everyone being forced to pay for mandated items of no value to them so someone else can get this coverage at little or no cost to them. That would allow blue states like New York or California, if voters there were dumb enough to agree to it, to lard up their healthcare insurance policies with everything and make policies sold in those states completely unaffordable. Thus they would own the consequences of their choices. At the same time, the rest of the country could have affordable health care insurance again.

By the way, after a few years of completely unaffordable insurance in those nice, progressive blue states, the residents of those states that object to the socialist Utopia can either revolt and change things or move out and leave those states to implode economically. Either way is a win-win for the country as a whole.

film-buff
5 years ago

Sounds like garbage to me! Nothing more than bureaucratic government interference with capital market sales. Here’s what should take place instead of this garbage plan. Keep the ACA grandfathered in until peoples policies expire as well as allowing insurance companies to operate in all 50 states. Make the insurance companies compete for business because this, and only this will force the greedy and crooked insurance companies to perform to a level of moral and ethical standards, something they don’t do now and won’t do under an HSA plan. Capitalism brought the USA to the top of the economic world power and if continued to be used, can and will do the same thing again. If people can’t afford insurance, well then too bad…they don’t get insurance. I don’t see any other business sector where people that can’t afford to purchase a product are given concessions so they can still have the product. Insurance should be no different. Slowly all ACA policies will expire and if a capitalist insurance driven market is done correctly, these individuals should then be able to purchase a plan as then plans should be reasonably priced.
One more thing, DO NOT FORCE THIS, OR ANY OTHER INSURANCE PROCEDURE ON THE AMERICAN CITIZENS!

Monty
5 years ago

The article states, “The patient picks a local doctor whose practice operates by charging a set monthly fee that includes regular visits, checkups, shots and basic medical tests- with no deductible or co-payment. A typical fee would be approximately $100 per month for an individual with slight additional fees to cover a spouse and children.” What!? Most people do not go to a primary care doctor every month. That’s a horrible plan.

Barbara
5 years ago

What is wrong with going back to market priced health insurance? Create a pool of fund for the high risk, uninsurable… i.e. 10% of our population? More people have been pushed into Medicaid because of the unaffordable Obamacare. Enable people to purchase health insurance across state lines, policies suitable for themselves &/or families. I, too, want Government out of our healthcare. Also, look are Pharmacist Benefit Managers…talk about anti-trust laws & market manipulation!
Look at London’s hospital problem….our leaders are only dragging us towards single payor.
Personally, if they don’t get this repealed & replaced before mid term elections, it will never happen, &, the GOP cannot count on my vote then. They’ve had 6 +years to come up with something to fix this very bad legislation… oh, by the way, ALL people in this country must participate in the same plan. No more ELITE status in our politicians…this is so un-American

Felicia
5 years ago

I agree with some of the comments already posted. But, I go even further. Why can’t we get the government completely out of health insurance. I can remember when I worked at a hospital during the 1950’s. People either had private insurance which they chose and paid for or they paid their bills themselves. It really seemed to work. I can’t remember what happened to the people who literally did not have the money to pay. But, today, 2017, too many people “can’t afford” health insurance simply because of priorities. They must be forced to make it a priority (higher than phones, and all the other non-essential items).

PaulE
5 years ago
Reply to  Felicia

Exactly! The federal government should NOT be in the healthcare insurance business Felicia.

Trap
5 years ago
Reply to  Felicia

Felicia, back around 1978 or so a friend of mine and his wife had a baby. they lived in the village of Circle. he did not have the money to pay but they let him set up a payment plan. each month he sent whatever it was and all was good. IMO if we could stop the bogus lawsuits it would go a long way to lowering HC cost.

Also I was under the impression that under ACA one could not pay cash for medical services?? anyone?

God Bless America
Trap

Lois M
5 years ago

AMAC needs to be behind complete repeal of Obamacare – the federal government should not be involved in healthcare for the general population. They are having enough problems trying to care for Vets. Each state has an insurance department that can handle regulation of insurance companies and policies for healthcare coverage. Then, it is up to each individual to take responsibility for his and his family’s healthcare needs.

Trap
5 years ago
Reply to  Lois M

Lois M, I agree. I was not at all happy with AMAC talking points about HC when they meet with Trumps team. Get the Gov’t out of our lives.

God Bless America
Trap

Carol
5 years ago

I agree with all the other commentors out here. Government DOESN’T belong in healthcare at all! What this current plan does is still make healthcare unaffordable for the majority of Americans! I thought the Republicans had a plan, Tom Price had one, that was market driven. Let us choose what we want from a multitude of options! This HSA says NOTHING about drug costs! My workplace has an HSA but it won’t work for me because I would have to pay for ALL my perscription costs and some of my drugs cost more than my house payment! This one size fits all crap promoted by Government doesn’t work, won’t do anything to bring down the cost of healthcare, and keeps power in the hands of the politicans! So much for making America great!

Mike M
5 years ago

I’ve never been an ARRP member because I’m not a socialist. I joined AMAC a number of years ago because it was a non left organization supporting retirees. I was shocked when I read THIS PROPOSAL and agree with the 6 comments listed before i wrote this reply.

Hen3ry H
5 years ago
Reply to  Mike M

I left AARP because of their support of the ACA.
And told them so when they were trying to get me to renew.
It was fun watching them try to explain their thinking.
I also made it to the the capitol for the demonstrations against the ACA that Michele Bachman organized.
Including the day Pelosi just had to walk through the crowd holding on to her gavel.
The demonstrators were loud but well behaved.
But Pelosi and Schumer are just going to dig in their heels to hold on to government power regardless of the will of the citizens.
That is not good behavior.

PaulE
5 years ago

Wow! So now AMAC is siding with Chuck Schumer and even using the language of Trumpcare that the Democrats have whipped up. Speaks volumes if anyone is reading this article closely.

Tom Wilde
5 years ago

Okay, it’s not the Communist inspired ObamaCare. But isn’t it still government managed health care? Our national health care started falling apart when the government started mandating changes. I don’t see where this changes any of that.

There are no doubt a few things that ought to be fixed but don’t fix the wired down throttle by welding it down.

PaulE
5 years ago
Reply to  Tom Wilde

Yes Tom, AMAC is essentially pushing a government managed, government controlled model of national healthcare insurance with a few minor tweeks. That has been their proposed solution that they have been pushing all over Washington, D.C. for over a year now. They’ve just threw in a HSA to divert people’s attention from the fact that their solution really doesn’t do anything to bring down ever-rising healthcare insurance costs.

Howard Last
5 years ago

One item is missing from the article, that is to get the government out of healthcare totally. The government has no legitimate business being in healthcare. We have a perfect example of what happens when the government gets involved, case in point Social Security. If SS is so great how come it is not voluntary? Did Bernie Madoff put a gun to anyone’s head and say give me your money? But SS is a different item, don’t pay your FICA and see what happens. How come Madoff is in jail and the politicians are not? I was self employed and invested the same approximately the same amount as FICA in my own retirement plan and am now getting a return an order of magnitude greater than SS. Healthcare is just the same. BTW, which Section of the Constitution gives the Federal Government any say on healthcare?

Boyd
5 years ago
Reply to  Howard Last

Howard Last’s comment is an example of why I pay dues to AMAC. Clear thinking, cutting right through all the political traps. It is truly audacious of the political left to say “You change it, you own it.” The ACA was all garbage in the first place, an unfair effort to redistribute resources and wealth (where there’s any remaining.” Why is it necessary to replace an unconstitutional incursion into individual rights with something else that would probably be just as onerous?

PaulE
5 years ago
Reply to  Howard Last

Howard,

If you read the AMAC solution to Obamacare, it is essentially Obamacare with an HSA and a few minor tweeks. I agree with you, that the objective should be to restore the private healthcare insurance market. Not worry about preserving the market-distorting and cost escalating aspects of Obamacare in any proposed alternative solution.

As to your point with SS, I also agree with you on that as well. I also did the same thing and the end result is that my private retirement plan generates a return in both real dollars and rate of return far beyond SS. Government does very little well, which is why the Founding Fathers sought to minimize the size and scope of the federal government.

Lincoln W Sorensen
5 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

Had SS been managed and not plundered by politicians, it would have been sufficiently funded through the good times and the annual cola’s would have been realistic to keep up with inflation. Seniors would be receiving monthly benefits which would provide a good quality of life, so they could occasionally travel, eat out, enjoy entertainment, and even occasionally trade up their automobile. All this would be improving the economy. I resent the constant referral by politicians on both sides of the aisle to SS as just another welfare product. SS is paid for by every working citizen, and should not have been robbed to place into the general fund so the administration at the time could claim they balanced the budget.

PaulE
5 years ago

A Progressive Democrat created SS (FDR) and another Progressive Democrat (LBJ) plundered it. The average annual real rate of return on the SS tax money collected and managed by the SS adminisration for the last 50 years has been between 1 and 2 percent. That is a pitiful performance by any stretch of the imagination. By contrast, the same money privately invested in a fairly conservative manner over the last 50 years would have yielded an annual rate of return of between 5 and 7 percent. Big, big difference in what you end up with from a retirement perspective. As to the COLA, the government always fudges the metrics in their favor to minimize what they pay out.

Trap
5 years ago

Lincoln, you are right that SS would be better off w/o gov’t influence as would everything else. My problem with SS is that we are forced to be part of the program. For almost everyone, if not everyone now, if you don’t pay SS you can’t legally work. NO options. The GAO came out years ago and said there is no real SS fund, that it all goes into the general fund now. Politicians might not got to DC to be thieves but something happens to them. It is all about being reelected and the hell with the citizens. If not for what I did otherwise I would starve on just SS. Let people opt for something else if they want. If they want SS so be it. look at Medicare, we are forced to pay into it from day one. then you retire and find out now you will pay even more for Medicare and they will automatically take it from your SS check, like it or not. I better stop as my BP is going up and it is only 0647. GL

God Bless America
Trap

Marley
5 years ago
Reply to  Trap

Don’t expect not to have government influence in a government-created program! Happy New Year, Trap.

Marley
5 years ago
Reply to  Trap

I might add, I’ve contributed thousands and thousands of dollars to SS over my working career, and I was forced to – as was my employer. I would prefer to be able to choose to contribute a portion of MY earnings into a qualified plan with higher returns. I have seen a number of defined contribution plans that would better suit my retirement needs, but SS contributions are required. Heck, I’d rather have my employer contribute their % of SS payments into a plan of my choosing, but then the government wouldn’t get their share (unless they taxed me, which they would) and that’s what it’s all about – government control and power.

Howard Last
5 years ago

Lincoln, if SS is so great make it voluntary.

John Higgins
5 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

PaulE, I usually enjoy your comments but this time you are dead wrong! The AMAC HSA replaces Obamacare completely. It gets rid of the government control and throws out the Independent Payment review board and other regulations. It is voluntary, It will create competition and keep the cost of health care down.
You are reading something into it that is just not there. I can’t blame you as we were lied to by Obama but have some faith in AMAC!

PaulE
5 years ago
Reply to  John Higgins

Hi John,

I read the detailed write-up of the Kaiser Foundation plan that is the blueprint for AMAC’s solution. A number of other members have also read the exact same document and have come to the same conclusions as I have. Many have previously responded to you directly, as I have, in the past. So I will not repeat myself much here. There is nothing free market about the AMAC solution. It is still a government run and managed solution, and there is no effective cost reducing mechanism built into the design. The HSA does not provide cost reduction. The HSA is merely a mechanism where you and employer, if you have one, can contribute to the account and use the proceeds tax free. That is merely a funding mechanism designed to minimize the impact of the ever-increasing annual deductible costs before your insurance actually kicks in, but does nothing to address the annual cost increases of the insurance or deductible. One big, unexpected medical bill and your HSA is depleted and you’re back at square one. For those either self-employed or retired and stuck with Obamacare, the HSA doesn’t even provide that limited funding mechanism, as there is no third party kicking in to supplement any contributions you would individually be putting in an HSA account.

If you like the AMAC solution, that is fine. However, I and many others do not, because it is essentially Obamacare with just a few small tweeks.

Marley
5 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

I’m guessing you’re not a fan of president-elect Trump’s plan to use HSAs as a means to get the federal government out of our health care lives and to reduce costs of health care either? I just visited his site and HSAs are his primary method of achieving both goals. I fail to see the difference between his plan and AMAC’s plan, and I know people who have used HSAs as part of their household plans with great success over my years. I don’t often comment, but I’ve seen you all over the place here and appreciate your feedback.

PaulE
5 years ago
Reply to  Marley

The federal government has NO business taking over the healthcare insurance industry of the entire country as Obamacare did. There was NO crying need or demand from the over-whelming majority of Americans or the majority of doctors and hospitals to effectively seize control of 1/6th of the American economy. The vast majority liked the insurance they had. So what I’m am for is the complete repeal of Obamacare and the full restoration of the system we had before Obamacare. Period. No alternative, federally run replacement is needed or wanted from my perspective.

If states want to pass guidelines that cover pre-existing conditions and allow for children up today 26 years old to be one their parent’s policies, then that is fine. They additional cost everyone will have today bear to pay for those two items would be manageable for most people.

If people want a HSA available to all, then that can be passed as a stand-alone item from Congress. Literally a one page bill. You don’t need a massive Obamacare replacement just to get a simple HSA for everyone. There is nothing magic about a HSA. The attraction most people have for it is that someone else (your employer, the government either state or federal) is contributing to your account (OPM). Without that third party additional contribution, an HSA serves very little purpose, as it then is you simply setting aside your own money for yourself. A glorified savings account.

I’m look forward to hearing the specifics of what Trump has planned in the area of getting rid of Obamacare. Hopefully, it is not the AMAC plan.

Lee McQuillen
5 years ago
Reply to  PaulE

And, one size does not fit all!

John Higgins
5 years ago
Reply to  Howard Last

Howard and Paul E. are missing the point. What the AMAC HSA does is to replace Obamacare with a voluntary, free-market health plan. The present law needs to be changed to remove the restrictions on Health Savings Accounts (HSA’s) to allow people to have freedom of choice, which will create competition and lower the cost of health care. I suppose someone would want to keep their Obamacare, but why would they want to pay more and have less coverage?

Howard Last
5 years ago
Reply to  John Higgins

John, the government has no authority to be involved in healthcare. Maybe someone can show me which Section of the Constitution authorizes it.

Jim Gribbin
5 years ago
Reply to  John Higgins

Yes, but to begin with, we have to continue paying Obamacare, plus a couple of hundred a month to get this SS thing going. I think you’re the one missing the point.

John Higgins
5 years ago
Reply to  Howard Last

Howard- see my comments to Paul E below.
You are absolutely right- the government has no right to control how we live and AMAC supports that concept.

George A.
5 years ago
Reply to  Howard Last

The very first sentence in this is “The First Step to Replace Obamacare and Get the Federal Government Out of the Healthcare Business.”

Editor
Harvey B. Rich
5 years ago
Reply to  Howard Last

Howard, If Obamacare was cancelled tomorrow, millions of people would have no health care. That is why AMAC’s plan of phasing in Health Savings Accounts so these plans are in place when OB care is stopped makes sense. Congress should pass a law NOW, repealing OB care when the HSA’s are ready to take patients. Also, unlike some other proposals AMAC includes competition and publishing of hospital fees and charges.

Howard Last
5 years ago
Reply to  Harvey B. Rich

What do people who do not have health insurance do, why they go to a clinic or hospital emergency room. This is exactly what they did before BarryCare. Maybe you can tell me what Section of the Constitution authorizes the government to get involved with healthcare. Name one government run program that is successful.

Jim Gribbin
5 years ago
Reply to  Harvey B. Rich

Millions have no health care now. They can’t afford Obamacare. Now you’re proposing something that keeps me paying for Obamacare plus a couple of hundred to this SS plan. I can’t pay the $1,600(plus)/month they want now and you’re asking me for a couple of hundred/month more. This should have never happened to begin with. Get rid of it.

48
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x