Thread: Rand Paul's reform proposal could revolutionize U.S. health care

Rand Paul's reform proposal could revolutionize U.S. health care

By Justin Haskins
Published July 06, 2017
Fox News

On June 27, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, urging him and the other Republicans in the Senate to abandon their plans to replace ObamaCare with what Paul believes—and rightly so—is a model too similar to the one created by the Affordable Care Act. Among the specific provisions Paul cites are the Senate leadership’s plan to offer millions of Americans federal tax credits and provide insurance companies with $136 billion to prop up the health insurance marketplace.

While those and many of Paul’s other points are worthy of consideration, there is one part of Paul’s health care reform wish list that is particularly important and worthy of significant attention: his call for “association health plans.”

As Paul explains in his letter, “While I appreciate the inclusion of Small Business Health Plans in the BCRA, I believe improvements could be made to expand upon this provision to allow for greater freedom for individuals and small businesses to pool together for the purpose of obtaining health insurance coverage.”

Under the BCRA, self-employed people could participate in small business health insurance plans, but Paul wants “the language [to] be changed to allow any individual, including self-employed individuals, to form associations for the purpose of purchasing group health insurance.”

While those and many of Paul’s other points are worthy of consideration, there is one part of Paul’s health care reform wish list that is particularly important and worthy of significant attention: his call for “association health plans.”

This might sound like a relatively unimportant bit of policy minutiae for those of you who aren’t interested in health care reform, but it most certainly is not. This one, largely overlooked policy addition has the potential to radically transform the health care market for the better and solve many of the problems ObamaCare attempted, but failed, to address—as well as those problems ObamaCare created.

One of the greatest challenges facing policymakers on the issue of health care is determining how to ensure all people, including people who have pre-existing conditions, can have access to high-quality, affordable health insurance. The Affordable Care Act attempted to solve this problem by dramatically restructuring the health insurance market, creating substantial government subsidies and imposing numerous costly mandates and pre-existing conditions requirements on health insurers.

“If the health insurance companies aren’t going to provide fair prices to people with pre-existing conditions, we’re going to make them,” the ObamaCare creators apparently thought. However, once you stop requiring people to have health insurance before they get sick, you cease to have a true insurance system.

Imagine for just a moment what the car insurance market would look like if uninsured drivers could smash into other people’s cars and property and then be able to call an insurer and force them to cover the accident. The price of everyone’s car insurance would skyrocket, because the car insurance companies would be required to cover expensive accidents caused by irresponsible drivers that haven’t been paying into the system. That’s essentially what has happened to the health insurance market under ObamaCare.

The flip side of that coin is under the old model, sick patients who did not have health insurance through no fault of their own couldn’t get the insurance coverage they needed at prices they could afford.

Paul’s proposal to “allow any individual, including self-employed individuals, to form associations for the purpose of purchasing group health insurance” would go a long way toward solving this policy dilemma. If people could form their own associations and purchase health insurance as a group, the pre-existing conditions problem would mostly go away, because insurers would negotiate rates with the group knowing that some people might join over time with pre-existing conditions. The costs are built into the initial price negotiated and spread out amongst all those in the association. This is exactly how many employer-sponsored health insurance plans work today.

Church groups, advocacy organizations, charities, golf clubs, and virtually any other group of people could theoretically negotiate an association health plan under Paul’s provision, allowing like-minded people to take care of each other and providing those being insured with greater negotiating power.

Also worth noting is that if more people purchase insurance plans through non-employer private associations, it would help resolve the many issues that arise when people lose their jobs, providing greater health insurance stability.

Paul, himself a physician, understands that to solve the United States’ health care problems, we need innovative solutions like his proposal to expand association health plans. What we absolutely don’t need, however, is tweaks to a model that has long failed to provide affordable, quality health insurance coverage to all Americans.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...alth-care.html

Even though I voted for Trump, Rand Paul was my first choice and the guy that I really wanted to win the Republican nomination. Rand Paul is a very smart guy, and he has many great ideas, but people are obviously too stupid to nominate someone so awesome.

Rand Paul supported the 2013 Amnesty.


What Exactly Is Rand Paul's Position on Immigration Reform?

The Kentucky senator made a high-profile announcement as part of a play for a wider audience. What he backs is a little unclear, though.

Beth Reinhard Mar 20, 2013 Politics

Share Tweet

Text Size

Subscribe to The Atlantic’s Politics & Policy Daily, a roundup of ideas and events in American politics.

rand paul full side reuters.jpg

Reuters

Behold the junior senator and Tea Party hero from Kentucky, best known for citing the U.S. Constitution, Spanish writer Miguel de Unamuno, Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, and Colombian novelist Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

On Tuesday, Senator Rand Paul threw his support behind legalizing the millions of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., signaling his determination to expand his following beyond the tea party movement as he positions himself for a 2016 presidential campaign. Just two years ago, Paul was pushing to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

Paul's first major speech on the topic came the same day the Iowa Republican Party announced he would headline their annual fundraiser -- a coveted stage for auditioning presidential candidates -- and one day after a Republican National Committee report embraced immigration reform as a way to boost the party's appeal with Hispanic voters. Paul's speech to the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Washington was striking not for its policy details -- in fact, they were quite fuzzy -- but for the obvious charm offensive it represented toward the fastest growing part of the electorate.
NJ logo.JPG
MORE FROM NATIONAL JOURNAL

On the Anniversary of War in Iraq, Who's Rooting for War in Syria?
Personal Frictions Loom Over Obama's Trip to Israel
Obamacare at Age 3: Still Too Young for Prognosis

"I think his goal is to appeal to a broader audience," said Sal Russo, a chief adviser to the Tea Party Express and a longtime Republican strategist. "Immigration is not a defining Tea Party issue like spending and debt, and there is a wide spectrum of viewpoints on it. I think it's a political winner."

Paul is not fluent in Spanish but he slipped into the language several times during his speech, drawing applause from the Hispanic audience for his above-average pronunciation. The senator from Bowling Green, Kentucky, also reminded the audience that he grew up alongside many Hispanics in Texas.

"Immigration reform will not occur until conservative Republicans like myself become part of the solution," he said. "That is why I'm here today, to begin that conversation."

Though Paul disagrees with some key provisions of the immigration-reform plan backed by a bipartisan group in the Senate, the partial endorsement from a Tea Party conservative was enthusiastically praised by some of those senators as well as immigration advocates.

"He killed it," Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Reform, said of the speech. "The more people like Senator Paul are engaged in the debate, the more the conversation moves forward. He has credibility with Tea Party conservatives like no one else."
"The more people like Senator Paul are engaged in the debate, the more the conversation moves forward. He has credibility with Tea Party conservatives like no one else."

Paul's speech was also noteworthy for its departure from his libertarian father's legacy. Former Rep. Ron Paul of Texas took a hard-line stance against illegal immigration, demanding tighter border security; banning illegal immigrants from public schools, hospitals, and social services; and calling for an end to birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. Last month, he called the bipartisan plan in the Senate a "bad deal." So by veering from that script, the younger Paul signaled his hope to be taken more seriously than his father, a twice-failed presidential candidate who was frequently marginalized as a fringe ideologue. (The younger Paul said Tuesday after the speech that he would rethink his opposition to birthright citizenship if immigration laws were overhauled.)

Paul's stock has been rising in recent days. He captured national attention and his colleague's praise with a 13-hour talking filibuster and won the straw poll at last week's Conservative Political Action Conference. But his lack of experience on the national stage was apparent Tuesday as his speech created widespread confusion over whether or not he backed allowing illegal immigrants to earn citizenship.

Though Paul did not use the words "pathway to citizenship" he didn't rule it out in his speech, either. He backed allowing undocumented workers to live and work in the U.S. permanently without requiring them to return to their home country, but he said, "We also must treat those who are here with understanding and compassion without also unduly rewarding them for coming illegally .... My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line." Media outlets from the Associated Press to The Huffington Post initially reported that Paul did back a pathway to citizenship. Even Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat and chairman of the Senate immigration subcommittee, was under that impression. "The consensus continues to grow in favor of immigration reform that contains a path to citizenship," he said in a written statement.

Paul's office objected to the early reports and arranged an afternoon conference call. Unfortunately, Paul didn't completely clarify his position during the call, complaining that the debate was trapped in murky and polarizing phrases and words like "pathway to citizenship" and "amnesty."

"Those who are here, if they want to work, let's find a place for them," Paul said. "If they want to become citizens, I'm open to debate as to what we do to move forward."

Paul sought to frame his speech in broad strokes and avoid the weeds of policy details, adding, "I'm a conservative Republican who says we need to move forward on the issue of immigration reform. That's a big step forward."

So does Paul back the bipartisan Senate outline and President Obama's proposal, which would allow illegal immigrants to eventually earn citizenship? Still unclear. Paul wrote a column for The Washington Times last month that only adds to the confusion. "I share the goal of a working immigration system, and a new approach to allowing those here in our country who want to work and stay out of trouble to stay here," he wrote. "Would I hope that when they become citizens, these new immigrants will remember Republicans who made this happen? Yes. But my support for immigration reform comes not from political expediency but because it's the right thing to do."

Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a key leader in the immigration talks and a potential rival to Paul in 2016, suggested there was no daylight between their positions in an interview Tuesday with CNN's Jake Tapper.

"Sen. Paul's speech it is a very good development," he said. "We're not going to deport 12 million people, like Rand Paul said today. We're also not going to give blanket amnesty or special pathway to citizenship because it would be unfair to those who did it the right way. Finding that right balance is what we're working on."

One area where Paul and Rubio clearly diverge is on E-Verify, the electronic database employers can use to verify citizenship before they hire. "I don't like the idea of making every business owner a policeman," he said. Paul also said he opposed the creation of a national ID card.

One of the most outspoken advocates for immigration reform, Frank Sharry of America's Voice, said Paul's speech showed how much Republican public opinion has changed on the issue.

"Rand Paul is a hot political property right now," he said. "So where does he spend his newfound political capital? On immigration reform .... This speaks volumes about how far the debate on immigration reform and the GOP has come since the election."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...reform/274195/

_____________________

As fate and our system would have it, you voted for the right guy.

Rand Paul on Immigration

To defend against terrorism, we need to defend the border. (Dec 2015) We need a Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship. (Sep 2015) Secure border with Mexico; do away with sanctuary cities. (Jul 2015) Legal status for 11 million illegals after we secure border. (Apr 2015) Protect AGAINST feds creating a national ID card. (Apr 2015) Replace pathway to citizenship with work visas. (Feb 2015) Status quo is untenable; we must do some sort of reform. (Jun 2014) Move beyond amnesty, but eventually to path to citizenship. (Jun 2014) Illegals are not bad people, but we have to control border. (Apr 2014) Latinos support GOP stances of faith and family values. (Jun 2013) Legal status, but not citizenship, for illegal immigrants. (Mar 2013) We will find a place for illegal immigrants in America. (Mar 2013) Replace de facto amnesty with bipartisan reform. (Mar 2013) See immigrants as assets, not liabilities. (Feb 2013) Obamacare treats illegal aliens because it's illegal to ask. (Oct 2010) No amnesty; respect the law. (Jul 2010) http://www.ontheissues.org/Rand_Paul.htm#Immigration

Originally Posted by Judy

Rand Paul supported the 2013 Amnesty.

I did not know this. I wanted him because he had really good ideas about the economy, but I did not know he supported illegals. I guess we dodged a bullet then by having Trump win the presidency.

Also, I have to admit that I don't know much about Rand Paul, I figured voting for him would be like voting for his dad, Ron Paul. I really liked Ron Paul. He definitely had some really great ideas. It's just too bad that he retired.

I liked Ron Paul, too. And there are things that Rand Paul says that I very much agree with on civil rights and liberty. Unfortunately, he is or at least was part of the amnesty crowd and signed on hoping it would advance his political career.

Originally Posted by Judy

I liked Ron Paul, too. And there are things that Rand Paul says that I very much agree with on civil rights and liberty. Unfortunately, he is or at least was part of the amnesty crowd and signed on hoping it would advance his political career.

Well I guess the amnesty thing backfired. Good. Hopefully that will teach politicians a lesson.

Originally Posted by 6 Million Dollar Man

I did not know this. I wanted him because he had really good ideas about the economy, but I did not know he supported illegals. I guess we dodged a bullet then by having Trump win the presidency.

Also, I have to admit that I don't know much about Rand Paul, I figured voting for him would be like voting for his dad, Ron Paul. I really liked Ron Paul. He definitely had some really great ideas. It's just too bad that he retired.

Ron Paul was also an amnesty supporter who opposed E-verify.

BORDER BATTLELINES

RON PAUL'S AMNESTY WITH AN ASTERISK

Exclusive: Tom Tancredo challenges candidate's most recent statement on illegals

Published: 05/14/2011 at 12:00 AM

On Thursday, Ron Paul announced he would form an exploratory committee for a run at the 2012 Republican presidential nomination. This is about as unexpected as spring snow melt.

I served with Ron Paul in Congress for 10 years. He was a member of my Immigration Reform Caucus, and I consider him a friend. We didn’t see eye to eye on every issue, but he was generally an ally in the fight against illegal immigration. Unfortunately, it appears that Paul’s views on immigration have now shifted into the pro-amnesty camp.

Last week, Rep. Paul released his latest book, “Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom.” One of those 50 issues is immigration, and Paul gives a more detailed explanation of his views in the book than I have ever seen before.

The result is not pretty. Paul’s book misrepresents the views of immigration-control advocates and then insults their motivations. He insinuates that patriotic Americans who oppose mass immigration are lazy and motivated by race. He says that immigrants “have a work ethic superior to many of our own citizens who have grown dependent on welfare and unemployment benefits. This anger may reflect embarrassment as much as anything.” He also claims, “It’s hard to hide the fact that resentment toward a Hispanic immigrant is more common than toward a European illegal immigrant.”

The immigration website VDARE.com refutes both of these assertions. They note that 77 percent of illegal aliens are Hispanic, while less than 5 percent of illegal and 10 percent of legal immigrants are European – so the idea that we are treating Europeans specially is specious. VDARE also points to a Center for Immigration Studies report that shows immigrants are much more likely to be on welfare than native-born American citizens.

In addition to insulting the motives of the critics of uncontrolled immigration, he argues against policies that we don’t support. According to Paul, immigration-control advocates want to “use the U.S. Army, round them up, ship them home.” In my decades fighting this battle, I have not once heard anyone advocate using the military for deportations.

Paul says deporting illegal immigrants will require “splitting up families and deporting some who have lived here for decades.” Of course, there is nothing keeping the children of illegal immigrants from going home for their parents. If we got rid of birthright citizenship, which Paul says he supports, that would not be an issue to begin with.

As for the illegals here for decades, why should we reward them for breaking the law longer than others? Some crimes have a statute of limitation, but unlawful entry into our country does not.

According to Paul, deporting such people would be “incompatible with human rights.” That is an off argument for any true libertarian to make, since the protection of true human rights begins with the U.S. Constitution and our ability to enforce the rule of law.

The truth is that we do not need to deport all illegal aliens to make them go home. If we simply prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens by using E-Verify and step up interior enforcement as Arizona, Oklahoma and other states have done, most illegal aliens will go home on their own.

Paul comes out against both these policies. He not only opposes the E-Verify program, he even comes out against all laws that prohibit employers from hiring illegal aliens. To make his point even more dramatic, he absurdly calls the idea of fining employers for hiring illegal aliens “involuntary servitude.”

Paul comes out against Arizona’s popular SB 1070 law using absurd arguments of the type normally heard only from America-hating leftists: “Arizona-type immigration legislation can turn out to be harmful. Being able to stop any American citizen under the vague charge of ‘suspicion’ is dangerous even more so in the age of secret prisons and a stated position of assassinating American citizens if deemed a ‘threat,’ without charges ever being made.”

I am still scratching my head trying to figure out what supposed secret prisons and political assassinations have to do with enforcing our immigration laws. The Arizona law’s definition of 
”reasonable suspicion” is the same standard that applies for federal immigration officials and local law enforcement for non-immigration violations, so the law does not expand police powers.

So if we can’t enforce the law, what does Paul want to do with the 12 million illegal aliens here in this country? While he says he opposes amnesty, he argues, “Maybe a ‘green card’ with an asterisk could be issued.” This “asterisk” would deny them welfare and not grant them immediate “automatic citizenship.” Both these qualifications are meaningless because every amnesty proposal makes illegal aliens jump through some symbolic hoops before they get amnesty.

I have no idea why he has changed his position on illegal immigration, but one thing is clear: Asterisk or not, Ron Paul now supports amnesty.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/298533/#bBCTmVAGelv6tttC.99

Originally Posted by MW

Ron Paul was also an amnesty supporter who opposed E-verify.

I did not know this. I admit that the economy, along with illegal immigration, is my top priority as far as in what to look for in a candidate. I guess seeing that Ron Paul had some really great ideas on the economy, and being the patriot the he is, that I automatically assumed he had the same views as me on illegal immigration as well. In light of this, Rand Paul will never get my vote. It's too bad though, because the Pauls had some extremely great ideas for the U.S. economy. And as far as I'm concerned, they threw all this genius away because of their support for illegals. Such a waste of great American talent.