Is it possible for Trump to get Rand on board healthcare?

[shockedcanadian]

I know it's a longshot, but I think Rand is reasonable enough to at least entertain something less than ideal.

Many disagree with me on this premise, but I truly believe Trump has more in common with Rand Paul than people believe. We also have to remember, that Rand Paul kept his word after Trump won the primary, never once swaying that he would vote for the Conservative candidate as per the pledge he made. Through thick and thin, even when the media was going full court press against Trump, after the Access Hollywood "leak" (yeah right, a random leak my behind), Rand Paul stated clearly, he would keep his word. Trump respects men of their word, even if they can't find complete agreement.

I think for that alone, Trump has a mutual respect for Rand Paul. In terms of taxes, regulations and the like, he and Rand Paul are very much in tune and I am willing to bet even if Rand didn't state it, that secretly he would much rather have Trump win the election, than say Jeb Bush. Just an assumption on my part.

Anyways, in last night's rally speech in Alabama, Trump made the comment towards McCain regarding his refusal to repeal and replace. He went on to suggest, "even Rand Paul voted for repeal TWICE." Went on to suggest that Rand Paul and McCain don't see eye to eye (not surprising really, considering McCains constant hardline on all issues that involve the military), he went on ""I haven't given up on Rand either. Wouldn't it be ironic if he took McCains place and voted for repeal?"

As much as Rand Paul takes a strong and principled stance on issues of Big Government, there might be some wiggle room here because Rand is always willing to negotiate. Trump may have even been signalling this during the rally speech.

Thoughts on this? Is Paul the dark horse who could vote to repeal and replace?

 

[BluesLegend]

Rand likely favors power being returned to the states but there are serious issues in Graham's bill...

1. The 2,000 plus page Obamacare turd and all the problems it has caused gets dumped onto the states to fix, brilliant!

2. It repeals the individual mandate and retains protection for pre-existing conditions, without funding either of them, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of unfunded Federal government handouts, wow shocker.

3. It retains almost all Obamacare tax increases, wow shocker. How is that repealing Obamacare???

 

[Care4all]

Rand's State loses big time with this bill....he may say he is voting against it for Libertarian reasons,

but the fact that it hurts around 23% of the Medicaid recipients in his State, would prevent him from even being able to vote for it, imho.

 

[The Irish Ram]

They need to sit down with Paul and come up with a comprehensive plan to reel in the insurance companies, instead of quickly and poorly thought out health care jabs.
Prior to the Obama takeover of our health care system, we had the best health care in the world. And out of control insurance companies.
We need nothing more than to force insurance companies to compete for our business. Those poor that can't afford insurance go back to being insured by the government.

 

[forkup]

They need to sit down with Paul and come up with a comprehensive plan to reel in the insurance companies, instead of quickly and poorly thought out health care jabs.
Prior to the Obama takeover of our health care system, we had the best health care in the world. And out of control insurance companies.
We need nothing more than to force insurance companies to compete for our business. Those poor that can't afford insurance go back to being insured by the government.

So your definition of the best health care in the world isn't the most inclusive since you are perfectly alright with people not receiving health care because of financial status. You are also not defining it as being the cheapest since the US healthcare system is and was by far the most expensive globally. So how do you figure it is the best?

 

[The Irish Ram]

They need to sit down with Paul and come up with a comprehensive plan to reel in the insurance companies, instead of quickly and poorly thought out health care jabs.
Prior to the Obama takeover of our health care system, we had the best health care in the world. And out of control insurance companies.
We need nothing more than to force insurance companies to compete for our business. Those poor that can't afford insurance go back to being insured by the government.

So your definition of the best health care in the world isn't the most inclusive since you are perfectly alright with people not receiving health care because of financial status. You are also not defining it as being the cheapest since the US healthcare system is and was by far the most expensive globally. So how do you figure it is the best?

Prior to Obama's screw up, hospitals were not allowed to turn anybody away. They are fined now if someone has to return to the ER. The poor were given medical cards and got care for free. Every one of the poor children that came to live with me, brought their medical cards with them.
My daughter, who had no insurance when her lung collapsed, got the best care at one of the best hospitals in the country, and was set up with a payment plan.
During my husband's residency in Cook County he treated every one that entered the door. Most with their medical cards. One such girl wanted a diet plan. She wanted to look good for her trip to Jamaica..
Who is it you think had no healthcare prior to Obamy?

 

[forkup]

They need to sit down with Paul and come up with a comprehensive plan to reel in the insurance companies, instead of quickly and poorly thought out health care jabs.
Prior to the Obama takeover of our health care system, we had the best health care in the world. And out of control insurance companies.
We need nothing more than to force insurance companies to compete for our business. Those poor that can't afford insurance go back to being insured by the government.

So your definition of the best health care in the world isn't the most inclusive since you are perfectly alright with people not receiving health care because of financial status. You are also not defining it as being the cheapest since the US healthcare system is and was by far the most expensive globally. So how do you figure it is the best?

Prior to Obama's screw up, hospitals were not allowed to turn anybody away. They are fined now if someone has to return to the ER. The poor were given medical cards and got care for free. Every one of the poor children that came to live with me, brought their medical cards with them.
My daughter, who had no insurance when her lung collapsed, got the best care at one of the best hospitals in the country, and was set up with a payment plan.
During my husband's residency in Cook County he treated every one that entered the door. Most with their medical cards. One such girl wanted a diet plan. She wanted to look good for her trip to Jamaica..
Who is it you think had no healthcare prior to Obamy?

Maybe because my brother in law who wasn't insured didn't get reconstructive surgery on his shoulder because of financial status. Something that severely limits his mobility to this day. Maybe because the mother of a friend of mine didn't get cancer diagnosed in time since she couldn't afford the tests. I assume you are a reasonably affluent person since your husband is a doctor. Wouldn't it be a safe assumption to say that your experiences with the US healthcare system is not that of poorer people? You site your daughter's experiences but I assume that it's easier to get medical care when the father is a doctor.
Btw know that I'm not American, I'm Belgian. My healthcare system is cheaper, more efficient and most importantly universal. My wife's American so I'm not speaking from ignorance. If you claim the American healthcare system was the best in the world, I want to know how you define that? It's not cost and it's not inclusiveness. So it has to be something else.

 

[TomParks]

I have several family members in the medical field and they all support single payer along with the doctors they work for.....I was shocked and the main reason is due to the insurance companies. I don't know much about it but there has to be something to it for all of them to agree on the issue. Even my small family doctor supports single payer

 

[Mr.Blonde]

So your definition of the best health care in the world isn't the most inclusive since you are perfectly alright with people not receiving health care because of financial status.

People are not turned away because of financial status. I have gone to plenty of doctors offices without insurance and they will work with you.

My current primary care doctor has a deal to become a member and you have low co-pays and premiums.

You are also not defining it as being the cheapest since the US healthcare system is and was by far the most expensive globally. So how do you figure it is the best?

We spend the most on health care because if you want the best you pay more.

If you want to bring down costs you will have to go after the reasons like the cost of education and tort reform.

We need to go back to insurance being just that insurance. It is insane that people use insurance for basic care.

If we allow the free market to innovate we can bring down costs and improve care. Maybe CVS and Walgreens can expand their Minute Clinics or other ways no one has thought of yet.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I know it's a longshot, but I think Rand is reasonable enough to at least entertain something less than ideal.

Many disagree with me on this premise, but I truly believe Trump has more in common with Rand Paul than people believe. We also have to remember, that Rand Paul kept his word after Trump won the primary, never once swaying that he would vote for the Conservative candidate as per the pledge he made. Through thick and thin, even when the media was going full court press against Trump, after the Access Hollywood "leak" (yeah right, a random leak my behind), Rand Paul stated clearly, he would keep his word. Trump respects men of their word, even if they can't find complete agreement.

I think for that alone, Trump has a mutual respect for Rand Paul. In terms of taxes, regulations and the like, he and Rand Paul are very much in tune and I am willing to bet even if Rand didn't state it, that secretly he would much rather have Trump win the election, than say Jeb Bush. Just an assumption on my part.

Anyways, in last night's rally speech in Alabama, Trump made the comment towards McCain regarding his refusal to repeal and replace. He went on to suggest, "even Rand Paul voted for repeal TWICE." Went on to suggest that Rand Paul and McCain don't see eye to eye (not surprising really, considering McCains constant hardline on all issues that involve the military), he went on ""I haven't given up on Rand either. Wouldn't it be ironic if he took McCains place and voted for repeal?"

As much as Rand Paul takes a strong and principled stance on issues of Big Government, there might be some wiggle room here because Rand is always willing to negotiate. Trump may have even been signalling this during the rally speech.

Thoughts on this? Is Paul the dark horse who could vote to repeal and replace?

Rand Paul is a conservative. Something that Trump cannot relate to.

 

[Mr.Blonde]

. If you claim the American healthcare system was the best in the world, I want to know how you define that?

America has the best service and for most part is accessible to everyone. The system isn't perfect and people do fall between the cracks, but I would choose the American health care system over any other.

I have several family members in the medical field and they all support single payer along with the doctors they work for.....I was shocked and the main reason is due to the insurance companies. I don't know much about it but there has to be something to it for all of them to agree on the issue. Even my small family doctor supports single payer

They are missing something vitally important our federal government was designed to be disfunctional.

Other governments might be able to make it work good enough, but our government by it's design can't make it work.

 

[Slyhunter]

How about one bill to abolish obama care. Then later smaller bills putting some of it back. I think it's horrible that they lump everything into a single big bill.

 

[oreo]

I know it's a longshot, but I think Rand is reasonable enough to at least entertain something less than ideal.

Many disagree with me on this premise, but I truly believe Trump has more in common with Rand Paul than people believe. We also have to remember, that Rand Paul kept his word after Trump won the primary, never once swaying that he would vote for the Conservative candidate as per the pledge he made. Through thick and thin, even when the media was going full court press against Trump, after the Access Hollywood "leak" (yeah right, a random leak my behind), Rand Paul stated clearly, he would keep his word. Trump respects men of their word, even if they can't find complete agreement.

I think for that alone, Trump has a mutual respect for Rand Paul. In terms of taxes, regulations and the like, he and Rand Paul are very much in tune and I am willing to bet even if Rand didn't state it, that secretly he would much rather have Trump win the election, than say Jeb Bush. Just an assumption on my part.

Anyways, in last night's rally speech in Alabama, Trump made the comment towards McCain regarding his refusal to repeal and replace. He went on to suggest, "even Rand Paul voted for repeal TWICE." Went on to suggest that Rand Paul and McCain don't see eye to eye (not surprising really, considering McCains constant hardline on all issues that involve the military), he went on ""I haven't given up on Rand either. Wouldn't it be ironic if he took McCains place and voted for repeal?"

As much as Rand Paul takes a strong and principled stance on issues of Big Government, there might be some wiggle room here because Rand is always willing to negotiate. Trump may have even been signalling this during the rally speech.

Thoughts on this? Is Paul the dark horse who could vote to repeal and replace?

It's already dead anyway--even if Rand Paul voted for it. John McCain has already said no, along with Susan Collins & Lisa Murckosky. They don't have the votes, and Mitch McConnell shouldn't even go to the floor with a call for a vote--(because people will know which Republicans voted for it, putting a target on their backs for the midterm election cycle.)
AARP ad says House GOP health care bill would boost insurance rates for older Americans

This is the AARP advertisment on this bill, you might want to watch it. This bill is really a POS--skyrocketing premiums on 50 & over, and if you have a preexiting condition you would have to mortgage your home to get medical insurance.
AARP ad says House GOP health care bill would boost insurance rates for older Americans

 

[forkup]

So your definition of the best health care in the world isn't the most inclusive since you are perfectly alright with people not receiving health care because of financial status.

People are not turned away because of financial status. I have gone to plenty of doctors offices without insurance and they will work with you.

My current primary care doctor has a deal to become a member and you have low co-pays and premiums.

You are also not defining it as being the cheapest since the US healthcare system is and was by far the most expensive globally. So how do you figure it is the best?

We spend the most on health care because if you want the best you pay more.

If you want to bring down costs you will have to go after the reasons like the cost of education and tort reform.

We need to go back to insurance being just that insurance. It is insane that people use insurance for basic care.

If we allow the free market to innovate we can bring down costs and improve care. Maybe CVS and Walgreens can expand their Minute Clinics or other ways no one has thought of yet.

Before I continue I want to thank you for coming out with an actual argument, not deflecting or making it personal. This is too rare on this board so I want to take out the time to show my appreciation. I also agree with some of what you say. I don't think single payer would work in the US either. Single payer needs a different attitude towards governance, an attitude that I doubt will ever be supported by the broad populace.
I however disagree with some of your other premises. The American health care system is more expensive but not because it offers superior care. I find it telling that you identify 2 of the problems associated with the increased cost but leave out, either on purpose or accidental a third major one. The premise of a for profit health care system in the first place. In Belgium both hospitals and insurance companies are state controlled for the most part. So those don't have to turn a profit. Every penny you give to a shareholder is a penny less you can spent on providing healthcare. Other western countries in general have lower child mortality and higher life expectancy for instance. This flies against your superior care argument.

 

[Slyhunter]

I know it's a longshot, but I think Rand is reasonable enough to at least entertain something less than ideal.

Many disagree with me on this premise, but I truly believe Trump has more in common with Rand Paul than people believe. We also have to remember, that Rand Paul kept his word after Trump won the primary, never once swaying that he would vote for the Conservative candidate as per the pledge he made. Through thick and thin, even when the media was going full court press against Trump, after the Access Hollywood "leak" (yeah right, a random leak my behind), Rand Paul stated clearly, he would keep his word. Trump respects men of their word, even if they can't find complete agreement.

I think for that alone, Trump has a mutual respect for Rand Paul. In terms of taxes, regulations and the like, he and Rand Paul are very much in tune and I am willing to bet even if Rand didn't state it, that secretly he would much rather have Trump win the election, than say Jeb Bush. Just an assumption on my part.

Anyways, in last night's rally speech in Alabama, Trump made the comment towards McCain regarding his refusal to repeal and replace. He went on to suggest, "even Rand Paul voted for repeal TWICE." Went on to suggest that Rand Paul and McCain don't see eye to eye (not surprising really, considering McCains constant hardline on all issues that involve the military), he went on ""I haven't given up on Rand either. Wouldn't it be ironic if he took McCains place and voted for repeal?"

As much as Rand Paul takes a strong and principled stance on issues of Big Government, there might be some wiggle room here because Rand is always willing to negotiate. Trump may have even been signalling this during the rally speech.

Thoughts on this? Is Paul the dark horse who could vote to repeal and replace?

It's already dead anyway--even if Rand Paul voted for it. John McCain has already said no, along with Susan Collins & Lisa Murckosky. They don't have the votes, and Mitch McConnell shouldn't even go to the floor with a call for a vote--(because people will know which Republicans voted for it, putting a target on their backs for the midterm election cycle.)

This is the AARP advertisment on this bill, you might want to watch it. This bill is really a POS--skyrocketing premiums on 50 & over, and if you have a preexiting condition you would have to mortgage your home to get medical insurance.
AARP ad says House GOP health care bill would boost insurance rates for older Americans

He should put it up for a vote so we know which Rhino's to vote out of office.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Is it possible for Trump to get Rand on board healthcare?”

No.

Like most on the reckless, irresponsible, reprehensible right Paul wants to return to the bad old days when millions of Americans had no access to affordable healthcare.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rand's State loses big time with this bill....he may say he is voting against it for Libertarian reasons,

but the fact that it hurts around 23% of the Medicaid recipients in his State, would prevent him from even being able to vote for it, imho.

Paul would vote to repeal the ACA with no replacement at all – which would be even more harmful to the residents of his state.

 

[oreo]

I know it's a longshot, but I think Rand is reasonable enough to at least entertain something less than ideal.

Many disagree with me on this premise, but I truly believe Trump has more in common with Rand Paul than people believe. We also have to remember, that Rand Paul kept his word after Trump won the primary, never once swaying that he would vote for the Conservative candidate as per the pledge he made. Through thick and thin, even when the media was going full court press against Trump, after the Access Hollywood "leak" (yeah right, a random leak my behind), Rand Paul stated clearly, he would keep his word. Trump respects men of their word, even if they can't find complete agreement.

I think for that alone, Trump has a mutual respect for Rand Paul. In terms of taxes, regulations and the like, he and Rand Paul are very much in tune and I am willing to bet even if Rand didn't state it, that secretly he would much rather have Trump win the election, than say Jeb Bush. Just an assumption on my part.

Anyways, in last night's rally speech in Alabama, Trump made the comment towards McCain regarding his refusal to repeal and replace. He went on to suggest, "even Rand Paul voted for repeal TWICE." Went on to suggest that Rand Paul and McCain don't see eye to eye (not surprising really, considering McCains constant hardline on all issues that involve the military), he went on ""I haven't given up on Rand either. Wouldn't it be ironic if he took McCains place and voted for repeal?"

As much as Rand Paul takes a strong and principled stance on issues of Big Government, there might be some wiggle room here because Rand is always willing to negotiate. Trump may have even been signalling this during the rally speech.

Thoughts on this? Is Paul the dark horse who could vote to repeal and replace?

It's already dead anyway--even if Rand Paul voted for it. John McCain has already said no, along with Susan Collins & Lisa Murckosky. They don't have the votes, and Mitch McConnell shouldn't even go to the floor with a call for a vote--(because people will know which Republicans voted for it, putting a target on their backs for the midterm election cycle.)

This is the AARP advertisment on this bill, you might want to watch it. This bill is really a POS--skyrocketing premiums on 50 & over, and if you have a preexiting condition you would have to mortgage your home to get medical insurance.
AARP ad says House GOP health care bill would boost insurance rates for older Americans

He should put it up for a vote so we know which Rhino's to vote out of office.

I think you would have a change of heart if you watched this.
AARP ad says House GOP health care bill would boost insurance rates for older Americans

Senator Tom Cotton in Arkansas who got ripped a new one.


Republican town halls are getting very, very nasty



As they say--Americans may not know how they got Health Care, but they'll sure remember who took it away from them

 

[forkup]

So your definition of the best health care in the world isn't the most inclusive since you are perfectly alright with people not receiving health care because of financial status.

People are not turned away because of financial status. I have gone to plenty of doctors offices without insurance and they will work with you.

My current primary care doctor has a deal to become a member and you have low co-pays and premiums.

You are also not defining it as being the cheapest since the US healthcare system is and was by far the most expensive globally. So how do you figure it is the best?

We spend the most on health care because if you want the best you pay more.

If you want to bring down costs you will have to go after the reasons like the cost of education and tort reform.

We need to go back to insurance being just that insurance. It is insane that people use insurance for basic care.

If we allow the free market to innovate we can bring down costs and improve care. Maybe CVS and Walgreens can expand their Minute Clinics or other ways no one has thought of yet.

Before I continue I want to thank you for coming out with an actual argument, not deflecting or making it personal. This is too rare on this board so I want to take out the time to show my appreciation. I also agree with some of what you say. I don't think single payer would work in the US either. Single payer needs a different attitude towards governance, an attitude that I doubt will ever be supported by the broad populace.
I however disagree with some of your other premises. The American health care system is more expensive but not because it offers superior care. I find it telling that you identify 2 of the problems associated with the increased cost but leave out, either on purpose or accidental a third major one. The premise of a for profit health care system in the first place. In Belgium both hospitals and insurance companies are state controlled for the most part. So those don't have to turn a profit. Every penny you give to a shareholder is a penny less you can spent on providing healthcare. Other western countries in general have lower child mortality and higher life expectancy for instance. This flies against your superior care argument.

I also find it a weird argument that you think that the free market will make health care better if left alone. The free market is not a system with as goal to improve anything, it's goal is to make a profit. Health is the free markets wet dream. Every person needs it, it literally is a matter of life and death. So demand is always high. It doesn't matter what the supply is they can charge whatever they think they can get away with. Why would they make it affordable?

 

[Dragonlady]

Rand Paul is a libertarian who wants the government completely out of healthcare. He wants an end to Medicaid and Medicare. He won't vote for anything that funds either plan.