Rand Paul wants a total repeal, then a debate on replacement and oh by the way, here is how simple that could be------4 damn pages!!! No one in government (except Paul) would do such a rational thing. They are also cowards that do not believe in the free market that they give lip service to. Trump should have one of his Industry Barons meetings with health care executives and tell them he is getting out of the market and turning it over to them and if they don't pick up the ball or try short-term, unsustainable profit grabs he will mulch them.

I agree. The Paul Ryan plan is just Obamacare V2, patches to Obamas takeover of medical care. I hope he will do it. The problem is that a majority of congressmen is needed, and I think thats 60 in the senate. Democrats will never vote for Rand Paul's plan.

In the meantime, let Obamacare just fail.

It or the Cato plan, they are not that far apart. But, to answer the question, because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely --- the establishment does not want to give power.

Have to let the process play out, the "compromise plan" must fail first, then the Rs have a decision to make... principles or re-election.

if Ayn Rand could she would roll over in her grave...govt has no business in health care...it is business between to private individuals...period.

"Was [building a wall along the US borders] "mainstream" or "radical"? "
I would say very mainstream since it was already happening for decades and illegal immigration by sneaking over the border was declining. By carrying on about it without specifics, though, it was a symbol for we're going to start taking our immigration laws seriously (which I think is good) and a way to give the low-lives false hope that it was a real policy change that would solve their problems (which I think is bad).

"More radical (meaning fundamental) solutions are more likely to gain attention because they are novel"
Selling it will be politicians' sausage-making work. I would be thrilled if they can pull it off.

As it stands now, all the Democrats are likely to vote against the "official" Republican plan, and probably there will be enough Republicans voting "no" to defeat it. If this happens, the real negotiating will begin, and other proposals (hopefully including Rand Paul's) will be in play.

By "mainstream" I mean they are at least known about and being considered, not that they are accepted by the majority. More radical (meaning fundamental) solutions are more likely to gain attention because they are novel, people may not have thought about them before, and also because they are more likely to spark debate and focus attention on the person that introduces them. Example: How many presidential candidates suggested "build a wall" as a fix for our immigration problems? Was this proposal "mainstream" or "radical"? How did it work out for that candidate?

"Individually Rand Paul's proposals are in the "mainstream" of public discussion."
If it's already mainstream, why does it need radical elements to get more attention?
I don't think it really is mainstream. I'd like to know how to get it there.

Because the government would be left without the unconstitutional control the greedy bastards want.

Yes. And once gov't starts doing something, it's hard to stop it.

"What does that mean?"
Once you create an agency or give the gov't a power, even if it's supposedly for a narrow particular problem, it's very hard to undo. My theory on why is the person who's getting a paycheck from it has a strong incentive to lobby to keep it, while the millions paying one cent don't have an incentive to lobby to get their cent back. If you say you want to cut across the board, people still have the incentive to keep it going for a few areas dear to them and their constituents: keeping a base open, Medicaid for the elderly, anything for the children, fighting evil-doers, and so on. Cutting gov't comes off an a justification for doing what benefits particular politicians. So the effort fails.

AS hit you over the head with in, in what for me was dark comedy with the politicians struggling to say without saying it aloud, "no, no, give us a plan that we and our cronies can benefit from."

I suspect that influences healthcare legislation. Health insurance companies have huge buildings full of employees doing a current system. Any plan that shakes up what those people are doing and who's doing it faces resistance. Politicians have to be mindful of their lobbyists concerns. The politicians often don't have a philosophical or economic mind. Their mind is remembering names and helping make connections. They have to hire wonks for the nuts and bolts.

I see this as part of a broader problem of gov't not having limits that it must obey regardless of what voters, politicians, and lobbyists may want. I see blaming it on "moochers" as simplistic. We have a system that's dependent on people always doing the right thing, even if it's an unpleasant decisions, and when they do the wrong thing it's hard to undo. Such a system can't work. I do not know exactly how to fix it, how to give the Constitution teeth.

Yes, I remember that now that you mention that. Great point. Some leadership is more welcome than others. Want to restrict, tax and fine? You're in! Want to get out of the way? What does that mean?...

Trump has the opportunity to prove he is a leader by supporting all the components of Rand Paul's plan.

Individually Rand Paul's proposals are in the "mainstream" of public discussion. I think he would get more attention if he came out with a few more "radical" fixes, such as: (1) End state licensing of doctors and medical schools, (2) allow doctors and patients to enter into contracts limiting doctors' malpractice liability, and (3) repeal "certificate of need" requirements and other anti-competitive restrictions on providing new hospitals and medical equipment.

The primary resistance will come from those with a vested interest in complexity: politicians and other moochers.

It's like when they kidnapped Galt and said we trust your leadership completely. Whatever you say, we'll do. He said, fine do nothing.
No, no, they said, tell us what to do within the framework of you and politically connected people managing things, so we can get a cut and special favors.

I think the situation is somewhat similar when they refused Galt's suggestion. All of these people have careers and staffs managing complicated proposals. They have an incentive to discount a simple solution, a solution that lets people solve their own problems.

I think PPACA was a mixed bag, maybe 50% of what I believed in. Rand Paul's suggestion is revolutionary, like 95% of what I would enact if I were in charge of it. It hands people $400 per month, which is close to what PPACA does, but then does its best to get out of the way.

If Republicans tried for something like this and got something even close, I'd be Republican. They won't though. Gov't cost, intrusiveness, and borrowing will increase. And they'll pander to low-lives who want to feel less pathetic by making people who are different feel uncomfortable.

I want Rand Paul's 4-Page Plan!!

You for got E: It makes sense

Rand Paul's health plan is being ignored because a) it is coming from Rand Paul instead of Paul Ryan; b) Donald Trump wanted to take out Rand Paul early on because both were going after the nontraditional Republican vote; c) Rand is a senator, not a House member (and bills are supposed to be introduced in the House); d) all of the above.

ANSWER: D