Mike Braun

Something has got to give or you are going to get more Government involved in health care.

You can probably take those as being representative of anyone that wrestles with the health care system.

It has gotten to be such a huge part of our GDP, unlike anywhere else in the world.

And in the area of the highest claims will this be priced into those localities in a way that that would cause the mitigation, maybe not living where whatever the climate impact is that's having the greatest effect?

So everybody will pay the price, even for something that might be localized or regional?

From Iowa to Rhode Island our constituents collectively believe that our exploding national debt is a major problem facing America.

Rather than relying on federal intervention in the insurance markets, or pushing more costs onto taxpayers we should encourage more solutions from the private sector.

This administration has no plan, no plan whatsoever, to shore up social security for future generations.

You're the true variable cost in the equation.

Well in the short run, where the rubber meets the road, are premiums covering the amount of risk out there, and being able to pay the claims in a sustainable way?

I think--I'm a republican that believes that we need to be in the discussion.

The Democrats have made their message loud and clear. They don't care about the fiscal problems facing us right now.

Something has got to give or you are going to get more Government involved in health care.

Where's the President's plan to protect seniors?

WOTUS is the thing I hear the most in bailiwick of agriculture.

I think we are probably on somewhat the same wave length.

I think we are probably on somewhat the same wave length.

WOTUS is the thing I hear the most in bailiwick of agriculture.

Well good luck with it, because it's never generated more than a 17½ percent, percentage on tax revenues as a percentage of our GDP over 50 years. Therefore, I think you're being dishonest with the American public.

I don't know how that could be sold to the American public as a sustainable, healthy business plan.

Well good luck with it, because it's never generated more than a 17½ percent, percentage on tax revenues as a percentage of our GDP over 50 years. Therefore, I think you're being dishonest with the American public.

So, you're going to try to use government to price control.

Are you interested in reforming that biggest sector of our economy?

Sooner or later, if you're going to try to raise revenue when it's above historic levels, it always comes with a price of lower economic activity.

I don't know how that could be sold to the American public as a sustainable, healthy business plan.