So, Trump still wants to kill the ACA, saying: “It's [ACA] a disaster for our people. If the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is out, we will have a plan that is far better than Obamacare.” https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/trump-health-care-obamacare-1238927 This has been going on and on and on for YEARS now, with Republicans having NO PLAN since before Papa Bush!! What is this plan going to look like? Is he going back to the "Trumpcare" proposal of Speaker Ryan? If so, will problems like those identified by the CBO: - 24 million more people uninsured by 2026 - plans will be skimpier (specifics??) - modest benefit to younger people - modest benefit to wealthier people - ...at the expense of older and/or poorer people who will likely be driven out of the market What's going to happen to those with preexisting conditions, or those unable to afford coverage? What will be the rules for those who get sick - will insurance companies be allowed to dump customers that cost them money - like before the ACA? OR, does he have some OTHER idea up his sleeve?? We should get interested NOW, because he's actually working to kill your healthcare coverage again!
Only my guess. But I would guess Trump made this decision in the middle of a McCain rant. He has no plan. There is no free lunch on healthcare unless you make a major move to control costs and eliminate middle men.
True. I've wondered whether these "decision makers" realize that their full extended families are also going to be old one day - if they're lucky. And, why would any Republican think it's a great idea to roll into another election cycle with a healthcare fiasco hanging around their necks Apparently, Trump's chief of staff was a motivator on this one.
Doesn't matter if you like the ACA or not, it's unconstitutional and was collapsing under its own weight.
You would think that after the last beating Pelosi gave him he would have learned not to try to out politic her. The Dems have the high ground with the voters and the slogan with Medicare for all. I look for the Dems to back into it by opening Medicare Advantage up for people to buy into at first. Maybe 55 and over at 15 or 20% above cost. This could be available for both business and private.
I am a big Trump supporter and unlike the left I can say that his healthcare thing was a complete disaster. Republicans had an opportunity but no plan and what they put out was utterly disgusting, like they threw it together at the last second in the elevator on the way up to chambers. Trump deserves the hit for that. So since they obviously cannot come up with something better I say they simply modify Obamacare and let it stand. Nobody wants to rid us of pre-existing conditions, neither the right nor the left. Obama put out a crap bill but it did have some good things in it.
Why is it even called Obamacare? He had nothing to do with it. Then again he got the Nobel Prize for doing nothing so no surprise. Liberals like to reward people for doing nothing. On that note the Republicans are choking. They have an opportunity to be the hero and they're ******** themselves. Idiots.
I am totally fine with the ACA being fixed or replaced by something better. The ACA was a compromise with Republicans - certainly not what I wanted. I wanted what Obama wanted, but didn't get. But, the way to do that is to present fixes or a replacement FIRST and then kill what we have as we carry out an orderly transition plan. Every corporation that offers healthcare is going to have to change. Every insurance company is going to have to change. And, there will be changes in every state as well. And, that's true whether there are any significant fixes or a total replacement. What part of government have we EVER changed by first killing everything we have and only after that figuring out what we should do? How do we know enough to kill what we have without knowing ANYTHING about what will come next - or when it will come? This isn't just a healthcare fiasco. It is a leadership fiasco.
That means we need a replacement - BEFORE we kill what we have. We can't have an orderly transition plan, involving every insurance company, corporation that offers healthcare and every state without knowing where we're going before what we have evaporates.
Obviously healthcare needs to be addressed but neither side knows how the hell to do it. That's what I am getting out of all this. We aren't Sweden, we can't just adopt their system. We are going to have to invent our own solution but the problem is all the morons currently sitting in Washington. Obamacare was a disaster, the repubicans fix was an even worse disaster....I don't know.....at this point I'd say to just give it to the states, see which one of them comes up with a good system and copy it. The federal government are apparently too stupid to figure it out.
Trump has no plan, his followers have no plan, Republicans have no plan because they are a wrecking crew bent on the destruction of all things crafted by opponents, anyone that doesn't love their leader unconditionally, and especially that - word that must never be said - Obama. They are slavishly devoted to the proposition that the United States as currently configured is bad juju and must be destroyed. But I digress. We know, because the great orange god has told us, that fixing healthcare is simple before he found out it wasn't. The lesson didn't stick because, well because it was reality which we all know sucks in Trumpland. I can simplify it for you Trumpets and make health care super easy with just a couple of simple rules.... 1. It has to cover everyone. 2. It has to reduce costs. I shall wait with great anticipation to learn of your many great plans to replace Obamacare. The clock is ticking.
I posted this in another thread: For those looking for a solution to the mess we are in, here is an idea I have been thinking on for a couple of years. It is a mix of "single payer" and insurance: 1. Government covers all costs after a certain limit. I was thinking that limit to be the average annual wage of the Country, State, or maybe a Region. Basically, if a person's medial costs for a single medical ailment reaches $30,000 (assuming that is the annual rate used), the overage above the $30,000 is covered by the Government. Basically, the Government covers extreme emergency situations. 2. All other costs are handled normally by insurance. This should lower premiums and deductibles and make it more affordable to lower income citizens. Maybe it would not work....maybe it would. I'm sure it would not be as easy as this though.
Trump is a Complete IMBECILE. Trump has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to health care (or any other subject). And some people actually voted for this MORONIC IDIOT? :smh:
One way to control costs in general is to prevent all illegals from getting free or subsidized health insurance or care. 1 out of every 16 or so people is here illegally and many of them push out anchor babies they can't pay for. Eliminate free anything to them, tell immigrants they're on their own until they become citizens and right off the top we've saved billions in costs. Another way to reduce costs is to reduces the costs doctors have to pay to stay in business. Malpractice awards in the tens of millions is absurd, there has to be a more reasonable way to calculate damages rather than playing on the emotions of jurors. And still another way is to set up insurance based on lifestyles. Drug users should have to pay more just like smokers do. People who engage in dangerous activities and sports should have that taken into account. Finally, with the left telling us we need illegals because we have more jobs than workers, then everyone should be able to find a job, pay their own way and not need someone they don't know to leech off of.
Agreed on most of your points. However, the pathetic effort by the Republican led house, caused by the leadership of two of the worst Speakers in modern history, Boehner and Ryan, should be where blame resides, not on the President. He did everything he could to get something done. As you stated, correcting the major flaws in Obamacare would appear to be the best way to move forward.
We already have a single payer system - Medicare. We don't have to go to Sweden - though I would suggest that we should be looking carefully at features other countries have tested for us. I see a couple problems with giving it to the states. One is that we need our system to work across state lines in a way that is well known to all. Another is that I don't really believe the states should be competing with each other in healthcare. It's too susceptible to a race to the bottom - ideas like eliminating health care for the poor in hopes they will go away.
It would need to include something about insurance companies and customers with preexisting conditions, customers who get sick not being dropped, customers being dumped for reaching an insurance company age cutoff, etc. I think we forget the full range of insurance company tricks, because with the ACA we don't face them anymore.
Interesting idea, but I think it might just create huge costs in the government. The problem is that the biggest costs will get deferred to government. For example, I recently had a surgery that was billed to my insurance company at 50k. I had to pay 3k of it because the maximum I have to pay is 3k a year. In your system, this entire cost would be put on the government. My surgery was quite minor. I was in and out of the hospital in 4 hours. There are many other procedures that cost much more and will be dumped onto the system. Another problem is that this would not cover situations that happen quite often. For example, let us say someone goes to the doctor with a certain set of symptoms. The doctors orders tests that come out to 5k. They find nothing. Another set of tests are ordered which also cost 5k and still no diagnosis. If this is repeated 7 times, you have reached to over 30k in costs, but he government would not cover this in your model. These are typical chains of events that occur when your diagnosis is more rare. Our health care system is designed to check for the cheaper diagnoses first, and you have an ever expanding search. How would you define the single medical aliment? Would you wait to pay the costs until the diagnosis and treatment is complete? If so, this would avoid it. Otherwise, you are putting the larger cost on the consumer. Overall, I like your system because it protects people from big costs, but it will be a huge drain on the economy without any chance of reducing the costs. Any change to our health care system that would require a large share to be covered by the tax payers (i.e., the government), should also include a possibility of reducing the costs. Your system puts all the high cost procedures onto the government without any cost controlling mechanisms to reduce them. Insurance works because you spread the costs of the expensive procedures across the inexpensive ones. Here you have created a two tier system which might lead to even more inflated costs for the government. If we take a single payer system, this would be less likely. All procedures are in the same pool and the costs can be reduced in multiple ways. One way is that the government is a single entity that can negotiate the rates down of all procedures because they have the entire share of the business that the medical industry needs. Another way the cost will be reduced is through increased preventive care. People who are not covered by health insurance usually don't get preventive care. If you increase the number of people covered, you increase the number of people that would go for preventative care. This will reduce the overall costs of insuring everyone because some diseases will be caught in earlier stages. Thus, it will be cheaper to treat in many cases. Finally, this reduces the probability of people from using emergency rooms as their primary care provider. This has a huge impact on the costs of insurance and in your proposed system would likely be covered by the government due to the inflated costs of health care from emergency rooms. The problem with single payer system is implementing and estimating the costs. I would argue that your system would cost more in the long run than the single payer system due to the reasons outlined above. However, the single payer system would cost more upfront. My proposal for this is to pitch this to businesses and people as a cost savings in the future. Tell businesses they no longer have to pay for health care, but you are getting taxed X percent more. The same can be said to people. You are no longer required to pay for health care, but you have increased taxes. If you can get the tax rates correct in which they cost less than the insurance would for the businesses and people (in most cases), you will have stronger public support. With the increased taxes, it should reduce the hit the debt. If this is implemented correctly, this could reduce health care costs across the country and make a single payer system affordable.
We don't need a subpopulation that incubates disease for us. Plus, out of those "1 out of every 16" there are citizens in the family. I agree that our method of policing medical practitioners isn't great. We have tort. Then, we have insurance so tort hits the doctor pretty indirectly. I don't know how you decide an individual is a drug user. Do you drop someone's healthcare coverage if they get convicted on a drugs charge? Then, we get to have more capability for propagating disease? It's the business community that uses undocumented labor. With the 2013 bipartisan immigration bill, the Chamber of Commerce agreed only if employers could hire directly out of Mexico - which is pretty much the moral equivalent of undocumented labor - it's just as much a jobs issue, it still leans on our healthcare system, it's an outstanding way for people to come and overstay, etc.
I believe the US has implementation problem more often than not. The ideas may be good, but we often screw up the implementation. Of course, there are bad ideas, but the idea is only 1/2 the solution. We need our government to learn how to implement ideas better. Our political process hinders this a bit because neither side wants to work with the other side to make the ideas better or help with the implementation. Usually, it is the opposite.
I think we already tell illegals they are on there own. I don't see the anchor baby problem you talk about going away since it's in the constitution. Good idea. Lets do it. What do you think the limit should be? I think this is already the case. I'll ignore the workers part, because the problem is as much cost for everyone as it is for low income people. But consider about 40 million people make less than 30K a year, it gets real hard to come up with several 100 dollars a month for health insurance and even harder if you have a serious illness.
1 out of every 16? That seems like quite a stretch... source? This seems to be exaggerated for the benefit of paranoia. The US entire population is 372 million... 10 million illegals (most working)... math is hard. As long as there isn't a preclusion of pharmaceutical companies delivering bad drugs or creating an epidemic, or doctor's using defective devices, prescribing the wrong medicine, having the diagnosis wrong... malpractice limits bad medicine? Well, don't stop there... people who drive combustion engine automobiles, not only routinely handle gas, exposing themselves to benzene and heavy metals, and the exhaust of burning the fuel which is highly carcinogenic, but also expose themselves to serious injury in any vehicle accidents that may or may likely occur, limiting their function in society. Air traffic controllers, police, and any high stress job should increase the amount paid for insurance, based on their lifestyles... and don't cover dentists... they off themselves on a routine basis... ...oh, and anyone who owns a gun... yep, higher insurance costs... Insurance should be based of what an individual needs to live a full and expectant life, regardless of lifestyle, ...because there are a lot of environmental factors that play into the well being of people, very little of it has to do with lifestyles, but the quality of the environment those lifestyles exist within.
There was a recent serious study concerning undocumented population of America that used different methods than Pew or the government. It came up with 20K rather than the 12K or whatever. It did confirm that the undocumented population hasn't grown since ~2008. Then, if you use 327M as the US population (I think that's a lot closer than 372M) you get very close to 1 in 16.
