Is Anyone Happy with TrumpCare?

I'm not a Republican, I am a Nationalist(I'm also aware you weren't responding to me), but I do have health care ideas that aren't ACA. To stupidly simplify the matter, health care should be treated like social security. You're born with an SS number, and you have it for life. Health care should be the same way. We should create a "health care account", and there's 3 groups and/or plans:

Toddler, Teen, Adult. We essentially segment the population into these three groups and keep them segregated in this manner, with each group transferring to another at a certain age. This is how you lower costs, by isolating them. There are some good things the ACA did, such as preventive care. That would be a part of my overall reforms as well. But the next biggest thing is to reduce the amount of administrative overhead by 2/3rds. This is done by allowing prescription drugs(to the extent that they can be sold safely) to be sold over the counter, as well as allowing foreign treatments/medications to be pursued here in America, subject to at least peer review by the FDA.(No, I don't think the FDA is some holy grail. But I also can't imagine a reform bill passing without giving them at least peer review power. Such is the crony of Washington.)

Check-ups will be periodically scheduled once every three months, and of course the patient can schedule his or her own check-ups, but this mandatory minimum is meant to limit the amount of check-ups and thus overhead.

And it's my position that if we want to adapt a national health care system(IE: The EU), we need to finally pass Across State Lines. The POTUS gave a limited executive order to accomplish this, but it still doesn't go far enough. EO's never go as far as passed legislation. We need to formally agree to Across State Lines, so that the policy can be truly universal amongst the States. By creating truly universal health care, the people will have more decisions than ever before, not fewer.

Getting back to reducing administrative overhead, as part of my health care reform package, we will fund hospitals to be able to host double their capacity nationally by 2030. One of the biggest problems is that hospitals are in excess demand and they're not able to keep up. None of the reform measures to date, understand or comprehend this problem. By giving hospitals the needed funds to double their capacity, including medical tools, we can better lower prices.

Also, funding and enabling hospice care from home and home treatments is also a proven way to reduce costs. All of the above in a radical approach to address the true issues with health care.

 

You not taking personal responsibility is the blunder.

 

Did not Trump promise a plan that would cover everyone and cost less. Yet he has only worked to take health care away from some people, while working on trying to take it away from more. In other words Trump Care is a lie.

 

I'm ready for it! Here Mr. Trump (holding a S.S.check) take my check, that's what you want. How else do republicans plan to pay for health care so they can replace the ACA other than taking away money from S.S. and Medicare, along with millions of others on Medicaid? Sure, that's going to work out just fine for republicans. We'll die, along with all those with pre-existing conditions and voilla! The cost of health care goes down like a bomb. It's a success! Yay Trump! Yay republicans!

You think I'm joking, right? Think again. Cutting Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security is on Trump's 2020 agenda. Does anyone remember what Trump told the Heritage Foundation in 2015? Here's a reminder; “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid,”

News flash, he was lying (gasp!)

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...medicaid-social-security-medicare-budget-cuts

[snip] Over the next 10 years, Trump’s 2020 budget proposal aims to spend $1.5 trillion less on Medicaid — instead allocating $1.2 trillion in a block-grant program to states — $25 billion less on Social Security, and $845 billion less on Medicare (some of that is reclassified to a different department). Their intentions are to cut benefits under Medicaid and Social Security.

 

If you had taken the time to read this thread you would know I pay my own bills. I do so because it’s the right thing to do. It’s how I was raised. My parents taught me by example. Because someone else doesn’t pay their bills is not a legitimate reason for tyranny. Because someone does pay their bills is not a legitimate reason for tyranny.

 

Your mandatory 'all or nothing' approach is rediculously uncreative. Its almost like you're not even trying to consider a system that would allow for voluntary participation...

First off, you're equating funerary services with health care. If you want to nationalize the cost of trucking my corpse to a crematorium so it doesnt rot in the street, thats a seperate issue.

Additionally, most people have property or incone that can be liened if they rack up health care debt and refuse to pay. The cases where someone is unconscious for so long that they rack up this debt before regaining enough consciousness to refuse service or accept financial liability are not common enough to represent a meaningful drain on the system.

Your failure to account for this in your argument is indicative of the common collectivist sentiment that the healthy should be held financially liable for the unhealthy and that health care is legitimate means to redistribute wealth.

 

I have already earned and paid for my health care. Why should I have to pay for anyone else's, which is what universal health care requires because my taxes will go up?

 

I just did a quick check at BCBS of Illinois and found a plan with $7400 deductible.

 

Health insurance does not cover burials.

 

That brings up another government interference problem, I don't live in Illinois.

 

By the same token someone can ask - why am I paying taxes? I’m not using the US military, or welfare.
You know the answer to that question. Nobody likes free riders.
Some system must exist where you either pay through taxes and get minimal coverage or opt out with proof of insurance.

 

I want the government to stop providing massive taxpayer subsidies to the private sector to divert resources to administering medical plans.

As I noted, the US must confront the ever-rising cost of TrumpCare.

I had previously suggested an incremental lowering of the Medicare eligibility age that would progressively incorporate lower-risk demographics into the pool, but the US has 50 laboratories where alternative approaches can be tried. Economy of scale demands national participation to be optimal, but a state by state approach may contribute to a solution.

The public option may be the most practicable solution, although the parasitic profiteers will vehemently oppose any progress.

 

Of note, what do you think of my proposal above? Would it be a template that as a Liberal, you could see yourself nodding to?

 

Trump, aided and abetted by his Republican Senate, and his Republican House for two full years, had long brayed that they would "immediately" repeal 'ObamaCare', Trump insisting that his plan would "cover everybody!" at "less cost!"

Under TrumpCare, millions fewer are insured at greater cost.

Those who venerate their Trump seem impotent in confronting the stark disparity.

The US, under TrumpCare,

... is the only large, highly developed country that lacks universal health coverage. At the same time,
healthcare costs in the US are the highest in the world, and can be financially catastrophic.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/23/healthcare-us-americans-uninsured-2014-gallup​

 

Nobody can explain what it is. you can't avoid something that doesn't exist so explain what it is

 

Economy of scale, the efficiencies of standardization, and actuarial stability ideally requires distributing risk by forming the largest pool possible, not arbitrary segmentation.

The 65 million Americans already covered under a single-payer plan still have options. Incrementally lowering the eligibility age of Medicare would be gradually addressing the untenable plight.

In any event, as a practical matter, for the reasons I mentioned, progress can not be precipitous.

 

I'm open to a public option as part of some sort of compromise legislation, but the truth is you won't like it if you have to pay for it, otherwise you would just be happy paying for regular insurance coverage.

 

You may need to fixate on "blame", but the ACA, while having made enormous progress in covering millions of previously uninsured Americans, extending family coverage of children to age 26 if they would be otherwise uninsured, and eliminating pre-existing exclusions for those family members was genuine progress, was never intended to be a permanent solution, nor did it ever address cost adequately. Under TrumpCare, cost continues to rise and millions of Americans are again having their medical costs dumped on the taxpayer.

Americans are eager for progress, not the regression that has occurred under Trumpery. Trump's plan to cover "everybody!" at "less cost!" remains a worthy goal, and one that multiple advanced nations have demonstrated is achievable

 

Your continue to conflate what you call progress with actual facts. The entire premise of Obamacare is illegal along with the insistence that all must pay for it whether or not they want to participate. This is not progress, it is extortion, which is of course what they wanted in the first place.

 

Projections is not good

 

99% of ObamaCare is still intact except for the individual mandate.

There is no TrumpCare. It's still ObamaCare.

 

The truth is that you won't like it if you have to pay for it, but eliminating the massive public subsidy that sustains employer-administered plans, the profit margins, multiply-duplicated executive compensation packages, payrolls, marketing, advertising, and political lobbying costs, agency overhead and commissions, etc., etc., etc. allows for far more of every healthcare dollar to be spent on actual healthcare.

And uniformity of administrative procedures eliminates the need for providers to retain clerical staffs to negotiate the variety of the profiteers' various administrative demands.

We must keep in mind that these middle men who have insinuated themselves into the equation treat and/or cure no one.

A public option is a sensible step toward achieving Trump's stated goal of covering "everybody!" at "less cost!"

The powerful self-interests of those who are parasites on the disastrous system will oppose any progress, and manipulate vulnerable ideologues into doing their dirty work.

 

By not paying for people who take unnecessary risk and don't work out?

 

But they feel that they can't attack that unless they rename it. Ignorant hypocritics.

 

Trump, who campaigned on healthcare reform and his promise of "something terrific!" that covered "everybody!"at "less cost!", aided and abetted by two years of Republican-control of both House and Senate, after years of vowing to "immediately" repeal and replace the ACA, have produced what we have: rising costs and millions more uninsured whose medical costs are consigned to the taxpayer.

If Trump has decided to perpetuate a diminished and enfeebled ACA, that is TrumpCare.