Donald Trump releases health care reform plan

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

SlyPokerDog

Woof!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
127,012
Likes
147,624
Points
115
(CNN)Donald Trump on Wednesday laid out for the first time how he will reform the U.S. health care system after repeatedly pledging to "repeal and replace Obamacare with something much better."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/donald-trump-health-care-plan/


Healthcare Reform to Make America Great Again
Since March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare. This legislation, passed by totally partisan votes in the House and Senate and signed into law by the most divisive and partisan President in American history, has tragically but predictably resulted in runaway costs, websites that don’t work, greater rationing of care, higher premiums, less competition and fewer choices. Obamacare has raised the economic uncertainty of every single person residing in this country. As it appears Obamacare is certain to collapse of its own weight, the damage done by the Democrats and President Obama, and abetted by the Supreme Court, will be difficult to repair unless the next President and a Republican congress lead the effort to bring much-needed free market reforms to the healthcare industry.

But none of these positive reforms can be accomplished without Obamacare repeal. On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.

However, it is not enough to simply repeal this terrible legislation. We will work with Congress to make sure we have a series of reforms ready for implementation that follow free market principles and that will restore economic freedom and certainty to everyone in this country. By following free market principles and working together to create sound public policy that will broaden healthcare access, make healthcare more affordable and improve the quality of the care available to all Americans.

Any reform effort must begin with Congress. Since Obamacare became law, conservative Republicans have been offering reforms that can be delivered individually or as part of more comprehensive reform efforts. In the remaining sections of this policy paper, several reforms will be offered that should be considered by Congress so that on the first day of the Trump Administration, we can start the process of restoring faith in government and economic liberty to the people.

Congress must act. Our elected representatives in the House and Senate must:

  1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
  2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
  3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
  4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
  5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
  6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
  7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.
The reforms outlined above will lower healthcare costs for all Americans. They are simply a place to start. There are other reforms that might be considered if they serve to lower costs, remove uncertainty and provide financial security for all Americans. And we must also take actions in other policy areas to lower healthcare costs and burdens. Enforcing immigration laws, eliminating fraud and waste and energizing our economy will relieve the economic pressures felt by every American. It is the moral responsibility of a nation’s government to do what is best for the people and what is in the interest of securing the future of the nation.

Providing healthcare to illegal immigrants costs us some $11 billion annually. If we were to simply enforce the current immigration laws and restrict the unbridled granting of visas to this country, we could relieve healthcare cost pressures on state and local governments.

To reduce the number of individuals needing access to programs like Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program we will need to install programs that grow the economy and bring capital and jobs back to America. The best social program has always been a job – and taking care of our economy will go a long way towards reducing our dependence on public health programs.

Finally, we need to reform our mental health programs and institutions in this country. Families, without the ability to get the information needed to help those who are ailing, are too often not given the tools to help their loved ones. There are promising reforms being developed in Congress that should receive bi-partisan support.

To reform healthcare in America, we need a President who has the leadership skills, will and courage to engage the American people and convince Congress to do what is best for the country. These straightforward reforms, along with many others I have proposed throughout my campaign, will ensure that together we will Make America Great Again.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform
 
Trumpcare, explained

Trumpcare allows insurance companies to go back to refusing coverage for pre-existing conditions, a key barrier to coverage before Obamacare's coverage expansion.


Trumpcare has seven main policy points. Many of them are Republican orthodoxy, like allowing insurance sales across state lines (part of the Republicans' 2010 Pledge to America) and fostering a greater reliance on health savings account (a favorite policy proposal of Mitt Romney during the last campaign cycle). And, of course, Trump repeals Obamacare.

The key insurance reform that Trumpcare settles on is allowing individuals to deduct their premiums from their tax returns. This would give preferential tax treatment to the policies that individuals purchase, much like employer-sponsored plans (which the government does not tax. And it might help lower the premiums of people who buy health insurance coverage.

This part strays in a nuanced but important way from recent Obamacare repeal plans — and makes Trump's proposal much less favorable to low-income people than other Republican alternatives to the Affordable Care Act.

Harvard's John McDonough's analysis of eight recent replacement proposals shows that most follow Obamacare in relying on tax credits rather than deductions. Credits deliver an equal dollar value to all households, whether rich or poor. Deductions are much more valuable to high-income families who pay in high tax brackets, and often do nothing at all to help low-income families who likely don't itemize their deductions at all.

Putting all that aside, Trumpcare erects a massive barrier to coverage: he allows insurers to deny coverage to sick people. This is pretty typical of Republican Obamacare replacement plans; only one of 8 plans that McDonough analyzed required insurers to offer coverage to all individuals, even if they were especially sick.

Trumpcare would also allow the return of underwriting, where insurers can charge some subscribers more because they're especially sick. Under Trumpcare, a cancer patient could, theoretically, deduct his or her premium and that could make it more affordable — but that cancer patient might not be able to get coverage or have the cash to pay for it in the first place.

There are at least 60 million Americans with pre-existing conditions. Some of them have coverage under Obamacare. If Trumpcare became law, there's no guarantee they'd get to keep it. It's a pretty big crack to slip through.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/2/11150320/trump-health-care-plan
 
That's not a detailed plan. It has 7 vague objectives. Obamacare has thousands of details, a real plan.
 
I like the ideas, aside from the preexisting conditions stuff, which I don't think would be removed ultimately. Word.
 
That's not a detailed plan. It has 7 vague objectives. Obamacare has thousands of details, a real plan.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/271130-poll-majority-of-americans-feel-unaffected-by-obamacare

Poll: Only 15 percent say they have benefited from ObamaCare

Just 15 percent of people say they have personally benefited from ObamaCare, although more than one-third believe it has helped the people of their state, according to a poll released Monday.

Twenty-six percent of U.S. adults say they have been personally harmed by the healthcare law since its passage — a fraction that likely reflects those in the poll who said they have noticed rising healthcare costs in the last several year
 
First do no harm.

I'd LOL except it isn't funny to the 26% ho have been personally harmed by ObamaCare.
 
"personally harmed" can mean a lot of things. Thats why these kinds of figures are pointless.

Harmed can mean playing more in premiums, having to change doctors, changing insurance companies, etc.

It could also man something less "harmful"
 
"personally harmed" can mean a lot of things. Thats why these kinds of figures are pointless.

Harmed can mean playing more in premiums, having to change doctors, changing insurance companies, etc.

It could also man something less "harmful"

Personally harmed means a bad experience, no matter how you spin it.

A MASSIVE power grab by government that harms 2x more people than it helps.

Those who support it take solace in the belief it is helping some imaginary number (1/3) that doesn't square with reality (15%).
 
Personally harmed means a bad experience, no matter how you spin it.

A MASSIVE power grab by government that harms 2x more people than it helps.

Those who support it take solace in the belief it is helping some imaginary number (1/3) that doesn't square with reality (15%).

My point was that you can manipulate the same #'s and phrasing to support to denounce the same thing.

It's about word manipulation.
 
My point was that you can manipulate the same #'s and phrasing to support to denounce the same thing.

It's about word manipulation.
And whoever has the media in their back pocket.

I don't trust most the shit the media tries to tell us. Especially around nominations
 
My point was that you can manipulate the same #'s and phrasing to support to denounce the same thing.

It's about word manipulation.

The polling has consistently shown lack of support for and resentment of ObamaCare by the masses.

No matter how they phrase the questions.
 
My point was that you can manipulate the same #'s and phrasing to support to denounce the same thing.

It's about word manipulation.

Do you realize there are millions people that had insurance, good insurance that actually paid the medical bills that now do not have the insurance? If they have insurance now,
that they buy, it is very inferior compared to what they had due to co pays and deductibles. Is that word manipulation?

There is one small company in SW Washington that had about 52 employees prior to Obama care. These employees has company provided healthcare until the company was forced to change. Now they are down to about 42 employees without healthcare. Most buy their own now. The company had to make this change or go out of business. They managed to reduce the number of employees by automating some operations. The change to automation was quite expensive but it did make it possible to get the number of employee down below the threshold of the ACA employer mandate, which permitted the company to stay in operation.

Are the 52 employees benefiting from Obama Care? How about the 42 now buying their own? They now can deduct the cost of their insurance but I suspect most do not itemize deductions.
 
Aca on tax returns are garbage. Way to make things even more convoluted.

Oh well, guess that means I'm gonna be able to charge more when I prepare :D
 
I like the ideas, aside from the preexisting conditions stuff, which I don't think would be removed ultimately. Word.

Selling insurance across state lines would lead to one result:

The insurance companies would move to the state with the least regulations.
 
Do you realize there are millions people that had insurance, good insurance that actually paid the medical bills that now do not have the insurance? If they have insurance now,
that they buy, it is very inferior compared to what they had due to co pays and deductibles. Is that word manipulation?

There is one small company in SW Washington that had about 52 employees prior to Obama care. These employees has company provided healthcare until the company was forced to change. Now they are down to about 42 employees without healthcare. Most buy their own now. The company had to make this change or go out of business. They managed to reduce the number of employees by automating some operations. The change to automation was quite expensive but it did make it possible to get the number of employee down below the threshold of the ACA employer mandate, which permitted the company to stay in operation.

Are the 52 employees benefiting from Obama Care? How about the 42 now buying their own? They now can deduct the cost of their insurance but I suspect most do not itemize deductions.

This sounds like a load of Republican bullshit. Companies get tax breaks for giving their employees insurance.
 
Personally harmed means a bad experience, no matter how you spin it.

A MASSIVE power grab by government that harms 2x more people than it helps.

Those who support it take solace in the belief it is helping some imaginary number (1/3) that doesn't square with reality (15%).

Massive power grab? By who the insurance companies? We've been thrown into their arms.
 
Hey sick people should not get insurance. That's Amerikan..........thtrump6.jpg th crazy people.jpg
 
The 'lines around the states' stuff is largely bunk - it won't save all that much. It's much like the idea of balancing the budget by eliminating 'waste, fraud, and abuse'. Yes, there is some waste, some fraud, and some abuse (is that different than fraud?). But not enough to really make a dent.

barfo
 
The 'lines around the states' stuff is largely bunk - it won't save all that much. It's much like the idea of balancing the budget by eliminating 'waste, fraud, and abuse'. Yes, there is some waste, some fraud, and some abuse (is that different than fraud?). But not enough to really make a dent.

barfo

The lines around the states thing allows an insurance company in NY to sell insurance in Oregon.

It's an economics thing. Move along.
 
This sounds like a load of Republican bullshit. Companies get tax breaks for giving their employees insurance.

You don't know what the hell you are talking about. But I suppose it is to be expected. Actually in my case and that of my wife and millions of other, the company would have been taxed it they continued to provide insurance.

In the case of the small company I spoke of, the cost of the insurance needed to qualify under the ACA is too fucking high. A tax deduction for a cost that is too high is of no help.
Can you understand this?
 
The lines around the states thing allows an insurance company in NY to sell insurance in Oregon.

It's an economics thing. Move along.

What it actually does is allow insurance companies to sell insurance under the regulations of another state.

So if this were enacted, you could buy insurance from a company using the regulations of, say, Mississippi, which probably has fewer consumer safeguards than California.

The 'location' of the insurance company isn't really the issue. It's compliance w/ local standards. My insurance company is headquartered in Minnesota, I think.

Another factor is that a significant fraction of the insured are under ERISA plans, which are exempt from state regulations. So removing the 'lines around the states' doesn't actually change anything for them.

barfo
 
The 'lines around the states' stuff is largely bunk - it won't save all that much. It's much like the idea of balancing the budget by eliminating 'waste, fraud, and abuse'. Yes, there is some waste, some fraud, and some abuse (is that different than fraud?). But not enough to really make a dent.

barfo

Wow! It is difficult to believe liberal Democrats actually believe what they post! Of course more competition is necessary, here on the South Coast of Oregon, Moda is the only company issuing
Medicare Advantage plans. Now that there are under State scrutiny, they are not do so either. Thanks Obama, things are totally fucked up now. There is no good reason to not allow all companies to cover this area if they wish. It can only help. (I know why it is not done. PS, it has to do with Democrats)
 
Regulations good. Need more government.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...th-insurance-across-state-lines-reduce-costs/

Right now, in nearly every state, insurance is regulated at the state level. If you live in New York, like I do, you can’t buy insurance from a company in Connecticut or New Jersey, or even better, Utah. Why does this matter? Because state governments, at the behest of lobbyists, enact insurance mandates requiring all plans in a state to cover, say, acupuncture or fertility treatments. Insurance mandates can raise the costs of premiums by 30-50 percent. If I could buy insurance from another state, where regulations are less onerous, I might not be forced to buy a policy that covers drug-abuse counseling.
 
Wow! It is difficult to believe liberal Democrats actually believe what they post! Of course more competition is necessary, here on the South Coast of Oregon, Moda is the only company issuing
Medicare Advantage plans. Now that there are under State scrutiny, they are not do so either. Thanks Obama, things are totally fucked up now. There is no good reason to not allow all companies to cover this area if they wish. It can only help. (I know why it is not done. PS, it has to do with Democrats)

I'm not saying getting rid of the 'lines around the states' is bad. I'm saying it won't make that much difference. I understand there isn't much competition in your market (but most people don't live out in the back of beyond like you do). However, look at healthcare costs in markets where there is currently already plenty of competition. It isn't notably cheaper. It's a fantasy that competition among insurance carriers is a silver bullet that will fix the costs.

Yes, you would gain from competition. But you aren't typical, and you might find that even if allowed, carriers might not be interested in serving your market.

barfo
 
Selling insurance across state lines would lead to one result:

The insurance companies would move to the state with the least regulations.

Assumptions, and the sky is falling!
 
you might find that even if allowed, carriers might not be interested in serving your market.

You assume far too much. But you forgot to assume the Federal Government does not dictate what ills must be covered. The Companies might just covet covering people that do not
want nor need drug abuse coverage, Aids coverage, and a policy without pregnancy coverage would be widely sought. Hell I would like to see this mandatory drug coverage disappear also.

You know cover the stuff you need coverage for, not the shit you can avoid or plan to cover yourself.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top