Posted on 03/19/2016 5:16:45 AM PDT by Kaslin
As I pointed out in my reply 28, about half the states in the country have passed tort reform that caps malpractice insurance. There is no evidence that it has resulted in lower health care costs in those states. Lower malpractice premiums, yes.
Dr Carson will be tasked with integrating the various plans that address the issues you note and develops a set of bills that will replace the current catastrophe
I'm just pointing out that what Trump has proposed won't solve much of anything. So if your solution is to replace one failed program with another then what have you accomplished?
But he plans to replace it with 'something better'. I read that as just another government plan.
TerrifiTrumpCare!!
Like what?
I think you're making that up. I have seen nothing of this in anything Trump has said.
You're right. Anything Trump proposes has to have his name on it otherwise it's not superspectacular.
Ahhh no, Obamacare A.K.A. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) It started out in the house as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) introduced by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009
It Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
It Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
Then the House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
And then it was Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010
If you want it repealed it will start in Congress Presidents can only talk about it until someone in Congress sends him a bill to sign, And being Cruz says he is a Strict Constitutionalist he knows claiming HE as POTUS alone will repeal it is pure Bull Schitt!
In your question is the key to the whole situation.
No, he can't pay for his own MRI, in most cases.
The reason why is complicated, and to understand it, you have to understand Medicare and especially Medicaid, and the political forces that caused them to be created in the first place. "Obamacare" is the result of the financial collapse of Medicare and Medicaid, and unless the underlying politics are reversed, we will have nationalization within five to seven years.
In 1964, most people over 65 who didn't have union or employer provided health insurance as part of their retirement package couldn't buy health insurance. Since Social Security was "for retirement", Congress decided they would directly fund hospitalization and physician services for ALL people over 65. To budget for this, they looked at how much people over 65 spent out of pocket for these services 1952-1962 (which wasn't much). They predicted that, after 25 years, they would be spending $8 billion/year for this, and they were off by a factor of 100. Not 100% - 100X.
This was, of course, because the promise by the government to pay, without limit, for all "reasonable" services created entire industries that did not exist in 1964 - joint replacements, cataract and other eye surgeries, novel treatments for heart attacks, fantastic radiation and chemotherapy treatments, CT scans and eventually MRI, GI endoscopy - none of these things would have been developed by investors without the promise by Congress to pay without limit, because most seniors in the period 1952-1962 could not have funded these things by direct out-of-pocket payments for health care services.
At the last minute during negotiations over Medicare, Congress decided they would also take care of "the poor", with a joint Federal-State program called Medicaid. They couldn't use historical spending by "the poor" to design it, because there was no spending by the poor to speak of in 1952-1962. The poor were cared for in city or county hospitals, which were line items in municipal or state budgets. I trained in such a hospital, and, although services were generally good, when we ran out of money we had to stop spending it.
The crazy promise to pay for the poor led to a massive shift of those poor from county hospitals into private-voluntary and university hospitals, where, of course, there could not be two standards of care. Spending by Medicaid exploded.
By 1986, most of the money flowing into these programs was being printed or borrowed. The taxpayers do have some say, at the end of the day, about how much they will pay for other people's healthcare, and the Great Compromise of 1986 on taxation (Republicans can cut taxes as long as Democrats can borrow and print money to make up the difference) saved the day for almost 20 years.
That brings us to the present day. The government has saddled taxpayers with $19 trillion dollars in debt. The cost of these highly desired services continues to explode. Of course, as with even the simplest highway project, there is waste, fraud, and abuse. But the government's contention that this amounts to 15% of their spending is a lie (that would take another whole long post).
So, the government has increasingly restricted spending through a variety of incentives and punishments. The prime directive, through all of this, has been that "the poor" (and now "the migrant" and "the refugee") get exactly the same care that Donald Trump gets, and since "the poor" can't have MRI on demand, neither can you - even if you want to pay for it.
The core problem is that what people want and what they are willing or able to pay for, when health, life, and death are involved, are radically different.
If government-funded health care could function on a budget, that would have happened long ago. But instead, the budgeting process itself has been destroyed, and popular sovereignty along with it, and "Obamacare" is the result.
If you can get the TrumpAid out of your eyes you would read from that website “create sound public policy” and “install programs”. In other words, TerrifiTrumpCare.
there are several plans in the file cabinets of various Republican congressmen that will be taken out and mixed in with the new president’s ideas and developed into bills that can pass.
This will happen regardless of who is the new president. Dr Carson might not be the leader, on point of the task group, but it is going to happen.
I can see how that could happen. The insurance company would never admit that they're avoiding paying for a beneficial procedure. I was a little surprised with the set up for Physical Therapy. The PT clinic couldn't take a patient without a "prescription". The funny thing is everyone's prescription seems to be exactly what insurance covers, and for many folks the co-pay is beyond their ability or willingness to pay. I'll agree that even without being insured, they don't go the MRI route until after PT "prescriptions" are filled. They all jump through the hoops the insurance companies provide.
Can people still go to private clinics or abroad? I wonder if there isn't a double standard for the elite and those with connections when these situations arise.
I've already figured out the solution....don't get sick.
Capping malpractice insurance is not tort reform. Serious tort reform includes such features as loser pays, bad lawyers lose their licenses, punitive damages are restricted, ambulance chasers get sued, etc.
In my reply 20 I went through Trump's plan and pointed out what I think are it's weaknesses and why it won't make much of a difference. Care to point out where I'm wrong? And since Trumps proposal is nothing more or less than a rehash of what Republicans have been proposing for some time then one has to assume that Trump's plan would be the one moved forward on.
There are billions to be saved by giving patients more control over their medical bills.
It certainly won't happen if Hillary is the new president. We need to elect someone who will be able to beat her.
You're getting to the bigger point in the debate: the system is broken and no one person, including Terrific Trump, can fix it.
My beef with Trump is that he's a northeast liberal with NY values and I believe that he'll just make things worse.
Actually it is. What you want to do is eliminate any medical liability cases at all for any reason. And if you do that then you would do away with the need for medical liability insurance. But why should we think that it would do anything about health insurance premiums?
Apparently you are too afraid to even read it. Sorry for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.