Left/GOPe: (Enter Caveman mode)" What? I don't understand. Your modern world frightens and confuses me".
Posted on 02/21/2016 12:14:29 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Donald Trump has a plan to make America's health care great again.
It's very simple, he says: Lock the best health care policy minds in a room -- and don't let them out until they've crafted a plan for providing terrific coverage for everyone.
But the strategy, laid out in Trump's most recent book, begs the question: Who exactly would be locked in that room? And who is advising him on ideas which are as unorthodox for a GOP frontrunner as his candidacy?
Trump has repeatedly said everyone should have access to health care -- going so far as to say he supports "the mandate" in a town hall meeting in South Carolina Thursday night (although he walked that back on Twitter, saying he was referring to the rule that insurers must cover people with pre-existing illnesses). He also says government should pick up the tab for the poor so no one is "dying on the streets" -- a stance seemingly far to the left of the rest of the Republican presidential field.
Sam Clovis, Trump's national policy adviser, insists the campaign is talking with lots of health care experts -- but declined to name any of those advisers.
"We have experts around the world who help us on these various topics," Clovis said in an interview with POLITICO. "We get very frank and honest input if we do not expose these people to the scrutiny of the press. … As we get further along they might want to come out of the shadows."
To shed light on the advisers shaping Trump's eclectic thinking, POLITICO scoured the landscape of notable policy wonks -- from academics to lobbyists to congressional staffers to think tank fellows -- but was unable to find anyone, on either side of the political divide,
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Yep, Politico is the first place I’d look for this...
He’s talked about removing barriers to competition, negotiating drug prices on a “favored nation” status, and other common sense reforms.
My friend who runs a health network says many cost issues can be resolved simply, such as by attacking diabetes early when it’s cheap rather than waiting until it becomes very costly to deal with chronic symptoms, but Obamacare doesn’t work that way.
I’m sure when Trump is in office a blue-ribbon team will be appointed and then all of Politico’s questions will be answered. But probably not before.
Left/GOPe: (Enter Caveman mode)" What? I don't understand. Your modern world frightens and confuses me".
Trump has had all sides of this issue and has managed to spur public debate with out staking out any inflexible position. Unlike the other candidates, who actually are in a position to write laws and have failed to even birth a bill, it looks like he has done pretty well to this point.
Time would be better spent for these people to stake out clear bumper sticker short positions that they can defend and let Donald spin until he has to defend a position. Attacking a non-position, with no firm line, written in shifting sand can be very frustrating.
I would like to know how Trump is going to micromanage all the deals he thinks he can make?
To be fair, mischaracterizations are flying around everywhere.
I never grokked this “Goldman Sachs” stuff. Has something more been going on than Ted borrowing from his own (quite well padded, more than you or I peons’) retirement account? And the result of defaulting, if he did, only being that he has to pay a ding to the IRS, not that Goldman Sachs owns him?
We could stand to be more frank and honest all around here. Nobody’s an absolute angel; nobody’s an absolute devil.
I’m sorry....but....most of his “terrific” rhetoric comes off as rather simplistic (simpleton) and childish to me. Is he really that clueless about how things really work in government ....and how hard it is to actually get the tough issues solved vs. just mouthing the easy spiel that he’s so good at spewing? It’s amazing that so many fall for this crap.
When he says that he also mentions that hospital are in trouble - it’s connected in his mind. In fact, they are closing because of the illegal alien invasion.
Well, sometimes simple IS best. It was for many years into the existence of the USA.
The clutter of today is from more and more nanniness and socialism. We ought to be CHEERING at attempts to simplify. Not hooting.
I would suggest “asset testing”. I know someone, very close to me, as in family member, worth more than I could ever hope to be, but has set up his finances in a way that shows minimal income, enabling him to take advantage of several gov’t programs, although he’s very vague on which ones.
Everything he’s doing is legal, within the rules as they’re currently written.
You can’t separate him from a penny if he doesn’t want it separated. He uses “other peoples” money to accomplish his goals.
Just as ....watching and observing folks voting for and supporting a candidate with a non-position, no firm line, written in shifting sand, who also happens to be a ""former"" Democrat-supporting liberal can be very frustrating. But it does explain why this nation is circling the bowl and about to be flushed into the gutter of failed nations throughout history.
There was a built in charity system untouched by multinational corporations and untouched by politicians on the take.
It does look very much like his primary goal is to bring the almost capsized ship of the USA back upright. Whether the result is the most wonderful paragon of conservatism one ever saw, is a don’t care to Donald.
Get the USA operating reasonably again, and then we can trim our sails as conservatively as we wish. Right now we need all hands on deck — even the “moonbats” — and if a slush fund is needed to make it possible, it is.
Oh, if there was an outright donation that is different. I have found it hard to follow the details. When did GS make such a donation?
Do a search for cruz PAC funding. You will find a lot of the GOPe usual’s funded cruz’s senate PACs as well as his current PACs. You can do your own research, but here is a starting point:
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00033085
The clutter of today is from more and more nanniness and socialism. We ought to be CHEERING at attempts to simplify. Not hooting.
The problem is....there's a huge difference between Trump offering simplistic ideas towards solving complex problems...
and between Trump actually being able to "simplify" anything. And you really can't discern that difference?
The insurance companies and employers provide a service for employees. Not bad but the chicken paying began to fall out of favor.
In the 70s doctors are mandated to be 'managed' where the government begins to mandate how doctors and insurance companies interact. Not good because Uncle Sam began to make decisions.
Hillary introduces her version of Obamacare and falls flat on her face. Not bad, in fact really fun.
Managed care increases - liberals in Congress begin to stomp for 'single-payer' claiming that what we really have is a healthcare issue when it is really a 'medical costs have risen because of government butting in where it should never have been.' Not good.
Obama pushes for and succeeds in getting the first part of his grand scheme to hook every person in America into healthcare which is determined by the 'single payer' the Federal government. Really, really bad.
And Donald Trump wants to play around with the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.
“his “terrific” rhetoric comes off as rather simplistic (simpleton) and childish to me-—It’s amazing that so many fall for this crap.”
On health care Trump has been repeating a handful of solutions that have long been promoted by pretty much every conservative candidate.
You say you don’t like his style of speech. I find it incredibly refreshing. Once you boil down all the flowery verbiage of the others, they say the same thing as Trump. It just takes them a whole lot longer to say it. It’s not because they’re ‘smarter’ either, It’s because they think we are so stupid we won’t know the difference.
“Simplistic” implies that something important has been omitted.
What is that important thing?
Whatever it is, persuading people to jump out of the fire that is Obamacare, into even a frying pan, is not going to be a super hard sell.
If a bunch of unopposed Democrat geeks could come up with Obamacare, sure Trump could do no worse with more reasonable counsel, especially where the system also provides for explicit adjustments so we aren’t forever having to scream that Trump has just written another law with an EO.
If you want to fix health care in a way that does best for patients, is sustainable, and most practical, put together a panel of PRACTICING physicians that excludes any ‘policy’ docs, heads of medical societies, or academic ‘outcomes’ analysis types, and let them come up with a plan. Then, and only then shop it to the insurance executives, health care administrators, pharmaceutical executives etc. It’s really the only way. None of the other groups I’ve mentioned have much of a clue how to best take care of patients, and all of them have greater vested interests economically and from a professional stature perspective than do the practicing physicians.
You wouldn’t have the non-engineer administrator of an engineering firm come up with the best solutions about how to build bridges. Same principle applies.
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.