Posted on 11/11/2016 12:40:58 PM PST by Kevin C
NEW YORK—President-elect Donald Trump said that, after conferring with President Barack Obama, he would consider leaving in place certain parts of the Affordable Care Act, an indication of possible compromise after a campaign in which he pledged repeatedly to repeal the 2010 health law.
In his first interview since his election earlier this week, Mr. Trump said one priority was moving “quickly” on the president’s signature health initiative, which he argued has become so unworkable and expensive that “you can’t use it.”
Yet, Mr. Trump also showed a willingness to preserve at least two provisions of the health law after the president asked him to reconsider repealing it during their meeting at the White House on Thursday
Mr. Trump said he favors keeping the prohibition against insurers denying coverage because of patients’ existing conditions, and a provision that allows parents to provide years of additional coverage for children on their insurance policies.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
I of course hope he does, but it is not a promising direction.
Covering pre-existing conditions isn’t a liberal position. The Republican alternative to Ocare had it.
Here come the anti-Trump posters to believe and repeat everything the media tells them. FR needs to minimize them, just as was done after the primaries.
And we need to look at what Donald really said. Sometimes it isn’t half as bad as what the lefties claim he said. We encounter that even with Donald’s blunders.
It would be a nonchalant: I promised Barack I’d look at it. I did. There’s nothing here we can use. Sorry, Barack.
No problem with that.
2. Allow insurance to be sold across state lines
If a company is not currently doing business in my state then where is the incentive for them to sell me a policy? And where is my incentive to buy it?
3. Make insurance a cafeteria plan - pay for what you use
That would be something that the insurance companies would have to do. I would think that managing, and more importantly, pricing such a plan would be a nightmare.
4. No more mandatory minimum coverage (I do not need labor/delivery). If you are married and male and of child bearing age (and not sterile) there should be a trigger to have to purchase
On the other hand all experts agree that a preventive medicine is of great cost-savings benefit. A malady caught early is easier and cheaper to treat than one caught late.
5. Move all of the high risk pool (needs to be properly defined) onto medicare/medicaid - It would be cheaper.
Medicare is designed and managed to treat senior citizens. Adding high-risk people of whatever age to that would throw the cost structure out of whack. Medicaid is a state run program. Moving high-risk people to that would increase the cost to the states. And what if states refuse to expand their program, as they refused to expand for Obamacare? Then what?
6. Move insurance from an employee perk to an individual choice - then it becomes portable. Employers then can give cash that is exempt from taxation to purchase the plan of their choice. Business can still have the choice of pooling, but I would imagine they want to get out of that business.
You want to cut my compensation. Thanks a lot. But more importantly, why should government be in the business of telling private business how it can compensate it's employees?
7. Allow there to be private pools for discounts (e.g. Costco could sell insurance to members).
Why would Costco want to get in the insurance business?
9. No medicare/medicaid for illegals
No problem with that.
10. Poor lifestyle choices should be charged a higher rate (e.g. obese, not overweight)
My company offers incentives for a healthy lifestyle through credits to offset my insurance costs so that's already in place for many people.
I’ve watched Trump for 18 months now. I’ve lost count how many times that people thought he was going to do something, and written in stone, that went against what he previous said only to find out later that it was not the case or not happen.
The provision for forcing insurance companies to cover those with pre-existing conditions is what drove the price up in the first place.
I’m not buying it. I know the Left. Disinformation is what they do.
Build the wall or none of this will matter.
“Concern” is not a dirty word.
Regarding the mods, I changed my name the second time because I didn’t like the old one and this one fits me much better. It’s what some of my neighbors call me, in the vein of Green Acres. It kinda fits, though I don’t wear a suit on my tractor.
The first one was banned without warning for a comment I made on a touchy subject. In a private message I told Jim to leave that one retired. I eventually created the second one when I came upon a time when I had something to say.
You need to lighten up with the “concern” about people being concerned. It’s a free country, and not only do we have a right to be concerned but we have that duty. I was concerned when I voted for Reagan that he would follow through. It is prodent and responsible. Only a fool would say, “well, we elected our guy. All’s good now. We can go back to our video games and watch pro sports.
I’m a little more engaged than that. I’ve been voting since 1972. The only perfect man that ever lived was hung on a cross 2000 years ago.
First Trump will sign or veto whatever legislation is handed to him... He can ask... he can make deals but it comes down to what Congress does.
Exactly right!! And they know that. Therefore, what they will do is set up separate risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions. That is a big change from the current law that says insurers have to write anybody. That guaranteed issue provision along awith the current weak individual mandate is what has led to the death spiral. The new system will likely carve those folks out into high risk pools and leave a stable individual market as the result.
No.
Both provisions inflate the cost for everyone else.
Young adults can get their own insurance. Yes, it’s expensive. But expanding parents coverage raises the costs to families with young children.
Pre-existing coverage mandates let’s people wait to buy insurance after they need it. But, that’s not insurance: it’s redistribution of costs.
“I am a VERY strong conservative.”
Well, you’re not the only one. There are many, many of us here, all with issues we think are crucial. Mine is getting rid of illegals - i moved 2300 miles to escape the ruined border states.
Covering pre-existing conditions isn’t only in Obamacare - it was in the Republican alternative to it as well. Keeping a few parts in his new plan isn’t the same thing as not repealing Obamacare.
I recall Trump saying he was for keeping the preexisting condition part because he was attacked on how that can stay without the rest of the program.
Blah blah blah *sniff*.
Whatever he winds up doing with it, it’s bound to actually work. Of course libs will want to still give Obama all the credit for it, but who cares... as long as it gets fixed.
Art of the Deal. I don’t see all of ObamaCare being ditched, I don’t know if it’s possible. But it’s a good starting point in the negotiation, and that’s what the “Art of the Deal” is all about.
They tried and tried to get something on Trump to turn us against him. This is more of the same... they think if he backs down on a promise, that will be the thing that will do it. But, first, it would have to come from Trump’s mouth... and not the media such as this is. The media has sunk their chances of ever being believed!
We don’t want people dying on the street of America...
Obamacare was created by elites for the profit of elites in the insurance industry. Only in passing did it have anything to do with healthcare for citizens.
We can do better... come up with a plan based on what’s best for citizens NOT what’s best for corrupt elites and their donors. Trump will do better.
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.