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 ...
who lied?
He’ll keep the name but make a it true?
I agree with the observations here that this is a lyin’ media (mis)interpretation.
The GOP plans could mirror some features that Obamacare had, but it’s going to be implemented from the ground up, making it possible to literally rescind the entire PPACA without losing anything we want.
I wonder if Obama has something on Trump and let him know when they were alone in the Oval Office.
Good luck finding a cheap insurance plan these days...
There’s going to be some difficult balancing done here. Thinking out of boxes is going to be needed to do it better.
Do you believe everything the US media tells you?
You are not a quick learner, are you.
A member since August, and here you go, not even dry behind the ears yet.
He is gonna keep pre existing conditions coverage and probably little else. Im sure that crosses party lines and the smart thing to do.
He didn’t say he would. He said he would consider it.
Now, let’s hope it’s, “I considered it and decided, NO!”
Ah ... President Donald the Negotiator.
“Sure, sure we can consider that but one thing that is set in stone is this will be a peaceful transition so that as soon as I am sworn in I will promise to carry on this polite conversation”
“Oh, and about any thought of pardons, that needs to be off the table as well”.
Do you believe everything the US media tells you?
You are not a quick learner, are you.
1. I don’t think you captured my meaning correctly. Nor do you fully grasp my understanding and opinion on this. It was a bit like calling MacArthur an anti-war protester.
2. Insults are unbecoming a freeper.
I tend to agree, they’d put a spin on it that makes the lefties look good at the slightest opportunity.
The actual action of Congress isn’t even going to be able to look like “Strike specific sections of PPACA.” PPACA itself is such a spaghetti mess that this would be masochistic even if we wanted to do it. It’s going to look like “Adopt Trumpcare, strike PPACA.”
“He has to keep those things.
They are the political “poison pills” the Democrats
buried in the bill.
Trump is not stupid enough to short-circuit himself as
W did with Social Security reforms”
Agree.
Probably the part where a “doctor treats a patient”...
Given that Trump has surrounded himself with post-FDR era, college-indoctrinated advisors, it’s up to us patriots to get Trump up to speed with the fed’s constitutionally limited powers.
If Trumpcare requires constitutional authority beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause (1.8.3), then Trump needs to work with Congress and the states to successfully petition the states for a healthcare amendment to the Constitution which the lawless Obama Administration wrongly ignored doing.
From related threads …
More specifically, regardless what Obama’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of Obamacare, it remains that previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes as per the following explanation.
Please keep in mind that citizens can have “government” healthcare if they want it. But in the case of unconstitutional federal Obamacare, the corrupt Washington cartel wrongly ignored that the Constitution does not say “yes” or “no” to things like government healthcare. What the Founding States had intended for the Constitution to indicate about healthcare, and many other things that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly address, is the following.
The Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about issues like healthcare means that the states, not the federal government, automatically and uniquely have the constitutional authority to regulate, tax and spend for things like INTRAstate healthcare.
In fact, using broad language, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified limits on the fed’s power to regulate, tax and spend as follows. This is evidenced by the excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
With the excerpts above in mind, consider that lawless Obama’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wrongly ignored that previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend in the name of INTRAstate healthcare.
Considering the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the third entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. In that case, justices had clarified that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]" - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass." -Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] of indemnity against loss." - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress." - Linder v. United States, 1925.
So what unconstitutional Obamacare actually did was to show how corrupt all three branches of the unconstitutionally big federal government are, the feds wrongly not securing the required consent of the Constitution’s Article V state supermajority before establishing Obamacare.
Again, given that Trump has surrounded himself with post-FDR era, college-indoctrinated advisors, it’s up to us patriots to get Trump up to speed with the fed’s constitutionally limited powers.
The kids being on parents plans.... if the parents want to pay for it?
Fine by me.
Part of the problem, especially with the younger adults is that because of the cost to employers of providing healthcare many of them limit their employees to lower work hours in order to keep them under the radar. I'm quite certain you know this not being condescending just trying to emphasize my point.
The cost per employee to provide healthcare could be redirected to higher wages so adults can start acting like adults and start taking care of themselves again.
Market forces have been removed from the health insurance equation - that needs to change for anything to improve.
I see the WSJ is already trying to gin up a nice, little game of lets-you-and-him-fight.
Let’s not play, eh?
Ugh. I take it back—I just read this quote:
“Either Obamacare will be amended, or repealed and replaced,” Mr. Trump said.
My fear is that the Dem charm initiative is working on him, especially when coupled with their rioter offensive, which probably is concerning his family.
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.