Posted on 02/21/2016 12:14:29 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Of course Trump has been ‘repeating’ solutions already stated by conservatives (like Ted Cruz). Only difference is, then Trump appears to pretend like he thought of it first...lol. He comes off disingenuous at best...and patently dishonest at worst.
And another thing that bothers me about Trump is...his bragging, arrogant ego. Bragging about bringing over a lot of Democrat voters is not exactly what I would consider a “plus” in his corner, by the way. Especially if/when these Democrats are also voting for Trump in the open primary states, and skewing the results...but then intend to vote for Hillary in the general election.
“Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” with Jake Tapper on Sunday, Trump said, “I will tell you this, as a candidate, I will bring over many, many Dems. We’re going to bring over a lot of Democrats, we’re going to bring over a lot of independents.”
If we un-ass the USA of 12 million freeloading illegals, would the education / housing / health care / legal / prison / savings (as a wash) take care of providing health insurance coverage for the supposed 30 millions without coverage prior to the obamacare boondoggle ?
I bet it would go a long way.....
Keep in mind that “health care” in those days was very simple. Hospitals rarely dealt with anything more complicated than broken bones, and cancer was always terminal.
If you mean asset testing to qualify for government programs, then that's really just a waste of time. It will require an army of government bureaucrats to monitor and enforce it, and there will always be loopholes to get around whatever limits are placed on it.
As a conservative, I can safely say that government control did not improve care, lol.
...and this is a new revolution? Contrary to what you may think, this is nothing new. This certainly isn't a new idea by Trump. The suggestion has been around for probably 20 years or more. Getting a bill/law to do something of this nature is the responsibility of Congress. There is no "presidential wand" to make these things happen.
As I pointed out here the day Trump said it, he was specifically responding to a question about covering those with pre-existing conditions. In that context, he said he supports the mandate. And in that context, the mandate is for insurance companies to offer coverage to those with such.
Now, I’m not actually for that, since in practicality it by necessity takes the insurance dynamics out of what is supposedly health insurance. But most GOP candidates, if they have got to that level of specificity, have said they’d support the same.
Further confirming that that is exactly what Trump was referring to, he then generalized his statement to the principal of not leaving the indigent without healthcare (as they already have with Medicaid), for example.
On the state level, those who have pre-existing conditions without insurance (and theoretically, after years of Obamacare, they should have insurance anyway) have sometimes been covered by state-level high-risk pools, just as some auto drivers have been.
When people are elderly, we make them spend down their assets to the Medicaid level before having taxpayers cover the cost of their nursing homes. Probably we figure something else different for younger people who get themselves into such a situation. And, really, that issue could itself tie into broader welfare reform, since we want to give all people an incentive to earn more money even when it pulls them out of the safety of taxpayer coverage of their expenses.
The way health care is financed today is similar to the way auto insurance would work if everybody paid premiums based on some standard for their own cars ... but they'd get a Bentley from the insurance company if they ever wreck their car, even if the car they own is a 1998 Toyota Tercel.
There's no mechanism for cost containment -- other than denial of care and "death panels" -- in a three-party financial transaction.
I honestly pray that you are right in placing your hopes on Trump. But every fiber of my being screams ‘no’, that he’s not the one that we need right now. God help us if you are wrong and if my intuition, logic and reasoning re: my “no to Trump” stance turns out to be spot-on.
That said, I will, of course, vote for Trump in the GE should he become the nominee. But I will do so just as unwillingly as I did when I held my nose and voted for McCain and Romney. Getting really sick and tired of having to do that, btw.
Gee put the ‘best minds’ in a room gosh why didn’t anyone else think of that.
Then the really smart people could figure out what the rest of us will do.
Liberal SOP as outlined in Vision of the Anointed by Sowell, over 20 years ago.
Trump doesn’t believe in the market, he believes if top down mandated solutions. This is why his solutions will fail as liberal solutions ALWAYS fail.
It's already been that way for decades. (universal access) The problem is it costs way too much and creates hoardes of medical-welfare parasites.
MediCaid needs to be privatized and it's recipients need to pay at least co-pays, if not partial or full premiums depending on means testing. It should be actual private insurance.
Last year Medicare spent $143 billion dollars on prescription drugs last year. And Trump thinks he can squeeze $300 billion in savings out of that? It'd be interesting to see how.
Medicaid by law is for people 65 and over, selling insurance across state boundaries has a lot of unworkable problems, and how are lower income people supposed to fund health savings accounts?
I see.
So we’ve got “disingenuous”, “bragging”, “arrogant”, and another “Bragging”.
I think that pretty much sums up the empirical data behind your opinions.
Mr. Trump has a proven history of putting highly competent people in key positions - movers and shakers who make a habit of cutting through the BS and get results.
My bet is in the final analysis his team will adopt more free-market solutions than many now imagine.
Scratch the “Medicaid over 65 remark”. Obamacare tried to expand Medicaid for lower income people and about half the states refused to join in. How will Trump do better?
Trumps “advice” comes from darts and a dart board.
“Medicaid by law is for people 65 and over,”
Isn’t that Medicare?
“selling insurance across state boundaries has a lot of unworkable problems”
Such as?
“lower income people supposed to fund health savings accounts”
They aren’t. Again Medicaid.
“How will Trump do better?”
I’m guessing, stricter means testing to cut fraudulent disbursements, and negotiating with pharma for starters.
See post 56.
Such as?
If an insurance company isn't currently doing business in my state why should I want to buy a policy from them? And why would they want to sell me one?
They aren't. Again Medicaid.
So people who can afford medical savings accounts likely already use them. People who can't afford them don't. So what is Trump planning that will improve them?
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.