Posted on 03/02/2016 8:46:57 PM PST by SeekAndFind
You should read the article before posting.
All major carriers allowed pre-existing conditions during annual open enrollment long before Obama ever declared his candidacy for POTUS.
The individual mandate is a failure. It hasn’t brought in enough people into the insurance pools to cover the higher costs that Obamacare has driven up.
If Trump goes back on his word, it will tear this Country apart. If Hitlery gets elected, it will tear this Country apart. If Trump stays true to his word, he will make Reagan look like a liberal, and America will enjoy its greatest period of growth and prosperity since the industrial revolution. I’m voting to Make America Great again.
YOU, my dear are the uninformed.
#5 won’t do anything. If the insurance company is paying the tab, the patient won’t care about the cost of a particular procedure.
I see it as a step further in the wrong direction. More taxpayer funded welfare. Less personal responsibility. More big government involvement. Less reliance on family, church and local community.
But that's just my opinion.
Amen. I can see being skeptical about Trump. I even get it if someone thinks Trump is a complete fraud and doesn’t mean a word of what he says. But I don’t get preferring Hillary over taking a chance that they could be wrong about Trump.
I had a pre-existing condition (debilitating migraines) for decades. I was never once refused coverage.
From a related thread about Trumpcare …
After reading about Trumpcare on Trump’s web site, Trump and his institutionally indoctrinated advisors (blind leading the blind) are evidently still as clueless as Obama’s first, low-information Democratic-controlled Congress was that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the excerpts from Suprme Court case opinions further down in this post, the excerpts written by previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices.
Regarding major problems with Trumpcare, consider that Trump’s proposal for federal interstate health insurance reform actually has the same major constitutional problem as the Obamacare insurance mandate.
More specifically, regardless what lawless Obama’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of the Obamacare insurance mandate, note the fourth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. In that case, state sovereignty-respecting 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.
”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.
”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.
The above excerpts are why I’ve been ranting that Trump needs to be promoting a healthcare amendment to the Constitution on the campaign trail. (Note that the states are not obligated to ratify any proposed amendment to the Constitution.)
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the president, but also protect the states from unconstitutional federal government overreach as evidenced by unconstitutional federal healthcare programs, Obama’s or Trump's.
Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
Pre-existing could be handled this way: With a premium based on income, the person qualifies for the medical coverage aspect of welfare/medicare/socialsecurity (whatever you want to call it) and is enrolled in their state’s welfare network, without having to meet the stringent asset restrictions imposed on those who collect full welfare.
how’s that?
YOU, my dear are the uninformed.
I can only suppose you could not find the constitutionality I asked from you originally, so you must project to cover your own ignorance.
So please, sleep well tonight in your false belief that you are the smartest person in the room. No! The city, no! The country...perhaps the entire planet!
LOL!
Ever hear of competition? When we restore our manufacturing base and have a strong economy again where people can find jobs wherever they look like it used to be, we will be open to competitive bidding and competition in everything again. Competition is not allowed by the current politicians in order to line their own pockets.
Just a lot smarter than you, my little fuzzy kitten.
Good plan. It’s a start. Will be further refined by Congress. Now the question is will Paul Ryan be obstructionist or will he work with Trump to get this through?
LOL!
I’m glad you have the confidence it takes to believe that.
Currently there is a plan in place helping people get health care “for nothing.” With Obamacare eliminated we will be back to the legally mandated more expensive care in Emergency Rooms, and they will still get “something for nothing” but it will cost more and we will still pay for it.
As long as you recognize that this is, in effect, a form of socialized medicine, then there’s nothing wrong with it. It sure as neck isn’t a free market solution. Is it?
Everything is negotiable. That’s a given. The idea is to negotiate in our best interest. Convince the other guy to move our way. That’s what made Reagan great. That’s the art of the deal, so to speak.
It’s perfectly obvious.
The basic idea of the proposal is to repeal Obamacare and then open it up for better competition across state lines, ie, go back to market driven private insurance. Get the government out of the way.
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.