Posted on 01/15/2017 5:52:27 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
President-elect Donald Trump said in a weekend interview that he is nearing completion of a plan to replace President Obama’s signature health-care law with the goal of “insurance for everybody,” while also vowing to force drug companies to negotiate directly with the government on prices in Medicare and Medicaid.
Trump declined to reveal specifics in the telephone interview late Saturday with The Washington Post, but any proposals from the incoming president would almost certainly dominate the Republican effort to overhaul federal health policy as he prepares to work with his party’s congressional majorities.
Trump’s plan is likely to face questions from the right, following years of GOP opposition to further expansion of government involvement in the health-care system, and from those on the left, who see his ideas as disruptive to changes brought by the Affordable Care Act that have extended coverage to tens of millions of Americans.
In addition to his replacement plan for the ACA, also known as Obamacare, Trump said he will target pharmaceutical companies over drug prices and demand that they negotiate directly with Medicaid and Medicare.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Hey, if you want your grown son on your health insurance and a health insurance company wants to offer you that option, that’s fine.
But the idea that coverage for him should be mandated and such coverage should be included as part of everyone else’s insurance is Orwellian.
Despite threats that otherwise adult students should be covered by the government via Medicaid.
We already have a single-payer hybrid program via Medicaid and Medicare. Trump has promised a more free market solution than what we have in Obamacare.
“I don’t have an answer for why they sell some single source meds in the U.S. for one price, and in Canada or another nation for another price.”
Because, they can do it and get away with it.
Yep- and so far I haven’t heard any talk about tort reform this election.
I don’t think so. If a drug is covered at all, Medicare and Medicaid pay a percentage of the cost based on generic (more) or brand name (less).
Forcing big pharma to negotiate for set prices to Medicare/Medicaid shouldn’t be difficult. If they are locked out of all those customers by denying any payment for those drugs, their businesses won’t survive. A cynical (or smart) government would boycott certain drugs that are overpriced, then buy the patent cheap and resell it to a generic maker. A socialist government would go further and extend “eminent domain” to intellectual property to simply seize drug patents (at a “fair price”). Since the Dims never went that far, I can’t see Trump going that far either.
The government should not be in the business of setting “price controls”, but it is such a large customer for healthcare that alone should give it a lot of power.
Same for the military industrial complex — if the government refuses to buy your products at the current prices, you’d better figure out how to make them less expensive because they ARE your only customer.
Another way to lower the cost of prescription meds besides tort reform is the encourage big Pharma to stop paying their outrageous salaries and having 20% profit when most businesses are happy with 3% to 7%. If the most compensation these companies could deduct from their corporate tax returns were, let’s say, $1.5 million, they would be paying a lot more in income taxes. Dividends would be reduced. This would really annoy the stockholders who would push for reducing the outrageous top exec salaries currently being paid.
Payback for Big Pharma switching sides in the past decade.
53 posts to get to the first right answer. :(
When you can match pools across state lines, costs will drop because plans will have to compete for enrollees, physicians groups will have to compete for plans!
All anyone has to do is ask themselves: 'Why did Bobo explicitly disallow pools across state lines? Why didn't Bobo cap whambulance chaser awards? Why didn't Bobo take on BigPharma?'
It's hard not to be. We have what Trump said and we have all you people saying, "Well what he really meant was..." I think I'll wait for the details but his first comments are troubling to say the least.
Here is a Google search list of articles about Trump and single payer.
Here are a few examples from that list:
Trump Pushes Single Payer Healthcare, Tax Increase on Wealthy
Donald Trump wants to replace Obamacare with a single-payer health care system, GOP congressman says
Is Donald Trump still 'for single-payer' health care?
Head of nurses union 'counting on' Trump for single-payer system
Like many of his other positions, nobody really knows how serious he is about single payer, or in what form it would take, until we see an actual bill from his team.
My own personal way to help solve the healthcare "crisis" is to force hospitals that accept any federal funding to charge the same rate to the uninsured as they do to group insurance companies, and to use the Interstate Commerce Clause (properly this time) to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines and for a person to maintain their same policy no matter where in the country they move to.
Insurance companies make money because they establish networks of doctors and providers and negotiate prices for their services. Without that network the insurance companies pay whatever the provider charges. That's why you have higher copays and higher deductibles for out-of-network services than in network services. If an insurance company does not have that network established then why would they want to compete in that state? And why would they go to the considerable expense of establishing one if they are unsure of whether they are going to get more than a handful of customers? What's in it for them?
All anyone has to do is ask themselves: 'Why did Bobo explicitly disallow pools across state lines?
One of his rare acts that was in keeping with the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that insurance policies are contracts and not interstate commerce. As a result, under the 10th Amendment they are a state matter to regulate and the federal government cannot take that authority away from them.
Why didn't Bobo cap whambulance chaser awards?
Because it isn't part of a solution? Around half the states have enacted tort reform that caps malpractice awards. In not a single state is there any evidence that doing so has reduced healthcare costs.
Why didn't Bobo take on BigPharma?'
You got him there, though in fairness one could ask why Bush didn't take on BigPharma when he enacted his Medicare prescription plan.
Well he said we’re going to have to work something out on the dreamers... amnesty includes insurance because they will be everyone.
That’s about how it’s done in Australia and people there are very happy with it.
Every taxpayer earns a card that can be swiped for basics - or - pay more and get more. Quicker appointments, the best docs, best hospitals, nicer room, etc come only from purchasing a private insurance policy.
And if you buy private insurance, you still get to keep your basic swipe card.
The pharmaceutical industry has to get something for the R and D to develop the new super drugs. This has always been ticklish. Like you say. If Canada decides to allow generic manufacturers to copy patented drugs and sell them for next to nothing it is American consumers who get the shaft.
How you lower these prices is a mystery.
Sorry to hear about the cancer. The question becomes one between you,your doctor and your insurer. The government (probably state) would be involved if you were on medicaid. The insurance company should not be allowed to simply dump you onto medicaid. Nor should they overrule your doctor. But you and your doctor have to make some cost decisions.
There are new promising cancer therapies that require the patients cells that are then processed with experimental equipment by a researcher or specialist. IOW, very expensive. OTOH if we don't try them we won't know the effectiveness nor develop the knowledge necessary to make it cheaper, hopefully much cheaper. IMO the government should fund that as research and get as many volunteers as possible into that research. IOW applied cancer treatment should get priority over other research.
There are also incremental improvements on existing treatments. Those can be very expensive too but that's because the studies needed to prove efficacy without harm are very expensive for the drug companies. There should be a priority at the FDA to lower costs for approval. I am somewhat familiar with the FDA in health safety. They have good people but put them in strait jackets which often does not allow common sense.
I hope everything goes well for you..
And even though he did not pay, the state sent some of that to the hospital so your alcoholic was turned into a cash cow.
The answer to that nonsense is free clinics where the doctors volunteer to treat chronic conditions like alcoholism. There are acute cases which would still need to go to the ER, but the rest of the time he would be sent to the clinic.
It will be interesting if he accomplishes it just to see the look on the faces of every last libtard who bashed him before he even took one step into office. On the other hand, you know what they are going to do, why even guess? Any success Trump has they are going to rack it up to Obama.
You cannot be serious...
HI is a THING and, like candy bars, Cadillacs, and condominiums, it COSTS MONEY.
If you vow that “everyone” will have it, that includes people like, say, Michael Brown, and all the drug addicts who live in mommy’s basement who refuse to work, and all the 3rd generation welfare queens whose only work is to pump out chillins from dae baby daddys, etc., etc.
MY MONEY will pay for THEIR HI.
Welfare, yes?
Did the article say that? Also, HI for the ER that I pay for is still welfare, yes?
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.