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 ...
That’s a great idea. They could have even had a separate health clinic at the ER’s. Triage could separate the patients.
I’m not understanding your final point. Are you saying there should not be health insurance?
I’m saying they interfere with the free market. Maybe we don’t want a completely free market in healthcare, maybe we do.
The point is that insurance has done a terrible job of making healthcare less expensive. In real inflation-adjusted dollars, almost EVERY OTHER product we buy has gone down in price over the last 50 years. That includes food, so it is not just a function of cheap imports.
Health insurance companies seem to INCREASE the costs by adding paperwork, delays, pre-authorizations, and ultimately simply passing along all those costs to consumers via insurance premiums. Plus a hefty profit off costs they have made worse. Government has contributed as well by limiting competition via licensing and patents and FDA testing and import restrictions.
My take is this:
He said the goal is insurance for everyone, likely with the huge majority of it coming from what people choose through the private sector. Means-tested coverage for those who otherwise can’t afford it would come from some form of governmental assistance, such as Medicare. The term “everyone” would also include those with pre-existing conditions.
Nothing to get in a twist about, folks.
Catastrophic insurance with a high deductible would be very affordable, rarely needed, and could easily be required much like auto liability insurance.
It would prevent anyone from being bankrupted by a sudden medical emergency.
The market will sort itself out in short order.
It can. Every once in a while we get a man of honor in leadership. But it is rare and the leader is never perfect.
Why force anyone to buy insurance?
There is a better chance of that happening than there is of Congress implementing a replacement that won't make things worse.
Until Pelosi made that phrase famous, I thought “passing it to see what’s in it” referred to a stool sample..Or maybe it still does, a POS by any other name is still a POS.....
No. A free market economy does not condone one or two corporations buying up competition and cornering the market without trust busting. This is especially true with life and health saving drugs. What greedy, moral in-humans could do such a thing? Oh! Epipen woman. Free market needs competition to grow the economy.
They decide what they want to pay and the doctors have the ability to opt out. Which is why quite a few have opted out of the program since o’care was dropped on them. Same thing with the drugs. They negotiate a price, then the provided has the right to say if they’ll accept it. If not, the drug isn’t covered under either program.
Saw a headline the other day alluding to the fact that our health care system was so much more expensive than in other countries. Curious to know if any study has been done about the cost of malpractice insurance, etc and how it effects cost’s, type of care and level of care.
Lots of people go out of the country for elective surgeries as they are much, much cheaper in other parts of the world. However, I wonder if any of those doctors, in those foreign countries have to worry about losing everything they’ve worked for. I wonder how much a doctor from the British-NHS, has to sweat over treatment for a patient.
I’ll go out on a limb that if someone goes down to Costa Rica for some liposuction and gets messed up, that there aren’t a whole lot of places for them to turn to for help.
I wish there was a way for you to send that post to all the people on this thread that are thinking the world is coming to an end over his statement.
He has already qualified this answer, numerous times, that he wants the market to do it’s work and those that are high risk go into some type of government pool. I’d rather that money go to them, than some pregnant illegal, popping out her 3rd or 4th US citizen(sarc).
Getting to pay more for insurance....
This cannot go on.
Who has that kind of money when the economy is owned by globalists and corporatists in bed with government?
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.