But hey, it's part of the Trump plan, and everyone likes the idea. So I guess it's all good.
One day I'd like to see someone actually put out a plan that lowers the cost of healthcare. Nobody has, including Trump. His plan is nothing different than a combination of what McCain offered, Romney offered, and what those nasty establishment Republicans in DC have been trying to do for the last 10 years.
Well, at least the Donald is doing some level specificity.
Not being a healthcare wonk, I'd like to review why this exists in the first place before I'd agree that this makes sense.
Let's keep it real, this does make sense.
That's meaningless words unless you makes a law that forces states to accept the extra Medicare coverage that the AMA provides. Otherwise, this will all get vetoed in Red states (Like your precious Texas) that refuse to allow people to gain back what they've put into the system because... Well, because conservative politicians don't have souls is the nearest I can tell.
Honestly, I don't see how this helps anyone.
The AMA partially does this already, but if this could be made stronger, I'd be all for it.
So I agree with the first part, but I don't think it's Constitutional. As to the later part, the ACA already does that for private insurance, and Medicaid is already the most efficient healthcare provider around, with ~3% operating costs, 97% going to direct medical costs.
If they want to eliminate waste and abuse, they could start with repealing the medicare/medicaid's ability to group negotiate down prices with Big Pharma. Talk about a savings.
I agree, but that's just words. There's no actual specific policy here, but to be fair it's a primary.
In any case, I completely fail to see how this gets the remaining 27 million Americans into a healthcare insurance program. This falls pretty short of addressing some of the most key issues.
The biggest problem with the elimination of state lines is that it generates an incentive for state's to create a race to the bottom in terms of their healthcare insurance regulations. Essentially, the State which allows insurance companies to sell the most profitable types of insurance plans or the least regulated type of insurance plans will attract the most insurance companies.
Little Marco isn't going to like reading that.....
If the same plan in ND cost 100 a month and It costs 500 in NY why can't I go spend 100 in ND? what does it matter. you are wrong..
Let the people decide for themselves. If they buy a bad plan and get screwed it's there own fault. Gov needs to quit handholding.
He's not going to propose Single payer if that's what your after.
Only 1 candidate is proposing that and he's too much of a ideologue to care whether or not its even feasible.
Because the people of New York have different underwriting than the people of North Dakota. The people of North Dakota may be sicker/healthier than the people of New York. Insurance companies don't charge different rates in different areas for ****s n' giggles. Furthermore New York has different guidelines and requirements than North Dakota. Purchasing insurance across state lines is literally undermining the guidelines determined by the states. The whole "purchasing insurance across state lines" is the most patently absurd notion I've heard across all platforms. By saying I'm wrong you're just highlighting your own ignorance.
Can't get behind it as a whole.Donald Trump has a 7-point healthcare plan | McClatchy DC
Damn you donald, I LIKE that plan, I hate you though, still stayin home.
No, no, I'm not confused. There's only one sane candidate running for the presidency. Everyone else is a suck-up to power because they're power-hungry assholes who don't care how many poor and midde-class families they have to wreck in their grab for power.
I'd like to see a law passed that made employer provided health insurance illegal. Sounds kind of weird at first, but hear me out... We would still allow employers to pay a person's premiums as a tax deductible expense, but the policy stays with the employee and doesn't disappear when they change jobs. Provides complete portability between jobs, minimizes the impact of being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions just because you changed jobs and gives the individual control over what they want to pay for.
Can't get behind it as a whole.
- Repeal Obamacare (Should be ACA but who is picky?): This eludes to there being nothing of value in the act which is not true. Preexisting conditions would come back into play just to name one. If he is saying just the mandates/tax penalty then that is fine.
- Tax Returns: Not a bad idea except*
- Review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure...blah blah. This is motherhood and apple pie with no roadmap.
- HSAs are a problem because of*
- Require Price Transparency from the Healthcare Providers, Including Clinics and Hospitals. Scare Tactic. By law, you do not pay for something you do not know you are paying for. I have never seen a bill for healthcare that wasn't itemized. It is just WAY TO EXPENSIVE which goes back to*
- Block grant Medicaid to the states. Hells no. Healthcare is a federal issue not a state by state only issue. This would not eliminate fraud it would just make more burden for an overburdened system that wouldn't be an issue if*
- Remove barriers to entry into free market - depends on what he means. I don't really want to die because some generic drug company was able to bypass the FDA. What barriers are we talking about specifically and again, where is the roadmap?
* America needs to get over this idea that any individual or business has the right to profit off of the lives of others. Stricter caps on how much a company could charge for a drug, requirements to focus on cures not just bandaid medications, and opening up a healthcare system similar to Canada or the UK without the skyrocketing taxes is something needed not just wanted.
Selling health insurance across state lines suddenly removes the protected territory health insurance sales people now enjoy.
Selling health insurance across state lines suddenly removes the protected territory health insurance sales people now enjoy.
As I noted earlier, elimination of state lines also encourages a "rush to the bottom" mentality because the states with the fewest regulations and that allow for the greatest profit will attract the most insurance companies.
Try calling a hospital and asking how much a CT scan is...
You may be able to get a quote at some places but most can't or won't provide such information.
Donald Trump has a 7-point healthcare plan | McClatchy DC
Damn you donald, I LIKE that plan, I hate you though, still stayin home.
Try calling a hospital and asking how much a CT scan is...
You may be able to get a quote at some places but most can't or won't provide such information.
Can't get behind it as a whole.
- Repeal Obamacare (Should be ACA but who is picky?): This eludes to there being nothing of value in the act which is not true. Preexisting conditions would come back into play just to name one. If he is saying just the mandates/tax penalty then that is fine.
- Tax Returns: Not a bad idea except*
- Review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure...blah blah. This is motherhood and apple pie with no roadmap.
- HSAs are a problem because of*
- Require Price Transparency from the Healthcare Providers, Including Clinics and Hospitals. Scare Tactic. By law, you do not pay for something you do not know you are paying for. I have never seen a bill for healthcare that wasn't itemized. It is just WAY TO EXPENSIVE which goes back to*
- Block grant Medicaid to the states. Hells no. Healthcare is a federal issue not a state by state only issue. This would not eliminate fraud it would just make more burden for an overburdened system that wouldn't be an issue if*
- Remove barriers to entry into free market - depends on what he means. I don't really want to die because some generic drug company was able to bypass the FDA. What barriers are we talking about specifically and again, where is the roadmap?
* America needs to get over this idea that any individual or business has the right to profit off of the lives of others. Stricter caps on how much a company could charge for a drug, requirements to focus on cures not just bandaid medications, and opening up a healthcare system similar to Canada or the UK without the skyrocketing taxes is something needed not just wanted.
Three weeks ago he was talking about how much he liked the mandate. The fact that, after the last debate, someone on his staff realized that they should google "conservative ideas about healthcare policy" doesn't give me even the slightest confidence that he means it or would stick to it.
Or I could work towards implementing it in the U.S instead of keeping our Big Pharma Empire pricing.Yeah, single payer failure, just what I do not want. You want that, move to canada.
Little Marco who?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?