Donald's health insurance positions

jayem · Mar 3, 2016

Aside from health care policy wonks like myself, few people will probably be interested in this. DT finally released some details of his health insurance proposals. He's posted 7 on his website. Most are standard Republican boilerplate: repeal ACA entirely; allow carriers to sell policies across state lines; block grants to states for Medicaid; and promoting HSAs. He now favors ending the individual mandate. Which seems to be a flip-flop from his earlier statement that everyone will have coverage. He hints that he supports Medicaid expansion for those who can't afford insurance. (Which is adopting part of ACA. But leaving the issue--as it is now--to the tender mercies of the states.) And, as usual for Repubs, he gives no details on how high risk persons with costly chronic medical conditions will be covered affordably. He also wants health premiums to be fully tax deductible--which will increase the federal deficit if not counterbalanced elsewhere. He claims his tough immigration policies will save the states the $11 billion spent on health care for illegals. Saving money is often a good thing, but that's a flyspeck 0.36% of the $3+ trillion we spent on health care last year. His one worthwhile proposal is to reduce drug costs by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with manufacturers and ending restrictions on imported medications. This is good.

I'm very disappointed. Donald said his plan would be something terrific. I was looking for fresh, inventive, visionary ideas. What I see is a rehash of the same old lame, hackneyed, worn-out Republican talking points. I give it a D minus. Only his drug proposal keeps it from failing completely.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

stamperben · Mar 3, 2016

Did you really expect something terrific?

seashale76 · Mar 3, 2016

'He hints that he supports Medicaid expansion for those who can't afford insurance.' However, he also wants to 'block grants to states for Medicaid.'

So…that seems to be a direct contradiction. You're right. It's the typical Republican getting rid of stuff and offering no solutions or alternatives.

Sea Anemone · Mar 3, 2016

Funny how he totally backed down on his support for the removal of pre-existing conditions. I suspect he (and the entire republican field by extension) know full well that it's a choice between either having an individual mandate or having to deal with people unable to get insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

cow451 · Mar 3, 2016

"I'm telling you it'll be great ... the best healthcare system in the world ... and it'll be affordable for everybody ... it'll be great .... TrumpCare will make American great again ... it'll be yuge! Ben Carson--a wonderful and brilliant human being by the way--- can stick a knife in Marco Rubio and that little wet-back can go to any hospital in the United States and receive world-class care. It'll be great".

Sea Anemone · Mar 3, 2016

seashale76 said:
'He hints that he supports Medicaid expansion for those who can't afford insurance.' However, he also wants to 'block grants to states for Medicaid.'

So…that seems to be a direct contradiction. You're right. It's the typical Republican getting rid of stuff and offering no solutions or alternatives.

He's talking about giving block-grants to the states, which means that there is less federal oversight over how the money is spent.

dogs4thewin · Mar 3, 2016

jayem said:
Aside from health care policy wonks like myself, few people will probably be interested in this. DT finally released some details of his health insurance proposals. He's posted 7 on his website. Most are standard Republican boilerplate: repeal ACA entirely; allow carriers to sell policies across state lines; block grants to states for Medicaid; and promoting HSAs. He now favors ending the individual mandate. Which seems to be a flip-flop from his earlier statement that everyone will have coverage. He hints that he supports Medicaid expansion for those who can't afford insurance. (Which is adopting part of ACA. But leaving the issue--as it is now--to the tender mercies of the states.) And, as usual for Repubs, he gives no details on how high risk persons with costly chronic medical conditions will be covered affordably. He also wants health premiums to be fully tax deductible--which will increase the federal deficit if not counterbalanced elsewhere. He claims his tough immigration policies will save the states the $11 billion spent on health care for illegals. Saving money is often a good thing, but that's a flyspeck 0.36% of the $3+ trillion we spent on health care last year. His one worthwhile proposal is to reduce drug costs by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with manufacturers and ending restrictions on imported medications. This is good.

I'm very disappointed. Donald said his plan would be something terrific. I was looking for fresh, inventive, visionary ideas. What I see is a rehash of the same old lame, hackneyed, worn-out Republican talking points. I give it a D minus. Only his drug proposal keeps it from failing completely.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

Just because he does not support the MANDATE does not mean he does not support every one being ABLE to have insurance. I can support something and yet not feel that it be mandatory.

Sea Anemone · Mar 3, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
Just because he does not support the MANDATE does not mean he does not support every one being ABLE to have insurance. I can support something and yet not feel that it be mandatory.

An individual mandate is absolutely necessary to make this work. If you don't have insurance for most of your life and then wind up with a serious medical condition, you can't just expect insurers to start covering you for low price. It's like not having car insurance and wanting to get it after you've just totalled it. It just doesn't work, it defeats the entire purpose of insurance.

dogs4thewin · Mar 3, 2016

Sea Anemone said:
An individual mandate is absolutely necessary to make this work. If you don't have insurance for most of your life and then wind up with a serious medical condition, you can't just expect insurers to start covering you for low price. It's like not having car insurance and wanting to get it after you've just totalled it. It just doesn't work, it defeats the entire purpose of insurance.

Well, have a rule if you do not have it then do not expect to get it when you get sick. Let people roll the dice if they lose they pay for it.

Sea Anemone · Mar 3, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
Well, have a rule if you do not have it then do not expect to get it when you get sick. Let people roll the dice if they lose they pay for it.

No, you pay for it: if they need ER treatment, they'll get it (which will be paid for by people who do have insurance), if they go bankrupt, need foodstamps, medicaid or other forms of welfare, then the tax-payer pays for it (unless you would rather just let them die). If they still can't get by they might turn to crime and again society as a whole pays for it.

dogs4thewin · Mar 3, 2016

Sea Anemone said:
No, you pay for it: if they need ER treatment, they'll get it (which will be paid for by people who do have insurance), if they go bankrupt, need foodstamps, medicaid or other forms of welfare, then the tax-payer pays for it (unless you would rather just let them die). If they still can't get by they might turn to crime and again society as a whole pays for it.

The ER though is ONLY required to stablize people. That means that if I go in they will treat me and then they will either admit me to the hospital if it is a noticably serious issue or will release me that is ALL they asre required to do NOTHING else basically keep you from dying on the spot. Food stamps I have no problem with if they are STRICT scricter than they are now. As for crime I DO support inmates' rights.

Veritas · Mar 3, 2016

The biggest weakness I see is eliminating the 10 Essentials. Yes, repealing Obamacare would in effect do that, but it should not be replaced with something similar. Ultimately, just like every other kind of insurance out there, it shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all plan. The main drivers of Obamacare costs are pre-existing conditions and the 10 Essentials. I'm not in favor of preventing those with pre-existing conditions of getting coverage (but it may cost more) but I definitely think a consumer should be able to buy a plan that fits their needs at a price they can afford.

jayem · Mar 3, 2016

dogs4thewin said:
The ER though is ONLY required to stablize people. That means that if I go in they will treat me and then they will either admit me to the hospital if it is a noticably serious issue or will release me that is ALL they asre required to do NOTHING else basically keep you from dying on the spot.

But many uninsured patients are not stable for immediate discharge from the ER. They need a few a days of hospitalization. In 2013, before ACA was implemented, the unreimbursed costs of caring for uninsured patients was almost $85 billion. 60% of which was incurred by hospitals. This includes uncollectable debt and charity care. But does NOT include $25 billion that uninsured patients paid out of pocket. Hospitals and other providers were able to recoup about $53 billion through Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. Meaning the taxpayers--you and I-- picked up part of the bill for uninsured patients. And much of rest was added to what insurance companies pay for their policyholders. Which is passed on as increased premiums.

http://kff.org/uninsured/report/uncompensated-care-for-the-uninsured-in-2013-a-detailed-examination/

That's why mandatory participation is necessary. Otherwise, the cost of uncompensated care will be shifted one way or another onto all the rest of us. And it's a significant amount of money in aggregate. But I'll agree that no one should be forced to buy health insurance. Whoever doesn't want it should just pay an opt-out fee equal to what his premium would be. Nobody will be required to have health coverage, but everybody should pay his fair share into the system.

wing2000 · Mar 3, 2016

Veritas said:
The biggest weakness I see is eliminating the 10 Essentials. Yes, repealing Obamacare would in effect do that, but it should not be replaced with something similar. Ultimately, just like every other kind of insurance out there, it shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all plan. The main drivers of Obamacare costs are pre-existing conditions and the 10 Essentials. I'm not in favor of preventing those with pre-existing conditions of getting coverage (but it may cost more) but I definitely think a consumer should be able to buy a plan that fits their needs at a price they can afford.

Say again? You are against the ACA....but are in favor guaranteeing coverage for those who have pre-existing conditions. What part of the ACA do you oppose?

wing2000 · Mar 3, 2016

And, as usual for Repubs, he gives no details on how high risk persons with costly chronic medical conditions will be covered affordably.

Nor cover working Americans who make to much for medicare and no insurance from their employer.

The unspoken message for these folks is: We don't care and we certainly don't want to pay higher premiums to pay for your health care.

katherine2001 · Mar 4, 2016

Sea Anemone said:
An individual mandate is absolutely necessary to make this work. If you don't have insurance for most of your life and then wind up with a serious medical condition, you can't just expect insurers to start covering you for low price. It's like not having car insurance and wanting to get it after you've just totalled it. It just doesn't work, it defeats the entire purpose of insurance.

The problem is that people shouldn't have to sacrifice a roof over their heads or food (and other basic necessities) in order to buy health insurance.

FreeinChrist · Mar 7, 2016

MOD HAT

A small clean up was done. Please stick to the topic and do not insult each other.

cow451 · Mar 7, 2016

wing2000 said:
Say again? You are against the ACA....but are in favor guaranteeing coverage for those who have pre-existing conditions. What part of the ACA do you oppose?

It's comical to look at the GOP "replacement" plans for the ACA. They keep the essentials and tinker around the edges to cut benefits and coverage to the working poor. Otherwise, it is just the same.

Donald's health insurance positions

Naturalist

It's an old family tradition

Unapologetic Iconodule

Omnia tempus habent

Standing with Ukraine.

Omnia tempus habent

dog lover

Omnia tempus habent

dog lover

Omnia tempus habent

dog lover

1 Lord, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism

Naturalist

E pluribus unum

E pluribus unum

Veteran

CF Advisory team

Standing with Ukraine.

Similar threads