'ObamaCare Will Explode': Trump Reacts to Pulling of GOP Health Care Bill (cost, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I keep asking this, and so far, no one has given me a coherent answer. Or any answer at all.
Trump campaigned for a year. In all that time, he never thought to get a group of wonks together to develop a bill that would be ready for hearings "on Day 1" as he promised? Instead, he chose to support Ryan's bill which was none of the things he promised - it isn't cheaper, it isn't better, it doesn't cover everyone, and the government doesn't pick up the slack for the folks who can't pay. Why on earth did he do that?
And any idiot could know that the Rs would be unable to agree on a plan, all they would have to do is listen to Boehner on why, in the 7 years following the ACA's passage, no R plan appeared. So why didn't Trump call for a working group of Rs and Ds to come up with something they could agree on? If he's such an independent breaker of molds, why didn't he use his strong-arm tactics to get congressional Rs off their respective asses and ask the Ds to participate - instead of trying to force reluctant Rs to vote for something they hated??
None of this is rocket science, it is Legislative Leadership 101.
It's no news that premiums increase every year. The thing is, by all rational analyses, those increases are less than they would be w/out the ACA.
Face it, Trump simply doesn't know how to get things done in this arena.
Answer to much of your query is quite simple; His Orangeness and supporters never dreamed in a million years DT would actually win the POTUS race. Why would they? The man previously (several times IIRC), and always lost.
Then came the first salvo over the bow; DT own the GOP primary, then things became slightly more real, and while Bannon and others were working behind the scenes it was still a widely held assumption the Clinton woman would win in November, until she didn't.
DT is like the proverbial "spare" heir to a throne. Kept out of the loop and ill prepared for the role, finds himself never the less monarch quite quickly after circumstances cause a unique and unforeseen chain of events.
His Orangeness is not only a political naïf, but quite honestly not the brightest blub in the box. Having never even studied social policy much less had to form one it is rather like sending a "C -" adult student back to school and expecting them to grasp things at once. The fact DT has that daughter trailing after him like a conscientious governess should tell you something.
I don't remember insurance premiums going up 100+% before obamacare. I don't remembwr $13,000 deductibles being standard either.
If you're asking me why Trump did something, it should be no surprise that you aren't getting an answer. We can only speculate. You think he is both hitler and a moron. I tend to take a more empirical approach. I figure if he was smart enough to get elected by himself, against the best candidates of both parties, against 24/7 negative press, against the sitting president Obama, there is probably some rhyme to his reason. Of course I could be wrong, but I've been right about him since july 2015.
No, I don't think he is hitler. Just a moron.
And I hate to tell you this, but morons get elected all the time. However, as morons go, he's pretty spectacular, so I'll definitely give you that his election was surprising.
The last place I worked (I'm retired) had BC/BS, and I paid the premiums. Not uncommon to go up 25% each year, and this was top tier insurance. We could have chosen a group policy with a higher deductible, but we didn't. I can't remember now what the range was, but I don't think that a $13,000 deductible was out of the question. A lot of folks LIKE a higher deductible, that is essentially a catastrophic insurance policy, and it keeps premiums down (or down-ish - I definitely agree with you that this is too high to be workable for some folks).
The ACA does not include cost-limiting measures, something that would be on my list if amendments were up to me. And you need to remember that ACA implementation varies by state. If you live in a state which resisted the ACA, your experience is not necessarily the same as the resident of a state which said "finally!" and figured out how to use ACA provisions to improve things for its citizens.
Look at all the communist/socialist countries in the world. They are all either 3rd world hellholes for the average citizen or in a freefall. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's the best option. Just look at north korea vs south korea or east germany vs west germany.
I refuse to believe the government should or is even capable of solving all our problems. Modern healthcare and insurance is a construct of free enterprise. Modern medical advancements and tech is thanks to the free market.
That's not to say that government has no purpose, but it's bounds should be limited to the constitution's enumerated powers.
This is your ideological side taking over your practical side. You will never achieve what you want which is to lower costs and keep your doctors.
Forget your ideological side and focus on how to get lower costs while keeping the same doctor.
With so many 'great halt care systems' in place around the word, you would think the USA could copy some of it for a system that could work better. But then again, some places like the Netherlands pay 50% tax for their system. I can hear Americans screaming now about that kind of tax increase.
People are quick to point out that this or that country has has great medical benefits but they often fail to consider what the cost is.
Going on about various universal healthcare schemes found elsewhere in the world won't do any good far as USA is concerned. Every single such scheme requires a universal mandate *and* taxes paid directly to government by person, employer and or both. In either event Americans have made it perfectly clear how they feel about "mandates" and "taxes" that cover health insurance.
Personally do not believe the USA will ever see universal healthcare on federal level, rather it will be up to states to make that move.
States have far greater powers over their citizens/residents than federal government. Thus are better positioned to design and implement some sort of universal healthcare.
While not totally perfect Massachusetts is doing a decent job with Mitt Romney's healthcare scheme. Again no, it is not perfect but everything has to start somewhere.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.