jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (98 posts)

American Health Care Act

  1. Don W profile image83
    Don Wposted 9 days ago

    Donald Trump said he will deliver:

    - "good coverage at much less cost"
    - "a much better health care plan at much less money."

    He also said:

    - "I'm not going to leave the lower 20% that can't afford insurance."
    - "I am going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now."
    - "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us."

    The Congressional Budget Office says this about the American Health Care Act(1)(2):

    - ". . . in 2018, 14 million more people would be uninsured under the legislation than under current law"

    - ". . . the increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number under current law would rise to 21 million in 2020 and then to 24 million in 2026"

    - "In 2026, an estimated 52 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law".

    - "In 2018 and 2019, according to CBO and JCT’s estimates, average premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market would be 15 percent to 20 percent higher than under current law, mainly because the individual mandate penalties would be eliminated, inducing fewer comparatively healthy people to sign up."

    - "Under the legislation, insurers would be allowed to generally charge five times more for older enrollees than younger ones rather than three times more as under current law, substantially reducing premiums for young adults and substantially raising premiums for older people."

    - "The largest costs would come from repealing . . . an increase in the Hospital Insurance payroll tax rate for high-income taxpayers, a surtax on those taxpayers’ net investment income, and annual
    fees imposed on health insurers"

    - budgetary effects will mostly come from provisions like a cap on "the growth in per-enrollee payments for most Medicaid beneficiaries to no more than the medical care component of the consumer price index starting in 2020".

    - "A reduction of $880 billion in federal outlays for Medicaid";

    It also says:

    - ". . . enacting the legislation would reduce federal deficits by $337 billion over the 2017-2026 period".

    - "By 2026, average premiums for single policyholders in the nongroup market under the legislation would be roughly 10 percent lower than under current law, CBO and JCT estimate".

    Outside of the CBO budgetary implications, the new legislation will:

    - maintain the requirement that people with existing conditions cannot be denied coverage, but only as long as they maintain continuous coverage more. If they don't and try to re-enter the market when they are sick, they can be denied coverage, or charged higher premiums.

    - continue to prohibit insurers having “lifetime limits” (a maximum on how much they will spend on a person's health care.

    - maintain dependent coverage provision

    So good news if you are a high-income taxpayer, but those tax cuts will be paid for by slashing Medicaid support. Not so good news if you are poor, an older person, or have an existing condition that causes you to lapse in your coverage. If you happen to be poor and an older person and have an existing condition etc., then I think it's bad news.

    So has Trump delivered on his promises above?

    (1) https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files … eact_0.pdf
    (2) http://docs.house.gov/meetings/WM/WM00/ … -SD005.pdf

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
      Ralph Deedsposted 9 days ago in reply to this

      My take on TrumpCare and ObamaCare:
      Neither Obamacare nor Trumpcare deal with the fundamental reasons for rising costs of health care, e.g, inefficiency of hospital and other medical care facilities; under-reliance on primary care doctors; and over-reliance on specialists who remind patients to continue making appointments as soon as they are eligible for insurance reimbursement whether needed or not or whether any issue could be dealt with by a primary care physician; for profit medicine and laboratories; over-prescribing of drugs; monopoly pricing by pharmaceutical companies and huge amounts spent on television drug advertising and lobbying; the ordering of unnecessary and sometimes harmful tests especially in cases where the testing facilities are owned by those ordering the tests. That is, in my opinion, greater emphasis is needed on the fundamental causes of excessive increases in health care costs which are much higher in the United States than in other industrialized countries and with poorer results. Single payer is the obvious best answer.

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 3 days ago in reply to this

      Single payer without caps on the tax based on income is the only fair solution. Sure government inefficiencies and overages will be incurred but that will be more than made up by eliminating the corporate grab all you can see the lobbyists have made us endure in the current failures. They continue to cap SS and are now trying to eliminate it in order to get out from under their criminal mismanagement of it and rip off the rest of us who were required to pay our percentages that through our own meager incomes they made us do.

  2. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 9 days ago

    Who knew it was so complicated!

    ObamaCare ain't looking so bad now, is it?

    It all proves one thing: You can;t deliver everything you promise.  Nobody can.

    1. Jean Bakula profile image93
      Jean Bakulaposted 9 days ago in reply to this

      It is very complicated. But Trump isn't--he's a pathological liar. That mess will never pass, many R's are against it as well. They need more time to work on it.

      I would just see what Socialist country had the best system and do it that way. It's pathetic in such a rich country we have people dying because they have no ACCESS to healthcare. That one word changes a lot too, Paul Ryan just wants to try his economic plan which gives more to the rich and lets the poor die, or whatever, he doesn't care about people except in an abstract way.

      Don is correct, the current plan is a disaster, and it was all lies from the start. Perhaps Trump will reject that plan when he sees how much opposition there is to it--plus that's only part of the plan. I shudder to think what the rest is. Ralph has a lot of good ideas. And everyone pays into an insurance pool ahorseback, that's how your car insurance and other insurances work. Except here, poor people have no healthcare and the rich get richer.

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 9 days ago in reply to this

        How wrong you are , The Perfect Plan , would be if government got out of what it always fails to do to begin with , RUNNING ANY KIND OF SOCIAL PROGRAM    ,  stop begging the entitlement from Uncle Sammy and let the industry handle health care like it always did before , regulated free completion between insurers and  doctors.   

        Everybody ,Buy your own entitlement !

        1. Jean Bakula profile image93
          Jean Bakulaposted 7 days ago in reply to this

          ahorseback,
          When you are diagnosed with cancer, or another deadly disease, and need immediate treatment or will die, you need the money up front to get any medical care. A person can't even get to the first doctor to do that and have a recovery plan by getting money in tax cuts at the next season. It will be too late.

          Plus, your wonderful Trump promised everyone would be covered by "his" plan. I saw a town hall in WV this week, and many of those who voted for him have buyer's remorse.

          I guess you or anyone you cared about never had a catastrophic illness which they didn't bring onto themselves.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 8 days ago in reply to this

        Why would you go to a failed economic/political system to see how to do anything at all?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
          Ralph Deedsposted 8 days ago in reply to this

          The democratic, mixed private enterprise/socialist economies are hardly failures. Nearly all of them have universal, single-payer health care which costs much less and produces demonstrably better results than our health care system. I live across the river faom Windsor, Ontario and every time I meet a Canadian I ask them whether they would trade their health care program for the U.S. system. Although some grumble a bit about having to wait for non-emergency care, I have yet to meet a single one who would trade their Canadian single payer system for our system.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 8 days ago in reply to this

            From the post I replied to: "I would just see what Socialist country had the best system and do it that way."  No mention of a mixed economy.  And many of those mixed systems are failing badly, with the stronger socialistic ones doing the worst.

            It's true that most socialistic society likes their "free" health care - most people, conditioned to being given something important to them will be unhappy if they suddenly have to provide it themselves.  Canadians - I continue to see where they come to the US to get their care because of the wait times in Canada, so not sure that is a good example of a "superior" system.  Generally, living with pain or a malfunctioning body is not particularly desirable.

            But the bottom line is responsibility of the citizen: are we as individuals responsible for our lives or is the great DC Nanny to blame for our failures as individuals.  It is important to me to feel independent, to be responsible for my own life (even if it's only perception); others want the guidance and support of Big Government to care for them, provide for them and make sure they live a "proper" life.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 8 days ago in reply to this

              "No mention of a mixed economy.  And many of those mixed systems are failing badly, with the stronger socialistic ones doing the worst."

              Just curious which are the many mixed systems that are failing badly, and which are the
              "stronger socialistic ones doing worst." The ones I'm familiar with are doing pretty well (the Scandinavian countries and most of the European countries--UK--Germany, France--except for Greece and Spain.) Nearly all of them rank higher than U.S. in public education, and social welfare, and their economies are quite productive. Some of them do suffer from over-regulation.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 8 days ago in reply to this

                "Just curious which are the many mixed systems that are failing badly"

                Start with Greece.  You take it from there.

                Ranking high in "social welfare" is hardly an indication of a "superior" economy or society - just the opposite as it is a strong indication that one or the other (or both) are failing the people.  That the US has very poor education in general is a result of Big Government interfering with teaching - a socialistic program even if not true socialism.

                And yes, they ALL suffer from over-regulation.  Even worse that the US does.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                  Ralph Deedsposted 8 days ago in reply to this

                  Greece and Spain are not typical. Nearly all the others are doing fine. Inequality of wealth and income is much less of an issue in European democracies than here. We are becoming more and more like a banana republic or a middle eastern country where wealth is concentrated among a tiny number of individuals who use their control over the government to enrich themselves, as Trump and his family are currently doing here.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 8 days ago in reply to this

                    Great Britain is not doing "fine".  Neither is France.  Mostly it is the tiny Scandinavian countries that are and they are hardly a suitable role model for something like the US.

                    Of course the socialistic countries have less inequality of wealth - that's what they are all about!  Making sure everyone gets the same, regardless of contribution!  But I'm still struggling with those "problems" with that inequality; given the massive disparity between lifestyle, possessions, etc. between today and 60 years ago it's difficult to see any real "problems"  Greed, of course, is always there, and increasing entitlements coupled with baseless attacks on wealth will easily convince the gullible that because one person has more, they should too.  It's what causes socialism and the loss of productivity, responsibility and motivation that comes with it.

                2. Jean Bakula profile image93
                  Jean Bakulaposted 7 days ago in reply to this

                  Wilderness,

                  If it would save innocent people's lives I would study any country's system which was working and copy the parts of it that worked. It doesn't have to be Socialist, it could be anything. But it has to cover all people in the richest part of the world. Our health care, infant mortality rate and other rates of recovery are terrible for a country who claims to be "exceptional."

                  The pharmaceutical companies are part of the issue, a big problem. But there are many factors.

                  But I'm sure we can do better, it's the crazy people like Paul Ryan who want to try out other economic systems as an experiment. It won't change his life at all if other families lose loved ones while he's playing God. I think Congress and the House should have their Cadillac healthcare plans taken away, and have to live like other Americans. See how hard it is and how either one illness can wipe out a family, or at least get some idea we don't all work a few days a month for what we have in health care and benefits. Many people work 3 jobs and get very little. Of course, R's don't like minimum wage increases or anything that helps another person.

                  1. ahorseback profile image47
                    ahorsebackposted 7 days ago in reply to this

                    Every person that I know who has had a catastrophic  health care issue  has either lost most of their  personal "assets "  because of under or no insurance ,    OR   they have been fully covered by a legitimate   and viable insurance company that THEY themselves paid for,  for whatever period of time that they did .       
                    The system  already has a built in uninsured  cost " write off " for those who don't have insurance . Thus all hospital  systems being  viable , taxable business' ,  most people that "Die In the streets " do NOT do so because of the lack of  insurance coverage .

                    What most liberals want ?     A British system that is all inclusive -paid for by taxation . To hell with  what said taxation  costs ALL others , to hell with  whatever else has to be cut or eliminated for that entitlement ,   the military , the  infrastructure , the  environment ,whatever ,wherever  the federal government service . Cut it too pay for my aspirin !

                    Question --Is mandatory free  health care by the feds  provided for  in the original US.constitution ?

                  2. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 6 days ago in reply to this

                    There are a few problems with this approach.  You talk as if there is a one-solution-fits-all, but there isn't.  What works in one country may well not work in another.

                    You are certainly correct in that there are other factors, too.  Americans are obese.  Their diet is atrocious.  They use drugs.  They smoke.  Things like this very definitely affect lifespan and health, and to blame a poor health care system for the problems stemming directly from bad habits doesn't make a lot of sense. 

                    Nor is it Ryan playing God - it is the liberal community that declares "You have too much - I'll take it and give it to someone else I think deserves it more than you do."  THAT'S playing God - not forcing or allowing a person to be responsible for themselves.

                    It's always really comical to hear a socialist moan that conservatives don't want to "help" someone...as they take, at gunpoint, what someone has rightfully earned for themselves.

                  3. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 6 days ago in reply to this

                    Little tale that happened to me just last year:  My wife had had abdominal pain for some months, centered, we thought, around the bowel.  Constipation, etc.

                    When her yearly checkup came around (required by Obamacare) she talked to the doctor about it and as a colonoscopy was due, she was set up with a specialist and a clinic to get that done in the hopes it would find something that would help. 

                    It was scheduled for Wednesday morning, and the preparation was all done properly (quite uncomfortable and unpleasant if you've never had one), but when she went in they found there was a blockage and it could not be performed.  The specialist called the hospital and, because of the nasty prep work that would have had to be repeated, set her up with an immediate special CAT scan and an office visit with a surgeon.  Within an hour we had transferred to the hospital, had the CAT scan and were headed to the surgeon's office.  Remember, this is NOT an emergency situation yet the CAT scan (some kind of specialized one requiring a special machine) AND a surgeon's office visit were scheduled in less than an hour.  The CAT scan was performed, read and transmitted to the surgeon with less than an hour's notice.

                    The surgeon indicated major surgery was needed - a bowel resection - and tried to schedule it for that Friday, two days away.  Again, it was NOT an emergency, and as we had a trip planned for Saturday (I was to officiate at a wedding in another state) we asked to put it off until the following Friday, a week away.

                    The surgery was performed in a pleasant, clean hospital decorated with patient's mental attitudes in mind.  She had a private room with WIFI, TV and phone service.  They helped her set up chargers for her computer and cell phone.

                    So when you talk about how atrocious our health care is, think about that.  We could have had a specialized CAT scan, surgeon's office visit AND surgery done in just two days...for a non-emergency situation.  This is not something you will find hardly anywhere else, and is not something that happens with nationalized health care.

  3. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 9 days ago

    The great numbers being thrown around are always  so far off ,  Obama Care is said to have  added  as little as   9 million newbies on health care rolls ,     far cry from the twenty five or whatever dream numbers Obama -Care claim  , for one thing !

    Kathleen  , are liberals willing to pay double  in premiums to pick up one more uninsured ?

    1. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 9 days ago in reply to this

      How are you doing, Ahorseback? It is nice to have a chance to greet you again.

      I’ve read the CBO report on the AHCA and I have verified that Don W’s statements are accurate.  What is the source of your claim "Obama Care is said to have  added  as little as  9 million newbies on health care rolls?"
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    2. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
      Kathleen Cochranposted 9 days ago in reply to this

      It always amazed me that people raved about how wonderful healthcare was in the military.  What a wonderful benefit it was.  Well, it was - and is- socialized medicine.  It had its failings, but generally it met your needs and cost you nothing.  I always wondered why it was so great for the military family but not good enough for everybody else?  And yes, I would pay more to help somebody else.  No apologies.

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 9 days ago in reply to this

        Kathleen , To earn a service is one thing , as in the military  , they were compensated in wages  less than the mainstream  population of work forces -- and earned a package of  other bennies  honorably , I came from a military family I know .          To compare THAT with entitlements for  everyone else  is ludicrous.    Conservatives  lead the fifties , sixties , seventies by  owning media , government and did it all by lies and deception .   Liberal ideologies however are   so phony today  - While saying "It's the right thing to do for the needy  " as to entitlements ,what they are really saying is "I want Free Stuff "
        Admit it Kathleen !

        I truly wish liberals would  wage this entitlement war with HONESTY though ,  If they , you ,did that  you would admit  simply that "-I want My Free Stuff  and  I Don't care where it comes from -" 





        https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13448713.jpg

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 8 days ago in reply to this

        "It (military health care) had its failings, but generally it met your needs and cost you nothing."

        Sounds exactly what one might expect to hear from employer provided insurance, doesn't it?  Except for the "socialized" part; that an employer (the military) pays for it does not indicate socialism.

        Of course the problem is that it DOES cost - that the beneficiary isn't paying that cost does not mean it is free.

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 days ago

    ACA punishes success.

  5. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 8 days ago

    It's not "free stuff" when in the long run it saves everybody the rising costs of healthcare.  People with no insurance can't get treated for treatable conditions, so when they are dying they go to an ER and every possible effort is made, at tremendous cost, to save their life.  By then it is too late.  It would save all of us a great deal of money to treat people in the most inexpensive manner: early and preventative.  (And you can leave off the !. Thanks)

    And the military provides health care because it saves them the cost of providing insurance for its members.  As in many other matters, it has led the way in testing social changes in our country and found the best solution to a problem.

    1. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 8 days ago in reply to this

      Yeaaa ,......, until you actually visit a VA hospital to see the reality !

      1. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
        Kathleen Cochranposted 2 days ago in reply to this

        I have and it's no worse than any other hospital.  What we need to do to help veterans is give them the option of going out on the economy for treatment when there is an unreasonable wait time for appointments.  There is insurance for that, with a co-pay.

        1. cheaptrick profile image74
          cheaptrickposted 2 days ago in reply to this

          That option Dose exist!
          In its usual approach to 'To much bureaucracy' the VA added another layer of (you guessed it!) Bureaucracy!
          So Now if you cant get in at the VA you call a number where they take incompetence to a Whole New Level!...Nearly redefining the word!
          I had an urgent (noted on the order) heart stress test ordered and ended up waiting 60 days (after multiple attempts) just to get scheduled for the test a month after that!The unbelievable horror stories you hear Vets tell about their experiences at the VA are not only true,they're Understated!...and That IS What Govt health care Looks Like!...It's NOT something you want if you can help it!...though it Will fix the overpopulation problem in fairly short order (google the Phoenix VA scandal if you don't believe me)

  6. Sharniquewa profile image61
    Sharniquewaposted 4 days ago

    you just get better god will see that you have tried your hardest and you know what keep going on you will get better

  7. MichaelHJL profile image61
    MichaelHJLposted 3 days ago

    Thank you, useful to me

  8. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
    Kathleen Cochranposted 3 days ago

    Jean:  Good for you.  There are some hubbers whose names drive me away from a discussion because I know it is going to dissolve into name-calling and personal insults.  They lower the level of debate if not bringing it entirely to a halt.  Good for you for standing up for yourself (and the rest of us.)

    1. Nathanville profile image89
      Nathanvilleposted 3 days ago in reply to this

      I fully agree with you Kathleen; yes Jean, good on you for standing up for yourself and the rest of us.

    2. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 3 days ago in reply to this

      Yes I agree , After all , its only fair that those professing the  ideology of the right be  called to the carpet on questioning the moral and ethical standards allowed in  political discussions .   That , would never be something those on the left do constantly !..............NOT!

      1. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
        Kathleen Cochranposted 2 days ago in reply to this

        I think after the 3rd reading I got the drift of your comment, a horseback.  Either side can state their opinion without being called on the carpet without insulting the other side.  It's possible.

    3. Jean Bakula profile image93
      Jean Bakulaposted 2 days ago in reply to this

      Thank you for the support, Kathleen and Nathanville. I am not that thin skinned, but am sick of being bullied. The person knows how far he can go without being kicked off the forum. He is derogatory and insulting, but doesn't come out and call anyone a name--he implies it all.

      I'd stand up for you anytime!

      1. Kathleen Cochran profile image84
        Kathleen Cochranposted 2 days ago in reply to this

        Seems like nobody gets kicked off forums anymore.  Is HP doing its job?

        1. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 2 days ago in reply to this

          A standard of name calling will get you in trouble the soonest.

          Unless attacks are directed to you personally and not your ideas, making a case is difficult.

          That's ok, advocating from my side of the political spectrum is going to attract opposition. I expect it and challenge them all to come out from the shadows. Your thoughts and ideas are appreciated, and I certainly don't want you to be 'run off'.

          Sorry, Kathleen, this was addressed to Jean.

        2. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 2 days ago in reply to this

          Hello Kathleen, I hope you remember my comment that I always enjoy the opportunity to engage your comments. Boy, unless I misread the inference of your comment, I want to run through this door.

          Following this thread, I can only see this comment - tagged to Jean's  exchanges, as relative to Wilderness' replies.

          Refusing to acquiesce  to emotional but inaccurate declarations is not bullying. Repeatedly pointing out that philosophical and moral beliefs are not universal, (or reality-based), truths is not an action of insult.

          I think HP is doing a good job of policing the forums. Personal insults, purposely insulting name-calling, (in the name of tolerance, I don't think of partisan labels like; snowflake, or Rightwingers,  are personally insulting either - although, for me, "Libtard" might be a bit over the line), are a fair reason to be banned. And I can remember a participant or two that did suffer 'time-outs' for such violations.

          But... I don't see anything in this thread's exchanges that pass that bar. It sounds to me like you are upset that there are non-choir members in the room.

          GA

          1. Jean Bakula profile image93
            Jean Bakulaposted 2 days ago in reply to this

            GA,
            I live my life through personal emotional perceptions, I'm a psychic. But I think a lot of what I say is factual, and what I see happening. I may be looking at it from a different perspective. That's not against the law.

            But that doesn't mean every time I post, what I say is not based on what I've read or researched. And who decided that a certain person has to comment on everything I say? He's just towing the R line. You probably know the old expression, "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line." I have freedom to speak just as everyone else does.

            I am not a scientist, and never claimed to be. I don't have to be right all the time. But I also don't deserve to be criticized every single time I post. That is inappropriate behavior from someone who feels superior to me, and I'm sick of it. I am a liberal Democrat on many issues, and know many people who agree with me on a lot of what I say. Donald Trump is a fool to be trying to dismantle NATO and saying Obama wiretapped him. Tillotson sp? is skipping a NATO meeting to go straight to China. Trump said he would try to get everyone covered in a health plan. His family has no reason to be in the White House. The list of what a mess he's made so far is long. The man is a liar.

            I don't mind you butting in, you are generally polite and well mannered. But I don't really see why you had to involve yourself in this. I watch and listen to enough news and don't take hours each day to fact check each post on here, I come on during breaks in my freelance writing.

            I had no intention of reporting anyone, I would gain no satisfaction from that.

            Kathleen, HP doesn't monitor the forums anymore. If someone insults you by calling you a name, you can get them kicked off for 3 days. I'll just stay off because a certain person is making anyone on a thread who disagrees with his ideas miserable. He doesn't need to argue with EVERYONE who doesn't have his belief system (Whoops, forgive me, love of facts) or watch Fox News.

            I have enough writing to do that pays well and doesn't subject me to aggravation or contradiction all the time.

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 2 days ago in reply to this

              Hello again Jean,

              I think we should just let things lay where they are. We are not going to make any progress. And I can't see any profit from restating wilderness' points to validate my point.

              I don't presume any authority to condemn your philosophies or perspectives, but when you post them publicly, you certainly shouldn't presume them to be unchallengeable(sp?) Particularly the inaccurate factual parts, and the wildly inaccurate generalizations too.

              GA.  .

              1. Jean Bakula profile image93
                Jean Bakulaposted 38 hours ago in reply to this

                GM
                I don't see any "wildly inaccurate" statements. I based what I said on the people I see around me, the real problems they have with this administration, knowledge of current events I get from each news station (all are biased in their way) and magazines. The nature of forums is to express opinions. Of course, we don't all agree.

                But it still remains the rich have more tax loopholes to help them save their hidden money, and don't declare all their income. I can't do that. I still think they don't need to be pampered in that way, and should own up to what they make. The government can use it to make a better health care system. Or do what it wants. But it's money hidden from the government, the reason many wealthy people don't admit they have cash hidden all over the world. It's just an idea, not even an opinion. But as a rich country with bad health care, it's not a bad idea. There are wealthy people who don't take SS because they don't need it; wealthy people.

                But I feel you both have crossed a line of assuming everything you say is infallible, when its not.. Everything the two of you say isn't correct, it's your opinion. You just have one perspective and don't want to look at any other ones.

                I'm happy to drop it.

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 33 hours ago in reply to this

                +1

  9. ahorseback profile image47
    ahorsebackposted 26 hours ago

    It would be perfectly fine with  most Americans believing in the free market system  IF , One , the whole Trump - Ryan Health Care did NOT pass through the legislative channels -  Two , If Trump ultimately  completely repeals  the past Obama -American  Health Care Act  and let the brilliance of the free market resume the insuring of the insurable in America .   Plus ,  add  the regulating and even hyper regulating of said insurance companies for both reasonable profitability and coverage optimization .

    It amazes me that any American wants the federal government to intervene and that the same government Can't run anything efficiently or  profitably !

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 9 hours ago in reply to this

      When I broke my foot, my doctor was appalled I did not have insurance. So, to make him happy, I got insurance. Then he was happy. Then he retired. That was before Obama Care. Then I gave up my insurance because it doubled. I signed up Obama care to avoid paying the fine. I have had this forced insurance for a full year and I have never used it, as it covers only catastrophic. I wish I knew what my doctor's opinion of Obama care would have been.
      Are (were) doctors happy with Obama care?

      <  Those who believe in the free market, (generally republicans/conservatives):
      1. Do not require the Trump/Ryan Care Act to pass through legislative channels.
      2. Want President Trump to repeal the Obama Care Act and restore the free market of private insurance companies.
      3. Want (private) insurance companies to be REGULATED in order to:
            a. Prevent them from obtaining unfair financial gain.
            b. Optimize adequate/fair insurance coverage. >

      Thank s  ahorseback.

      Q. Who will regulate insuance companies and and how will they be regulated?
      We need to make some (new) laws?

      1. ahorseback profile image47
        ahorsebackposted 2 hours ago in reply to this

        Kathryn ,   The importance of  a good healthcare  for all ,  is paramount but  needs only to be  regulated like  the military or  workplace safety , or for  water quality .   If a doctor or hospital can only charge a fixed or  regulated cost for an X-ray or a broken toe  then  the overcharging ,over-insuring , over pricing of an entire system , is then controlled .

        Not the subsidization of an over charging , underserving ,  incredible enriching  system for an industry.
        The system is  a highly profiting system , it only needs regulating.

  10. TiKo Nucubidze profile image55
    TiKo Nucubidzeposted 4 hours ago
  11. Angel Guzman profile image79
    Angel Guzmanposted 3 hours ago

    The Affordable Care Act did set a minimum standard of protections that very badly needed in this country. The issues I take with the law myself are there were no public option and that it did not go far enough especially in destroying the for profit model system in heathcare. The healthcare industry needs to be subsidized so it is available to all who need it. This new proposed legislation will only make things worse for the average person. This isn't about destroying Obama's legacy but rather protecting those vulnerable that are much better off with the law.

    1. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 3 hours ago in reply to this

      How does it help anything or anyone when the extreme profiteering is allowed to continue , in fact  to continue  -subsidized and unregulated ,    Obama care helps no one when all it does is raise the costs of healthcare overall .   Cutting more and more  people out of care  .

      Repeal  ,  ditch Obama care with a highly regulated government oversight on existing health care .

 
working