Trump's HealthCare plan to repeal ObamaCare

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (46 posts)
  1. colorfulone profile image77
    colorfuloneposted 8 years ago

    Since March of 2010, the American people have had to suffer under the incredible economic burden of the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare. This legislation, passed by totally partisan votes in the House and Senate and signed into law by the most divisive and partisan President in American history, has tragically but predictably resulted in runaway costs, websites that don’t work, greater rationing of care, higher premiums, less competition and fewer choices. Obamacare has raised the economic uncertainty of every single person residing in this country. As it appears Obamacare is certain to collapse of its own weight, the damage done by the Democrats and President Obama, and abetted by the Supreme Court, will be difficult to repair ...

    1. Completely repeal Obamacare...

    2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. ...

    3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. ...
    4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). ...

    5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. ...

    6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. ...

    7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. ... … are-reform

    This is looking like a much better HealthCare Plan for everyone.

    1. Live to Learn profile image60
      Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      How does he plan to repeal Obamacare? Isn't that in the arena of the Congress?

    2. rhamson profile image69
      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      "3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. ..."

      That number three in essence makes it a single payer system without any collective reduction in costs. But the funny part about it is it still allows the big pharma health providers to keep the costs ramped up. Not only does that allow the consumer to continue high premiums but it also tears the heart out of tax collections.

      A true single payer system is the only way and Trump himself used to support it until he went over to the dark side.

      1. colorfulone profile image77
        colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Trump is anathema to the big pharmas from what I have read and heard from him.  He won't be able to change anything so monstrous with those companies as a presidential candidate.   I don't know if he will be able to as president either...I mean these are powerful elites. 

        Is there a solution, a ways and means?  The enormity of the morally wrongness is beyond me, its unthinkable.

        1. rhamson profile image69
          rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Only we the people hold the key yet we seem to have lost it along the way. The two party system, the theoretical sham of these parties feeding us the lies we so want to believe in is holding us like puppets on a string while the lobbyists and corporate power pulls at them. The power must go back to the people but we are loathe to mind it. We are caught up in the lies and can't see the logic while being fed more lies to keep us at bay. When ever we get off our dead a$$es and do something about is your guess is as good as mine.

          1. colorfulone profile image77
            colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            There you go again, cutting right to the chase.  While all the lies circulate we get ripped off. 

            There are a dozen failed ObamaCare cooperatives that have failed to repay any amount of the $1.2 billion in federal loans received, plus they also owe over a $1 billion in liabilities, according to recent financial statements cited last Thursday at a hearing in Congress.

            Sen. Rob Portman, chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said that “We shouldn’t hold our breath on repayment.  In some states, these losses will be absorbed by other insurance companies, which means, by the policyholders of other insurance companies who have to pay increased … premiums. In other states, doctors, hospitals and individual patients stand to suffer large out-of-pocket losses due to the co-op failures—as our report details.”

            I have read some reports about hospitals and ERs having to close in CA.  sad

          2. Kathryn L Hill profile image76
            Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            The populace is too dumbed down. This was the plan which has worked quite well.

            1. rhamson profile image69
              rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              The sad pathetic truth is that the establishment politics are the ones who have swallowed the Koolade and the outsiders are the ones making sense.

            2. colorfulone profile image77
              colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I totally agree about the dumbing-down of the populace. Mainstream media is a wonderful tool, but its masters have made it into a dispenser of the Kool-aid / agenda-media, rhetoric and propaganda.   The media needs reform, but I don't suppose that will happen in my life-time if ever.  I'm glad there are alternative news outlets that actually do report the real news. 

              Common-core in education, which Marxist Hillary is at the root of when Bill Clinton was president, has been dumbing down students of all ages.  We are seeing the fruits that has to yield.  Education needs to return to local and state control and the government Kool-aid needs to be purged out of there.   I think if Dr. Ben Carson can be in charge of Education that our children and their children... will be far better for it.

  2. Stacie L profile image89
    Stacie Lposted 8 years ago

    He also claimed that he would get rid of the you do we send our tax returns to "3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. ..."

    1. colorfulone profile image77
      colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you, Stacy!  I don't remember Trump saying he will get rid of the IRS. Have I missed that?  I know Cruz has talked about that.

      I don't remember who said that taxes would go to a secretaries office.  I'm sorry I cannot be more helpful right now.  If you come across that info would you please let us know?  If not, no worries.  I know there will have to be an address to somewhere.  smile

      (heehee, Cruz might as well drop out now)

  3. Alternative Prime profile image56
    Alternative Primeposted 8 years ago

    Congratularions colorfulone ~ You're supporting a Mentally Unstable Numbskull who is advocating "STRIPPING" Health-Care from approximately 18-20 Million Americans ~ Trump is a Mentally Disturbed "Capitalist", not many Americans are willing to admit that ~

    P.S. ~ Just look at Melania in that picture, she's got one foot OUT the Front DOOR just in case "DONALD" goes Bankrupt AGAIN or all of his Pending Fraud Law Suits end Up DRAINING the Account ~ sad Then she'll just go find another Weird looking "Stiff" with Bad Hair PLUGz & a few filthy bux ~

    1. Live to Learn profile image60
      Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Let's be honest about this 'health care'. What it boils down to for many is paying money you don't have for plans that don't cover anything; or you can just let them fine you at tax time and don't have anything.

      We don't have a good system but that's what one can expect when the insurance companies get a seat at the table and no one was there to represent the average american citizen.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image56
        Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        That's EXACTLY why sooner or later we will establish a "Single Payer Plan" where there are ZERO Corporate or WALL Street Swindler Interests involved in YOUR Well Being ~

        Most Americans STILL don't understand that a Trump, Rubio, Cruz, or even Kasich "PRIVATE" Health Plan will run right through WALL Street which means Corporate Profits and EARNINGS take precedence over YOUR Health ~

        So we can choose a Federally Sponsored Health Care Program which does NOT run through Wall Street, or continue on with a Greedy CEO who counts Stock Certificates all day in between you and your Health ~ And we all know Corporate CEOs ALWAYS have the publics Best Interest at Heart ~ sad

        That's an UNFORTUNATE FACT ~

        1. Live to Learn profile image60
          Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I'm for universal health care. I just think Obama's plan was ill thought and can't be fixed. I think we have exactly what you are warning us we will get with the others. So, why would I want to keep it in place?

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            If we're going to force people to buy health care for strangers, a single payer system (government covers all) is the only way to go.  Yes, it will put millions out of work and kill some big companies, but it's better than forcing people to not only buy health care for their neighbors but pay for the profits of insurance companies as well.  I suppose we could pay for limited health care directly and let people buy additional insurance as they wish, but it would never last.  The first person that died from not getting a 4 organ transplant would put an end to it.  "To each according to their needs" is alive and well in the health care controversy.

            1. Live to Learn profile image60
              Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I suppose that is a fair argument. But, I can tell you I'd rather see quite a few of my tax dollars go to universal health care than some of the things they are currently spending them on.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                *shrug*  So would I.  But that doesn't mean there is anywhere near enough money to supply what the constituency wants.  Last year we spent 2.5 Trillion on health care.  And the federal budget was 3T, with nearly 1T in deficit spending.  In other words, the entire income of the federal government won't cover that single expenditure and given the inevitable rise in total cost with total free care the picture is much worse.

                Of course, we could triple the tax rates, whereupon politicians will spend the extra on pork and other junk we don't need.  Fancy paying 75% in federal taxes?

                1. Live to Learn profile image60
                  Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Let's back up. Giving everyone access to basic health care doesn't mean it has to be free for all. But, it should be reasonably priced for all, which would go a long way toward solving the problems. And, then, we could see what it would take to fill the gaps left.

                  Honestly, I think we've bought into some ideas that don't work, aren't healthy, and are actually detrimental to our health. We don't need a prescription drug for every ail. We need to stop advertising drugs to the general public. We aren't doctors. We don't need to make an appointment to see if we can get the newest drug available. Studies show that marketing a drug in one market creates a spike in the number of people who have that ailment advertised. I don't think you can come down with a specific condition that is advertised in a commercial simply by watching tv.

                  And, we (the average citizen) don't need to foot the bill for drug development for the world. Limit the amount of time, or level of profit, that a drug company has to reap the benefits of exclusive rights to a new drug. We, the people, foot the bill for a lot of that research and scientists benefit from studies and experiments done by peers. They aren't functioning in a vacuum and that should be taken into account when determining how exclusively they can maintain drugs created through this collective research.

                  Those who have odd and rare diseases shouldn't be at the mercy of every hedge fund looking to make a quick profit by buying the patent on an older drug.

                  I know you are a fan of capitalism and a lightly regulated economy but many of our woes could be fixed with some heavy handed laws which ensure reasonably priced prescriptions here in the U.S. Laws which address the problems the citizens face; not laws which protect the system that has created these problems.   

                  We need universal pricing for access to doctors, specialists and procedures for everyone. Not a tiered system that allows those with insurance coverage to pay 15% of what the bill for someone uninsured looks like. I would much rather consider the possibility of helping the indigent if it didn't entail unscrupulous doctors attempting to gouge the government in the process.

                  And, I don't think we would be displeased with efforts to increase the number of people in our medical schools and subsidizing the tuition so qualified people could learn to be doctors without ending up with a mountain of debt which causes them to be concerned more with dollar signs than service.

                  Yes, health care is expensive. Yes, we can't just write a blank check. But, the function of government should be to ensure fairness to the citizens. To create a level playing field for everyone. Health care should not be about marketing, raising profits and six figure incomes. It should not be more worried about dollar signs than it is a healthy populace. Targeted measures to alleviate glaring problems could go a long way toward lowering the number of people we look at and see a need to help.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Much of what you say is very true, but much is also in the fantasy land of socialism.

                    Sure, we could make those with a job pay for health care for themselves AND for those without a job.  That's what we're talking about after all - raising taxes to unbelievable numbers so everyone can have health care.

                    Yes, we can say we shouldn't see a doctor for a head cold or a hangnail...but people will do it anyway.  It's a part of why ObamaCare is failing - with free care people WILL demand a doctor when one isn't needed.  But just saying we shouldn't do it isn't going to stop the practice.

                    Yes, we should not be funding the world's need for new drugs.  But if we don't there won't be any new drugs - other countries require such low prices for prescription drugs that they cannot be developed.  Which is what you're saying we should do - remove any reasonable profit levels after the research is done.  Sure, you can also say that profits would still be there, but it's an empty claim - the costs for developing a new drug (to our standards) are just too high (should we lower our standards, requiring far less experimentation and testing?).  There's a reason that nearly all new drugs come out of America, and it for exactly the reason you're proposing - that the payoff isn't there in other countries.

                    Get rid of insurance and the "tiered" system, where uninsured pay for the insured, goes away.  That's simple enough, but doesn't change the final price for a country's health care needs.

                    Yes, we could subsidize increasing health care costs (that training becomes a part of the cost, after all).  The bottom line of the total paid won't change much if any. 

                    But you aren't wanting "fairness"; you're wanting some to pick up the cost for all and that's about as far from "fair" is it can get.  And it is about 6 figure incomes; anyone that goes to school for the time necessary to become a world class surgeon deserves nothing less.  It's called "fair" instead of "level playing field" but that's how we get those surgeons.  Not by keeping their wage the same as anyone else.

                    And when it's all over, the fact still remains (a fact that you are trying to ignore) that our health care costs are more than the total income of the federal government.  You try to alleviate that by limiting Dr. salaries, and drug profits while pretending that doing so will not affect health care, but the world doesn't work that way.  Without a profit, or a great salary, you're just going to end up without drugs or doctors.  Nurses, too - we treat our nurses abominably, with little pay and as a result there is a desperate shortage of that highly skilled profession.  And you're wanting to do the same thing with doctors and drugs!

                    No, L2L, if we want universal health care, at the levels the people demand, we're going to have to bite the bullet and take some really distasteful medicine.  Taxes will skyrocket beyond anything we've ever even thought about, and gripes about health care won't change.  We see it in other countries now - the people are unhappy because they don't get immediate and total care for anything that might be needed.  Socialized medicine of Britain, Canada and the others isn't the final answer because the money just isn't there.  One day when robotics has taken over all jobs and nobody works, maybe, but until then it isn't going to happen.  Not, anyway, with the care that is being demanded.

                2. GA Anderson profile image87
                  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Whoa now!

                  I agree with your point, but... one of us got a bad set of references. If mine are right, your  "In other words..." might need revision. If not....

                  Within a $trillion or so margin of error, most sources I checked offered similar health care expenditure numbers for 2014/2015; relative to the GDP it was about 17.5%, and it was 25% - 28% of the Federal budget, somewhere between $938 billion to $1.35 trillion, (depending how you looked at it) dollars, and the deficit was somewhere around half a $Trillion, not a whole one.  Also, shouldn't HHS take a 28% share of that deficit spending, instead of the implied one $Trillion?

                  None of this changes how correct your point(s) were, just wanted to make sure those numbers didn't get in the way.


                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Couldn't remember where I got the numbers, so used … countries/

                    $7538 per capita, times population (317M) = $2.39T (This is total national cost for health care, not what the feds pay for, and for 2008 - it has gone up in 7 years)

                    From Wikipedia, total federal expenditures 2014 are $3.5T, less $.75T deficit = $2.75T taken in. 

                    A little sloppy before in my subtraction, but close enough for "government" work.  The feds take in just a little more than our health care costs.

                    But additionally (From Kaiser), public spending is 46% of the total: we would need an additional 1.2T on top of the 2.75T we already take in in taxes to make it all public (I had neglected to figure that we already pay for half the nations health care).  Assuming that total costs wouldn't go up when handled by government and that no more use was made of the system; a pretty poor bet IMHO, on either one.  About 50% more tax load, in other words, with 100% more likely considering the inability of government to do anything efficiently and considering the real-life probability (inevitability?) that congress will take a good portion of the extra for their own pet projects.

              2. Alternative Prime profile image56
                Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Live to Learn ~ If you'd rather see a few more of your tax dollars go to "Universal Health Care" then I hope you REALIZE that's an Absolute VOTE for either Hillary or Bernie or just about any other Progressive Democrat ~

                CON-Man Trump is trying to run your Health Care right through Wall Street with his "Private" tendencies which equates to a CORRUPT Health Care System based soly upon Corporate EARNINGS and not necessarily focused on your HEALTH ~ And that's a FACT ~

                The MORE you & others Learn about Wall Street, which the "Donald" is a cozy little Capitalist Partner with, the MORE you'll understand that its where ALL Bad & CORRUPT Things Begin ~ sad ~

                Just remember "Getting Rid of the LINES" a Boneheaded Simplistic Juvenile Plan which Rubio Nailed Him ON, simply equates to handing over your "Health & LIFE" to Wall Street Corporate Executives & TRUSTING they will do the RIGHT Thing ~ such a Happy thought ~ sad

                1. Live to Learn profile image60
                  Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Sorry. I do agree that Trump's plan is somewhat boneheaded but the current system is more so. So, I don't see that my opinion warrants as agreement with anything Hillary has to say on the subject.

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image56
                    Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    Just a few of the many Benefits ObamaCare Provides:

                    * Guaranteed Insurance for Pre-Existing Conditions
                    * Guaranteed Safeguards Against a Health Care Provider CANCELLING a Policy Arbitrarily
                    * Reducing the Deductable from Tens of Thousands to approximately 5,000

                    Sorry if these are not Critically Important Aspects for you Live to Learn, but for Millions of AMERICANS it's a matter of Life or Death ~

                    P.S. ~ Most individuals who would actually consider a vote for a CONservative are not even aware of the Benefits of Obama-Care ~ It's certainly not perfect but it's a pretty Good Start toward "Universal" or ."Single Payer" ~

            2. rhamson profile image69
              rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I agree absolutely that a single payer system deducted from payroll would be the way to go. It would take the cost of for profit health insurance companies out of the costly billions of dollars they pocket. Big pharma is going to be a tough lobby to eliminate the non negotiable drug plans that were a backroom deal that also drive costs skyward.

              1. colorfulone profile image77
                colorfuloneposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                Maybe 3-4 months ago listening to Q&A with Trump the big pharma question was asked about those companies setting their own drug prices without any bids.  He said,  "I didn't know that."   I could see the shock value and the wheels started turning.

              2. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                You don't mention where the funding would come from for the millions that don't have payroll checks big enough to cover the cost of government provided "insurance".  Or what those that DO have a check big enough to cover the cost will live on after suddenly having several hundred deducted from their paycheck each month.

                Or where those millions currently working in the insurance business will find jobs, either.  Always problems, isn't there?

            3. gmwilliams profile image85
              gmwilliamsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              To play the devil's advocate, let us return to the system of healthcare before the disastrous implementation of Obamacare.   Health care should never be mandatory but voluntary.  The idea of socialized health care is undemocratic.  Poor people were always covered in one way or another in this country before Obama"care".  Let's scrap socialized health care altogether. 


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)