President Donald Trump Pledges To Make the GOP "The Party of Healthcare"

Fresh from what he views as a victory regarding the Mueller Report, Trump decides on a Scorched Earth policy where the ACA is concerned. If the President has something to replace Obamacare with, it would be nice if he would share it. Unfortunately, I think he is clueless (or simply doesn’t care) about the consequences.

He feels the courts will back him up. He doesn’t care about any replacements. He wants those junk plans.

1 Like

The Republicans in Congress wasted years whining about the ACA instead of developing their own plan. Doesn’t inspire confidence that they’ll suddenly come up with something now.

4 Likes

I’ll be interested to see what the plan is, because I have never been persuaded that it’s possible to have any kind of decent universal healthcare plan without requiring much higher taxes and provision of a much higher percentage of national revenue to it. And I’m not sure it’s possible even then, especially in the U.S. where we allow so many illegals who don’t pay taxes or sufficient taxes to cover their expense.

2 Likes

Government should mind its business and stay out of healthcare altogether.

1 Like

The theory is that it would save companies lots of money in the long run. They could focus more on their business and less on their employees’ insurance.

Except for VA government is not into healthcare per se.

Well, they do get to deduct the health insurance costs, so they would get an expense reduction, but end up paying more in taxes. But the system would also end up being politically driven. That’s concerning.

What I found concerning were companies hiring remote foreigners over locals so they wouldn’t have to pay their insurance.

Yeah, that worked well in the past. Come us with now as we go back to the glorious period of the TB riddled slums of Dublin and typhoid infested warrens of London. Watch the children crippled with polio, aren’t they cute?

1 Like

I’m actually a proponent of Medicare for all which is interesting since I consider myself a conservative. I would be willing to have my taxes increased (comparable to what I already pay in insurance premiums through my employer), to cover the added expense. There would be no need for private insurance companies (except for secondary insurance). Not sure it’ll ever happen, but why not?

2 Likes

What does that have to do with government healthcare? There are no typhoid infested warrens in the first world and slums are not riddled with TB there. The first world is polio-free. And most of the people who are not getting those diseases do not have government healthcare.

1 Like

It’s noble for you to want to contribute to it. It’s not so noble to force others to do the same.

1 Like

A couple of suggestions. First, the government does not presently run any “government” health plans other than VA. It hires private insurers to administer them. Do we really think government employees will be more efficient?

One problem with Medicare and Medicaid is over-utilization. That’s discouraged by the deductibles and co-pays in private insurance and to some degree in Medicare unless one has secondary insurance.

And while no one wants to have to sue his private insurer, at least he/she can. You can’t sue the government in nearly anything.

Finally, at present Medicare is discounted. (supposedly 40%) If everybody has Medicare, the costs will inevitably increase because a discount for everybody is a discount to nobody.

1 Like

We all live in a society together. I have no problems with the govt. forcing us to contribute to the medical upkeep of the populace. My only concerns are that we have reasonable oversight over how the money is used and I certainly have no wish in the UK or Ireland to return to the disastrous era before public health care. Ireland still lags behind the UK in some ways in this regard, although in others it is actually better.

4 Likes

No one ever mentions the quality of healthcare we will receive if we have Medicare for all. Anyone who thinks it will be of the quality we have had before is deceiving themselves. I am all for helping those who truly cannot provide for themselves. But this idea that everyone should have the same coverage is promoting the idea that those who work hard and can provide for themselves will get the same coverage that those who do not.

1 Like

Out of interest how much would open heart surgery cost in the US?

Agreed, although I don’t think the health insurance is the whole story. There are also wages. I recall sitting next to a young man from India on a plane. He was on his way back to India, having been trained by some kind of software company in the U.S. He was going to work for their Indian subsidiary at what would be a very low wage here. But, he explained to me, with that wage he would be able to afford a big house, servants and “fresh flowers every day”. Apparently having fresh flowers every day is very sought-after luxury in India. And to his telling, it’s not a single bouquet. It’s masses of flowers everywhere in the house.

Depends on the nature of the surgery. I recently saw a global cost of about $100,000 for a triple bypass plus implantation of a pacemaker. Medicare and his supplemental policy paid all of it.

My aunt had done on the Irish health system. She then convalesced in a care home for 3 weeks. I’d much rather stick with that thanks, from what I understand the average person would go heavily into debt trying to pay for that in the US.

2 Likes
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.