Trumpcare

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I'm not talking about what is currently meant, I'm talking about what could be an option under trumpcare

Then you aren't talking about the same thing as me or Trump

Trump promised to keep the preexisting condition part of Obamacare

[Amanah]

he promised to keep the mandate, but not how it would be paid for

[Amanah]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/news...ng-conditions/

For those with a pre-existing condition who haven't maintained continuous coverage, the Trump administration would bring back state-based high risk pools, which were largely shut down after the Obamacare exchanges became operational in 2014. The president-elect's transition website says he will work with Congress and states to re-establish these pools.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Amanah

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/news...ng-conditions/

For those with a pre-existing condition who haven't maintained continuous coverage, the Trump administration would bring back state-based high risk pools, which were largely shut down after the Obamacare exchanges became operational in 2014. The president-elect's transition website says he will work with Congress and states to re-establish these pools.

Thanks. Maybe I heard wrong then and he is going to drop that part of Obamacare as well.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by n david

Would it be wrong to say you like obamacare, but believe it should be more affordable?

No, I do not like Obamacare, because it made the government more involved in healthcare.
I want the government out of healthcare, including medicare/medicaid, the only involvement the government should have is to pay X for everyone that signs up for healthcare.

[aegsm76]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Health insurance should be available and affordable. But you are not explaining how health insurance can ever be available and affordable when expensive preexisting conditions must be covered.

I believe insurance should be affordable both to the people and the companies. It takes both. It's a partnership.

jf - health insurance/coverage should be separated from companies/employment. About 13 years ago I was part of a group that did an in-depth study of this, for my company. At that time, we determined that healthcare costs would continue to rise, with no end in sight. This is because the government essentially has price controls built into their costs. So, this is inflating the true cost of healthcare to everyone else. They are also involved in stifling competition in the healthcare field, which drives the cost up.

[n david]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

No, I do not like Obamacare, because it made the government more involved in healthcare.
I want the government out of healthcare, including medicare/medicaid, the only involvement the government should have is to pay X for everyone that signs up for healthcare.

Thanks.

If the government is paying for something, shouldn't it be able to control what it is paying? This is the issue with the government being involved at all. Even if you want its role to be simply a payer, it would undoubtedly demand more involvement because of being a payer.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

jf - health insurance/coverage should be separated from companies/employment. About 13 years ago I was part of a group that did an in-depth study of this, for my company. At that time, we determined that healthcare costs would continue to rise, with no end in sight. This is because the government essentially has price controls built into their costs. So, this is inflating the true cost of healthcare to everyone else. They are also involved in stifling competition in the healthcare field, which drives the cost up.

Even shifting a system from employer sponsored healthcare to a more free market buy your own health insurance could cause health insurance to be more expensive.

Did you consider after tax dollars to potentially tax free dollars.
Did you consider that people who work may be generally healthier than people who do not?
Did you consider that Medicaid and Medicare pay far more than uninsured people do?
Did you consider what would happen without government price controls and oversight?

There's many other questions that can be asked as well. But suffice it to say that the issue is very complex. I get that. Most talk is about moving eggs from one basket to another and calling it fixed.

I believe transparency in cost is a big issue. I should know what I will pay before anything is done.

I believe there should be competition. I'm for keeping employer sponsored insurance. It's a form of competition. I'm also for having non employer sponsored health insurance opportunities. The more options the better.

So how is the health care system fixed. A lot needs to change on every level from how doctors offices and hospitals operate to how drug companies operate to how insurance works.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by n david

Thanks.

If the government is paying for something, shouldn't it be able to control what it is paying? This is the issue with the government being involved at all. Even if you want its role to be simply a payer, it would undoubtedly demand more involvement because of being a payer.

I don't think so. The government paying would create a minimum threshold of care determined by the market. If the government wants to increase that minimum threshold then they increase how much they pay. However, there would also be much better plans than the minimum that could be purchased for additional money.

I actually like the idea of a minimum voucher for insurance. However, you still cant use that to do away with medicare and Medicaid because those programs function not just to provide "insurance" but to pay the costs of all the procedures as well.

That's a totally different ball game.

[jfrog]

I wonder how hard the medicare expansion will hit state budgets in the coming years.