Obamacare required people with pre-existing conditions to be covered. It made the insurance companies charge the same rates for all. It put the onus on all policy holders to help with these extra costs.
Trumpmare will allow people with pre-existing conditions to be thrown into high risk pools. These have been failures producing limited coverage, long waiting periods (while the condition eats away at you) and huge premiums. It lets the healthy young people be given reduced premiums. That is a nice windfall for the insurance companies since almost all of these people won’t be making claims. Trumpmare will help insurance companies reach the goal of taking in oodles of money and not having to pay anything out.
Here’s an article on the pre-existing coverage that explains it fairly well. Yes, when the Trump and the GOP say they cover pre-existing conditions that is true. What they don’t say is the coverage will be worthless and not affordable. Sort of like being asked to buy a season pass to the Cape Cod Tunnel for $15,000.
Medical costs in the United States are over two times that in other countries. We do not have the best medical coverage in the world. Most other Western countries have universal coverage that is run by the government that controls costs. Simply put, the middle men, the insurance companies take their hands out of the money bowl. The medical bills go to the people who through the government pays them. All are covered. All are taxed so that this coverage can be provided.
The United States already has that with Medicare. All people 65 and over are covered. If they can be covered why not other Americans. Aren’t all Americans entitled to due process and equal protection of the law? There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about age.
Here’s the height of hypocrisy. The majority of those who are receiving Medicare are against others receiving the same benefits. They can gladly accept that coverage but want to deny it to others.
It’s the old whose ox is gored story. The 15 farmers sitting at the local pub are chatting happily until they hear one of the prize oxen at the county fair has just been gored. They all rushed out to find out what happened. After they learn 14 return to the pub for another round and continue their happy conversation.
No one seems to want the government to do anything for others. Greed runs amuck. The GOP and Trump are hell-bent on making the rich pay less. The GOP wants you to believe if they pay less then others will not pay more or lose benefits. Warren Buffet said if the tax plan proposed by GOP as part of Trumpmare was in effect last year it would have cut his taxes by 17%. He makes at least a hundred million a year. That would amount to many millions of dollars not going to the government. Multiply that by all the rich guys and Trumpmare will be depriving the people with medical conditions of billions of dollars.
If you take that out then either lots of people are not going to have coverage or those that do are going to pay lots more. You can’t have it both ways. You get what you pay for.
The GOP tells us Trumpmare will give better coverage at a lower cost. It is like telling you that if go to an auto dealer and bargain for a car. You settle on a price of $30,000. You decide you want the special sports package added on. The dealer says OK that will cost you $27,000.
You also get what you vote for. Vote for billionaires and rich folk and you’ll find like everyone else they’ll take care of themselves. Right now the Kushners are advertising in China that if you invest $500,000 with them you can get your American citizenship. They’re anxious to cash in on their new-found power and have no shame about it.
I’ve often heard the expression “to whom much is given much is expected.” That to me would be the guiding principle behind a decent government. If we want our country to succeed then all must be part of it. Those with more should be contributing more on a percentage basis. Those unable to afford decent medical coverage should still be able to get it.
I agree that it is heinous to curry favor with the swimming pool set and the golfers. I fear that water is going to be treated like a private commodity and not a public resource owned by all the citizens . I never said water was free. Corruption of the Newton WS Dept. should be dealt with at the ballot box or the courts.
From news article 2015:
“Beginning July 1, the average Newton household will see a 10 percent increase in its water/sewer/stormwater bill, while the 2,800 residents who have installed a second meter for lawn irrigation and swimming pools should expect a roughly 20 percent reduction.
Residents with a second meter will not be charged a sewer fee on water used to irrigate their property or fill their pool, since that water does not enter the sewer system.”
Hutch: we already pay for water!
And some towns are paying more!
Did you read about Newton? The Garden City decided to lower the water & sewer bills of golf courses and mansions that water their lawns, because lobbyists argued such water did not go back into the sewer system. So the major users will pay less; and the average Joe will pay more for his water and sewer bill, because Newton says it needs the same Total Revenue to provide W&S services to all.
Our government in action: soaking the middle class so the rich can soak their lawns for free.
Hutch:
It’s “we the people”; not we the government. The people, predominantly the private sector, make America great. Before we had a government, the people led a revolution. Government was always intended to be limited. Our military the best in the world is all volunteer, today. We the people make America great!
You mentioned NASA and Harvard. Let’s look closely at both.
In 2015, the US Aerospace Industry captured 72% of the word aerospace market and contributed$ 144 billion in export sales. NASA always depended on the Private Sector (Boeing, Lockhead Martin, Raytheon); NASA couldn’t tie its shoes without the Private Sector.
As for Harvard: It’s 2016 operating revenue was $4.78 billion (operating expenses $4.7 billion).
Federal Funding was @12% of Harvard’s operating budget.
In 1940 and prior thereto, throughout its @300 year prior history (founded 1636), the federal government never contributed more than 2% to Harvard’s operating expenses:
“Government money covered only 1.5 per cent of the (Harvard) budget in 1941 and in 1947 still amounted to only 7.6 per cent. Federal sponsorship comprised about 16 percent of the University’s overall operating budget for the fiscal year 2012.”
Today (2016) Here’s where Harvard’s money comes from:
Endowment: $1.7 billion (36%).
Tuition $998 million (21%)
Federal Funding: $597 million (12%)
Harvard recently noted: “Government funds appear constrained indefinitely, the report stresses, making the University increasingly dependent on private research funding.”
Capital campaign gifts $430 million ( current-use gifts—donations that fund the University’s current operations, rather than future projects)—accounted for 9% percent of revenue.
Non-federal grants—to $248 million (5%), (Non-federal grants—from foundations, corporations, and individuals)
Another source of funding, in keeping with the University’s increasing reliance on private-sector funding, is commercialization of intellectual property:
“We have seen rapid growth in revenue from royalties and license fees from life sciences research, technology transfer, and publishing,” Hollister said in an interview with the Harvard Gazette.”
I agree that you never used the word pity, but you were citing the high tax as a source of societal woe. You selected the Scandanavian countries as the societies with crushing tax rates. I merely pointed out that those arrangements seem to work well for those populations.
NASA private? Harvard, MIT, Johns Hopkins.? How much $$ in research grants and subsidized loans? NIH, NSF, what of their contributions? Your own experience with the NPHS should buttress some defense of the public sector. Is everything to be commoditized, packaged, and resold as a private, profit center? (Water is next.)
Who Gives The Most?
2016 “The World Giving Index (WGI) is an annual report published by the Charities Aid Foundation, using data gathered by Gallup, and ranks over 140 countries in the world according to how charitable they are. . . . The most recent edition was published in November 2016, with Myanmar, the United States and Australia ranking as the top three. New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Canada, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and United Arab Emirates complete the top ten.[2]”
Forbes (2008):
“Americans give more to charity, per capita and as a percentage of gross domestic product, than the citizens of other nations.
. The Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project at the Johns Hopkins Center for Civil Society Studies compiled a ranking of private philanthropy in 36 countries from 1995 to 2002. Based on giving alone, the U.S. comes first, giving 1.85% of GDP, followed by Israel at 1.34% and Canada at 1.17%. But based on volunteerism alone, the Netherlands comes first, followed by Sweden and then the U.S.”
US = First in giving; Third in Volunteerism.
“In charitable giving as a percentage of GDP, nations with cradle-to-grave welfare systems rank far down the Johns Hopkins list: Sweden 18th, France 21st, Germany 32nd.”
The Forbes authors noted: “Dick and Lynn Cheney gave 78% of their income away in 2005.” Again, those greedy rich Americans!
Hutch,
I don’t “pity” them. I never wrote a word about “pitying” anybody.
I say the US shouldn’t emulate Socialist states. Here’s why.
Under the US capitalistic, free enterprise system the US leads the world in technology, innovation, research, science, has the best medical schools (21 of 50 best in world, and 17 of these are private), business development, private charities and military power. Why? Our wealth is not sucked dry by government programs. It’s the difference between Capitalism and Socialism, private enterprise versus the Government Nanny State.
Yes, these are nice small countries (Iceland, Andorra, Switzerland, Scandinavia with homogenous populations), but almost defenseless, and what have they contributed to the world, except the Vikings, gun powder and the Nobel Prize.
(2) The US Space Program, it’s private schools like MIT and Harvard Med and the Mayo Clinin, its research institutions, have enriched the world with cutting edge technologies and biomedical advances (vaccines, antibiotics, heart surgery), because we are a capitalistic nation that promotes free enterprise.
(3) Small homogenous countries on paper have better health care, but Asian Americans live longer than Asians at home, African Americans’ life expectancy is about 76 years, compared with 60 years average in Africa, and Hispanic Americans actually live longer here than in Latin America. Hispanic-Americans’ life expectancy is 81 years in America; white Americans 79.
(4) America does have the best medical schools and hospitals in the world; that’s why folks flock here, and not to Iceland, for neurosurgery.
(5) I repeat, for a large heterogeneous country, America does have the best life expectancy and best medical care in the world. You can’t compare America to Iceland, Denmark and homogeneous Japan. Even if you do, read this:
“Asian-Americans (including Japanese-Americans) live much longer than both average Americans and average Japanese in Japan, until they get to the 3rd generation Japanese-American. Nobody knows definitively why this is, but educated guesses say that by the time one is the third generation, their lifestyles are completely Americanized.
Average Asian-American in Connecticut lifespan: 92.4 (!) years old
Average Asian-American lifespan in Hawai’i: 81.7 years old
Average overall Asian-American lifespan: 87.3 years old.”
America has been a great gift to the world. Now if we only can disinfect our country, the good old USA, of the militaristic imperialistic neocons and the big government socialistic liberals, we may have a bright future.
Bill,
Why are you bemoaning the plight of the poor Danes, Finns, Swedes etc?. They are not wringing their hands and saying “Poor US”. Why not? Because they know they are receiving at least as much as they are giving in Medical, Education, and other basic human needs so they don’t worry about educating their kids, going to the doctor or worrying about their old age. Your pitying them is bizarre.
Glorious leader , and, the rotten greedy bunch around him, are the best argument for violent social upheaval, and, liquidation of the two percent, presented, so, far ,this century. Perhaps, Zizek has a thought aboutTrump.
Yeah. Everyone wins if we all get violent.
Here’s the solution: there are 22 million government workers (exclude military, doctors and nurses), that leaves 20 million plus say 4 million gov. retirees ( a guess.) If tax each government worker/retiree a mere 5% of their income, we may generate 30-40 billion annually to provide insurance for those with pre-existing illnesses.
Let’s leave the private sector alone.
A crude partisan rant. If one payer insurance is nirvana why is the American side of the Canadian border the home to clinics providing health care services to Canadians unwilling to die on waiting lists? If Obamacare is such great deal why was any Democrat constituency that sought a waiver from participation able get one? Especially all the Congress critters and their staffs that promoted it.
American healthcare is outrageously expensive. Mostly due to government sticking its snout into it. There are privileged diseases such as breast cancer, vastly over funded versus prostate cancer. After all, women are considered Democrat voters as opposed to men who vote Republican. That is a typical sound government medical decision.
Gays are considered Democrat voters so the big bucks are sent to that research instead of heart disease which afflict more men who vote for the GOP. Unions send checks to the DNC, so they get a pass on the laughably named ACA.
A huge part of the problem is that the Democrat party leadership looks at healthcare as patronage. This predatory attitude hardens the resolve of many to avoid government participation. It is a well founded fear. The Democrats have never offered a plan that the Democrats in the House or the Senate or their staffs wanted any part of. That should explain a lot.
The American healthcare system is an expensive mess. It has been enacted by Democrats over eighty years or so for Democrat supporters. They own it.
If Trump can come up with a better idea, I’m listening with cautious optimism. It is hard to believe that the GOP could screw it up worse than the Democrats have, but anything is possible in Washington. No man’s life or property is safe while Congress is in session.
C’mon, Tad. Tell me you don’t believe half of what you typed here. Please?
Liberals love scaring granny. That’s how they get elected; that’s how they expand government.
Here’s a headline to scare granny: “Aging Consumers without Subsidies Hit Hardest by 2017 Obamacare Premium & Deductible Spikes.” See also, the Forbes’ article posted above!
Obamacare was going broke.
Folks on Medicare have contributed into it their entire lives. When Medicare was started (1930), the average life expectancy was less 60;when folks started receiving benefits, the average life expectancy was 65; today it’s 79. Medicare needs reform.
You’re thinking of Medicaid, which insures the poor of every age.
Big Gov (BG) to take over health insurance? Look at the great job BigGov did with the Big Dig (BG predicted $6B;final cost >$30B) How did BIGGov do taking over Amtrack, managing the MBTA ($2bill in pension debt), managing public housing, running public schools. Fed Ex and UPS outperform the Post Office. The Private Sector is more efficient and does stuff better than BG.
In 2010, GAO predicted Obamacare would insure an additional 32 million; by 2016. It fell short by half.
About 90% on Obamacare are on the Bronze or Silver Plans. Look up the premiums and deductibles. You have to pay about @$10,000 out of pocket before you get any benefits. (Yes, some get subsidies;but if you’re at median household income of $51,000 or above, you get no subsidies);
2. Liberals love being “generous” with other peoples’ money
3. If liberals want to give more? Who’s stopping them? Remember those studies showing conservatives give more to charity than liberals?
4. Here’s some facts on TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING as % GDP: Prior to 1950 (excluding the WWI and WWII years) total government spending never exceeded 25% of the GDP. And Americans were a healthy lot. And prior to 1976 (even throughout the Vietnam War) total gov spending never exceeding 35% of GDP. During the 1980s-2008, it hovered at 40% or below (but never below 35% again.) Then the Monster took off. Under Obama (from 2008-2012) it rose from 45% to 48% then down to 45%. From 2013-16, it has hovered around 42%. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Total_government_spending_on_all_levels_%28United_States%29.png
5. Should we emulate Finland, France, Denmark where government takes 55-58%, or Italy, Greece, Belgium, Austria (50%) or Cuba where gov takes 66% – – – soon we’ll have a socialistic paradise where everyone gets plastic surgery on demand and a supermarket on every corner. (How’s socialism worked out in Cuba and Venezuela? Even Russia and China rejected Communist-socialism and veered more to capitalism.) Why not “free college” – – – we provide free grammar school? Because “we” the taxpayer can’t afford it! Why not Medicare for all ages? Two reasons: (1) Medicare’s going broke (2) we can’t afford it!
6. Liberals throw stones at the rich: Warren Buffet has pledged to give away 99% of his wealth to Charity; in 2013, he gave $2.8 billion to charity; (his net worth then was @$70B, so he only gave 4% of his net worth that year; What a miser, huh? ) Let’s see if you owned a $1 million house and had $200,000 in salary (or pension) and stocks, and you gave away 4% each year, you’d be giving $48,000 in charity each year. Did we match Buffet’s generosity? Will we be giving 50% of 99% of our wealth away? Did we establish thousands of public libraries throughout America as Carnegie did?
Buffet and Gates formed a billionaires club pledging to give away at least 50% of their wealth to charity. How many of us have been so generous?
Obamacare (ACA) promised lower premiums.
Here’s the facts from Forbes:
“(I)n the four years before the ACA, every age group and family type either experienced a premium decrease, or an increase of 9.2% or less. However, in the first four years of the ACA, every age group and household type experienced an increase of between 56.0% and 63.2%. For something as complex as health care, that’s a pretty narrow range. The dollar amounts of the increase varied from $2,524 for an individual between the ages of 31 and 40, to $12,040 for a family headed by someone over age 60. But the percentages are remarkably consistent: The ACA raised premiums by about 60 percent.”
Have the Islamic terrorists gone to Manchester? Half the people in the country get their health coverage from their employer. 15% get Medicare and 15% get Medicaid ( coverage for the indigent). That leaves 20% that are in the single payer pool. The problem exists for about 60 million out of 300 million Americans.Today self employed families are paying premiums of over 20 grand yearly. Obamacare had two false claims. First you could keep your own doctor and second premiums would fall by 25 hundred. Sen. Rand Paul claims that if you let everyone in the single payer pool buy through a group coverage can be had at lower rates. If ten million people joined the NRA for 20 dollars they could then get their coverage through a group discount. Would an insurance company offer a group of ten million the best rate? If Geico or Allstate could get that many customers health, homeowners and auto insurance in one package for five thousand a year the company would get premiums of 50 billion annually. What company would turn down 50 billion in premiums? Even those with pre existing conditions could pay the same rate. If people don’t join these pools they are on their own. It is a free country and some may take the risk. 2. Less government, lower taxes and reduced regulation produce prosperity. Big government produces dependency, inefficiency, despair and suffering. Trump is trying to replicate what Reagan did. Robust growth of three percent or more not the 1.5% growth BHO gave us. Millions of new jobs can be created . A rising tide lifts all boats. The best anti poverty program is a job.