Thread: Donald Trump and How to Loose an Election

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Donald Trump on Health Care

We must have universal health care. (Jul 2000)

We must have universal health care

I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare.

Our objective [should be] to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to find an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice. Possible? The good news is, yes. There is already a system in place-the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-that can act as a guide for all healthcare reform. It operates through a centralized agency that offers considerable range of choice. While this is a government program, it is also very much market-based. It allows 620 private insurance companies to compete for this market. Once a year participants can choose from plans which vary in benefits and costs.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.206-208 & 218 , Jul 2, 2000

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Don...ealth_Care.htm

I have to agree on the Universal Healthcare thing to an extent but it should only cover Citizens and potentially permanent residents who are either married to a US Citizen or have 10+ taxpaying years or so. For it to be fully workable it would also require a big hit to the welfare state though to put people back to work.

The current system simply does NOT work. A private industry with a public payer is what we currently have because if your private insurance didn't cover it you get on medicaid or medicare and the government picks up the tab.... or you simply don't pay and prices go up to cover those who don't pay.

So there are 2 options really:

1. Universal Healthcare where most all hospitals and clinics are ran by the city or state with fed or state. Doctors to be licensed would need to work X amount of hours a week at a public hospital or clinic at the state set rates. A few private hospitals and clinics could exist as well but they would only be reimbursed at the state rate and the rest would have to be covered by insurance or cash. Private clinics would need an exemption from most of what is used as ER care now unless the person simply cannot survive to make it to a public hospital and then only requiring them to stabalize before transfer (making sure they can't be abused by freeloaders). The money from this would be needed to either have a bit of a tax raise or to have a welfare reform system where we lessen welfare seriously and force those people back to work (or starve) if they are able to work. No more freeloaders. The system may not be pretty at times but would work.

2. Private Payer for Private system. We remove Medicaid and Medicare completely. Hospitals only are required to stabilize an ER patient on the brink of death if no private insurance or cash (this would mean sickly grandma without insurance who needs regular care in her last months wouldn't get it without cash or insurance). Insurance would be regulated to make sure people can find an insurance provider even with pre existing conditions but allow premium rates if the person has been X years without any insurance. System would be either cash or insurance... if none GTFO.

Now #2 is what many countries do and I have seen first hand. However it is fairly cruel often enough and really not fitting a modern society. As we know we can't afford a public payer in a private industry the current system is simply a failure. All that is left is #1

I really believe that if we repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, most of the problems with our health care system would correct themselves. The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 is a stupid corrupt law passed by a Democratic Congress to bypass a ruling by the US Supreme Court that said the insurance industry was subject to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, so Congress in its often enormous stupidity passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act and exempted the entire insurance industry from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, if regulated by a state.

The number one cause of what is happening in the health insurance industry is the result of anti-competition behavior that is illegal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but because they're exempt from Sherman, they get away with it. That problem can be solved by Congress in 30 minutes, 15 minute roll call votes i each chamber.

Start there, because that is the beginning point to an actual solution. Wrap it up with the prohibition of coverage denial due to pre-existing conditions, dropped coverages because you got sick, and rescission without cause, and boom ... we've got a strong wind heading us on course to a really good health insurance industry.

That doesn't change the underlying medical cost issues, but that's because the largest expense of insurance is the cost of hospital stays. Well, that's because 80% of all US hospitals are either government owned or owned by 501 C 3 "charity" organizations. Ironic? Not at all. That's an actual problem, not irony. Pass the FairTax and shut them all down, because the FairTax forces them to operate the same as a private business, which means a short road to privatization. When our hospitals are privatized or at least operating like actual businesses, the medical cost side will reduce dramatically in due course.

3 simple steps.

Try it, you'll like it.

1/5 of all hospitals in the US are government owned. 1/5 are private for profit owned. 3/5 are owned by *non-profit* groups but we all know most of those are actually for profit... usually owned by things like the Roman Catholic Church which is the richest corporation in the world if one thinks of them as a corporation (no profit ehh?). Nearly all long term hospitals and pyschiatric hospitals now are privately owned as well.

This tells me insurance companies while a problem are not the major problem. Its the hospital that is charging $1k for a blood test that can be done for $10-20 in nearly any other country and in the US range from $60-$1000+ for the exact same blood test. Why is a 5-10 minute ambulance ride that at times is the only way to admitted billed at $900-$2k+? Why is a simple procedure that has been done for decades that in other developed countries costing $100 while in the US billed at $4000?

Insurance fixes won't fix those prices, those prices aren't what is set in the federal hospitals either. Its the privately owned business's that set those prices which sadly is 4/5 of all hospitals and ontop of that if you didn't know a large number of state hospitals are currently leased out privately to be managed privately...

Those insane prices can be gotten away with as either the insurance pays up or feds pay up through medicaid or medicare which currently covers 1/2 of the population to some extent.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

1/5 of all hospitals in the US are government owned. 1/5 are private for profit owned. 3/5 are owned by *non-profit* groups but we all know most of those are actually for profit... usually owned by things like the Roman Catholic Church which is the richest corporation in the world if one thinks of them as a corporation (no profit ehh?). Nearly all long term hospitals and pyschiatric hospitals now are privately owned as well.

This tells me insurance companies while a problem are not the major problem. Its the hospital that is charging $1k for a blood test that can be done for $10-20 in nearly any other country and in the US range from $60-$1000+ for the exact same blood test. Why is a 5-10 minute ambulance ride that at times is the only way to admitted billed at $900-$2k+? Why is a simple procedure that has been done for decades that in other developed countries costing $100 while in the US billed at $4000?

Insurance fixes won't fix those prices, those prices aren't what is set in the federal hospitals either. Its the privately owned business's that set those prices which sadly is 4/5 of all hospitals and ontop of that if you didn't know a large number of state hospitals are currently leased out privately to be managed privately...

Those insane prices can be gotten away with as either the insurance pays up or feds pay up through medicaid or medicare which currently covers 1/2 of the population to some extent.

Correct. We're being ripped off by our governments and tax fraud charities.

Originally Posted by ReformUSA2012

. . . Nearly all long term hospitals and pyschiatric hospitals now are privately owned as well.

This tells me insurance companies while a problem are not the major problem. Its the hospitals . . .

http://www.alipac.us/f19/some-hospit...-rates-320207/

Medical legal costs 'excessive and should be capped'

• 54 minutes ago
• From the sectionHealth

The government intends to put strict limits on the "excessive fees" some lawyers claim in medical negligence cases against the NHS in England.

Officials want a defined limit on legal costs in cases where the claims are below £100,000, saying that some lawyers submit bills that charge more than patients receive in compensation.

But solicitors warn the move could deny patients access to justice.

Figures show the NHS was charged £259m in legal fees for claims in 2013-14.

The NHS did recoup £74m by challenging some claims made in 2013-14, but the Department of Health says taking these cases to court is costly and time-consuming and believes further savings could be made.

Officials say their proposals, which will be open to public consultation in the autumn, would ensure lawyer's fees are more proportionate and reflect the amount of compensation patients receive

They give as an example once case where a patient received £11,800 in damages but the legal fees, which the NHS had to recompense, totalled £175,000.

Health Minister, Ben Gummer, said: "Safe, compassionate care is my upmost priority and to achieve this, the NHS must make sure every penny counts.

"Unscrupulously, some lawyers have used patient claims to load grossly excessive costs onto the NHS and charge far more than the patient receives in compensation."

But a leading clinical negligence solicitor, Terry Donovan from the law firm Kingsley Napley, said costs are sometimes driven up by delays in the NHS admitting liability.

He added: "This sounds like another massive attack on access to justice for everybody.

"Fees are already tightly controlled, with the courts managing costs carefully as a result of recent reforms. Costs are already capped and limited.

"These so-called low value cases under £100,000 still involve cases where people have had serious injuries and lives have been destroyed.

"Costs can be very proportionate if the NHS will admit liability promptly when it's appropriate.

"But defendants drive up costs if they don't admit liability early on and the case ends up in court."

Meanwhile, the Medical Defence Union, which offers doctors guidance on medico-legal issues, supported the move.

Dr Matthew Lee, professional services director for the MDU, said: "Patients often need to meet part or all of these costs themselves but the system must provide access to justice where patients have been negligently harmed.

"Legal fees must, therefore, be affordable and proportionate.

"If it was decided to introduce a well-thought-out, fixed-cost structure for legal costs in clinical negligence claims that could only be a good thing and should result in legal fees becoming more affordable and proportionate to the compensation claimed by the patient."

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33287879

http://www.alipac.us/f9/donald-trump...ay-u-s-320744/