[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: President Elect Trump's Plan for Healthcare Reform
Source: GreatAgain.Gov
URL Source: https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/healthcare.html
Published: Nov 25, 2016
Author: Donald J. Trump
Post Date: 2016-11-25 15:29:19 by packrat1145
Keywords: Trump, Health, Reform
Views: 8929
Comments: 37

It is clear to any objective observer that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which has resulted in rapidly rising premiums and deductibles, narrow networks, and health insurance, has not been a success.  A Trump Administration will work with Congress to repeal the ACA and replace it with a solution that includes Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), and returns the historic role in regulating health insurance to the States.  The Administration’s goal will be to create a patient-centered healthcare system that promotes choice, quality and affordability with health insurance and healthcare, and take any needed action to alleviate the burdens imposed on American families and businesses by the law.   

To maximize choice and create a dynamic market for health insurance, the Administration will work with Congress to enable people to purchase insurance across state lines.  The Administration also will work with both Congress and the States to re-establish high-risk pools – a proven approach to ensuring access to health insurance coverage for individuals who have significant medical expenses and who have not maintained continuous coverage.

The Administration recognizes that the problems with the U.S. health care system did not begin with – and will not end with the repeal of – the ACA.  With the assistance of Congress and working with the States, as appropriate, the Administration will act to:

*Protect individual conscience in healthcare *Protect innocent human life from conception to natural death, including the most defenseless and those Americans with disabilities *Advance research and development in healthcare *Reform the Food and Drug Administration, to put greater focus on the need of patients for new and innovative medical products *Modernize Medicare, so that it will be ready for the challenges with the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation – and beyond *Maximize flexibility for States in administering Medicaid, to enable States to experiment with innovative methods to deliver healthcare to our low-income >>citizens

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: packrat1145 (#0)

Where in the US Constitution is there any authorization of federal meddling into and about private medical insurance in any way?

Why is Trump perpetuating a "myth?"

buckeroo  posted on  2016-11-25   16:19:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: buckeroo (#1)

medicine is commerce

paraclete  posted on  2016-11-25   16:21:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: paraclete (#2)

The "Commerce Clause" has been broadly misinterpreted by the US Government as a method to "make equal" and federal oversight without apportionment without the restrictions of the US Constitution.

You are wrong, from down under.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-11-25   16:25:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: buckeroo (#1)

The Commerce Clause has been interpreted to give the federal government the power it needs to regulate a modern economy.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-25   16:28:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

The Commerce Clause has been interpreted to give the federal government the power it needs to regulate a modern economy.

Silly "Interpretation" is not what the founders wanted or required. As always, go play in a dark korner with yourself so we don't catch you masterbating.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-11-25   16:33:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: buckeroo (#5)

If you're going to insult people with big words, be sure to spell them right. It's "masturbating", not "masterbating".

The interpretation is not silly, it's the law of the land, has been for nearly a century, and will be forever, because it's necessary in the modern world for the federal government to regulate commerce at a national level.

The Founders system had a lot of flaws in it, but the parts that worked were well designed for an agrarian people that lived down on the farm. Which we are not any longer. Urban industrial living poses a set of challenges they did not foresee. The Commerce Clause as written and interpreted, gives us the means by which to address these issues without an amendment to the Constitution.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-25   16:39:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

The USSC can only interpret "laws" under the US Constitution. They have no power or authority to interpret "the US Constitution." Federal legislation of medical insurance is not authorized by the US Constitution. It is reserved for respective states' authority.

Hey, do yourself a favor... go play with yourself in a dark korner getting your jollies off by yourself.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-11-25   16:50:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: buckeroo (#7)

What's with all the jabber about the constitution? Who pays attention to it?

Vinny  posted on  2016-11-25   16:58:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Vinny, tater (#8)

What's with all the jabber about the constitution? Who pays attention to it?

According to tater, all he does is vote for the US Constitution by voting for a fascist.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-11-25   17:17:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: buckeroo (#7)

The USSC can only interpret "laws" under the US Constitution. They have no power or authority to interpret "the US Constitution."

Obviously they have such power. They've BEEN doing it since the Founders, and they still are. So, you can assert any sort of grand theory that you like - it's a free country - but if you're dealing with realities, the Supreme Court DOES in fact have the power to interpret the US Constitution, it exercises that power routinely, and the overwhelming majority of Americans recognize that it exercises that power legitimately.

So it has the power.

You say otherwise, insultingly, which makes you wrong and impolite at the same time.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-25   18:13:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: buckeroo (#1)

"Where in the US Constitution is there any authorization of federal meddling into and about private medical insurance in any way?"

Where in the US Constitution is there any authorization of federal programs like Medicaid and Medicare?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-11-25   19:20:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: misterwhite (#11)

Where in the US Constitution is there any authorization of federal programs like Medicaid and Medicare?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the US explicitly authorized the US Postal System in the US Constitution. Today, just make a law ... and the people buy the cheap charlaten shit.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-11-25   19:23:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

The Commerce Clause has been interpreted to give the federal government the power it needs to regulate a modern economy.

You are apparently a liar who likes lies.

First your statement is a lie. Lying about what the commerce clause says and means is a lie. The liars interpretation (you and others) of the commerce clause isn't "needed" to regulate a modern economy.

Your interpretation of the commerce clause requires you to lie to yourself and pretend that words don't mean what they say.

I guess the Catholic church accepts lies and liars but the God of the Holy Bible doesn't think to much of lies and liars.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-25   19:25:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

The Commerce Clause as written and interpreted,

Another lie. Catholic "god" must be proud.

You support the lying interpretation not the true words. They can't both be true.

Lying to oneself is pitiful.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-25   19:26:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: buckeroo, packrat1145 (#1)

Where in the US Constitution is there any authorization of federal meddling into and about private medical insurance in any way?

SCOTUS held that the essential mandate in the ACA was beyond the power of the commerce clause, but was constitutional as within the taxing power.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"The Congress shall have power to ... lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

"The Congress shall have power ... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-25   19:54:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: buckeroo (#7)

The USSC can only interpret "laws" under the US Constitution. They have no power or authority to interpret "the US Constitution." Federal legislation of medical insurance is not authorized by the US Constitution. It is reserved for respective states' authority.

SCOTUS interprets laws under [according to] the Constitution.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177 (1803)

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects."

It is impossible to decide all the relevant issues without interpreting the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-25   20:06:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: buckeroo (#1)

Where in the US Constitution is there any authorization of federal meddling into and about private medical insurance in any way?

Why is Trump perpetuating a "myth?"

I agree wholeheartedly that there is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to be involved in healthcare, period. However, 1. it is, whether we like it or not; 2. when Trump is done, the feds will be a lot less involved than it is today with an eye toward getting the government completely out of it; and. 3. that has to be done gradually with a certain amount of planning.

packrat1145  posted on  2016-11-25   20:29:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: A K A Stone (#13)

The Commerce Clause says that Congress can regulate interstate commerce. Congress regulates interstate commerce. You see a lie in there. I don't.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-25   21:51:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)

The Commerce Clause says that Congress can regulate interstate commerce. Congress regulates interstate commerce. You see a lie in there. I don't.

There you go another lie.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-25   22:05:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: A K A Stone (#19)

There you go another lie.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

[The Congress shall have Power] "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-25   22:08:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)

There you go another lie. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

[The Congress shall have Power] "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

The lie is that that is all they use it for.

I know they have the power to regulate commerce. You just lie about what that means. You think it means they can provide healthcare. You interpret it like Hitler would have if he was limited by it.

A K A Stone  posted on  2016-11-25   22:12:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: A K A Stone (#21)

If Trump's proposals for healthcare are not ideal for the US, then what is?

redleghunter  posted on  2016-11-25   22:19:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: misterwhite (#11)

Where in the US Constitution is there any authorization of federal programs like Medicaid and Medicare?

Do you want to get rid of both?

redleghunter  posted on  2016-11-25   22:20:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: A K A Stone (#21)

You just lie about what that means.

It means what it says. The English is not complicated.

Congress has power to regulate commerce among the states.

Pretty straightforward, really. In the era before refrigeration, railroads, airplanes, cars and trucks and telecommunications the commerce was pretty simple and didn't need much regulation...except of course for the slave trade, which became a real problem because some states had slavery and some didn't, and slaves were in the stream of commerce but have legs and could run away into places that didn't have slavery...and then what? Could people move into territories that would become states and keep slaves there, or not? Could people contract to buy slaves in a slave state, but take delivery in a free state? Endless problems arose from the traffic in that one commodity.

But without rapid communications or refrigeration, the stuff that was moving around was mostly bulk dry goods and clothing.

The periods for calling Congress, too, and riding circuit for the courts, were substantial.

Now things are infinitely more complicated, and it's easy to get from California to New York in part of a day. Commerce moves faster and broader, and everything is more integrated. And Congress has the authority to regulate all of that, just as written.

There's no lie in anything I wrote. I don't know why you don't like it, and clearly you don't, but you'll have to do better than "You lie! That's not what that means!" When it rather self-evidently DOES mean just what it says: Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-25   22:32:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Vicomte13 (#24)

In the era before refrigeration,

If you ever get the chance, read Prime Cut: Livestock Raising and Meatpacking in the United States, 1607-1983.

Roscoe  posted on  2016-11-26   1:35:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: redleghunter (#23)

"Do you want to get rid of both?"

Yep. Turn Medicaid over to the states and privatize Medicare.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-11-26   10:43:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: nolu chan (#15)

"SCOTUS held that the essential mandate in the ACA was beyond the power of the commerce clause, but was constitutional as within the taxing power."

That's true, but the ACA passed Congress because the people were told there would be no tax increase and those who chose not to participate would simply pay a small penalty.

Which, of course, is unconstitutional. So Justice Roberts re- wrote the ACA and called the penalty a tax. Meaning there WAS a tax increase. Oops. The Democrats lied. Too bad for the people.

But Justice Roberts wasn't done. In an attempt to bribe the states into setting up state exchanges, the ACA said it would subsidize insurance only for “an exchange established by a state”. But only 16 states participated. 34 states would not receive subsidies -- which would doom the program.

In steps our hero and declares that “an exchange established by a state” means “an exchange established by a state or the federal government”. Problem solved.

We need to "repeal and replace" Justice Roberts.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-11-26   11:15:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: misterwhite (#26)

privatize Medicare.

Medicare covers all of the old in their final illnesses. How is any private insurer ever going to make a profit on cancer among old, poor people? It can't. Nor can it charge premiums to make insuring that part of the population profitable.

To privatize Medicare means to leave the elderly without care in their final cancer.

No.

No we're not going to do that.

we are going to use the taxing power of the federal government, backed by the enforcement power of federal authorities, to redistribute the wealth sufficiently to pay for the terminal cancer care of all old people, because it must be done, and it cannot be done at a profit. The final chronic illnesses of the elderly are a permanent, certain drain. It is impossible to have a for-profit universal coverage system that takes care of old, disabled people who can't work anymore. Cancer care is expensive, and most people during their working years don't earn enough to afford it. But working aged people don't get it often enough to make it uninsurable. Insurance companies can still make a profit on working age folks, because most DON'T get cancer.

But half of the elderly do, and none of them have jobs or the means to afford it, or to pay the premiums necessary to cover the costs.

Privatize it means don't cover it.

No. That's too cruel. We're going to cover it, and we're going to do that by redistributing the wealth through taxes sufficiently to do it. There is no other way to do it, and we're not going to stop the coverage. Not ever.

This is a fight that should not be picked, because it's a sure loser. Medicare cannot be privatized, and should not be. It's a social necessity, to be paid for by taxing the whole society, as the people receiving the services cannot afford it on their own resources.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-26   12:32:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: misterwhite (#27)

We need to "repeal and replace" Justice Roberts.

Yeah that POS needs to go, preferably to a foreign zipcode where he will be appreciated.

Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!

CZ82  posted on  2016-11-26   12:43:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Vicomte13 (#28)

"How is any private insurer ever going to make a profit on cancer among old, poor people?"

Why are you conflating "old" and "poor"? Medicare is a federal healthcare program for the old. Period.

I'm saying privatize that program. Have private insurance companies cover people from birth to death and spread the costs across the entire age spectrum. If the person is poor, put them in Medicaid no matter their age.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-11-26   13:07:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: misterwhite (#30)

Because cancer costs $1 million. 99% of people are poor by that standard.

What, exactly, is the use of letting insurance companies, which are simply middlemen, collect a profit off of years of health insurance for certain diseases of old age. Single payer government health insurance, without profit, is far better for providing such things. The insurance company profit adds nothing to health care besides increased cost.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-26   14:27:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Vicomte13 (#31)

"The insurance company profit adds nothing to health care besides increased cost."

Not true. They increase their profit by keeping their policyholders healthy. Meaning it's in their interest to incentivize their policyholders into living healthy and getting regular checkups and tests.

"Single payer government health insurance, without profit, is far better for providing such things."

Oh, sure. Just like government-funded student loans are. Look what that did to college tuition costs when everyone climbed aboard the government gravy train.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-11-26   14:45:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: misterwhite (#32)

Keeping their policyholders healthy works during working age and into middle age. It breaks down when dealing with the old and very old. They will not be healthy. They are in the last phase of life, when all bodies break down and die.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-26   15:13:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: misterwhite (#26)

The States for the most part already run Medicaid.

How would you privatize Medicare?

redleghunter  posted on  2016-11-26   15:21:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: redleghunter (#34)

The states run Medicaid, but they get the money to do it mostly from the feds.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-26   16:11:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: redleghunter (#34) (Edited)

There seems to be a fetish on the Right with who gets to run things. States, and municipalities, are exalted over the federal government as somehow being more efficient.

I think of Detroit, and New Orleans, Louisiana, Arkansas, and the relentless, endless corruption that is New Jersey, and I do not discern that states actually run things better than, or even as well as, the Federal government.

And because I don't discern any qualitative difference between federally-run and state-run, I have no federalism fetish. I don't care at what LEVEL it is run, what I care is that it EXISTS.

Health care, either provided by doctors directly employed by the government (an unnecessary excess of control, I think), or provided by doctors paid for by single-payer public insurance, is the only way to really cover everybody, the only way to cover old people, the only way to cover cancer and the poor.

Major illness in America makes people poor.

I've heard the right wing Republican line for decades, and it is bullshit. Health insurance for all cannot be profitably done by insurance companies, and in any case there is no reason to LET insurance companies take a profit from human illness. Doctors provide a service. Insurance companies provide money at a premium so they can produce profits for their shareholders. If the government pays out the insurance payments instead, there is no profit margin, and it is cheaper, which leaves more money for health care.

I don't particularly care if it's "socialism" or whatever. It is a necessity, like defense, and the private sector cannot reliably provide coverage for everybody. That was always true. That's why we had Medicare in the first place, because before we had it, there were a lot of old people unable to pay their medical bills. We fixed that, for them. Obamacare sought to fix it for the whole country, but the Republicans were so belligerent, resistant and recalcitrant that there was no acceptance of the basic fact we need it.

So instead of proposing ideas that would work, the Republicans proposed NOTHING - they proposed leaving things as they are. Things as they are doesn't work. Neither does Obamacare.

Trump is not going to privatize Medicare. He always believed single payer was best, though he's not likely to go there either. He recognizes that politically that's a bridge too far. So he'll have a national health insurance market, with subsidies to individuals to cover the cost. It'll be better than Obamacare, but expensive, and everybody will have the coverage. Purists on the Right who can never reconcile themselves to the necessity of government will grouse about it forever, as they do Social Security, but just as with Social Security, the broad majority of the country will understand the necessity, and we will have what we need.

When I write here, I am trying my hardest to appeal to the humanity, the Christianity and the common sense of men on the Right who are never going to be HAPPY about large government programs and expenditures - and outside of the cost of war in wartime, health care is the grandaddy of all major programs. Still, because of the humanity of it, and the Christianity of it, we HAVE TO do it, so I keep plugging away at trying to get men of the Right to see it, accept it and agree, however grudgingly, that yeah, we really don't have any good options, and so to accept the inevitable.

Because of political realities, we're never going to get to single payer, so even though the profit margin for insurers is essentially useless for delivering health care, a substantial part of the government subsidy that families will have to get to afford health insurance will be, in reality, a direct subsidy to the profit margins of the insurance companies.

That's not great, but as long as everybody is covered by the the insurance, we will have to live with that cost inefficiency.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-11-26   16:42:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: misterwhite (#27)

That's true, but the ACA passed Congress because the people were told there would be no tax increase and those who chose not to participate would simply pay a small penalty.

That is not why it passed. With that considered, it passed against the will of the people. It passed solely by Democrats because they had a majority, tey ignored the will of the people, and cast their votes to make their real masters happy.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-11-27   2:53:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com