Trump will be shooting himself in the foot if he tries to talk on the issues tonight. So far he's been smart to avoid saying anything at all of substance....if that changes he'll embarrass himself. Of course that won't matter to his cult-like following, but it'll just hammer home why he'll never get the support of nearly half of the party he's pretending to be a member of.
He'll just mention that his plans are on his website. No candidate would be stupid enough to talk details of their plans for fear of giving their opponents an open shot to hone in on something.
I don't think he have to. He knows well what his audiences want - you know, the GOP tactics for 8-10 years of showing Obama as a weakling and any compromise or "back down" to DEM as weak is exactly what he is maximizing against all his GOP opponents. If it's working for him, why change? Once he is in the general, he's going to have to shift and he's probably smart enough to realize that.
The issue here is that almost half of the Republican party doesn't and won't support him. Just sticking with the window lickers that support him now might be enough to win the nomination if it doesn't become a head to head race soon but won't be enough to even compete in a national election. He's not going to gain any new supporters with more of the same.
Saw this elsewhere... 2016: Trump can't win 2017: Trump can't do that, can he? 2018: You watching the Hunger Games tonight? Sure hope my district wins.
I think he may have wider appeal. But really, who the heck know with Trump. We have never seen anyone like him in today political environment. So, it is, IMO, very foolish to make any assumption.
Well I don't plan on taking it for granted, that's why I plan on voting Hillary or Sanders if Hillary gets indicted and has to drop and I'll do all I can to get others to do the same.
With Trump, you never know. He's always on every side of an issue and just like with any con man, if his mouth is moving he's lying.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8tMhE5ZnfxU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> A couple nsfw words so don't have it full blast with your boss around if you decide to play it at work.
I am going to tackle Trump's healthcare plan line by line (proposal side) with my thoughts. I'll be unbiased: Ok, not much of a policy position as much as a statement. I believe an individual mandate is necessary to sustain a private (or public really) health insurance system. I'm a convert on this issue. States have the right to mandate auto insurance, why not health insurance? Regardless, we'll move on as this isn't the meat of the plan. I'm confused by what he means here. He says that as long as the plan purchased "complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state." Does this mean a vendor based out of Texas who wants to sell a plan to a person in Delaware needs to comply with Delaware laws or means they need to comply with Texas laws? If it is Delaware laws, well, this isn't a change at all. Any vendor can go into a state if it wants to comply with their laws and sell their product. If it is Texas laws in this scenario, then ok this is a legit option that would increase competition, but I wonder how states righters feel about the federal government saying a state can't enforce its own rules in its own state? Review: Unclear what he actually means. One version is already the reality, the other would definitely increase competition and theoretically lower prices, but may have enforcement issues. I'll take the first part first; tax deductible premiums. I completely 100% agree with this. It is discriminatory that an individual who gets their insurance through an employer can pay premiums pre-tax but an individual who isn't so lucky can't. Premiums should be 100% tax deductible. Review Pt 1: 100% support and would definitely provide a boost to people. How you would pay for the small reduction in tax revenue is someone else's problem. On the second issue; basic medicaid options. Not really a policy position here to evaluate. It is concerning leaving Medicaid to the states because many states, such as Texas, opt to not offer the coverage that is needed. Things like the Texas risk pool were total disasters. Review Pt 2: Not really a position. Unless I'm missing something here that isn't standing out to me, this is just a restatement of existing rules regarding the HSA. Disappointing. Most people who embrace HSAs think there should be some sort of enhancement. I don't see anything here that changes HSAs in any way. Review: Worthless throwaway line that restates existing law. Not a plan. This is a great theory. I'm very interested in the Ohio experiment on this. Texas had a company try this several years back and couldn't gain any traction in the market. People are lazy with healthcare and don't like to take responsibility for cost (part of the whole problem, blaming insurance solely for rising prices). Review: Interesting, like to see the meat of how it would be done. May help bend the cost curve, not 100% convinced. Free market approach to this (Texas based company) flopped but maybe a broader scale version would have impact. I'm fine with this as theory but I reject the notion that "nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required" as a half truth. They may offer more in one way and substantially less in others. There are cases right now where the courts have ruled that it is not up to them to make sure that states enforce federal Medicaid rules so I have concerns. Review: No opinion. Not fully clear what he means here (surprise surprise, this seems like a common theme.) Is he talking about subverting patents? A company in India steals a drug formula and produces their version we should allow it to be sold? Is he saying that existing drugs that are sold for lower prices in other countries should be allowed to be imported or bought online legally? Review: Not clear what he means so can't evaluate. Overall there are some good ideas here and then a lot of fluff that doesn't really mean much.
His healthcare plan sucks. It nibbles around the edges of cost a little bit, but doesn't do anything to fix our systemic problems. It doesn't address the free rider problem, it doesn't address the principal-agent and price competition problem ('requiring price transparency' is vague and facile), doesn't address the distortive effect of patent law on pharmaceuticals and devices, and it gives carte blanche to Greg Abbott to disenfranchise the poor in Texas.
NY Times did a fact check on GOP candidate health care plans. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/upshot/debate-prep-fact-checking-the-gop-candidates-on-health-care.html The following focuses on the part about eliminating state regulations...
Obamacare addresses the free rider problem. If not for the Medicaid gap problem, it'd have protected the poor of Texas from their governor too. I'd rather start from that base than go backward. Republicans spend so much time trying to get rid of Obamacare that no progress can be made to improve it. We can't move forward until Republicans drop their opposition to the progress that's already been made.
So, do you expect Romney's speech has an impact of nah? I'm going with the latter. Clown train steams forward.
Agreed. I support accepting Obamacare and the individual mandate as the law of the land and working it, shaping it, improving it. 1) Make premiums fully tax deductible 2) Force insurance companies to lump their individual market into their small group market for accounting purposes 3) Require insurance companies to offer at lease a bronze level individual plan for individuals that mirrors their bronze level plan for small groups in both benefits and network. 4) Create a copper plan. This is a very nuanced addition but I would essentially make the current short term plans offered by insurance companies to qualify as ACA compliant. They are not guaranteed issue, instead simplified underwriting. You can apply at any time and get one of four rating classes OR declined. (This is just for the copper plan. A declined individual would still be able to get into overall system.) Copper plan has to be HSA eligible. Plan is allowed to apply a 6 month waiting period for pre-existing conditions when you sign up and is not required to cover certain MEC requirements such as pediatric dental, vision, etc. and they are allowed to put an annual maximum on insurance benefits, but not a lifetime maximum. Carrier files rates for a new year and then every month of the year they are allowed to increase the rate every month after March 1 by approximately 5.5% to "penalize" the individual for not buying in during open enrollment. This would mean that at the end of the year if you waited you'd pay a 50% premium penalty for skipping open enrollment. The plan is guaranteed renewable BUT the insurance company is allowed to change your risk classification by one tier in any given year. 5) Lower the MLR rules from 80% to 75% with an incentive to the insurance company to even get that down to 70% if they offer certain levels of plans on the individual marketplace. (Example, if an insurance company offers a Gold or better PPO with a matching network to their small group plans in a state they can lower their MLR requirement to 70%) 6) Increase the HSA contribution limits. For a radical "big government" idea I'd even support the federal government partnering with a handful of investment companies to offer a national HSA program that individuals can buy into instead of seeking them out on their own. If you went this route I would suggest the copper plan having a requirement that you tack a certain percentage onto the premium that pays directly into the HSA for forced HSA savings. By partnering on a level of that scale you might be able to get investment companies to compete to offer lower fee mutual funds to HSA investors and maybe even a fixed account of 2-3% similar to 401(k)s. Just some of the ideas I toss around in my head. Edit: This is just the insurance side, not the cost of healthcare side. That's a whole other post lol.
