world

Trump open to tweaking Republican health care bill

18 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2017 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

18 Comments
Login to comment

Trump vowed on the campaign trail to get rid of Obamacare and replace it with a program that offers better care more affordably, and covers everyone who needs health insurance.

Think he'll "tweak" the Republican bill to increase affordability and cover everyone? Think again.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I prefer a system similar to Japan's. For health care I think a single payer system can work. In Japan the system is set up so people pay (up to a limit) based upon income, the employer matches 1/2 the premium through payroll deductions. The cost of services in Japan is quite reasonable. As a business owner I see this as a fair system.

The U.S. system is a mess and the Affordable Care Act did not fix the mess. My cousin has a business in the U.S. His premiums increased dramatically, his state has only one health care provider, and his deductible skyrocketed. The Affordable Care Act helped some of the poor get insurance (which I am all for by the way) but screwed many in the middle class and many small business owners. Costs of services in the U.S. are unreasonably high.

I do not think Trump will tweak the bill to cover everyone and make it more affordable.

Again, I prefer single payer but I am not sure I would trust the U.S. government to run such a system (regardless of the letter after the President's last name).

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Democrats wanted single payer, but what we ended up with was a modified Republican plan that left insurance companies in charge. And the individual mandate that GOP-types frothed at the mouth over for 8 years, was actually from Bob Dole's plan and was designed to keep deadbeats from getting a free ride (a very Republican sentiment). But now the GOP has to rip it apart simply because they hate Obama's guts - and 10 million first time insured Republicans will lose their coverage. Great job guys. The morons are in charge now.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

What is this madness!!?? I thought the TRUMPYCARE plan was "a very very good plan a terrific terrific plan" Now he is open to tweaking it?? Would have anything to do with opposition from fellow REPO-blicans ?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Ryan's plan was to sneak the bill through at lightning speed based 100% on GOP identification and resulting pressure - that had a slim chance to begin with and was entirely dependent on all party members simply accepting it as is. So much for that. It will never pass now.

Not only Ryan's speakership but also the rest of the GOP agenda are also now threatened. Nice news for a Monday morning.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

This is an interesting article. Drug prices in the U.S. are beyond insane.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democrat-trump-enthusiastic-call-medicare-negotiate-drug-prices/story?id=46066596&yptr=yahoo

Strange - I actually agree with Elijah Cummings and Trump on this issue (strange bedfellows? A black Democratic Congressman and Trump seem to be in accord?)

Even if my desired change was made (single payer system) the prices of drugs from the suppliers would still need to come down.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Tokyo-EngrMAR. 13, 2017 - 08:06AM JST The U.S. system is a mess and the Affordable Care Act did not fix the mess. My cousin has a business in the U.S. His premiums increased dramatically, his state has only one health care provider, and his deductible skyrocketed. The Affordable Care Act helped some of the poor get insurance (which I am all for by the way) but screwed many in the middle class and many small business owners. Costs of services in the U.S. are unreasonably high.

The ACA failed to provide a single payer system because Republicans in Congress negotiated in bad faith and blocked every health care proposal intentionally creating a system that doesn't work. They are too ideologically driven to accept that a single-payer system that works everywhere else in the world might also work in the US.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@katsu. Not sure what your point is or if you're trying to lecture me. I don't care about the politics of this. The system is broken and needs to be fixed. This likely won't impact me directly but rather friends and family I care about who are in the U.S. If the opposing sides of the US political war can find small aspects where they agree maybe they can work from there.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Tokyo-EngrMAR. 13, 2017 - 09:26AM JST @katsu. Not sure what your point is or if you're trying to lecture me. I don't care about the politics of this. The system is broken and needs to be fixed.

My point is that the reason the ACA "did not fix this mess" is because it was sabotaged from the get-go by the very people trying to craft its replacement. You make an appeal to opposing sides agreeing:

If the opposing sides of the US political war can find small aspects where they agree maybe they can work from there.

... but Republicans are driven by an extreme ideology at the moment that says government can't work. The Republican administration is literally putting people in the cabinet with the indention of destroying the very organizations they are meant to manage. They literally oppose any government health care system because they have a fanatic, religious-like zeal to eliminate government itself. It's impossible to ask "both sides" to compromise when once side is operating in such bad faith - it's like asking the chickens and the fox to compromise on what they're all going to have for dinner.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I could get behind a system modeled after any of the other great systems used elsewhere in the world, assuming we changed the US Constitution to make universal health coverage a requirement for the federal government to provide on the same level as "common defense".

Lacking that, I think the feds involved with health care is unconstitutional.

Read that the US spends 19% of our GDP on health care. Other countries spend 9-12% of their GDP on it. I'm willing to have delays in services for some things to reduce the costs.

Screw the insurance companies. They are a blight on our country - probably about 7-10% of the GDP. Those people could do something useful.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's just a matter of how many people will lose their medical insurance, since there's no way the new plan do what they want to reduce costs, while still covering the same # millions of people

Covering more people designates everyone paying more, as the upcoming Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis on healthcare coming out soon

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Can't tell his arse from his elbow.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Agreed, a health care system similar to Japan's would be the most sensible.

Of course, I would prefer that there be some changes to Japan's systems, e.g., more support for mental health care. Currently, doctors are only paid for up to 15 minutes a visit. So, psychoanalysts are rare in Japan, and mental illness treatment is just a pill dispensary. For example, if you go to a Japanese dentist, they only want to arrange for multiple visits for what could be done in one sitting to maximize the insurance payouts. Japan should also include eye care (eye exams), but it doesn't unless you are talking about surgery or some other problem where an ophthalmologist would normally be needed.

The reason why it will not happen in the U.S. is: (1) GoP will frame it as "Big Government," socialism, and reducing quality of health care the rich have access too, and (2) the insurance industry, the hospital industry, and the pharam industry are huge and will resist getting pushed out of their lucrative positions.

As I have said before, the GoP bill will not pass. It fails the constituents, and it fails the conservatives goals of killing insurance for the poor, i.e., or stated as reducing taxation/not providing a payout. If the U.S. can't pass (not so) simple insurance plan, then they are a world-away from anything that resembles Japan's medical system, even with limited faults it does have.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

...requirement for the federal government to provide on the same level as "common defense"...

Fu, how 'bout "promote the general welfare"? That immediately follows "provide for the common defense," if I remember correctly.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

for congressional Republicans who have held numerous votes over the years to try to repeal it.

And thank God Democrats stopped them. Obviously they were voting to repeal with no replacement plan in mind.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Trump needs some major tweaking.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

You have to give Obama credit for one thing : He and those in Congress who aided and abetted him did everything in their power to ensure Obamacare's most glaring flaws could never be eliminated.

They did so by crafting perhaps the most massive income transfer in U.S. history. They established what millions of Americans now view as entitlements.

Trump and the Republicans and the few Democrats who have any sense now have the massive job of cleaning up this mess.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Fu, how 'bout "promote the general welfare"? That immediately follows "provide for the common defense," if I remember correctly.

"general welfare" can be used/abused for anything someone wants that I don't want. Smoking pot could be required as "general welfare" since people tend to be happier. Forced medication could also become mandatory. What about vaccines? All the non-vaccine people would go crazy. Whenever someone is forced into something, their freedoms suffer. Auto accidents in 2016 hit a new high with over 40K deaths in the USA. The general welfare clause could be used to outlaw all personal vehicles, after all, killing 40K Americans is crazy and we shouldn't allow it, PERIOD.

Someone else shouldn't be choosing what is good for adults in the USA without massive consent. It shouldn't be a 51% vote in congress.

If it isn't clear, I'm a libertarian. I expect to be responsible for my families needs and don't want the government involved, but I'm beginning to see where a national health care program could be a huge subsidy for USA businesses to be more competitive world-wide.

I would want an amendment to the Constitution about it, just to be certain we have clarity. After all, anything we spend 19% of our GDP over really should be highly effective.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites