Update on Clinton's and Trump's ideas/plans on health care in America

[Penelope]

Do you mean that people will have to take personal responsibility to make sure they purchase the correct plan for their individual circumstances?

...no. I mean the market will close to people in particular circumstances.

I doubt it. The market abhors a vacuum.

Possibly in very few circumstances, Hardly in 20M circumstances.

Now if you are saying that 20M will choose to go without insurance instead of paying high premiums, that's different.

I'll be the first in line.

Which is the problem, tomorrow you can get diagnosed with Cancer, MS, Lupus, etc, or fall off a roof, then what?
you would be relying on the goodness of taxpayers.

 

[jillian]

RAND [http://www.rand.org/about.html]

Food for thought:

Study finds 20M would lose health coverage under Trump plan

why wouldn't people believe rand corp? I thought your survey question was interesting. but rand corp generally doesn't take partisan stances

 

[Defiant1]

Do you mean that people will have to take personal responsibility to make sure they purchase the correct plan for their individual circumstances?

...no. I mean the market will close to people in particular circumstances.

I doubt it. The market abhors a vacuum.

Possibly in very few circumstances, Hardly in 20M circumstances.

Now if you are saying that 20M will choose to go without insurance instead of paying high premiums, that's different.

I'll be the first in line.

Which is the problem, tomorrow you can get diagnosed with Cancer, MS, Lupus, etc, or fall off a roof, then what?
you would be relying on the goodness of taxpayers.

You leave more money to your family if you die.
Insurance or not.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

RAND [http://www.rand.org/about.html]

Food for thought:

Study finds 20M would lose health coverage under Trump plan

Does it address the cost of the respective proposals? Venezuela guaranteed a lifetime of prosperity and happiness, how'd that work out

Read the link. Do some research, and stop posting non sequiturs (aka idiot-grams), Venezuela has zero to do with Health Care in America.

You might want to read the articles you post. The article does not talk about the costs of the respective plans

 

[Penelope]

I believe the Rand Corp analysis, because many people who get a dx under the old way, the Trump way, can't afford to lose their jobs , move, or if they get laid off or fired they loose their insurance. Let them go out and try to find insurance with a preexisting condition, they will not be able to or be able to afford it. They have to become poor as rocks to qualify for Medicaid, and most fall in between the cracks.

With the ACA everyone pays according to their income, and preexisting conditions do not matter , which is only fair, is it not? All they ask is if you smoke, which is also discrimination.

 

[Penelope]

Do you mean that people will have to take personal responsibility to make sure they purchase the correct plan for their individual circumstances?

...no. I mean the market will close to people in particular circumstances.

I doubt it. The market abhors a vacuum.

Possibly in very few circumstances, Hardly in 20M circumstances.

Now if you are saying that 20M will choose to go without insurance instead of paying high premiums, that's different.

I'll be the first in line.

Which is the problem, tomorrow you can get diagnosed with Cancer, MS, Lupus, etc, or fall off a roof, then what?
you would be relying on the goodness of taxpayers.

You leave more money to your family if you die.
Insurance or not.

I'm sorry, I don't care about your family and I do not want my tax dollars to pay for your healthcare, because you were too cheap to bother, and you wanted the new car.

 

[Defiant1]

I believe the Rand Corp analysis, because many people who get a dx under the old way, the Trump way, can't afford to lose their jobs , move, or if they get laid off or fired they loose their insurance. Let them go out and try to find insurance with a preexisting condition, they will not be able to or be able to afford it. They have to become poor as rocks to qualify for Medicaid, and most fall in between the cracks.

With the ACA everyone pays according to their income, and preexisting conditions do not matter , which is only fair, is it not? All they ask is if you smoke, which is also discrimination.

How is that fair?

Why should I pay more because you have a pre-existing condition?

And insurance is available, people just don't want to pay the high premiums.

 

[Defiant1]

Do you mean that people will have to take personal responsibility to make sure they purchase the correct plan for their individual circumstances?

...no. I mean the market will close to people in particular circumstances.

I doubt it. The market abhors a vacuum.

Possibly in very few circumstances, Hardly in 20M circumstances.

Now if you are saying that 20M will choose to go without insurance instead of paying high premiums, that's different.

I'll be the first in line.

Which is the problem, tomorrow you can get diagnosed with Cancer, MS, Lupus, etc, or fall off a roof, then what?
you would be relying on the goodness of taxpayers.

You leave more money to your family if you die.
Insurance or not.

I'm sorry, I don't care about your family and I do not want my tax dollars to pay for your healthcare, because you were too cheap to bother, and you wanted the new car.

First of all I haven't been in a doctor's office since 1989. I can't remember the last time I've taken a prescription medication.
I don't take any medications.
The next person to handle my body will be a mortician.

 

[Wry Catcher]

RAND [http://www.rand.org/about.html]

Food for thought:

Study finds 20M would lose health coverage under Trump plan

Is that because they would have to pay for it themselves?

Do try to keep up, if you don't know the basics of the issue, why don't you at least read and try to comprehend the issues?

Nowhere have I read that Trump's plan would forbid 20M people from buying health insurance.

Thank you for acknowledging you don't know the basics about health care in America.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I believe the Rand Corp analysis, because many people who get a dx under the old way, the Trump way, can't afford to lose their jobs , move, or if they get laid off or fired they loose their insurance. Let them go out and try to find insurance with a preexisting condition, they will not be able to or be able to afford it. They have to become poor as rocks to qualify for Medicaid, and most fall in between the cracks.

With the ACA everyone pays according to their income, and preexisting conditions do not matter , which is only fair, is it not? All they ask is if you smoke, which is also discrimination.

How is that fair?

Why should I pay more because you have a pre-existing condition?

And insurance is available, people just don't want to pay the high premiums.

You don't have to care, in fact you have every right to vote for Trump and step over another citizen who might be dying on a public sidewalk. That you don't care is, IMO, pathological; it makes you a member of the set of Callous Conservatives.

 

[Wry Catcher]

RAND [http://www.rand.org/about.html]

Food for thought:

Study finds 20M would lose health coverage under Trump plan

why wouldn't people believe rand corp? I thought your survey question was interesting. but rand corp generally doesn't take partisan stances

Which is why I found the article important and worthy of sharing, Rand has a well deserved rep. as ethical.

 

[Conservative65]

RAND [http://www.rand.org/about.html]

Food for thought:

Study finds 20M would lose health coverage under Trump plan

If any of those 20 million are getting coverage due to Obamacare subsidies and taxes forced on someone else to pay them, it's that many opportunities for you to prove you really care about them having it. Hate to break it to you but you supporting someone else paying taxes to fund what you won't do on your own for a person without coverage isn't compassion. It's another fucking bleeding heart thinking compassion can come from expecting someone else to fund what he won't fund himself.

 

[Conservative65]

I believe the Rand Corp analysis, because many people who get a dx under the old way, the Trump way, can't afford to lose their jobs , move, or if they get laid off or fired they loose their insurance. Let them go out and try to find insurance with a preexisting condition, they will not be able to or be able to afford it. They have to become poor as rocks to qualify for Medicaid, and most fall in between the cracks.

With the ACA everyone pays according to their income, and preexisting conditions do not matter , which is only fair, is it not? All they ask is if you smoke, which is also discrimination.

How is that fair?

Why should I pay more because you have a pre-existing condition?

And insurance is available, people just don't want to pay the high premiums.

You don't have to care, in fact you have every right to vote for Trump and step over another citizen who might be dying on a public sidewalk. That you don't care is, IMO, pathological; it makes you a member of the set of Callous Conservatives.

That you think someone else being forced to fund healthcare coverage when you won't do it yourself for those you think should have it is pathological. If you want them to have it, buy it for them with YOUR money.

 

[Arianrhod]

Hmm, let's see: One candidate outlined a plan for the NEJM; the other one declined to respond. I wonder why?

Clinton Outlines Health Plan in NEJM; Trump Declines

Marcia Frellick September 29, 2016

Editors at The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) invited presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to respond to this question: "What specific changes in policy do you support to improve access to care, improve quality of care, and control health care costs for our nation?"

Clinton laid out her plan in the NEJM issue published online September 28.

Trump did not respond, the journal stated, but a RAND survey, funded by the nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, recently reported in Medscape Medical News compared the two plans.

The RAND report said Clinton's plan, which modifies the Affordable Care Act (ACA), would increase numbers of insured by 400,000 to 9.6 million, and decrease consumers' health spending compared to current law. "However, the policies with the largest coverage gains also increase the federal deficit, with impacts ranging from –$0.7 billion to $90 billion."

Trump's plan, which would repeal the ACA, "would increase the number of uninsured individuals by 16 million to 25 million relative to the ACA. … Enrollees with individual market insurance would face higher out-of-pocket spending than under current law. Because the proposed reforms do not replace the ACA's financing mechanisms, they would increase the federal deficit by $0.5 billion to $41 billion," according to the RAND report.

Nancy Nielsen, MD, PhD, senior associate dean for Health Policy at Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo in New York, and a past president of the American Medical Association, told Medscape Medical News she cautions against assigning too much power to either candidate to change healthcare because the reforms must get approval from a divided Congress and the challenges are formidable.

"I think it's naive to believe that everything a candidate says is something they can accomplish by virtue of their own will," she said.

Clinton's Four-Point Plan

Clinton outlined four major goals in the journal.

First is to improve the ACA, which she calls "an essential step toward universal health care."

She would improve it, she explains, by first urging expansion of Medicaid coverage in the 19 states that did not expand coverage.

"[W]e need to ensure the availability of a public option choice in every state, and let Americans over 55 buy in to Medicare," she writes.

The public option is controversial, and while it was originally part of the ACA draft, it was scrapped because conservatives feared it would have undue advantages and would bankrupt private insurers.

Dr Nielsen said she believes that ultimately in either a Trump or a Clinton presidency, the ACA will remain.

"I think most believe that scrapping the ACA is not going to happen," Dr Nielsen said. "Although it's hard to comment on Trump's plan because it's hard to figure out what it is."

Clinton's second goal is "to extend a refundable [applied in advance of tax payments] tax credit of up to $5,000 per family for excessive out-of-pocket health costs." It would be applied against the sum of an individual's or family's premium contributions, deductibles, and copayments.

She adds: "I will impose a requirement on all insurers to limit out-of-pocket prescription drug costs to $250 a month on covered medications."

She plans to address barriers that keep drug prices high by streamlining approval of biosimilar and generic drugs and allowing Medicare to directly negotiate for better prices. She plans to create a federal consumer response team to track excessive price hikes in long-standing, life-saving treatments and give the team the tools to respond to the hikes.

A third priority is integration of mental and physical health. Her plan includes an infusion of support to community and mental health centers, as well as the National Health Service Corps, to promote faster response to health disasters, such as the Flint, Michigan, water crisis and the Zika spread.

Clinton also outlined her stance on reproductive rights.

"We must ensure that women's personal health decisions are made by a woman, her family, and her faith, with the counsel of her doctor. That's why I will fight back against attempts to restrict access to quality, affordable reproductive health care, and defend access to affordable contraception, preventive care, and safe and legal abortion — not just in principle, but in practice," she writes.

Lastly, Clinton said she will bump up the funding for biomedical research for all diseases, but especially Alzheimer's disease and HIV/AIDS.

"And we must maintain a continued commitment to the cancer moon shot so we can provide health care providers with new tools and treatments for their patients," she writes.

Dr Nielsen notes that a president controlling the budget "is a nice piece of fiction, because it is Congress who passes a budget. She's going to have to sell a lot of this," she said.

Dr Nielsen says healthcare won't be what decides this election and said it is not the biggest topic on voters' minds when compared with issues such as homeland security and the economy.

"I don't think you're going to see big divisions over what the health plans are," she said.

Dr Nielsen notes that candidates publishing health plans in a medical journal is not unprecedented and pointed to the plan put forth by Barack Obama in JAMA and commentary on plans by Obama and John McCain in NEJM in 2008.

Dr Nielsen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

N Engl J Med. Published online September 28, 2016. Full text

For more news, join us on Facebook and Twitter


Medscape Medical News © 2016 WebMD, LLC

Send comments and news tips to news@medscape.net.

Cite this article: Clinton Outlines Health Plan in NEJM; Trump Declines. Medscape. Sep 29, 2016.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I believe the Rand Corp analysis, because many people who get a dx under the old way, the Trump way, can't afford to lose their jobs , move, or if they get laid off or fired they loose their insurance. Let them go out and try to find insurance with a preexisting condition, they will not be able to or be able to afford it. They have to become poor as rocks to qualify for Medicaid, and most fall in between the cracks.

With the ACA everyone pays according to their income, and preexisting conditions do not matter , which is only fair, is it not? All they ask is if you smoke, which is also discrimination.

How is that fair?

Why should I pay more because you have a pre-existing condition?

And insurance is available, people just don't want to pay the high premiums.

You don't have to care, in fact you have every right to vote for Trump and step over another citizen who might be dying on a public sidewalk. That you don't care is, IMO, pathological; it makes you a member of the set of Callous Conservatives.

That you think someone else being forced to fund healthcare coverage when you won't do it yourself for those you think should have it is pathological. If you want them to have it, buy it for them with YOUR money.

While I don't totally agree with your approach, there is a clear problem.

 

[Penelope]

RAND [http://www.rand.org/about.html]

Food for thought:

Study finds 20M would lose health coverage under Trump plan

Is that because they would have to pay for it themselves?

Do try to keep up, if you don't know the basics of the issue, why don't you at least read and try to comprehend the issues?

Nowhere have I read that Trump's plan would forbid 20M people from buying health insurance.

Back to the pre existing conditions, many would not qualify and if they do, they would pay through the nose.

 

[Penelope]

RAND [http://www.rand.org/about.html]

Food for thought:

Study finds 20M would lose health coverage under Trump plan

If any of those 20 million are getting coverage due to Obamacare subsidies and taxes forced on someone else to pay them, it's that many opportunities for you to prove you really care about them having it. Hate to break it to you but you supporting someone else paying taxes to fund what you won't do on your own for a person without coverage isn't compassion. It's another fucking bleeding heart thinking compassion can come from expecting someone else to fund what he won't fund himself.

So you don't know how the ACA works.

 

[Conservative65]

RAND [http://www.rand.org/about.html]

Food for thought:

Study finds 20M would lose health coverage under Trump plan

If any of those 20 million are getting coverage due to Obamacare subsidies and taxes forced on someone else to pay them, it's that many opportunities for you to prove you really care about them having it. Hate to break it to you but you supporting someone else paying taxes to fund what you won't do on your own for a person without coverage isn't compassion. It's another fucking bleeding heart thinking compassion can come from expecting someone else to fund what he won't fund himself.

So you don't know how the ACA works.

I know exactly how it works. Part of the overall program involves making healthcare coverage more affordable by providing taxpayer funded SUBSIDIES to those who claim they can't afford to buy coverage. That's not the entire program but it's a big part of it.

Do you deny many that now have coverage are able to do so because of that freebie?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

RAND [http://www.rand.org/about.html]

Food for thought:

Study finds 20M would lose health coverage under Trump plan

If any of those 20 million are getting coverage due to Obamacare subsidies and taxes forced on someone else to pay them, it's that many opportunities for you to prove you really care about them having it. Hate to break it to you but you supporting someone else paying taxes to fund what you won't do on your own for a person without coverage isn't compassion. It's another fucking bleeding heart thinking compassion can come from expecting someone else to fund what he won't fund himself.

So you don't know how the ACA works.

Because it doesn't.

 

[Penelope]

RAND [http://www.rand.org/about.html]

Food for thought:

Study finds 20M would lose health coverage under Trump plan

If any of those 20 million are getting coverage due to Obamacare subsidies and taxes forced on someone else to pay them, it's that many opportunities for you to prove you really care about them having it. Hate to break it to you but you supporting someone else paying taxes to fund what you won't do on your own for a person without coverage isn't compassion. It's another fucking bleeding heart thinking compassion can come from expecting someone else to fund what he won't fund himself.

So you don't know how the ACA works.

I know exactly how it works. Part of the overall program involves making healthcare coverage more affordable by providing taxpayer funded SUBSIDIES to those who claim they can't afford to buy coverage. That's not the entire program but it's a big part of it.

Do you deny many that now have coverage are able to do so because of that freebie?

Its not free, people pay according to their income, why do people not understand this? Before it we all covered the uninsured, and they paid nothing.