Posted on 10/11/2017 9:01:23 AM PDT by kathsua
President Trump promised to replace Obamacare, but so far has only suggested modifying it. He should replace the Obama approach to health care.
Medical costs cause the price of health insurance to be too high for some to afford. Obamacare attempted to deal with high insurance rates by forcing healthy people to buy health insurance.
A better approach would recognize that it isn't practical for profit-making insurance programs to pay for expensive to treat chronic disorders such as those associated with alcohol or tobacco use. Special programs could be set up to cover such disorders.
Taxes on alcohol and tobacco should be used to fund programs for alcohol and tobacco related medical disorders. For example, a per gallon tax on alcohol products would go into a fund for treatment of alcohol related disorders. A doctor would certify that a person has an alcohol related disorder and health care providers would send health care bills for the patient to the alcohol fund in the same way bills are sent to insurance companies for payment. To simplify payment procedures all medical problems of a patient with an alcohol related medical problem would be paid by the fund because alcohol can reduce the body's ability to handle problems. The fund would also cover medical costs of those who suffer injuries because of the actions of someone under the influence of alcohol even if the injury involved a preexisting condition. A police report that one of the drivers in a traffic accident was under the influence of alcohol would trigger payment from the alcohol fund even if the courts wouldn't consider the drinking driver to be at fault.
Under the current insurance system people who never use tobacco or alcohol help pay for the medical treatment of those who have tobacco or alcohol related medical problems. Under my proposal only those who use alcohol and tobacco products would pay to treat medical problems related to alcohol and tobacco use.
Another type of health care fund would involve specific disorders, such as heart trouble or specific cancers that may be caused by various factors other than tobacco or alcohol. Government would use general taxes to finance treatment and conduct research. Other funds might come from non-profit organizations. Government might encourage non-profit funds by offering to match what they raise.
Each fund would operate in part as a research project. Paying for all treatments from a single fund would allow researchers to monitor and compare the success rate of various different treatments. Insurance companies are reluctant to fund experimental treatments because they can't expect to benefit from them, but the federal government could benefit from knowing what doesn't work as well as knowing what does work.
Repeal.
Don’t replace.
Get Fedzilla out of healthcare.
Health care prices are not the problem. I don’t use insurance at all. Health care is actually pretty cheap. How about a “full service” MRI for $299?
Health INSURANCE is the problem. Get the government out of it.
It has been replaced. It is now known as McCaincare.
Problem with alcohol?
I’ll give you a ride to the AA meeting.
Then you are on your own money-wise.
Constitutionally low-information business maverick Trump didn’t make the connection during the campaign that the president is constitutionally “married” to Congress imo.
Trump consequently got patriots' hopes too high during the campaign with his MAGA agenda, including repealing Obamacare, his first two years in office arguably for practice since the corrupt, uniparty Congress left over from the lawless Obama administration wants to get rid of him.
In fact, it’s up to us patriots to make sure that there are plenty of state sovereignty-respecting, Trump-supporting patriot candidates on the primary ballots, and pink-slip career lawmakers by sending these patriot candidates to DC on election day 2018.
Note that Trump needs to establish Trumpcare within Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, taking unconstitutional federal healthcare regulations out of the books a good start.
And if new federal powers are required for Trumpcare, then Trump needs to work with the states to amend a Trumpcare amendment to the Constitution.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
"The smart crooks long ago figured out that getting themselves elected to federal office to make unconstitutional tax laws to fill their pockets is a much easier way to make a living than robbing banks." —me
"Federal career lawmakers probably laugh all the way to the bank to deposit bribes for putting loopholes for the rich and corporations in tax appropriations laws, Congress actually not having the express constitutional authority to make most laws where domestic policy is concerned. Such laws are based on stolen state powers and uniquely associated stolen state revenues." —me
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.