I would suggest that instead of accusing every single good intentioned Republican or Conservative of trying to sabotage Trump’s presidency ( NOT TRUE ) simply because they do not agree in every policy with him, we objectively look at the issue that needs to be faced.
Let’s look at healthcare for instance. There are five factions in this battle.
1) The Democrats and the political left want government-run healthcare, in the form of universal coverage and/or single-payer.
2) Conservatives ( Count me in this bucket) want free market reforms without government involvement.
3) The establishments of both parties (e.g. Paul Ryan ) want only the status quo, slow walking any changes to the point that nothing changes.
4) A majority of Americans believe the federal government should make sure everyone has healthcare coverage.
5) Lastly President Trump has a goal of “insurance for everybody.”
Many folks in this forum talk as if trying to reconcile every single one of the above desires is easy. IT ISN’T.
What is unfair is to tar and feather every single person who disagrees with Trump as a sabotager with ill-intentions.
So, here’s how I see how a compromise could to more or less, reconcile the above disparate.
REMEMBER: The default is Obamacare, which is not working, is unpopular, leaves millions without insurance and is in a financial death spiral. Nothing changes until something changes.
Whether or not one likes it, A DEAL HAS TO BE MADE and Trump, the consummate deal maker will have to be in the thick of it.
My own thought is this:
TWO PLANS RUNNING IN PARALLEL SIDE BY SIDE.
1) PLAN A: Medicaid-for-all
2) PLAN B: free-market driven private insurance industry, free from government interference.
You get to choose which one you prefer.
PLAN A: Medicaid for all will include catastrophic coverage. Exactly what insurance is designed to protect against. The unexpected and expensive.
To analogize this with car insurance, This is for the car wreck, the accidents, not the oil change or new wipers.
Details can be worked out.
This should satisfy the political left as it provides their holy grail of universal coverage, and makes concern over preexisiting conditions moot. As well as the majority of Americans who by, “a 76 percent to 24 percent majority also agrees that since most other advanced countries can afford to provide universal health insurance, so could this country.” (See here: http://www.theharrispoll.com/politics/Health-Care-Moral-Issue.html )
PLAN B: Market driven private insurance. You are free to reject PLAN A and join PLAN B.
In Plan B, wegovernment out of the rest of the insurance business. No mandates. No essential benefits. No requirement for individuals to purchase insurance or for employers to provide it. An open market. Purchase what you want and need. Price competition and transparency.
Let individuals choose how to spend their money. Like purchasing other types of insurance – auto, home, disability, life, and so on.
Let health insurance companies nationwide COMPETE to provide their service just like every single insurance companies do for other types of insurance.
Many will be happy with their “free” Medicaid. Others will choose to purchase up for coverage of what they deem important. No one will be left uncovered.
That’s how I see how we can compromise given the practical reality we have to face with.
The Freedom Caucus, as well as many conservatives, are holding up on TWO issues...the individual mandate and the Cadillac tax.
If they would remove these two things...FC members would be on board. At least, this is how I understood Hannity explaining it, last night.
Sounds like an interesting compromise but I would hesitate to offer Medicaid for “all” without a means test. If the world were filled with stand up types its a great plan. The world however is filled with moochers.
Your suggestions are a great step off point!
The big problem is the financial death spiral that Obamacare has put individuals and families into, with bizarrely expensive coverage that continues to increase in cost, for high deductible policies that are of little practical value other than for major medical or catastrophic care.
Solve that problem and the rest is philosophical. A means tested, tiered "contribution" to Medicaid or Medicare for indigent and poor people, plus preexisting conditions, would take care of one area causing ballooning premiums. Getting illegal aliens off of it would take care of another.
I don't want to see Congress or Federal government employees as a whole exempting themselves from their wonderful largesse this time, either. Good enough for the People is good enough for public servants.
Whats this with illegals getting coverage I'm hearing - Is that true? What happened to America First - I guess that meant the land mass - how about Americans First
Medicaid for all? Why exactly would you need additional “market driven” solutions after that? Medicaid for all would blow a whole in the idea of fiscal responsibility.