Repeal or replace?

OH so he LIED again. He said he ALREADY had a healthcare plan that was bigger , better , and cheaper then Obamacare IF that was true I am sure it would have gotten through Congress easily .

Non sequitur.

Did trump even put it forth to Congress?

Why would he if his advisers talked him out of it?

I don't remember him doing so, I think it was nothing but a lie to get as many MAGAS he could to vote for him, just another on of his thousands of lies.

You're not a Congressman or Senator, are you?

How do you know he didn't discuss it with them, and they told him it was a no-go?

You don't.

Oh, wait, he did.

Trump discussed his 2016 proposed healthcare plan with several individuals and groups during his presidential campaign, though the extent of these discussions was often described as limited, informal, or reliant on a small circle of advisors. His plan, outlined in a March 2016 document titled "Healthcare Reform to Make America Great Again," focused on repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare), allowing interstate insurance sales, tax deductions for individual premiums, Medicaid block grants to states, price transparency, and drug importation. Below, I'll break down key instances based on available records.

Senior Economic Advisor Steve Calk: Calk, a banking executive who joined Trump's advisory team in 2016, publicly discussed and defended the plan in media appearances. For example, in October 2016 on Fox Business, Calk outlined Trump's vision for replacing Obamacare with a system emphasizing free-market principles, state flexibility, and cost reductions. This indicates internal campaign briefings where Trump shared ideas with Calk for refinement and promotion.

General Advisory Team: Trump assembled a small economic advisory council in August 2016, including figures like hedge fund managers and billionaires.

While primarily focused on broader economic policy, the group weighed in on healthcare elements, such as tax reforms tied to premium deductions. Trump met with them periodically, and their input helped shape the plan's free-market orientation.

Post-election, in a November 11, 2016, Wall Street Journal interview, he hinted at compromises (e.g., keeping ACA protections for pre-existing conditions) after discussing it with President Obama.

The plan was never formally proposed to Congress as a standalone presidential bill because it was always intended as a high-level campaign outline rather than a fully fleshed-out legislative draft. Instead, the process relied on Republican congressional leaders to translate broad GOP priorities (like repealing the Affordable Care Act and emphasizing free-market reforms) into actual bills, a strategy rooted in how U.S. lawmaking works: Presidents don't introduce bills in Congress; they submit proposals or endorse those drafted by lawmakers.

Once in office, Trump deferred to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Republicans to develop the details, resulting in the American Health Care Act (AHCA) in March 2017—a bill that incorporated some elements from his blueprint, such as Medicaid block grants and interstate insurance sales, but diverged significantly.

The effort collapsed in late March due to internal GOP fractures: Hardline conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus deemed it too similar to Obamacare (insufficiently aggressive on deregulation), while moderates worried about coverage losses for vulnerable populations.

Now, post an emoji and run along.
 
No, bankruptcies don't happen under other names. Loss of money because of such care is infinitesimally small compared to bankruptcy loss in America.


In Europe, traditional "medical bankruptcies"—where individuals file for personal bankruptcy primarily due to unpaid hospital bills or out-of-pocket medical expenses—are extremely rare and often nonexistent, thanks to universal healthcare systems that cover most costs through taxes or mandatory insurance.

However, health-related issues can still contribute to financial hardship, often under different labels like "catastrophic health spending," "over-indebtedness," or "personal insolvency due to illness."

These typically stem not from treatment costs but from indirect effects, such as lost income from prolonged illness, long wait times, or uncovered ancillary expenses (e.g., dental, long-term care, or private supplements).

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines this as out-of-pocket healthcare costs exceeding 40% of a household's disposable income after basic needs, pushing families into poverty or deeper hardship.

This is the closest European analog to "medical bankruptcy," but it rarely leads to formal insolvency because social safety nets (e.g., debt relief or income support) intervene early.

Main drivers include outpatient medicines (55% of cases), dental care (10%), and inpatient stays (13%), often in Eastern Europe where coverage is patchier.


 
Here's an idea. How about we eliminate ALL federal subsidies for health insurance, food, heating oil & gas, child care, and housing, and instead leave it up to the states (and cut federal income taxes accordingly)?

That way if you want a bunch of "free" stuff you can move to a state offering a bunch of "free stuff", and if you want to work hard at a job and keep more of the money you earn, you can move to state that helps only those truly in need.

I mean, I'm sure all those rich California, Illinois and Massachusetts Democrats would be totally fine with a massive tax burden that no one feels in Texas, South Carolina or Utah.
 
Non sequitur.



Why would he if his advisers talked him out of it?



You're not a Congressman or Senator, are you?

How do you know he didn't discuss it with them, and they told him it was a no-go?

You don't.

Oh, wait, he did.

Trump discussed his 2016 proposed healthcare plan with several individuals and groups during his presidential campaign, though the extent of these discussions was often described as limited, informal, or reliant on a small circle of advisors. His plan, outlined in a March 2016 document titled "Healthcare Reform to Make America Great Again," focused on repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare), allowing interstate insurance sales, tax deductions for individual premiums, Medicaid block grants to states, price transparency, and drug importation. Below, I'll break down key instances based on available records.

Senior Economic Advisor Steve Calk: Calk, a banking executive who joined Trump's advisory team in 2016, publicly discussed and defended the plan in media appearances. For example, in October 2016 on Fox Business, Calk outlined Trump's vision for replacing Obamacare with a system emphasizing free-market principles, state flexibility, and cost reductions. This indicates internal campaign briefings where Trump shared ideas with Calk for refinement and promotion.

General Advisory Team: Trump assembled a small economic advisory council in August 2016, including figures like hedge fund managers and billionaires.

While primarily focused on broader economic policy, the group weighed in on healthcare elements, such as tax reforms tied to premium deductions. Trump met with them periodically, and their input helped shape the plan's free-market orientation.

Post-election, in a November 11, 2016, Wall Street Journal interview, he hinted at compromises (e.g., keeping ACA protections for pre-existing conditions) after discussing it with President Obama.

The plan was never formally proposed to Congress as a standalone presidential bill because it was always intended as a high-level campaign outline rather than a fully fleshed-out legislative draft. Instead, the process relied on Republican congressional leaders to translate broad GOP priorities (like repealing the Affordable Care Act and emphasizing free-market reforms) into actual bills, a strategy rooted in how U.S. lawmaking works: Presidents don't introduce bills in Congress; they submit proposals or endorse those drafted by lawmakers.

Once in office, Trump deferred to House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Republicans to develop the details, resulting in the American Health Care Act (AHCA) in March 2017—a bill that incorporated some elements from his blueprint, such as Medicaid block grants and interstate insurance sales, but diverged significantly.

The effort collapsed in late March due to internal GOP fractures: Hardline conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus deemed it too similar to Obamacare (insufficiently aggressive on deregulation), while moderates worried about coverage losses for vulnerable populations.

Now, post an emoji and run along.
Just more of Trumps LIED and you STUPID MAGAS believe him.
Yep one of the world BIGGEST liars and you and other stupid MAGAS believe him, LOL what fools.
 
Here's an idea. How about we eliminate ALL federal subsidies for health insurance, food, heating oil & gas, child care, and housing, and instead leave it up to the states (and cut federal income taxes accordingly)?

That way if you want a bunch of "free" stuff you can move to a state offering a bunch of "free stuff", and if you want to work hard at a job and keep more of the money you earn, you can move to state that helps only those truly in need.

I mean, I'm sure all those rich California, Illinois and Massachusetts Democrats would be totally fine with a massive tax burden that no one feels in Texas, South Carolina or Utah.
And all those MAGAS in states like GA, FLA, AL, SC, TX and many others let them go hungry, die from lack of healthcare , and maybe even go bankrupt.
Fact is these states depend on all the federal programs that will be cut because of the BBB the most and when those programs are gone it will hurt them big time.
But who care they voted for it and got what they wanted so let them suffer.
 
Here's an idea. How about we eliminate ALL federal subsidies for health insurance, food, heating oil & gas, child care, and housing, and instead leave it up to the states (and cut federal income taxes accordingly)?

That way if you want a bunch of "free" stuff you can move to a state offering a bunch of "free stuff", and if you want to work hard at a job and keep more of the money you earn, you can move to state that helps only those truly in need.

I mean, I'm sure all those rich California, Illinois and Massachusetts Democrats would be totally fine with a massive tax burden that no one feels in Texas, South Carolina or Utah.
Because that won't happen. The fed gubmint will use it as an excuse to takeover the entire healthcare system. "The welfare of humanity is always the alibit of tyrants."
 
And all those MAGAS in states like GA, FLA, AL, SC, TX and many others let them go hungry, die from lack of healthcare , and maybe even go bankrupt. Fact is these states depend on all the federal programs that will be cut because of the BBB the most and when those programs are gone it will hurt them big time.
But who care they voted for it and got what they wanted so let them suffer.

Ludicrous.

Post an emoji and run along.
 
No, it isn’t. The out-of-pocket maximum is the total amount you’re responsible for in a calendar year, a finite limit.

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying you don’t have health insurance and pay for everything yourself? If you’re healthy, that’s fine, for now. But it can change in an instant if you get sick or injured and you can be responsible for a six or seven digit bill. I have homeowner's insurance, never filed a claim. But it's there in case of catastrophic damage. Same with health insurance.

Physicians have bills to pay too. They didn't pay hundreds of thousands in school loans to run a charity. Hippocratic oath does not mean "works for free." People are not entitled to the services of another person.
less corporatism more free market.

they're not even close to the same thing.
 
I don't agree that a hospital stay would cost $300k if insurance was eliminated.



I respect your opinion. Is it based on logic? I posted stats and pretiniet points, and it seems like you're ignoring them, except to say one of the stats was "false", and you never proved that it was false, AFAIK.

Before widespread health insurance in the mid-20th century, people managed medical costs through a mix of personal savings, community support, and lower overall expenses.

Here's how it worked in practice, focusing on the U.S., with context from the 19th and early 20th centuries:
  • Low costs: A doctor's house call in 1900 cost ~$1–$2 (about $35–$70 today, adjusted for inflation). Hospital stays were rare and short; a basic room might run $3–$5/day. Surgery, if needed, was straightforward—no MRIs, chemo, or organ transplants. Can't afford those? Well, neither can a lot of taxpayers. You do know that insurers routinely refuse to authorize many treatment options and deny claims for "heroic" remedies anyway, right?
  • Limited interventions: Most care involved rest, basic meds, or minor procedures. Big Pharma wasn't colluding with PBM to jack up prices and profitability, so costs tended to be much lower.
  • Cash payments: Gasp! Patients sometimes even paid doctors directly in cash or, perish the thought, barter (e.g., farmers trading chickens or workers trading labor), or, doctors gave extended credit. Doctors often adjusted fees based on ability to pay ("sliding scale").
  • Families often budgeted for medical emergencies like any other expense. Middle-class households might set aside 1–2% of income for "doctor funds."
  • Immigrant groups, unions, and fraternal organizations (e.g., Elks, Odd Fellows) ran "lodge practices." Members paid small dues (~$1–$2/year) for access to contracted doctors. By 1910, ~30% of industrial workers belonged to such groups.
  • Religious or charitable hospitals (e.g., funded by churches or donors ) treated the poor for free or low cost. Donors funded them; doctors often donated their time pro bono.
  • Some employers hired physicians for their workers.
  • People were accustomed to accepted risk. Bankruptcy from medical bills was rare because bills were small and society expected self-reliance whenever possible and organizations extended charity when it wasn't.
he loves him some healthcare stocks.
 
Back
Top