Ryan opposes Trump working with Democrats on healthcare
A classic looter malfunction. "We couldn't make enough deals and buy off enough votes, to get all the special crap we wanted to cram in, so Trump won't play with us and let us milk it a while until we can make enough deals". Maybe Mr. Ryan needs to stop being a corrupt politician trying to make the special program for us peasants that is no better, and just repeal Obamacare and put in place some rules about the main issues like portability and a provision for some kind of pre-existing condition. Even then, it is something needing some morality training, as on one hand, it is not good for everyone else to carry the sosts of sa few, and on the other, if nothing is done, then the few get stuck with no healthcare . Both sides have quandaries as to how much should others be forced to pay so a few can get the mega expensive treatments, or get a policy when they have a condition that requires such? Maybe a catastrophic program that starts after a set costs is reached would be a better answer and fund it off the taxes already paid in by health care companies. Of course, then some other pork needs to go, and the looters seem incapable of making the hard choices.
Rand Paul I do trust.
https://www.paul.senate.gov/imo/media...
Oh, does any of the more seasoned in the Gulch remember ol' Vlad besides me?
Bend Over, Here It Comes Again. As in when a politician starts promising even more free stuff, the working folks think BOHICA.
I wondered if the people could not afford the shoes filling the warehouses because there was noooooo prosperity in the Soviet Union, he claims it was the fashion design.
Failing that, as you say, they'll have to ensure portability and provisions for preexisting conditions. The insurance covering preexisting conditions would be necessarily expensive, so they'd need some kind of tax credit so the poor could buy it, and perhaps a tax to keep the credit from driving up the deficit. They'd also need to make sure people don't manipulate the pre-existing condition rule by waiting until they're sick to buy insurance. The good thing about such a plan is it's already enacted in the from of the PPACA.
Yes. I think the only determiner of whether you get rich should be if you provide value to people and then invest/save it wisely instead of blowing it.
The thing about not having a choice is more complicated than it sounds. With healthcare, our society appears to be unwilling to let someone die/suffer because they cannot afford a proven treatment. So responsible people not looking for a handout should build up wealth and/or buy insurance to pay for an expensive injury or illness. You can't insure against them once they happen, so everyone who doesn't have the wealth to self-insure should buy insurance before they're sick. If they don't, though, then we have a problem. Typically other people get roped into paying anyway. So why not admit it aloud, I think, and just make people buy the insurance rather than getting a free ride and roping others into paying.
The answer why not is when gov't gets involved it gets very messy. If we get gov't mostly out with a four-page plan that hands money to the poor as Rand Paul's plan does, most people will rise to the occasion. People who (unlike me) don't like even the modest handouts to the poor can debate them at a future date. They're much easier to change than a big "system" like PPACA.
If it's employer-linked, it ought to be structured so it doesn't discourage people from changing jobs, going from a job to owning a business and vice versa, and doesn't make employers worry about paying for potential employees health problems. I think it should be separated from employment. It's only linked because during WWII employers offered it to get around gov't wage controls. The link between employers and medical purchases is as problematic as it would be if employers had to help employees buy housing, transportation, or food.
Seems part and parcel for the new day, don't you think?