Trump praises universal health care in Australia

[GreenJesus]

It's also worth noting that while Trump is celebrating the first step towards 24M people having their health insurance ripped away and ending ACA's protections that prevented insurers from price-discriminating based on pre-existing conditions, in Australia, it is illegal to price-discriminate based on pre-existing conditions.

In Australia, exactly like it is under the ACA, health insurers must provide insurance to anyone who chooses to sign up (guaranteed issue) and must charge everyone the same price regardless of pre-existing conditions (community rating).

So Trump really is a clueless hypocrite. He doesn't give a shit about the tens of thousands of people each year he is trying to send to death by Trumpcare.

So Healtchare companies have to charge someone the same rate and give same plan to someone that they know will cost them a million dollars next year without having taken any premiums to offset it? Seems bullshit.

[Wyrt]

The only thing is a lie is your post, premiums are at a all time high especially for the middle class. not only have I consistently shown proof that you ignore but even this weekend I read how the architect blamed trump for the high premiums even though they haven't changed the ACA yet!

ObamaCare cost spike is Trump’s fault, ACA architect Gruber says

You should be embarrassed for telling such lies.

Premium costs were rising pretty much every year before the ACA as well. I feel like people forget how bad healthcare was before the ACA. US healthcare has been atrocious and tremendously expensive for a long time.

[zenkai]

Premium costs were rising pretty much every year before the ACA as well. I feel like people forget how bad healthcare was before the ACA. US healthcare has been atrocious and tremendously expensive for a long time.

It has gone up higher than it has in 32 years by 22%

It only makes sense it will go up, when you cover pre existing conditions and young healthy children can stay on their parents plans until they are 27 at no extra cost, of course it's going to go up.

[Wyrt]

It has gone up higher than it has in 32 years by 22%

It only makes sense it will go up, when you cover pre existing conditions and young healthy children can stay on their parents plans until they are 27 at no extra cost, of course it's going to go up.

It's long past time we joined the 21st century and got universal healthcare.

Taking healthcare away and letting people die isn't an answer.

[zenkai]

It's long past time we joined the 21st century and got universal healthcare.

Taking healthcare away and letting people die isn't an answer.

I don't disagree with that.

[Deleted]

So Healtchare companies have to charge someone the same rate and give same plan to someone that they know will cost them a million dollars next year without having taken any premiums to offset it? Seems bullshit.

That is how insurance systems work. Also this is the reason why you only give the right to choose whichever insurance people want to those with uninterrupted coverage. This is to make everyone pay in and prevent you from insuring yourself only once you get sick. The idea of "high-risk pools" will just make coverage unaffordable for those who currently need it, thus making it a system that only benefits the insurer, because they can take money from the healthy and push the sick into plans they can't afford.

Living in a country with universal health care, I find it astonishing that there seems to be no major political figure in the US (well other than Bernie Sanders I guess) who wants such a system. The US pays more per capita for health care than any other developed country (to confirm here by the OECD on page 46), while still only being on rank 42 for life expectancy and very far into the hundreds for other health indicators like infant mortality (169) and maternal mortality (136). Source.

I understand that a lot of americans are not exactly happy with ACA, because it is a bandaid at best, but with the system you have right now, you are financing the pharmaceutical companies of the world and thereby lower the prices for medicine for other countries, because they can bargain harder without actually hurting the little research these companies actually do and pay for themselves. Your president would call that a bad deal I guess.

[GreenJesus]

That is how insurance systems work. Also this is the reason why you only give the right to choose whichever insurance people want to those with uninterrupted coverage. This is to make everyone pay in and prevent you from insuring yourself only once you get sick. The idea of "high-risk pools" will just make coverage unaffordable for those who currently need it, thus making it a system that only benefits the insurer, because they can take money from the healthy and push the sick into plans they can't afford.

Living in a country with universal health care, I find it astonishing that there seems to be no major political figure in the US (well other than Bernie Sanders I guess) who wants such a system. The US pays more per capita for health care than any other developed country (to confirm here by the OECD on page 46), while still only being on rank 42 for life expectancy and very far into the hundreds for other health indicators like infant mortality (169) and maternal mortality (136). Source.

I understand that a lot of americans are not exactly happy with ACA, because it is a bandaid at best, but with the system you have right now, you are financing the pharmaceutical companies of the world and thereby lower the prices for medicine for other countries, because they can bargain harder without actually hurting the little research these companies actually do and pay for themselves. Your president would call that a bad deal I guess.

But I am talking about someone who gets cancer and doesn't have health insurance. He then goes to a health insurance provider knowing he has 1 million in expenses coming soon. The health insurance company would rather not pick him up since it would basically be losing a million dollars by signing with him. However, the government is forcing the insurance company to just pick up the tab. Although we don't want people dying in the streets is that really fair to the company? So the first company that the person goes to loses? Might as well just close your doors and business.

[Deleted]

But I am talking about someone who gets cancer and doesn't have health insurance. He then goes to a health insurance provider knowing he has 1 million in expenses coming soon. The health insurance company would rather not pick him up since it would basically be losing a million dollars by signing with him. However, the government is forcing the insurance company to just pick up the tab. Although we don't want people dying in the streets is that really fair to the company? So the first company that the person goes to loses? Might as well just close your doors and business.

That is why these provisions require uninterrupted coverage, together with an insurance mandate that makes everyone who is on social security or wage earning have insurance. As far as I know there is no system that works like the one you described and there is no suggestion to install one. There are rather obvious problems with the systems that exist, for example a tendency towards a "race to the bottom" scenario, where you exclude everything from your plan that isn't mandatory and people that develop things you don't cover go to other companies.... but those can usually be circumvented.

If you know that there is a system were the problem described by you exists, please provide us with a source for that.

[Volardelis]

And the irony is the current party want to drive Australia to a more Americanized system.

The LNP have always tried to it. Malcolm Fraser privatized Medibank the first chance he got.

It is funny seeing the current government in Australia say they are not trying to get rid of Medicare, yet their past says otherwise.

[paralleluniverse]

The only thing is a lie is your post, premiums are at a all time high especially for the middle class. not only have I consistently shown proof that you ignore but even this weekend I read how the architect blamed trump for the high premiums even though they haven't changed the ACA yet!

ObamaCare cost spike is Trump’s fault, ACA architect Gruber says

You should be embarrassed for telling such lies.

The level of raw dishonesty from you is just astounding. You lied and you refuse to take responsibility for it, instead you dig further with more lies and deception.

You stated: "Even if insurance rates dropped (they didn't)"

THIS IS A LIE. YOU ARE A LIAR. Own up to it. You lied.



As I've said, premiums are always increasing, but the fact remains that premiums rise after ACA have been lower than before the ACA and would be lower than if the ACA had not been implemented. In addition, the middle class can afford their premiums because most people get subsidies and the ACA subsidies fully offset all premium hikes.

You have ignored this because you have no counterargument.

As for Gruber's comment, he is talking about hypothetical premiums for next year rising as a result of Trump's sabotage and threatening to withholding CSR payment and creating mass uncertainty, it has nothing to do with the fact that premium rises are lower under the ACA than before, which is 100% true, and is entirely due to Trump's sabotage. Trump wants to destroy the ACA and screw the people who use it.

So, no, everything you've said is wrong. Get a clue.

- - - Updated - - -

It has gone up higher than it has in 32 years by 22%

It only makes sense it will go up, when you cover pre existing conditions and young healthy children can stay on their parents plans until they are 27 at no extra cost, of course it's going to go up.

It has gone up lower than before the ACA. Stop lying you dishonest hack.

And it makes sense that premium hikes are lower than before, the mandate brings healthy people in the pool pushing down premiums, and ACA has reduced healthcare inflation to record lows which drives down the cost of healthcare.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't disagree with that.

LOL. Right-wing hacks that wants Trumpcare, 24M having their health insurance, tens of thousands of sick people dying pretends to care about care about people!

ACA is near universal healthcare. But such is your level of partisan hackery and hate for Obama, that you've been reduced to spewing lies, advocating ripping away healthcare, while claiming to want to help people! The same sort of pure hypocrisy and dishonesty as the GOP.

[zenkai]

-SNIP-.

You don't understand what the difference is between premiums and "insured is".

Your Logic in a nutshell - "Hey give we give everyone free insurance with $100,000 dollar deductibles it's a great thing because everyone will be insured!"

LOL yeah I can't even take you serious anymore, you have 0 idea how healthcare works. Pathetic no reason to talk about something you clearly don't understand and refuse to understand.

Obamacare premiums to soar 22%

Healthcare cost soar

[paralleluniverse]

You don't understand what the difference is between premiums and "insured is".

Your Logic in a nutshell - "Hey give we give everyone free insurance with $100,000 dollar deductibles it's a great thing because everyone will be insured!"

LOL yeah I can't even take you serious anymore, you have 0 idea how healthcare works. Pathetic no reason to talk about something you clearly don't understand and refuse to understand.

Obamacare premiums to soar 22%

Healthcare cost soar

Hey, liar. When are you going to admit you lied? You stated: "Even if insurance rates dropped (they didn't)." THIS IS A LIE.

And no, that's not my logic, liar. There are no "$100,000" deductibles under ACA. ACA actually caps out-of-pocket costs, which includes deductibles, at $7150 for individuals. Moreover, deductibles are further reduced by CSRs. In addition, all plans have minimum essential benefits.

So this argument that ACA plans are bad with high deductibles is bogus, you've regurgitated a right-wing lie that you've been brainwashed in believing. But you clearly didn't know! You've just accidentally revealed how ignorant you are. Oops!

Premiums increasing by 22% is still lower than before ACA. In addition, that's not even how much most people pay because most people get subsidies that fully offset all premium hikes such that an increase in 22% is basically the same as an increase in 0%. You've dodged this fact 3 times, because you have no counter-argument.

In conclusion, thanks for revealing yourself as being totally clueless. Get a clue before you embarrass yourself further. It's clear that you don't have the ability to even argue with me given that you don't even argue, you just dodge the points you can't counter.

This 22% premium story is also something I've thoroughly debunked in the past:

Some points on the 25% Obamacare premium increase which Trump has been ignorantly ranting about on Twitter.

1. The increase does not account for subsidies which more than 80% of people who use the ACA exchanges get. A 4 person household that makes as much as $97K gets the subsidy. The subsidies caps the premium you have to pay by paying the rest for you, no matter how large the premium increases are. So for the overwhelming majority of people who get ACA policies, the premium increase is completely covered by subsidies.

2. If you shop for the lowest policy in the same metal level, premiums decrease by 20%. This is intentional to encourage competition on the exchanges. Getting a lower cost policy in the same metal level does not necessarily mean getting worse coverage because all policies on the same level have the same actuarial value, which is the expected proportion of costs that the insurer pays for. The actuarial value of bronze level plans, the lowest level, is 60%.


3. The vast proportion of people get employer coverage (the cost of this benefit comes implicitly out of wages, which is not visible to most people) and are not affected by this 25% premium increase. In fact, only the 2.5% of the US population that gets unsubsidized policies on the exchanges or in the individual market off-exchange are affected, the other 97.5% are not.

4. These premium increases are a correction to the fact that the cost of ACA policies were way below expectations and still are by as much as $600 per year. The ACA is working, and premium increases are lower in Democratic states, and obviously higher in hostile Republican states that have done everything possible to make it harder for healthy people to sign-up and blocked the Medicaid expansion.

5. Suddenly crying about premium increases is opportunistic bullshit. Premiums are always increasing regardless, but they are increasing less than before the ACA, and would increase even more if the ACA were repealed. In fact, healthcare inflation has fallen to record lows since the ACA passed.


6. The uninsured rate is at at a record low thanks to the ACA and 20M people have gotten coverage.


7. Trump will repeal the ACA but he has no plan to replace it. His only plan is to kick 20M people off coverage so that if they get sick, they can go bankrupt or die. In fact, you can't have insurers being required to cover preexisting conditions and stopping them from denying coverage, like the ACA does, without the individual mandate because otherwise people will game the system, leading to a price death spiral.

8. Making the ACA work better is simple: increase subsidies and increase penalties for getting covered. A public option can also be created in smaller states that have few insurers. This is essentially what Hillary Clinton will do.

[Ghostpanther]

Why wouldn't he? The dude secretly supports universal healthcare. Just look at his previous statements in books and interviews. There seems to be a big difference (in some ways anyway) between the real guy and the crazy nutjob guy he portrays to get Republicans to like him.

This is true. And it is the only good solution to the health care concerns in the US. Both Obamacare and Trumpcare concepts suck. But the problem is getting enough Congressional support. Not likely to happen.

[Myta]

The only healthcare right of Obamacare is no healthcare. The reason why ACA sucks, is because it's a republican's spin on healthcare. And the only way to fix it is move closer to single payer.

Most Americans are dumb enough however that they'll let their tax dollars get spent to give a billionaire to buy another yacht, but don't want it spent to give a sick child w/ cancer chemo. The greatest trick the GOP pulled is to teach millions of dumb conservatives to pay them to destroy their jobs, their industries, their education systems, and the life expectancy of their children. Conservatives are so ingrained as a servant class, they find the idea of spending their tax dollars to improve their own country disgusting.

[Revik]

This is actually pretty clever. Australia is a VERY conservative state when it comes to immigration. Trump could come back and say that the healthcare works there because they do have such tight restrictions on immigration.

[petej0]

Living in a country with universal health care, I find it astonishing that there seems to be no major political figure in the US (well other than Bernie Sanders I guess) who wants such a system.

Because no political figure (on either side) really wants to implement single payer (universal health care) because of the jobs it will destroy. Frankly, I would think Democrats want to continue to hold on to the dream of single payer so they have something to divide the country with.

[Heltoray]

Because no political figure (on either side) really wants to implement single payer (universal health care) because of the jobs it will destroy. Frankly, I would think Democrats want to continue to hold on to the dream of single payer so they have something to divide the country with.

To divide the country? That's probably it!
Treating healthcare as a business is just borderline retarded., that's what it comes down to. Companies will find other markets.

[Vash The Stampede]

Because no political figure (on either side) really wants to implement single payer (universal health care) because of the jobs it will destroy. Frankly, I would think Democrats want to continue to hold on to the dream of single payer so they have something to divide the country with.

Like it or not Universal Health Care is the future. Why? Because people get treated anyway, and leave the bill at the hospital. Then they let hospitals try to collect on them all they want. This is what people do when they have no money and are sick. To continue what the Republicans want is a self defeating system. You're either going to put Americans in debt, or the government will be in debt. For what, to support a failed health care system?

There are things that can be done to ease America out of the health insurance industry. For one, they can all work for the government. You need people to manage the health care system anyway. Two, you allow both to exist, but private insurance can offer better doctors and better services. If you pay money, you get more. Third, get ex employee's on Basic Income. Europe seems to be warming up to the idea, so why not US?

[Lenonis]

Did you expect anything different from Mr. "I don't stand by anything" Trump?

Plus he's come out in support of universal healthcare/single payer before so this is actually a surprising display of consistency for once.

[petej0]

Like it or not Universal Health Care is the future. Why? Because people get treated anyway, and leave the bill at the hospital. Then they let hospitals try to collect on them all they want. This is what people do when they have no money and are sick. To continue what the Republicans want is a self defeating system. You're either going to put Americans in debt, or the government will be in debt. For what, to support a failed health care system?

There are things that can be done to ease America out of the health insurance industry. For one, they can all work for the government. You need people to manage the health care system anyway. Two, you allow both to exist, but private insurance can offer better doctors and better services. If you pay money, you get more. Third, get ex employee's on Basic Income. Europe seems to be warming up to the idea, so why not US?

Look, you dont have to preach to me, I am just telling you what I see. I see two parties who are not willing to do anything about it. They would rather pay lip service to it and tweak the system here then actually implement single payer. Single Payer will mean the end of a Trillion dollar industry and most the jobs that go with it. Democrats dont want that.

Politicians would rather make it easier to afford insurance with subsidies than to implement single payer. It is the same way with College, make it easer to afford college through loans then implement single payer.

To divide the country? That's probably it!

Yes it is easier to blame it on Republicans then to actually implement single payer. It is why they all talk about have universal healthcare, but no actual plan to get there.