Now we have the same folks who thought we were all "stupid", from that school in Cambridge, what is it called? Ah yes, perhaps the Marxist Institute of Technology; close but no cigar. The individual was the one whose credibility was allegedly called into question when caught on camera states in the Party paper of record:
So
Mr. Trump would not only continue the insurance discrimination that
plagued the country before the Affordable Care Act but even make it
worse. In
fact, there is simply no Republican replacement for the act that
wouldn’t leave millions of Americans at serious financial risk. The
single most important accomplishment of the Affordable Care Act was to
bring the United States into line with the rest of the developed world,
as a place where people were not one bad gene or one bad traffic
accident away from bankruptcy. Mr.
Trump and other Republicans can discuss kind-sounding alternatives as
much as they like, but they can’t hide the fact that repealing the
fundamental insurance protections that are central to the act would be a
cruel backward step.
But given this individual's prior record as noted on his statements why should we believe him now? Just a question.
You see the analysis I did some almost eight years ago assumed universal coverage, no per-conditions but it also assumed that the patient would have some part of the process. Namely if one smoked, was obese, drank excessively, or in any other way was involved in a high health risk behavior then they paid more, and they had to pay more.
Physicians would be back in control of providing health care, not Government GS-9s or even MIT economics or business school PhD, and especially not Harvard economists.
Posts
