I agree with it. If cancelling TPP will significantly hurt I do not know but his politics will for sure. Trump is rich and hence must have some qualities as a businessman, but he also screwed projects and he has not gained any political skills yet. Trumps major intention is 'america first'. And hence the first actions he is doing are such which pronounce that and such which are arguments for the 'emotions'. What he misses badly is a reasonable plan. There is damage in economy and damage needs to be repaired FIRST. Only then when you can present a working industry which is able to deliver the same quality you can suspend foreign business and not the other way around. Anyway one should not forget that some foreign products are simply 'better' or are liked more. Trumps nationalistic emotions make him blind to recognize basics of economy and foreign business. Those who are sensitive to nationalistic ideas fall for that. I think also the US economy will suffer even more from Trump...time will tell. To point on founding forefathers means to point on the past and past 'conditions' which have changed during progress of time. I think there should be insurances which should be statutory to grant primary care. They are called social insurance. (retirement, health, nursing care insurance, unemployment) They should be fair and related to income. Well either one is identified with the social idea or not. One who is not willing to share/pay an own amount for the benefit of the entire society will be always conjuring up excuses. In Europe there are some countries with a reasonable realization...although I have to admit it's not perfect (yet).
Oh come off of it. Killing TPP is a good thing. Even Bernie Sanders said approving TPP was not in the interest of jobs or tax payers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hted-to-work-with-him-on-pro-worker-policies/ A point of fact, everyone who ran for President in the Primaries, both Democrat and Republican all agreed that TPP actually was huring America. Only Hillary Clinton and her sponsors wanted TPP. Everyone else from day 1 knew TPP was not good for us
When you remove competition, you'll remove the quality of the product too. Intel and AMD are very good examples of competition, Intel has been lax with coming out with a 6 core chip, regardless if apps could use that kind of chip, the idea of no competition made Intel lax. Today AMD is around the corner with something and this year Intel decides to make a 6 core chip to be competitive. It's the same with any business and making the insurance industry competitive will benefit everybody. My General Practitioner Dr. has a sign in the window... They do not accept Medicaid (govt insurance aka Obamacare). Many Doctors will not see you because they do not get paid from the govt. If you are on Obamacare, you will and do get a lower class of health care. A childhood friend of mine had liver cancer. Did they offer Jerry a new liver on Obamacare? no....They flat out said "Jerry, your going to die" and that was it. Jerry was 54 yrs old when he found out he had cancer
I can post something about German history... The German social insurance system is old, it had time to develop. It is an historical achievement that has started in the German Empire 1881 (Otto von Bismarck) until present. Latest important addition had been the addition of nursing care insurance in 1995 and currently there are some revisions. To make an own opinion one would need to study it.....how it works. Just a few info....it is a complex system that has grown to maturity, there are also special corporate forms. It started with health insurance 1883 then accident insurance then retirement..... Also the statutory health insurance companies are PRIVATE, there is competition. One can choose from around 100. Health insurance is obligatory here! Either statutory health insurance or private insurance coverage. The premium of SHI is determined by the govt. also the catalog of goods and services. It is also determined what the employer has to pay and what the employee. I don't want to advertise it, but it can be considered as a general human achievement and standard for social human achievements. It took looong time to get its quality and IMHO Trump just gave it up far too early....it would have been far better to take benefit from European experience and to think about what can be useful for the US...but as said it requires identification with social ideas and that is hardly present at a pure capitalist. It's not about Europe versus US..it's just the fact that it had much more time to develop
Social health care in the U.S. isn't going to be removed by Trump. Too many people are dependent on it today, but I do believe that it will be refined, I'm sure just as Germany had to make changes, the U.S. social health care will go through many changes too
Yes, here it needs to be 'adjusted' to changing conditions (demography and the like), its development never stops. And it's not perfect. A reason for discussion is the fact that you need a minimum income that you can choose from private medical insurances, better said from their 'advanced' services....if you don't have enough income and you are not satisfied with the statutory services you have to get an additional one and to pay for it as well...on the other side if you have big family all your kids are covered without extra charge until they have own income, it's service of statutory insurances already..
People that would use "advanced" do not need Obamacare. They most likely have careers and their employer covers the cost or a part of the insurance, they can afford not to use Obamacare. They get much better qualified doctors too. Mostly those uneducated and low paying part time jobs require Obamacare, and since free trade, that covers a large majority of the population today. Those people could not afford health care so Obama stepped up with this notion: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" Thank you Obama The business of the U.S. government should be keeping itself out of the U.S. citizens business
Hmm... so you do say no health care is better than Obamacare?!? I dunno how it's in the US but what happens if one gets seriously sick and cannot pay the doctors, can they refuse treatment?
Obamacare is an excellent start. It prevents many abuses by the insurance companies. They used to dump you if you got sick or had a pre-existing condition, and would charge extra if you were a woman. Also, insurance companies must spend over 90% on actual health care, and not trips to Bermuda! Your kid can stay on your plan until 26. Obamacare also got rid of the bulldoody policies which did not pay. This is why many people's policies were more expensive. They had bogus policies to begin with, and better policies do cost a bit more, but at least they help if you get ill. I would much prefer a single payer plan. The U.S. is currently the only civilized (I use that term loosely) country which does not view health care as a basic human right. We in the U.S. are way way behind all other first world countries in how we treat our citizens. The government here in the U.S. has absolutely no respect for its citizens. If they did we would have single payer health care, paid family leave, and mandatory vacation time like everyone else.
Obamacare is definitely better than no healthcare coverage and millions stand to lose it. Not perfect by any definition but it at least provides access to medical care. The way it works in the US if you don’t have insurance. Hospitals can’t refuse to treat someone that walks into the emergency room. You go to the emergency room and they are required to “stabilize” you before releasing you which might mean admitting you to the hospital if required. You will get enough care to stabilize you before being released. That is all that is required and you will be billed for it whether you can pay for it or not. Since most uninsured can’t pay the outrageously high bills, the cost is passed on by the hospital to insurance companies and insured patients. Until they are released from the hospital, the hospital will administer drugs and treatment as needed to stabilize before releasing them. If you need follow up care for a chronic condition or prescription medication for maintenance once released you are on your own if you don’t have money to pay for it. Doctor offices and specialists on the other hand are not required to treat anyone. So the only option is the emergency room for the uninsured without the money to pay for care. This is the worst and most expensive way of administering healthcare. There is no preventative care or maintenance care. This creates a revolving door of the uninsured returning over and over to hospital emergency rooms. The best system would be to just extend Medicare to the entire country. It is one government program that works.
@beamslider. I agree whole heartedly. I would like to see medicare offer the same prescription coverage as medicaid though. We absolutely need a single payer healthcare plan here in the U.S. Healthcare is a basic human right IMHO.
It got that way because the insurance industry got away with providing gigantic payoffs to congress and senate to make laws to their benefit, such as not having to cover existing illness. If the govt got off it''s ass and forced the insurance to cover and lower prices, then hospitals can lower their costs. This all started a very long time ago, probably before you were born and it's gotten to the point where the govt should step in and regulate the insurance industry... but did Obummer do that? no. The govt decided to invade it's citizens pockets and make the people foot the health cost bill. You do realize that it's the insurance industry that gets to decide what to tell your doctor about how much and what kind of treatment you get? The insurance industry is very $$$powerfull$$$ and they have it's U.S. citizens by the short and curly's and they have no intent on letting go