President Trump Delivers Wisconsin Speech Urging Healthcare Reform Legislation…

Keeping the pressure on – During brief remarks at the airport today in Wisconsin President Trump again pointed out the need for congress to quickly address the current healthcare reform proposals.

This entry was posted in Economy, Legislation, media bias, Obamacare, President Trump, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to President Trump Delivers Wisconsin Speech Urging Healthcare Reform Legislation…

  1. Janice says:

    God Bless this President! God Bless America!

    Liked by 12 people

  2. tuskyou says:

    Fundraiser with Scott Walker after healthcare speech and visit to tech school
    http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2017/06/13/gov-walker-raises-more-than-1-million-fueled-by.html
    The article mentions small group of protesters but doesn’t name tgem – I saw a tweet from Occupy Milwaukee thanking them for participating.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. MakeAmericaGreat says:

    He’s doing a good job with this stuff, making the pitch.

    Also, you’ll notice that almost all the trips he takes involve the key swing states he knows he’ll need for 2020.

    Trump is very smart. He knows where his base is, who they are, and he takes care of them.

    Liked by 8 people

  4. RunningOnEmpty says:

    A competent staff would not have let him do this on same day as Sessions testimony. This important speech and events received ZERO coverage. They should’ve rescheduled it once Sessions testimony was set. Incompetence in WH staff on full display.

    Like

    • SharonKinDC says:

      What a load. Sessions asked for this open testimony on short notice. You think Trump should have scrapped the speech, the apprentice meeting, and a Walker fundraiser at the last moment? Bunk.

      Liked by 4 people

      • No should not have, it means the President trusted Jeff and the President was out doing the “people’s” business and work. It is good that this nonsense does not slow him down. I think it sends a clear and excellent message for those that are watching, for those not in the know, well we need to share that lesson, that NOTHING will stop OUR president from doing “The People’s Business” which is what he was elected to do!

        Like

    • Frank says:

      Like it matters when the speech was delivered. You think the media would have covered this any other day of the week?

      Liked by 3 people

    • tuskyou says:

      One of my linked articles above says there will be more details on Pres Trump’s Earn as you Learn program coming tomorrow. Plus his agenda/accomplishments are explained in the press briefings before the scumbags start their questions about Russia.

      Not scolding–just sayin Trump always gets his message out to the people. 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

    • rsanchez1990 says:

      You know what, in math zero is greater than a negative, which is what the media would have given him if they were covering it.

      You know what else, the people who were there in Wisconsin were his intended audience. If the cocktail class is distracted by three hours of a nothingburger where they hoped they could get something on the President but left disappointed yet again, that makes no difference to him.

      Trump doesn’t stop for someone’s testimony. Even for the Comey testimony, when the cocktail class expected that Trump would be glued to his screen just like them and livetweeting it, he was getting his work done and preparing to speak to the people instead. He’s not like the cocktail class, he doesn’t need to play by their rules.

      Liked by 6 people

    • It will get play on Wisconsin local media

      Liked by 3 people

      • G. Combs says:

        And that is what counts. President Trump targeted his base IN WISCONSIN, a swing state.

        People will pay more attention to their wallets than to a old decaying nothingburger.

        Never forget only 6% of the American public believes the media and that is all brain dead progressives.

        From BEFORE Trump’s election when he labeled the MSM Fake News.

        June 15, 2010 Rasmussen Reports 66% of Voters Are Angry At The Media “including 33% who are Very Angry.”

        By 4/19/2016 Investor’s Business Daily reports Only 6% Trust Media, But It Should Be Less

        “[…]There is no incongruity in the fact that a new poll conducted by the Media Insight Project, a joint project of the American Press Institute and the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, finds the American media’s popularity way down with that of Washington politicians. With 2,014 adults surveyed, only 6% expressed “a lot of confidence” in the press.[..]”

        Russia Times America also reported on this study adding
        “…The American Press Institute report comes in the wake of a September 2015 Gallup poll which found that only 7 percent of Americans have a great deal of trust in the media, with about 33 percent saying they had a fair amount, and 60 percent claiming they had either little or no trust in the media….”

        Elsewhere I saw the trust in media eroded most among Republicans and Independents and it has erroded since the 1970s. This link sort of covers it.

        Like

  5. TheLastDemocrat says:

    Yes. Totally.

    But I have not heard any reasonable plan from Trump or any conservatives for addressing health care. –At least the Democratic Party had a somewhat feasible idea – using taxes and the mandate to get most covered, while be a “progressive” versus a regressive tax.

    Not the best; has plenty of flaws. But I have heard of NO legitimate, comprehensive idea from conservatives.

    Leadingly, the cross of two realities makes health insurance a quandary. Here are the two.
    [And the third.]

    First:
    Insurance is great for events that are infrequent but costly. –Chronic illness management is costly, but is not infrequent;

    Second:
    A MEDIAN U.S. income of an older adult CANNOT accommodate the prevailing costs of the most common chronic illnesses. For example, the cost of a CABG, VERY common!! may cost $70,000 to start, and a million are done a year — Folks, do the math: what is an individual and a health insurer supposed to do??!! Have a guy pay $10,000 in premiums for 10 years to cover that CABG, and that alone??!! –Not to mention any other health care problem??!!

    Plus, we have over 1.5 million CANCER diagnosis / year.

    !! THE PRIVATE INSURANCE MARKET CANNOT COVER THIS !!

    [The Third: insurers are not stuck with an enrollees once a monthly payment is late, so the money gathered in the healthy phase of life is not there to offset the care required in later life.]

    If I am wrong, spell it out.

    Here is what we have, to over-simplify: private market works for those of us who are mostly on the under-utilization side; once we get to be high utilizers, the private market kicks us out, and we become dependent on the government —

    Just like I am dependent on the government for stop lights, restaurant inspections, a national defense, roads, trash pickup, etc. -MANY other things we would NEVER imagine to be handled by the private market.

    So – school me on this: considering median American income, and common health care needs (cancer, CABG, etc.) how is private-market insurance a solution??!!

    Like

    • Marc says:

      Hello, troll.

      Liked by 2 people

    • sounds like less taxes should go to Washington and more to individual medical savings accounts.

      Liked by 2 people

    • jrapdx says:

      I’m no expert on the Republican healthcare plans, I’d defer to Sec. Price and many others on that score. However I agree with you that the reality is that in terms of healthcare the major elephant in the room is chronic illness which eats up the bulk of heathcare expenditures and is responsible for a trillion dollar a year burden on the US economy. That includes a wide array of conditions, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and psychiatric disorders are among the most costly to the nation.

      Countless studies of the economic burden of illness have shown the overall costs are several times the costs of treatment alone. That means reducing morbidity at the earliest possible stage due to chronic illness and preventing illness altgother are the key strategies to reducing the overall cost burden of illness.

      While the insurance model best fits episodic conditions in an otherwise healthy population, there are ways to augment or modify the traditional structure of “health insurance”. As you pointed out subsidies already exist for the medicaid and medicare populations. The proposals comprising the AHCA bill have included provisions for health savings accounts, and tax credits for low and middle-income Americans. Whether those measures will adequately address the needs of the chronically ill is difficult to predict, at least I’m unable to do so based on available info.

      Questions around managing the economic impact of chronic illness are important for legislators and regulators to consider. My guess is the issues will have to be accounted for if the the AHCA will avoid the ill-fated outcome of the moribund ACA.

      Like

    • dubwingo says:

      You are right. Without force of law, no insurer would underwrite an individual with significant pre-existing conditions. Private markets need very little regulation to make profits. Thus, if private insurers are allowed to choose who and what to cover, millions would be left without an insurance plan. One day perhaps the people will realize that only the government (federal and state) can take on the high costs of insuring high risk people, as has been proven by Medicare, a highly successful program for people aged 65 and over, with a small tax to pay for it.

      Like

    • Rightlady says:

      It’s hard to respond to you because you ramble and your logic is so flawed. The plan was introduced in congress. And if you don’t believe in the free market, well you just need educated.

      Like

      • TheLastDemocrat says:

        The free market:
        OK, explain a hypothetical situation where the free market will serve a 60-year-old person with diabetes.
        I put “health care costs diabetes” in the search engine “Startpage,” and came across this article: “Economic Costs of Diabetes in the U.S. in 2012,” in the April 2013 edition of the journal “Diabetes Care.”

        That article says that the average annual medical care cost for someone with diabetes is $8,000/year, and overall health care costs for that average person is $14,000/year.

        Maybe I am no expert in the free market, so you would have to show me where I am illogical or uninformed, but let’s look at a “typical,” or average, case. In 2013, median household income was supposed to be about $55,000. So, this person is bringing in $55,000 and would be incurring $1,100 in health care costs per year. If an insurer was super-efficient, maybe they could cover those costs with a bit of overhead, say $1,200/month, or $14,400/year.

        That looks close enough that it would work: the person with diabetes would opt to buy insurance at $14,400/year to cover expenses of $14,000/year; an insurer might agree to the deal, making $400 for what is essentially a lot of data administration, after covering those expenses.

        So, private health insurance might work. However, there are several situations where this market solution would fail to be attractive to both the potential buyer, and the seller.

        One is this: the median income is for a family, not just one person. That just blew the economic viability. This potentially viable scenario is also blown if the person has one costly event every couple of years – heart bypass, a torn ACL from ski vacation, appendicitis, etc.

        So, as chronic illnesses show up in the older years, I smply do not see the free market covering this problem: at some point, the medical care expenses exceed what an individual or family will pay in premiums.

        Other realities:
        One is that we are a humane nation, and we won’t allow people to just bleed out on the streets; we will support an individual getting care through the county-funded county hospital. So, as your health care needs grow, you simply can opt to no longer pay the premium, but switch to the public system for care.

        One is that we can cover those problems with tax dollars. This is the transfer of wealth matter. In the ObamaCare-style premium-or-penalty system, we wuold shift dollars from healthy wage-earners to less healthy with medical need. This works if we can, in a nifty, disguised tax, tax via the insurance/opt-out-fine requirement on the young and healthy.

        We have to transfer wealth one way or another.

        Another way is to have people generate the money while young and productive, have it held in reserve, then draw upon that later in life. Parallel to how “social security” is supposed to work.

        If mandated the right way, that would be a possibility. But as with social security, there needs to be something to handle those who simply don’t pay in ever, or pay in very much. Like a stay-at-home mom, or a pastor who lives on a modest income all of his years, throwing his productivity into his congregation. Etc.

        Another reality: this picture looks a LOT better if people arrive into their later years in a very healthy state. Most CTH readers are probably health-conscious people. But for the entire population, we cannot count on individuals to devote great effort across the life span to set up a later life of health. < – — And, in the conservative political realm, I don't see a solution being various mandates to live a healthy lifestyle – either by incentives or punishments. –We can tax cigarettes, but the money goes to general revenue – not to a fund to cover the eventual health care needs of the smokers. Same with alcohol. Inactivity is difficult if not impossible to solve with its own tax.

        Frankly, myself, in reviewing the VA, I don't think "single-payer" is viable. The money has to come from general revenues, and that is subject to vagaries of the economy, and is always being re-negotiated across government priorities, and so is subject to budget battles.

        So, please throw out any other thoughts, including how any Republican plan solves this sticky wicket.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s