A just-released Commonwealth Fund study on what would happen to Americans under the health care plans of both respective major party presidential candidates has left speechless those trying to muster some kind of respectable defense for supporting Donald Trump.
According to the new study, should Trump be elected president and thus have the opportunity to enact his health care plan, tens of millions of people would shortly thereafter lose health coverage.
A significant number of those who would suddenly find themselves uninsured with the implementation of Trump’s health care plan are in “fair to poor health” — in other words, those likely to be in desperate need of health coverage.
According to the Associated Press, the number of individuals in such circumstances would triple, rising from an estimated 2.1 million to somewhere between 6 and 7 million.
Trump’s “plan” rests on repealing one of the hallmarks of the soon-to-be past Obama Administration, the Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare.
From there, one of the most significantly presented ACA replacement proposals from the Trump camp is to allow private insurers to sell plans across state lines.
The researchers responsible for the just-released study, however, state that such a plan wouldn’t cut it to offset the millions who would have their health coverage slashed in the absence of ObamaCare.
As the Associated Press reports:
‘Economist Sara Collins, who heads the Commonwealth Fund’s work on coverage and access, said RAND basically found that Trump’s replacement plan isn’t robust enough to make up for the insurance losses from repealing the Affordable Care Act. “Certainly it doesn’t fully offset the effects of repeal,” Collins said.’
Collins went on to be more specific, saying that “insurers would cherry-pick the healthiest customers and steer them to skimpy plans,” as opposed to the supposedly overarching benefit to the policy claimed by the Trump camp of lower premiums across the board.
How can anyone defend such a set of potential circumstances? What kind of amoral brainwashing is required?
Donald Trump defends himself by saying, well, “I don’t want anyone dying on the street.”
Donald, how are you going to keep that from happening? The United States is already firmly set on a path toward keeping people from “dying on the street.” Trump, on the other hand, proposes to trash the nation’s healthcare mechanism.
In other words, the businessman turned presidential candidate’s assertion that he “doesn’t want people dying on the street” is — unsurprisingly — total bullsh*t.
The problem is that a startling number of Americans are eager to fall for said bullsh*t. The polling gurus at FiveThirtyEight — notorious for their accuracy — put Trump at just barely shy of a tie with Hillary Clinton in terms of chances of winning the presidency.
Trump is holding onto about a 40 percent chance of winning the presidency, while Clinton sits at about a 60 percent chance of a win.
Clinton supporters hope that their candidate will make enough of a showing in the upcoming debates to throw Trump off his rise in the numbers.
The just-released study also touched on Clinton’s plan, noting that almost 10 million Americans would gain health coverage under a Clinton presidency.
Featured Image via Bloomberg/ Getty Images.