TrumpCare Dissected & Explained in Plain English

To understand TrumpCare we have to first go back and redefine the insurance industry. It used to be that insurance was essentially a large scale, calculated group gamble. A group of 10 people each put in $100/month, with the expectation that of those ten people, 8 of them would probably only use about $100/month, give or take a few dollars. One person wouldn’t use their insurance at all, but would purchase it just to be safe. And the final person would likely need to use far more than $100, but the unused portion from the other nine people would cover the difference.

But then healthcare got more expensive and the pooled amount from the ten people didn’t cover everything. So the insurance providers raised the rates to $200. And then for the people that needed more than the $200/mo, they asked for more money. And lowered the rates for the group of people who barely used it.

To the business mind this makes sense. The person who uses more of the resources should have to pay more. But in reality what this really did was actually take money out of the system when they lowered the rates for the lower users.

And so they raised the rates on everyone. Again.

So people complained. And rightfully so. They were paying a lot more and receiving the same amount of care. And more and more people couldn’t afford insurance.

And then came ObamaCare, and the idea that access to healthcare was a right.

ObamaCare created more access to insurance by creating mandates, and tax credits. Mandates is just a fancy word for penalty. Fail to get insurance, pay a mandate.

Tax credits were not as easy to understand. To put it in simplest terms, pretend you receive a tax refund each year of $1,000. ObamaCare took that $1,000 and put it towards your insurance premiums for you, in theory, lowering your monthly insurance expenses. It also did away with all pre-existing conditions. You no longer paid more if you used more. Basically it used your own money to subsidize your insurance premiums.

It also greatly expanded Medicaid.

The problem was it varied from state to state, and didn’t always work the way it was planned. It raised taxes, and users no longer received tax refunds. And in many cases, at the end of the year, owed more money to the government to cover their tax credits.

Opponents of ObamaCare didn’t like the mandate or the higher taxes, or the poor administration and application of the program, which unarguably, was full of faults.

Which brings us to TrumpCare.

TrumpCare does away with the general pool and calculated gamble idea of insurance. And instead takes the “business is in business to make a profit” approach. The majority will pay a calculated, evened out sum. Some will pay less, and get less. And the higher risk, higher use pool will pay more.

And Medicaid is scaled back dramatically.

What the Republicans did and didn't do this week

A Gallup poll released today (Friday the 23rd), shows that in a national contest, Mitt Romney carries a sizable lead over Rick Santorum. 

Gallup Poll March 18-22, 2012 GOP nationwide

That's Romney at 40%, his highest number of points ever (and for all of the candidates) since Gallup began tracking last November.
The poll* has Romney rising six points since his Illinois victory, and Santorum falling four points. The Jeb Bush endorsement didn't hurt either.
It also comes right as the campaigns are getting juvenile again, drifting away from real messages, and just throwing mud at each other. That both the Newt and Santorum campaigns wasted time jumping on the "Etch a Sketch" comment all week is just ridiculous, and yes, like I said, JUVENILE.
Let's break down what happened in the world this week, and what the campaigns talked about-
1. Romney spox Eric Fehrnstrom said on CNN's "Starting Point." The absence of a GOP challenge could allow Romney to "hit a reset button for the fall campaign." He went on to say seconds later, "Everything changes. It's like Etch A Sketch, you can shake it up and we start all over again."(Which, hey, let's own up to something here, is exactly what happens when someone emerges as the nominee. They stop focusing on primaries, and start focusing on the incumbent and national election.)
2. A US soldier was charged with 17 counts of murder, for the atrocities in Afghanistan.
3. A man of Middle Eastern descent shot Jewish children at a school in France.
4. A new World Bank leader was appointed by the POTUS.
5. Syria!!!
6. The Trayvon Martin case has gained momentum across the country regarding crime and racism.
7. The Dow and the S&P dropped. 
8. Gas prices anyone??
9. Obama vows to speed up permit process to get the Oklahoma portion of the Keystone pipeline passed.

Those are just the issues that pop into my head. There's still dozens of other major hot topics out there. And yet, we've got Santorum and Gingrich making headlines about the Etch a Sketch comment!
As for the actual real issues above, here is what the candidates have said, or more accurately, this is what the media has reported them saying.
Gingrich calls Obama remarks on Trayvon Martin disgraceful.
Romney and Santorum basically say nothing about Trayvon Martin.
And that's about it. There are dozens of articles about the Etch a Sketch comment, and nearly nothing on the real issues.
I'm not the only one getting tired of the GOP talking about nothing when there are major issues that need attention. Peggy Noonan talks about it in "Kvetch a Sketch" in the Wall Street Journal.
Candidates- break the trend! Step up and be a real leader!


**Added Later**
As I sit here, finishing this post, I am watching Erin Burnett OutFront on CNN. And she is leading off the night with a conversation on exactly this subject. Why are the Republicans talking about nothing, and letting the Travyon issue pass them by?


*This is part of an ongoing poll by Gallup. At least 1,000 registered Republican voters are polled on a daily basis, and the poll drops the oldest of five days each day and adds results from the most recent day of polling.
In the latest survey, Gallup questioned 1,157 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents by telephone March 18-22, with a sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Should you believe the polls?

Washington Monument Source: E. McBride

The polls can be misleading at times and dead-on accurate at others. This week there are conflicting polls in several major publications.

A Bloomberg News poll shows Cain at 20 percent, Paul at 19 percent, Romney at 18 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent among the likely attendees with the caucuses that start the nominating contests seven weeks away. This information was cited in an article entitled "Romney Two-Way Race Now Republican Four-Way Race in Iowa." According to the poll, participants were 2,677 registered Republican and independent voters in
Iowa ages 18 or older, of which 503 said they would definitely or probably participate in the January 2012
Republican caucus. It does not cite the intentions of the other 81% of respondents.
Meanwhile, Salon.com published a story on the same day saying that Romney is the "inevitable nominee they all can't stand."  And cites a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll where Romney has 32% of the votes.Salon.com focuses on comparing Romney to Bob Dole in 1996, GW Bush in 2000, and McCain in 2008, who all maintained significant leads throughout the campaign trail and primaries. It also mentions the significant differences in this race as compared to years previous. In the past the contenders had pointedly different campaign platforms, and were not appealing to the same base. (For instance, Pat Buchanan's extremist points of view as compared to Bob Dole's moderate appeals. Or Ron Paul's base versus the McCain base in 2008.) This race is different as the three leading candidates- Romney, Cain, and Gingrich, are pulling in close to 70% of the base combined, and are not significantly different in policies (as compared to the considerably more conservative Santorum and Bachmann who only have 3% of the base combined). In other words, if just one of the big 3 were to surge forward in one of the first primaries it could completely change the rest of the race. But that's just Salon.com's point of view. Don't forget Bloomberg has Ron Paul at 19% in Iowa!
At the same time Real Clear Politics has a story citing a Public Policy Poll  putting Gingrich into first place with 28%, Cain in second place with 25%, and Romney "sliding" into third with 18% .PPP surveyed 576 Republican primary voters from November 10th to 13th. The margin of error for the survey is +/-4.1%.
In an almost humorous twist, Real Clear Politics is running the following poll in a widget next to the article-

(click on image to enlarge)

What does it say? In a Bloomberg poll (the same Bloomberg who above has Romney at 18% in Iowa), Romney is leading at 40% in New Hampshire.

So can you believe polls? Or accept them with a grain of salt?