Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Looks like some of the ACA insurance providers are weighing in on the expected changes to the ACA. And stating they are looking at 40% increases in costs. Basically it's back to covering the costs of all those who choose not to have insurance.
I think some of the GOP reps are going to freak out when they realize they are stuck. Trumps actions alone will doom the ACA, but they can't find a cheaper solution. Just worse ones.
I don't think they thought their plan all the way through.
But I'll will say this, it looks like they will leave a lot of it up to states.....and the blue states will have the money to do it right. The red states just don't have the population density, and high tech income. Interesting times.
Looks like some of the ACA insurance providers are weighing in on the expected changes to the ACA. And stating they are looking at 40% increases in costs. Basically it's back to covering the costs of all those who choose not to have insurance.
I think some of the GOP reps are going to freak out when they realize they are stuck. Trumps actions alone will doom the ACA, but they can't find a cheaper solution. Just worse ones.
I don't think they thought their plan all the way through.
But I'll will say this, it looks like they will leave a lot of it up to states.....and the blue states will have the money to do it right. The red states just don't have the population density, and high tech income. Interesting times.
None of this works without a mandate. Without getting healthy people to sign up, none of this works.
I didn't really like the idea of a mandate, either, but if you want to do this the right way, you need something that gets young and/or healthy people on board.
We're just going to go back to the way it was before ACA - maybe that was the plan all along?
Said this at the time and yes, rate hikes are likely going to happen. What else can insurers do when faced with the near certainty of providing coverage for largely a sick/high use pool with a very small number of healthy/low risk.
ACA insurers must file their plans by April, so unless GOP comes up with something acceptable in the next few weeks, thing will be what they will be.
None of this works without a mandate. Without getting healthy people to sign up, none of this works.
I didn't really like the idea of a mandate, either, but if you want to do this the right way, you need something that gets young and/or healthy people on board.
We're just going to go back to the way it was before ACA - maybe that was the plan all along?
It might have been the plan, but the GOP is going to have an insurgency on their hands if they go back to how it was. Premiums were rising anyhow--the whole system was unsustainable. Someone was always getting screwed. Those people at the townhalls are not just liberals--they are everyone who needs health insurance and are freaking out about having it taken away.
If they do away with the most popular things like covering pre-existing conditions and keeping kids on til 26, it will cost as much as it does now or more. If they take away those things people want to keep--people are going to hate the GOP as much as some hated the ACA.
It's pretty much a no-win. Trump promised a lot of things regarding insurance, without having a clue of the complexities involved. He thinks he can just tell the insurance companies what to do or tweet them into compliance. Yeah--good luck with that. He told people they could have cheaper insurance and everyone would be covered. That is impossible without universal health insurance.
Yeah, yeah, everyone hates Obamacare (but like the ACA), but have no idea what is coming. It's going to be a case of 'careful what you wish for.' Obama tried to explain this to people when he had the courage to attempt to change health insurance morass, and it might have even worked if it was implemented as it was planned. But it wasn't--and there are states and governors who refused to cooperate, so ended up with an expensive mess. The ironic thing is the people who will be most affected are most likely Trump supporters (under Medicare age).
The ACA had several things working against it from day one - some of which could have been controlled and some of which couldn't.
First, the drop in interest rates removed a significant portion of insurance companies' portfolios, meaning they could not predict how much money they would have. Second, the ACA required all policies contain things that used to be riders, like pregnancy and mental health coverage, increasing the costs for everyone. Third, the ACA required all pre-existing conditions be covered, instead of dividing the two different classifications of pre-existing conditions. This really drove up prices because the guy who crashed his Camero Friday night could get insurance Saturday to pay for the required surgery.
Today, interest rates are rising, returning value and stability (albeit slowly) to the insurance companies' portfolios. My understanding of the Republicans' proposals is that things like mental health and pregnancy coverage are going back to being riders. And the Medicaid expansion will handle the pre-existing conditions of people who have congenital or long term disabilities that insurance cannot reasonably handle. The Camero driver is on his own - or he can get insurance ahead of time.
Regardless whether it is life, health, auto or homeowners' insurance, the risk has to be limited to a known number. What ACA did was make health insurance risk limitless. Hence, the unstaunched bleeding from the health insurers - Humanna (I think) lost $600 million in Obamacare and will not participate next year.
Some of those who were in HHS when it happened saw that the ACA was nothing more than a plan to put insurance companies out of business by requiring them to insure a limitless risk. Well, had the Democrats won, it would have worked. Unfortunately for them, a Republican won and the ACA is on its way out.
Back to predictable risk and stability in the industry. That doesn't necessarily translate to increased premiums.
[quote=Enigma777;47273951}
The ironic thing is the people who will be most affected are most likely Trump supporters (under Medicare age).[/QUOTE]
I am not a Trump supporter but I think you hit a bulls eyes on the truth. No doubt getting rid of Obamacare will effect the poor and hit Trump supporters and those that lean right. Like myself, the circumstances myself and others find themselves in there was no choice.
Case in point, I have a subsidy of 605 and I pay 56 bucks a month for some mediocre insurance. Some one explain to me how the poor making 8 to 11 bucks an hour can afford 661 bucks a month for insurance?
And then there is Rand Paul who has the idea of medical savings account that are tax free, geez what a nice guy. He must not understand reality people making 8 to 11 bucks an hour do not have squat to save and even if they could save a little it would not even be close to being enough. Getting your blood drawn and tested is a couple hundred bucks and I know it could take some 4 months or longer. And then what? their medical savings account has a big fat zero.
I just landed a good job that offers health insurance I know I will pay more and there is a real good chance I will have better coverage. I do not know what will happen to scores of people that have employers that do not offer health insurance or the insurance that is offered is not worth it.
None of this works without a mandate. Without getting healthy people to sign up, none of this works.
I didn't really like the idea of a mandate, either, but if you want to do this the right way, you need something that gets young and/or healthy people on board.
You mean you need to soak the young and healthy for all of their money.
People need to start paying their fair share based upon risk, and if they cannot afford it then they can alter their Life-Styles to be healthier.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You mean you need to soak the young and healthy for all of their money.
People need to start paying their fair share based upon risk, and if they cannot afford it then they can alter their Life-Styles to be healthier.
How does someone with cancer alter their lifestyle? Or a Type 1 diabetic?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but have no idea what is coming. It's going to be a case of 'careful what you wish for.' Obama tried to explain this to people when he had the courage to attempt to change health insurance morass, and it might have even worked if it was implemented as it was planned. But it wasn't--and there are states and governors who refused to cooperate, so ended up with an expensive mess. The ironic thing is the people who will be most affected are most likely Trump supporters (under Medicare age).
