ConnorEl
Well-known member
Lower rates for some, less coverage. Shittier for all, overall. Congrats.
ACA Running Thread
- Thread starter Wrangor
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
FIFY
ConnorEl
Well-known member
Yea. Just stay healthy, my friend. Good luck with that.
[This isn't a fix for shit. This is a spasm of irritation exerted by a frustrated nincompoop.]
Foiled in Congress, Trump Signs Order to Undermine Obamacare
Quote:
----------
...The influx of a set of plans exempt from the Affordable Care Act rules will essentially divide the market and make it increasingly unstable, said Rebecca Owen, a health research actuary with the Society of Actuaries.
People who want or need broad coverage could find it increasingly difficult to obtain an affordable policy, experts say. While the administration’s goal may be to give people a broader choice of plans, it could have the opposite effect on people who need or want the robust coverage available under the Affordable Care Act.
“The easier you make it not to buy comprehensive coverage, the harder you make it to buy comprehensive coverage,” said Katherine Hempstead, a health policy expert at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Insurers still on the Affordable Care Act’s online marketplace are most jittery about the possibility of a surge in short-term plans. Many of the large national insurers, like UnitedHealth Group, already offer these plans, and there would be little difficulty in their introducing more because of the executive order, analysts said.
“They can cobble these things together pretty easily,” said John Graves, a health policy expert at Vanderbilt University.
Individuals may already be attracted to short-term plans because of their low costs. These plans tend to limit benefits or offer policies only to people who do not have expensive medical conditions.
----------
[This isn't a fix for shit. This is a spasm of irritation exerted by a frustrated nincompoop.]
Foiled in Congress, Trump Signs Order to Undermine Obamacare
Quote:
----------
...The influx of a set of plans exempt from the Affordable Care Act rules will essentially divide the market and make it increasingly unstable, said Rebecca Owen, a health research actuary with the Society of Actuaries.
People who want or need broad coverage could find it increasingly difficult to obtain an affordable policy, experts say. While the administration’s goal may be to give people a broader choice of plans, it could have the opposite effect on people who need or want the robust coverage available under the Affordable Care Act.
“The easier you make it not to buy comprehensive coverage, the harder you make it to buy comprehensive coverage,” said Katherine Hempstead, a health policy expert at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Insurers still on the Affordable Care Act’s online marketplace are most jittery about the possibility of a surge in short-term plans. Many of the large national insurers, like UnitedHealth Group, already offer these plans, and there would be little difficulty in their introducing more because of the executive order, analysts said.
“They can cobble these things together pretty easily,” said John Graves, a health policy expert at Vanderbilt University.
Individuals may already be attracted to short-term plans because of their low costs. These plans tend to limit benefits or offer policies only to people who do not have expensive medical conditions.
----------
Last edited:
Total hyperbole The Medicare open season is ~6 weeks. This is ACA open enrollment #5 (hard to believe. At what point is the system mature enough where we can have a more normal open season, akin to what the intent was (essentially to align with Medicare)?
Quite frankly, in year 5, we as a society should expect most buyers to have bought by now. We have SEPs during the year, people auto renew who already bought, etc. There's just not really any reason to give people extra months which just drives administrative costs, inefficiencies and (gasp) fraud. Running around saying people will die or go bankrupt is just silly.
Three things pushed today, all of which will need rule making by the agencies and also align with the ACA itself. Mixed bag of things IMHO.
Promotion of Association health plans. Essentially, these exist today and Trump is pushing we make the rules less strict on who qualifies. Today, the person/group has to have some unified purpose/profession. So we see groups like law practices, medical practices etc. banding together to buy large group insurance, which are exempt from some parts of the ACA. The issue is these groups can be underwritten so the healthy groups tend to join while the sick will stay in the ACA small group pool making the pool more sick, further increasing rates. Pushing of Association plans have largely been unsuccessful and I think it is bad policy to let groups loosely form for no reason other than to buy insurance. The OOS angle here is kinda odd given the macro level ACA rules still apply.
Extension/promotion of "short term" insurance plans. These plans don't have to cover all the ACA required benefits and can also decline people. They work well for people who only need insurance for a short period of time. Obama allowed them but capped the duration at 3 months. Trump is pushing this to a year and asking if they can be renewable (likely with new underwriting). This too could pull healthy risk out of the ACA pool driving up rates. That being said, the ACA wasn't really designed to offer ST coverage. I actually kinda like this as it does give people cheaper options while still preserving the ACA GI pool. They will get panned because they may offer less rich benefits than the ACA but again, some people who need ST coverage can possibly risk having less rich benefits. Generally a positive IMHO though I wouldn't allow them to be renewed. The current 3 month rules is too short.
Using HRAs to Pay for U65 Coverage. SO SIMPLE. SO COMPLEX. The idea here is employers fund an HRA which can be used to buy indIvIdual coverage. I kinda like this one in theory as it allows employers to still offer something. However, it needs a viable / stable U65 market which we don't have nor do I feel like Trump will push for. Obama limited their use (he wanted to keep employers offering group coverage) but this one has some promise, just not in this form
I really don't see any of these as game changers and quite frankly are pretty meh. Not as awesome as Trump said and not as horrible as the Dems will argue. The trick here will be the actual proposed rules from the agencies.
Just my two cents.
Promotion of Association health plans. Essentially, these exist today and Trump is pushing we make the rules less strict on who qualifies. Today, the person/group has to have some unified purpose/profession. So we see groups like law practices, medical practices etc. banding together to buy large group insurance, which are exempt from some parts of the ACA. The issue is these groups can be underwritten so the healthy groups tend to join while the sick will stay in the ACA small group pool making the pool more sick, further increasing rates. Pushing of Association plans have largely been unsuccessful and I think it is bad policy to let groups loosely form for no reason other than to buy insurance. The OOS angle here is kinda odd given the macro level ACA rules still apply.
Extension/promotion of "short term" insurance plans. These plans don't have to cover all the ACA required benefits and can also decline people. They work well for people who only need insurance for a short period of time. Obama allowed them but capped the duration at 3 months. Trump is pushing this to a year and asking if they can be renewable (likely with new underwriting). This too could pull healthy risk out of the ACA pool driving up rates. That being said, the ACA wasn't really designed to offer ST coverage. I actually kinda like this as it does give people cheaper options while still preserving the ACA GI pool. They will get panned because they may offer less rich benefits than the ACA but again, some people who need ST coverage can possibly risk having less rich benefits. Generally a positive IMHO though I wouldn't allow them to be renewed. The current 3 month rules is too short.
Using HRAs to Pay for U65 Coverage. SO SIMPLE. SO COMPLEX. The idea here is employers fund an HRA which can be used to buy indIvIdual coverage. I kinda like this one in theory as it allows employers to still offer something. However, it needs a viable / stable U65 market which we don't have nor do I feel like Trump will push for. Obama limited their use (he wanted to keep employers offering group coverage) but this one has some promise, just not in this form
I really don't see any of these as game changers and quite frankly are pretty meh. Not as awesome as Trump said and not as horrible as the Dems will argue. The trick here will be the actual proposed rules from the agencies.
Just my two cents.
ConnorEl
Well-known member
It's just a move backwards towards increased fracturing and fragmentation of health insurance.
I've said many times on here that what we need is a system into which we all (reasonably in some progressive manner) pay into that exists to (reasonably) meet our health care needs as they occur. The ACA has been the best effort to date to move in this direction. It needs to be improved (read: supported, enhanced, beefed up, etc.), not dismantled. Unless we are going to move to something like Medicare for all.
Moving backwards with further fracturing of the insurance market just leaves more people vulnerable to less access and financial ruination as they become sick. Terrible. Wrong approach, IMHO.
I've said many times on here that what we need is a system into which we all (reasonably in some progressive manner) pay into that exists to (reasonably) meet our health care needs as they occur. The ACA has been the best effort to date to move in this direction. It needs to be improved (read: supported, enhanced, beefed up, etc.), not dismantled. Unless we are going to move to something like Medicare for all.
Moving backwards with further fracturing of the insurance market just leaves more people vulnerable to less access and financial ruination as they become sick. Terrible. Wrong approach, IMHO.
myDeaconmyhand
First man to get a team of horses up Bear Mountain
At this point i'm not even sure what Trump's endgame is by turning the ACA into a high risk pool. There is never going to be popular support to kick sick people off of Medicare, so what is he trying to do?
ConnorEl
Well-known member
He's not trying to kick people off of Medicare. Pubs generally seem to like to keep folks off of Medicaid, yes.
He is trying as hard as hell to overturn (and short of that to undermine) the ACA.
The "end game" for Trump is to re-write or undo the ACA and re-do "health care". Not that he shows the slightest understanding of anything. Just wants to undo anything "Obama" and do it "Trump". If, in the process, he can benefit the well and wealthy and screw the sick and poor while yet selling his crap as some grand "MAGA" bullshit, all the better.
He is trying as hard as hell to overturn (and short of that to undermine) the ACA.
The "end game" for Trump is to re-write or undo the ACA and re-do "health care". Not that he shows the slightest understanding of anything. Just wants to undo anything "Obama" and do it "Trump". If, in the process, he can benefit the well and wealthy and screw the sick and poor while yet selling his crap as some grand "MAGA" bullshit, all the better.
myDeaconmyhand
First man to get a team of horses up Bear Mountain
What i'm trying to ask is, why is Trump sabotaging the ACA when he still won't be able to repeal the largest portion of it. It seems as if the moves he is making are just making it harder on the people who already dislike it.
ConnorEl
Well-known member
Why? Because he is a "warped frustrated old man". Who is also an egotistical and narcissistic SOB.
Congress Can’t Let Mr. Trump Kill Obamacare on His Own
Quote:
----------
Fed up with failed attempts in Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act, President Trump on Thursday took matters into his own hands, signing an executive order that could significantly damage the health insurance market and harm millions of people.
Mr. Trump directed his administration to effectively create an alternative health insurance system that does not include the safeguards of the A.C.A. and could sabotage that 2010 law, one of his predecessor’s biggest accomplishments. The president claims that this will help people obtain cheaper insurance. In reality, it most likely will force insurance companies to abandon the A.C.A.’s insurance exchanges and ultimately precipitate a collapse of an important part of Obamacare...
----------
Congress Can’t Let Mr. Trump Kill Obamacare on His Own
Quote:
----------
Fed up with failed attempts in Congress to repeal the Affordable Care Act, President Trump on Thursday took matters into his own hands, signing an executive order that could significantly damage the health insurance market and harm millions of people.
Mr. Trump directed his administration to effectively create an alternative health insurance system that does not include the safeguards of the A.C.A. and could sabotage that 2010 law, one of his predecessor’s biggest accomplishments. The president claims that this will help people obtain cheaper insurance. In reality, it most likely will force insurance companies to abandon the A.C.A.’s insurance exchanges and ultimately precipitate a collapse of an important part of Obamacare...
----------
Maybe. Or he can go out and claim victory while preserving most of the good parts of the ACA. So win win. Not sure this is the case but also not sure that these changes will come close to collapsing the ACA as some will predict.
Meanwhile, CSRs remain for now. Ending those will kill the ACA.
Interesting times and Im not sure anyone really knows how these changes will alter the market.
DistrictDeacon
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 13,054
- Reaction score
- 1,068
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
Crazy, lol. Small Group numbers for next year just posted a few days ago (in California at least) and I'm getting the numbers tomorrow. Its like they waited for businesses to get their 2018 quote and then did this the next day.
Democrats are dumb, they should have proposed an amendment and come up with a new name for it already, that would have given republicans an out for "getting rid of Obamacare"
Graham/Schumercare is too long of a name to campaign against.
Gooner
Pit League Fantasy Football Commissioner
Yes, Dems are dumb. Pubs are attempting to ruin healthcare for millions of Americans, but the Dems are the dumb ones.
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
Well 8 years ago they didn't have healthcare either. That's the tricky part about any benefit, once its given it seems hard to take away.
But I've been reading this thread for awhile and have yet to see anyone make the case that we, as taxpayers, got a positive return on our investment with the law. Seemingly the $7 billion or whatever Trump is saving is rarely discussed.
WakeForestRanger
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 22,959
- Reaction score
- 1,169
myDeaconmyhand
First man to get a team of horses up Bear Mountain
What foolish nonsense are you talking about again?
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
This crazy nonsense of figuring out whether things are worth what you pay for
dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
Ranger does it! Curious why the deficit goes up instead of down?
myDeaconmyhand
First man to get a team of horses up Bear Mountain
I understood your words, i'm asking why the hell you're speaking like a fool? You know damn well that the purpose of the ACA isnt to lower the deficit. Why do you feel the need to be a troll on this thread?