Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 10, 2017

The Trump administration's own actions are triggering double-digit premium increases on individual health insurance policies purchased by many consumers, a non-partisan study has found. The analysis released Thursday by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that mixed signals from President Donald Trump have created uncertainty "far outside the norm," leading insurers to seek higher premium increases for 2018 than would otherwise have been the case. The report comes with Republicans in Congress unable to deliver on their promise to repeal and replace the Obama-era Affordable Care Act. Trump, meanwhile, insists lawmakers try again. The president says "Obamacare" is collapsing, but he's also threatened to give it a shove by stopping billions of dollars in payments to insurers. Some leading Republicans are considering fallback measures to stabilize markets.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The researchers found the mixed signals from the administration account for some of the higher charges. Those could increase before enrollment starts Nov. 1. "The vast majority of companies in states with detailed rate filings have included some language around the uncertainty, so it is likely that more companies will revise their premiums to reflect uncertainty in the absence of clear answers from Congress or the administration," the report said. Once premiums are set, they're generally in place for a whole year. Insurers who assumed that Trump will make good on his threat to stop billions in payments to subsidize copays and deductibles requested additional premium increases ranging from 2 percent to 23 percent, the report found. Insurers who assumed the IRS under Trump will not enforce unpopular fines on people who remain uninsured requested additional premium increases ranging from 1.2 percent to 20 percent.

"In many cases that means insurers are adding double-digit premium increases on top of what they otherwise would have requested," said Cynthia Cox, a co-author of the Kaiser report. "In many cases, what we are seeing is an additional increase due to the political uncertainty." That doesn't sound like what Trump promised when he assumed the presidency.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Trump said to cut off taxpayer money to the insurance companies.

I guess that would mean higher premiums for the people that actually pay for their insurance and let the taxpayer off the hook little o put us on.

#1 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-08-10 11:24 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Q: Who ever would have thought that President Trump (Better cheaper healthcare that covers everyone!) would end up being personally responsible for higher premium increases next year because of his bellicosity, stubbornness and abject ignorance of the complexity involved in the issue, not to mention the complicated politics (and real-life repercussions) surrounding any change effecting 1/6th of our economy?

A: Anyone with eyes, ears and a brain capable of independent, critical, and objective thought.

#2 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-08-10 11:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

let the taxpayer off the hook

The people being subsidized are all taxpayers idiot. Every citizen consumer in America pays taxes all the time. The goal is to provide better access to preventative care for those who haven't had it in order to bend the cost curve away from repairative care once health problems become far more expensive to treat.

Don't you have a car to go chase or something?

#3 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-08-10 11:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

The people being subsidized are all taxpayers idiot.

The subsidies go directly to the insurance companies.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 11:41 AM | Reply

The Republican Party has been actively trying to disrupt insurance markets for years. Guys like Marco Rubio have done everything in their power to make their constituents pay more for healthcare insurance just to spite Obama. Now it's Trump in the WH and they all are still trying to screw their own constituents who, apparently, are too dumb to understand what is going on.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 11:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The subsidies go directly to the insurance companies.

And the subsidies are payments to the insurance companies for precisely what? Coverage provided to the taxpayers by the insurance companies themselves through the sales of their healthcare policies.

Why did you feel the need to comment with something so senseless to the discussion?

#6 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-08-10 11:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And the subsidies are payments to the insurance companies for precisely what? Coverage provided to the taxpayers by the insurance companies themselves through the sales of their healthcare policies.
Why did you feel the need to comment with something so senseless to the discussion?

#6 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

The subsidies come right out of the treasury - straight from the taxpayers. If a person is subsidized to the point where they receive more than they pay-in they cannot be classified as 'taxpayers'.

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 11:57 AM | Reply

"The subsidies come right out of the treasury - straight from the taxpayers."

Higher prices for hospital stays come straight from the taxpayers, too.

It's time to ask the central question: do you believe, as Reagan did, that we can't refuse folks at the ER? If so, then all of America's collective health is paid for by all of America, collectively. Whether or not the government is the middleman in the equation is moot.

#8 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-10 12:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Obamacare is increasing the cost. Not Trump. You only have the Democrats to blame.

#9 | Posted by Federalist at 2017-08-10 12:05 PM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

"Obamacare is increasing the cost. Not Trump. "

Nonsense.

Self-insurers are seeing between 5% and 8% increases in costs. Meanwhile, premiums are going up an average of 20%.

The difference is the uncertainty, purposely introduced by the Republicans, specifically DJT.

#10 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-10 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Obamacare is increasing the cost. Not Trump. You only have the Democrats to blame."

That is utter nonsense and a lie.

""The vast majority of companies in states with detailed rate filings have included some language around the uncertainty, so it is likely that more companies will revise their premiums to reflect uncertainty in the absence of clear answers from Congress or the administration," the report said. Once premiums are set, they're generally in place for a whole year.

Insurers that assumed that Trump would make good on his threat to stop billions in payments to subsidize copayments and deductibles requested additional premium increases ranging from 2 percent to 23 percent, the report found."

#11 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 12:08 PM | Reply

Go back and re-read my comment. I never tied a specific tax to healthcare, you did that on your own. Every consumer is a taxpayer regardless of any other tax-paying status they have. Sniper's comment was that "taxpayers" are subsidizing those who don't pay taxes (no such person exists). The government has revenue and expenditures, that's all that matters. We don't break them down by individual in any realistic way to draw a fact-based conclusion other than noting the less money one has the greater percentage of said wealth goes to taxes since most if not all of the money is spent and subject to further, normally regressive taxation as a result.

The amount of subsidization of healthcare premiums is probably never going to surpass the amount of taxes any individual pays during the course of living one's life. There simply is no point in raising such an absurdity like that.

#12 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-08-10 12:09 PM | Reply

The result is what some on the left have begun calling a "Trump Tax" on consumers: Americans are being forced to pay more for health care insurance as a direct result of the White House's political tactics.

America's Health Insurance Plans said in no uncertain terms that Trump's tactics surrounding CSRs are "the single most destabilizing factor in the individual market, and millions of Americans could soon feel the impact of fewer choices, higher costs, and reduced access to care."

It's relatively straightforward: when private insurers don't know about the fate of existing federal subsidies, they need to protect themselves against potential future losses imposed by Republicans. It's Business 101.

And so, by playing games, Trump and his GOP allies are effectively forcing insurance companies to start charging consumers more today because they don't know what the White House and Congress will do tomorrow.

The president, in other words, is imposing a political surcharge on the cost of health coverage for no reason. By threatening to make things worse, Trump and allies are already making things worse.

www.msnbc.com

#13 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-08-10 12:12 PM | Reply

It's time to ask the central question: do you believe, as Reagan did, that we can't refuse folks at the ER? If so, then all of America's collective health is paid for by all of America, collectively. Whether or not the government is the middleman in the equation is moot.

We've beat this dead horse for years but most healthcare critics refuse to understand or admit that our current problems are bound by this Reagan-era law. Everyone pays for everyone else's healthcare if they cannot afford it at the most expensive level possible directly because of this law, and many on the right continue to champion a return to that same cost-exploding era that ACA tries to move on from.

#14 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-08-10 12:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"America's Health Insurance Plans said in no uncertain terms that Trump's tactics surrounding CSRs are "the single most destabilizing factor in the individual market"

Actuaries can price for anything...except uncertainty.

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-10 12:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danforth- first you compared group insurance (self-funded) with individual insurance.

Then you quote AHIP which is the Unitedhealthcare lobby group?

What is that saying about better to say nothing?

#16 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-08-10 12:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"first you compared group insurance (self-funded) with individual insurance."

Yes, because the self-funded groups are seeing lower increases than premiums would suggest.

"Then you quote AHIP which is the Unitedhealthcare lobby group?"

Anyone can state a true fact. And the true fact is nothing has been worse for premiums than the current batch of Republicans purposely sabotaging the insurance markets.

"What is that saying about better to say nothing?"

Well, you're still posting, so I doubt you're aware.

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-10 01:06 PM | Reply

Danforth- group plans and individual plans are two different markets and it is ignorant to compare the two. It's apples and monkeys.

I find it funny you stand with republican corporate lobbyist.

#18 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-08-10 01:32 PM | Reply

"group plans and individual plans are two different markets and it is ignorant to compare the two."

You don't know the first thing about it. It's the perfect example of certainty vs. uncertainty, and how the Rs purposeful actions will cost YOU and everyone else.

Can YOU explain why costs are rising 5%-8%, but premiums are jumping 20%?

"I find it funny you stand with republican corporate lobbyist."

I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and never have been. I stand with anyone willing to tell the truth about the math, and the purposeful sabotage of the marketplaces.

Meanwhile, you've yet to write anything even remotely sensible. With post after post, all you're proving is you don't have a clue.

#19 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-10 01:39 PM | Reply

Anyone who denies or pretends ignorance about Republican efforts to disrupt insurance markets needs only to google Marco Rubio and Risk Corridors. That was an act directly responsible for higher premiums and for insurance companies to pull out of markets. It was intended by Rubio to do exactly that and his constituents (Floridians) should be informed that he is directly responsible for increases in their insurance premiums and was quite proud of himself for doing it.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 01:44 PM | Reply

The people being subsidized are all taxpayers idiot.

#3 | Posted by tonyroma

If you believe that you are a bigger idiot than I ever thought.

#21 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-08-10 02:00 PM | Reply

Danforth- compare On Exchange to Off Exchange plans.

One has certainty one does not. Both individual markets.

It's plan usage. The 80/20 rule no longer applies. That causes uncertainty.

Your welcome.

#22 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-08-10 02:20 PM | Reply

This poorly conceived and executed law has been unraveling for years, yet to deflect from the dems being responsible for this disaster they created/and passed, it's time to blame Trump who has been in office for six months. I have no doubt the libbies will believe it as they want to....very badly.

#23 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-08-10 02:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danni- can you explain why Anthem is pulling out of Northern California except for 3 counties?

California has done more than most states to make ACA work?

#24 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-08-10 02:26 PM | Reply

"Danni- can you explain why Anthem is pulling out of Northern California except for 3 counties?"

"But the market for these plans has become unstable. And with federal rules and guidance changing, it's no longer possible for us to offer some of those plans. "

Brian Ternan
President of Anthem Blue Cross in California

www.anthem.com

#25 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 02:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

For those of you who like car analogies. Providing subsidies for insurance allows access to preventive care. We are changing the oil and worn out brake pads. Take it away and instead we wait until the engine seizes or we can't stop and hit a tree.

The taxpayer is paying either way. Which do you want to pay for; The oil change and brake pads or the new engine?

#26 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-08-10 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Danni- What does unstable mean.

#27 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-08-10 02:39 PM | Reply

Obamacare is increasing the cost. Not Trump. You only have the Democrats to blame.

#9 | POSTED BY FEDERALIST

Translation: "Drr...I didn't read the article. 'Bama bad! Trump good! Numbers hard!"

Honestly, if you are going to comment, read the article first and try not to just vomit on the screen some utter nonsense.

#28 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-10 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No, he's right. The Risk Corridors come into play based on usage.

#29 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-08-10 02:45 PM | Reply

Danni- can you explain why Anthem is pulling out of Northern California except for 3 counties?
California has done more than most states to make ACA work?

#24 | POSTED BY PROLIX247

Danni already covered it. But there are other insurers in those areas. Anthem isn't competitive there.

Now Prolix, can you explain why Oscar, Health Net and Blue Shield are moving into new areas in California if the ACA is failing so badly?

#30 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-08-10 02:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#23 the irony is dripping from this post.

#31 | Posted by jpw at 2017-08-10 02:51 PM | Reply

"Danni- What does unstable mean."

Pretty obvious what it means, since Republicans have talked about repeal and replace and Trump has threatened not to pay the subsidies it creates and unpredictable insurance market and insurance needs predictability to allow companies to figure out what rates they can offer to customers. I would think that one big reason Anthem would pull out of some areas but not all is directly related to the average incomes of the various areas and thus the number of subsidized customers. With Trump threatening not to pay the subsidies Anthem is probably pulling out of areas with high concentrations of those whose incomes are low enough to receive subsidies.

#32 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 02:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#23;

You're right. It isn't trump's fault. The fault lies with the GOP and the GOP states that eliminated the individual mandate, thus rendering the ACA essentially useless because it kept those states in the same "wildwest" stages of healthcare that permeated the country pre-ACA.

So you are right, we can't blame trump -- but we can blame his supporters and his party.

Just because you conservatives don't understand how healthcare works in the US and can't seem capable of understanding how insurance functions doesn't mean the ACA was inherently faulty.

Just because you willingly ignore its demonization by republicans doesn't mean it didn't occur.

#33 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-10 02:59 PM | Reply

#32

Danni, you're going to have to stop using intelligence, logic, learned facts, and deductive reasoning when replying to Prolapse. He neither understands nor utilizes very much if any of the aforementioned attributes.

#34 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-08-10 02:59 PM | Reply

Just the other day there was a report that approx 6.5 million people chose to pay the fine rather that enter into the ACA, gee, I wonder why.

#35 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-08-10 03:15 PM | Reply

Just the other day there was a report that approx 6.5 million people chose to pay the fine rather that enter into the ACA, gee, I wonder why.

Likely because they people consider themselves healthy and don't currently need health insurance since they think they'll be able to buy in the minute something happens to them.

IOW, irresponsible freeloaders that want to shift their own future healthcare costs onto others until the moment it affects THEIR lives and well being to the point of getting insured.

You've just found one of the main reasons the health insurance marketplace is full of more sicker people than anticipated. Another is that the subsidies need to be extended to higher income households that currently make too much for help yet too little to afford solid policies that actually provide adequate coverage and reasonable deductibles.

#36 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-08-10 03:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

IOW, irresponsible freeloaders that want to shift their own future healthcare costs onto others until the moment it affects THEIR lives and well being to the point of getting insured.

You've just found one of the main reasons the health insurance marketplace is full of more sicker people than anticipated.

We told you that was going to happen and were accused of being racists for our efforts.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 03:36 PM | Reply

"Just the other day there was a report that approx 6.5 million people chose to pay the fine rather that enter into the ACA, gee, I wonder why."

Another good argument for Medicare for all. People are dumb and think that their health will never require hospitalization so then we get stuck with taking care of the freeloaders. At least with Medicare for all they would have insurance even if they are so dumb that they don't think they need it.

#38 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 03:48 PM | Reply

"We told you that was going to happen and were accused of being racists for our efforts."

It doesn't help that the IRS has no way to enforce the fines.

#39 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-10 03:49 PM | Reply

#37;

No one said that was going to happen.

It was happening before the ACA and your side demanded that states be allowed to removed the mandate for "freedom" reasons. Now the ACA is failing in those states as a result.

#40 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-10 03:49 PM | Reply

We told you that was going to happen and were accused of being racists for our efforts.

You didn't tell us anything. The GOP fought against this Heritage Foundation creation from day one after Obama and the Democrats proposed the ACA.

Republicans are on a renewed kick to try to repeal, or at least delay (in the hopes of killing), the "individual mandate" that's included in the President's health care reform law, aka the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

The irony, of course, is that it was Republicans, via their premiere think tank, the Heritage Foundation, who came up with the idea in the first place.

So, the next time you hear a Republican talk about how the individual mandate simply must be stopped, or at least delayed. Ask them why they're so opposed to a plan that they came up with in the first place?

And just who accused you of racism for articulating what the ACA would face if all citizens weren't buying into the health insurance markets? I fail to see where race has anything to do with it at all unless you mean the complete illogical, irrational, wholly political opposition to ACA in concert with the stated position of GOP leadership not to join with President Obama on any legislative issue because they wanted him (and this nation) to fail under his presidency, something never stated about any other President preceding him who were not men of color.

Explain to me why this opposition is anything but a component that dovetails with the racial animus which many Republicans held for our last President. But you wouldn't intentionally conflate one with the other to prove some divisive point, right?

#41 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-08-10 03:56 PM | Reply

It doesn't help that the IRS has no way to enforce the fines.

#39 | POSTED BY DANNI

I know. It's a point I've been making for years. The problem was, had Democrats made the mandate sufficiently draconian (it got watered down due to public outcry over criminalizing someone for not having insurance) the bill probably wouldn't have passed. Even if the GOP wanted this law to succeed, politically there is no way they could ever be participants in a bait-and-switch to make enforcement sufficiently draconian after the fact.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 04:03 PM | Reply

You didn't tell us anything. The GOP fought against this Heritage Foundation creation from day one after Obama and the Democrats proposed the ACA.

It was one writer at Heritage and a number of Heritage colleagues were opposed.

And just who accused you of racism for articulating what the ACA would face if all citizens weren't buying into the health insurance markets?

Obama supporters. Pretty much all opposition to Obama's policies got (and still gets) derided as racist. You do that yourself with this:

Explain to me why this opposition is anything but a component that dovetails with the racial animus which many Republicans held for our last President.
----

all unless you mean the complete illogical, irrational, wholly political opposition to ACA in concert with the stated position of GOP leadership not to join with President Obama on any legislative issue because they wanted him (and this nation) to fail under his presidency, something never stated about any other President preceding him who were not men of color.

Sounds like "The Resistance".

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 04:07 PM | Reply

Sounds like "The Resistance".

Of course it does to you. That's all you choose to hear.

#44 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-08-10 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Of course it does to you. That's all you choose to hear.

#44 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

You're just pissed that I pointed out a relevant fact. You are all butt-hurt over the GOP's treatment of Obama (Bush was treated poorly also, as was Clinton...) and go on to describe it in emotional detail only to have your description perfectly apply to 'The Resistance'. I don't recall prominent conservatives calling on the electors to ignore the election results. I don't recall impeachment talk pretty much ever with Obama and certainly not within weeks of him entering office.

For the record, I have no problem with "The Resistance". Why? Because that's politics. The sooner you understand that the opposition party doesn't rubber-stamp the agenda of POTUS the sooner you'll get over your sense of Obama's victimhood.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 04:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

When are the dems going to learn that blaming the other side for their disasters does not work? I cant wait for the mid-terms!

#46 | Posted by blake914 at 2017-08-10 04:25 PM | Reply

Double digit premium hikes have plagued the exchanges since they went live.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 04:27 PM | Reply

#45

You really need to stop presuming you remotely know what I'm thinking.

You have no idea and please stop trying to put your words into my mouth.

I'd spit them out before they ever got passed my lips because I don't think nor feel as you do.

#48 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-08-10 04:38 PM | Reply

#45
You really need to stop presuming you remotely know what I'm thinking....

#48 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2017-08-10 04:38 PM

Um, OK....

Sounds like "The Resistance".

Of course it does to you. That's all you choose to hear.

#44 | POSTED BY TONYROMA AT 2017-08-10 04:17 PM

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 04:53 PM | Reply

Did I bring up the resistance or did you?

I commented on you linking them to me, capiche? You did that, I didn't.

If you don't like the analogy, don't make the analogy.

You TOLD me what you were thinking by putting it into words. I told you what I thought about what you said about me.

#50 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-08-10 04:58 PM | Reply

"And just who accused you of racism for articulating what the ACA would face if all citizens weren't buying into the health insurance markets?
Obama supporters. Pretty much all opposition to Obama's policies got (and still gets) derided as racist.

That is because the same problem existed pre-ACA (although it was much worse). A less-the-draconian mandate was still more effective than no mandate at all. When your side opposes something but fails to provide any alternative plan; coupled with the single trait that separates Obama from prior presidents, we come to the natural conclusion that you made the decision because of racism.

Were we wrong? Sure, it wasn't just racism -- it was blind partisanship too. But since the party leaders (McConnell, Gingrich, et al) despised Obama because he is black, that makes your partisanship racist.

Why didn't your party propose an alternative?

And if you think the mandate was necessary, why did your party oppose it instead of demanding it be made more strict?

Republicans are alarmists with zero problem-solving ability.

#51 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-10 04:59 PM | Reply

When your side opposes something but fails to provide any alternative plan; coupled with the single trait that separates Obama from prior presidents, we come to the natural conclusion that you made the decision because of racism.

When you can't possibly fathom that intelligent, well-read people have principled disagreement with policies you favor, that pretty much makes you a bigot.

Did I bring up the resistance or did you?

You went into an emotional screed regarding how Republicans treated Obama. I replied that what you described sounded just like "The Resistance".

If you don't like the analogy, don't make the analogy

I love the analogy. You obviously didn't given how you responded.

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 05:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

And if you think the mandate was necessary, why did your party oppose it instead of demanding it be made more strict?

I think the mandate is an abomination to liberty.

Having said that, if it is to be imposed it needs to be sufficiently draconian if it's going to work. As for demanding it be made more strict, please see #42.

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 05:08 PM | Reply

Why didn't your party propose an alternative?

Because they are incompetent and divided on an alternative.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 05:09 PM | Reply

#54:

Fair enough.

#53:

And the insured paying for the uninsured is what in your mind? Why should freeloaders go unpunished?

#55 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-10 05:12 PM | Reply

I love the analogy. You obviously didn't given how you responded.

You made me smile.... -------....

#56 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-08-10 05:15 PM | Reply

:-) - #56

And the insured paying for the uninsured is what in your mind? Why should freeloaders go unpunished?

#55 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Then don't force the insured to pay for the uninsured.

#57 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 06:02 PM | Reply

#30 - when did they move in? I've been quoting Health Net & Blue Shield all year.

Oscar is a fly by night and will go the way of SeaChange.

#58 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-08-10 06:10 PM | Reply

Then don't force the insured to pay for the uninsured.

#57 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

That is what the mandate was for. You're going in circles.

#59 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-08-10 06:12 PM | Reply

Danni- Anthem stayed where they have a strong Medi-Cal presence.

#60 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-08-10 06:13 PM | Reply

That is what the mandate was for. You're going in circles.

#59 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

Don't try to force the uninsured to buy insurance and don't force the insured to pay for the uninsured should they opt not to be insured.

When your side opposes something but fails to provide any alternative plan; coupled with the single trait that separates Obama from prior presidents, we come to the natural conclusion that you made the decision because of racism. -Dr. Jones

There are 2 reasons why the GOP was unanimous in their opposition to ACA:

1. It was widely unpopular and their constituents were screaming at them to do something to prevent it from passing. (80%)

2. Partisanship. (20%)

Keep in mind, in '93 the Democrats pushed for major healthcare reform; it was called "Hillarycare" and it was also met with fierce opposition from the GOP and for the same reasons I just listed above.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 06:19 PM | Reply

It's funny that some here gloss over the fact this is about subsidized benefits that are now being overused and driving up reimbursements and the insurance companies aren't being paid fast enough because the way Obama structured the payments was unconstitutional.

#62 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-08-10 06:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's funny that some here gloss over the fact this is about subsidized benefits that are now being overused and driving up reimbursements and the insurance companies aren't being paid fast enough because the way Obama structured the payments was unconstitutional.

#62 | POSTED BY PROLIX247

Yep. The New York Times grudgingly reported on this.

#63 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-10 06:22 PM | Reply

I agree that House v. Price is underreported in the mainstream media.
I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think it's not ripe yet.
The latest result in that case seemed to favor Obamacare, that didn't get much reported either.

It will break the health care system for tens of millions of Americans if the payments stop.
That's probably why the judge decided the payments can continue while the case is litigated.
It's also almost certainly the reason the payments are continuing.

Knowing that it will break the health care system of tens of millions of Americans, and possibly damage the system for the rest of us, would you favor Congress simply passing a law to make the payments legal, JeffJ?

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 06:43 PM | Reply

It would be hilarious if that is how Trump fixes Obamacare.
House v. Price is successful, the payments are decalred illegal, and the exchanges go into turmoil.
The GOP quickly drafts a bill to authorize the Executive to make the payments.
Having staved off the threat of the GOP's own making, Trump signs the bill and writes the check at the last minute, claiming victory.
And JeffJ sheds a single tear.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-10 07:02 PM | Reply

Medicare is already having financial problems, and that is with people paying in for 40 or 50 years prior to qualifying at age 65. Placing hundreds of millions of people on it would require a massive increase in Medicare deductions from employees as well as the percent payed by the employer, and that does not address those who are unemployed [not contributing]. Placing all on it sounds nice if you are one of the unemployed - not so much for those who are carrying the financial costs.

We also have a doctor shortage in the country and the way the govt underpays, fewer will chose to enter into the system as those with the intelligence and drive to become a M.D would also excel in other fields unhampered by govt set payments for service rendered.

#66 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-08-10 07:18 PM | Reply

"We also have a doctor shortage in the country and the way the govt underpays..."

You say the govt underpays but do you really know this or are you parroting talking points? Seems to me the data I saw showed Medicare doctors were doing quite well.

So the data does not show this and the actual problems are not being addressed while the Republican's play "repeal and replace".

Actual problems like the skyrocketing costs of health care itself (which is really why Medicare is having financial problems). Medicare is obviously linked directly to healthcare costs. And as you know (or should know) healthcare costs are skyrocketing and are projected to go ever higher. So there you have Medicare problems in a nutshell. it is not the reimbursement that is the problem it is the that the number of residencies hospitals establish for new med-school grads is almost entirely dependent on Medicare funding. This is a supply and demand log jam problem.

And then there is the low acceptance rate of qualified med student applicants and even once accepted the hurdles never seem to end.

Or the 14 years it takes to even start earning an income. And not to mention the average $170,000 debt for graduating med students.

Or the cost of malpractice insurance.

This list goes on and on but do continue to pretend the entire problem is Obamacare payments to insurers. Democrats attempted to address these issues but were met with howls of Socialism and Death Panels and Waterloo!

And really if Republicans were truly interesting in reducing costs and increasing access they would be looking at eliminating the insurance middlemen altogether. They provide no benefit to the system and are only there to profit from the misery of others.


#67 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-08-10 08:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"that does not address those who are unemployed [not contributing]"

Everybody contributes. Under GWB, excessive payroll tax collections paid for your income tax cut.

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-08-11 08:18 AM | Reply

Donnerboy you brought up another republican idiocy.

Malpractice insurance.

The republican meme is that malpractice insurance is expensive because people are sue happy therefore we have to have tort reform and limit what people can collect when doctors make mistakes that render them unable to work for a living. In return say the republicans malpractice insurance will cost less.

That is the theory. We have had decades to test the theory.

For example Colorado. Colorado enacted tort reform and has limited damages since the late 70s. Iowa has not enacted any tort reform laws.

If the republican premise were true, After almost 50 years, Colorado malpractice rates should be lower than Iowa

In fact according to both Forbes and Wallethub, Iowa has the lowest malpractice insurance rates in the country.

#69 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-08-11 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Danni- What does unstable mean.

#27 | Posted by Prolix247

Donald J Trump

#70 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-08-11 07:24 PM | Reply

"Obamacare" is collapsing

true statement. BCBS has already announced they are pulling out of OB........like many others already have

#71 | Posted by Maverick at 2017-08-11 07:44 PM | Reply

BCBS is only pulling out of Georgia as far as I know. And all thanks to Humpty Trumpty.

And Georgia is a Red State. They refused to expand medicaid in that state.

They obviously don't care about the health of their people.

Why should you suddenly care? Trump obviously doesn't.

The insurance company cited growing uncertainty in the healthcare market as the reason for pulling out of the state.

"A stable insurance market is dependent on products that create value for consumers through the broad spreading of risk and a known set of conditions upon which rates can be developed," reads a statement from Blue Cross Blue Shield. "We are pleased that some steps have been taken to address the long term challenges all health plans serving the individual market are facing. However, the continued uncertainty makes it difficult for us to offer Individual health plans statewide."

wgxa.tv

#72 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-08-11 08:10 PM | Reply

LMAO Obamacare is causing the hikes.

Congress had the chance to make the loss of Obamacare easier on us. They failed to act. So... Now we face the death of Obamacare due to fiscal in-sustainability. Boo Hoo. Cry me a river. This isn't Trump's fault. Obama and Congress set this mess up. They own this, not Trump, who only doing what he promised is supporters he would do.

#73 | Posted by AWinter at 2017-08-12 10:24 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort