Posted on 03/08/2017 2:16:04 PM PST by ForYourChildren
Imagine a cute 26 year old girl with cancer. You think she isn’t going to get treatment?
You have to have enough young healthy people buy to generate enough money to fund the pool. That won’t happen unless they are forced to buy.
WRONG!!!!
An insurance company can write "Group plans" in multiple states if they want to.
Individual policies are captive to the given state, and if you then move to another state, you cannot take your coverage with you.
That's what this issue is all about...affordable insurance for the self-employed or other individual-policy people. If the desire is to uncouple medical insurance from employment...this has to happen.
The unavailability of affordable coverage for farmers and other family businesses/self-employed has been killing entrepreneurialism and economic growth at the grassroots level.
Wrong.
The best way to fund the HRP is a monthly surcharge (usually about a penny) on every insured life in a given state, regardless of insurance type, group, self insured group, individual etc.
That is also why insuring family members up to 26 is not a bad thing fiscally, introduces (not forces) more individuals to the standard risk pool. There are generally not that many patients in the HRP at any given time, but they have significant claims.
Again, I can call Blue Cross/Blue Shield of KC from my home in Missouri and buy a plan. My sister who lives in Kansas can call Blue Cross/Blue Shield and buy a plan. Across state lines. Kansas City may be the exception rather than the rule but it can be done. Are they breaking the law?
By the way, “young people”...(the young immortals) generally don’t even need medical insurance for a while...and historically they don’t buy it.
-UNTIL-
They get married and pregnant. Then, everything changes.
Prior to Obamacare every high risk insurance pool, where they existed, were set up, funded, and run by the states. Insurance companies were not involved because the sole reason for high risk pools was to cover the people insurance companies wouldn't. And given the people in high risk pools - the sick and elderly who were guaranteed to be making frequent and expensive claims - then what insurance company would want to cover them? How would they ever make money off of them? And why would it be different today? Why would it be in their best interest?
The stupid bill doesn’t even ban illegal aliens from using Medicaid! That is TENS OF BILLIONS per year! They just let it go on and on.
______________________________________
And this tells me Ryan does NOT plan on getting the illegals out of our country either!
Saddle up, Tea Party, it’s time to ride. They need to get out in front of what Ryan is about to pull off. (Romney has to be smiling from ear to ear)
Probably not, there may be a special agreement (compact) making special allowances.
It seems in 2014, Missouri and eight other states formed a compact to take control of “healthcare” back from Congress.
>> According to the Health Care Compact website, a clearinghouse for the movement, enabling legislation has been approved in Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, Indiana, Utah, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. <<
I’m not sure of all the ramification and allowances in this agreement, except it is the creature of Republican and TEApublican legislators.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield was selling policies in both eastern Kansas and western Missouri long before 2014 and Obamacare.
That is one problem with the existing law. The young couple who have college loans, want to buy a house, perhaps start a family are hit with a premium that is greater than their exposure. In addition, If they don’t marry they are eligible for a larger subsidy.
Not EVERY.
Under the Bush administration, states were offered $1 million "seed money" to start a HRP, with no strings attached, 31 or so states had (or have) them. Even Maine had one up until 1993 when the Maine RAT-minions of Hillarycare killed it.
It is only possible for the states to set them up, and provide oversight, but the funding methodology is optional. It is in the carriers best interest to keep them solvent, because RATs might just defund them.
given the people in high risk pools - the sick and elderly who were guaranteed to be making frequent and expensive claims - then what insurance company would want to cover them?
None of them. (BTW, in insurance, elderly is 60-65)
How would they ever make money off of them?
They wouldn't. And they also won't make money with them in the mix.
why would it be different today?
It wouldn't. The properly planned arrangement works just fine.
Why would it be in their best interest?
Because otherwise, moronic socialist control-freaks would force insurers to include the uninsurable in the mix (guaranteed issue) which would double or triple premiums for healthy people, killing off the markets and driving carriers out of the state....which has already happened many times and in many states.
Insurance, by definition is a contract with a company to assume your risk, an unpredictable event, for a pre-determined payment. So "insurance" by definition, cannot cover high-claims and dying applicants. That would not be insurance. HRPs are not insurance, they provide coverage for known costs of a very few high-claim individuals, usually about 1% of the insured population.
"The law is an ass"...more control-freak government in action.
Premiums should be cheap for young families, and there should be no subsidies....That's the target.
You tell me, I don’t live there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.