Posted on 11/12/2016 4:19:09 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
After reiterating his promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, President-elect Donald Trump has indicated that he may keep two of the law’s most popular provisions. One is straightforward enough — children up to the age of 26 being allowed to stay on their parents’ plan. The other — preventing insurance companies from denying coverage because of preexisting conditions — offers a perfect illustration of why Trump and most of the other Republicans critics of Obamacare don’t understand the health insurance market.
Let’s say that in the beautiful new world of “repeal and replace,” insurers are required to sell you insurance despite the fact that your kid has a brain tumor. Insurance companies know what to do with that. Their actuaries can calculate that kids with brain tumors typically require (I’m making this number up) about $200,000 a year in medical care. So they’ll offer to sell you a policy at an annual premium of $240,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Agreed.
I think the answer, sadly, is for the high risk/cost to be forced to the Medicaid situation if they aren’t covered by insurance. Same deal, basically, as happens to the elderly.
Either keep yourself covered when you need it, find a way to pay for it othewise—or become essentially a ward of the state.
To me that is the obvious answer, but I doubt the one the pols would go for.
Oh, Pearlswine, you pathetic fake journalist...Trump has more knowledge in his tiny hands than you have in your entire cranium.
Trump will destroy Obamacare
Dad is going to make you get a job and move out of moms basement and get yer own insurance.
Trump is Dad.
It’s a better answer than forcing us all to become wards of state, and isn’t that what Obamacare has done to anyone who doesn’t have an employer-provided policy or got coverage outside the exchange? Even these are bearing some of the brunt of the cost, all policies have to be compliant whether bought on the exchange or outside of it.
No they can't. It only applies to those first applying for coverage...and like if they're dying.
Those insured who become sick are not kick out into the HRP. That's how insurance works.
Do you want to be in the same car insurance risk pool as trucks, teenage boys and bad drivers?
There is zero reason to have a government-run “exchange”—aka web site—for insurance sales.
The "replacement part" allows individual market buying across state lines. To help those people in RAT states.
My meds cost more than my premium.
That doesn’t take into account several Dr visits, labs, CT scans etc each year, nor the $150K for surgery and hospital stays last year.
They couldn't pass it because of the RATs, then Obama. Most states had it right anyway.
Okay so in 2 years a person with catastrophic coverage gets some debilitating disease. At that point what happens? One time coverage and next year? In 4 years with bills running 200k a year? Either you find the premium to be 50k a year or you go without. Of course if you want to smooth out that bumpy road you could get an addendum on your catastrophic care where say your premiums can’t increase more than 10% a year. The question is how much more would that cost? Likely a double if not more because even if you’re paying 5000 a year for such coverage for a family of 4 and something requiring expensive long term care comes along the insurer could still be out millions.
I truly don’t see that as an effective solution. I’m not saying people shouldn’t have the right to get it but i don’t see it as a solution. All along i felt repeal was a longshot. They’ll have to implement something to replace it. It will end up being one step with both things happening, not 2.
They can now, if the insurance company is approved to do business in their state. If the company isn't doing business in the state then why would someone want to buy a policy from them? And why would the insurance company want to sell one to them?
Insurance is everyone in that insurers pool paying for it.
People are not houses.
*****************************
My point was about high risk pools, in case you missed it.
That’s correct — IF you buy the insurance and later find out you are sick. But that’s not what we are talking about. We are talking about buying the product AFTER you know you are sick. That’s my problem. I don’t like how people can game the system and make me pay for it.
Maybe, but not all HRPs are created equal. In fact, maybe no two are alike, as they were created by the states.
In any case, non-HRP or HRP, in any kind of insurance, premiums are based on aggregate claims. So why wouldn't high claims individuals pay higher premiums?
The best model is one where the HRP population is around 1% of the total insured within a given state. ONE PERCENT.
Also in the best model, a premium surcharge of A FEW CENTS PER MONTH on any domestic policy, group, self insured, individual market...subsidized the reserves of the HRP.
"A few cents" blows the doors off of doubling and tripling the premium.
That's all true and Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
....but I don't see that it adds to cost.
Pre-existing conditions can be covered, and there were proposals for it that didn’t involve government takeover.
My point is that high risk pools are a bad idea.
“I don’t want to pay for car insurance unless I have an accident, and I want the insurance to cover it retroactively.”
Sounds good to me!/s
Thank you
This is one fa series of articles by the MSM trying to make it look like Trump lied More MSM propagnada
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.