Posted on 06/25/2019 5:07:57 PM PDT by spintreebob
It’s not a question of welfare. It’s a question of performance to an agreement. The insurers would not have offered that insurance at that price for that period of time without the inducement.
Medicaid is something else, and people come on and off it all the time based on their specific situation and the rules governing it at the time they intend to receive it. We wouldn’t go back and send bills to everyone who received Medicaid last year if we change the qualifications for it this year.
sounds like a double standard
I don’t see it that way. To me this is simple, and I think it is rooted in common law and contract law. If I promise you $30 to drive me to the airport and you drive me there, you wouldn’t accept if I tried to pay only $20. We had an agreement. You performed based on my promise and you’d be right to expect me to perform to my end of our agreement.
The deal with the insurance companies was limited to certain policies, certain regions, and over a fixed period of time. It’s not eternal.
Medicaid is made available year after year but it is only available to those who qualify in the period they apply for it. Just because you got it last year doesn’t mean you’re entitled to it this year. And these insurance companies are not expecting to be reimbursed on an ongoing basis - only for what they were told they would be credited for offering those limited numbers of policies for that limited period of time.
I think the entire ACA was a boneheaded idea, a boondoggle for insurance companies, destructive to the country and the economy. But that’s not really relevant to my thinking here. A deal was made, they honored their end of the deal. We need to honor our end.
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.