• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP senator announces deal on health insurer payments

Public vote tally:

12 Dem, 12 GOP co-sponsors. Schumer-all 48 agree with bill.

Vote total basically at 60, enough to pass Senate through regular procedure. Near-full repeal, Skinny repeal, BCRA, AHCA, and Graham-Cassidy each failed to garner *50 votes*.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Ooh here we go again.

WH Spox: Trump doesnt support Alexander-Murray.

If we can presume Trump hasnt changed his mind once again, today, this White House is God damned awful at message discipline.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Trump's problem is that he doesn't understand the issue so he doesn't know what his position is, he doesn't know what to think, and he doesn't know what to say. So we get to watch this moron flailing around, switching positions seemingly by the hour.
 
Roadvirus said:
It sounds like this is just a bandaid on a gushing head wound.
Click to expand...

Correct. Trump ending the cost-sharing support means insurance companies will jack up rates. Pennsylvania, for example, is planning on about a 30% increase in premiums if Trump gets his way.
 
jmotivator said:
LOL. So same as Obamacare but you can stop defending it now? :roll:
Click to expand...

Obamacare premium increases for 2018 would have been single digits, zero in some cases. Trumpcare premium increases are 15, 20, 25% or more.
 
Greenbeard said:
Obamacare premium increases for 2018 would have been single digits, zero in some cases. Trumpcare premium increases are 15, 20, 25% or more.
Click to expand...

On the one hand, absolutely false. Those insurance plans have been broken since the beginning, and the rates were set to skyrocket even before the subsidies were ended (which, it should be pointed out, were ended by a judge already because the funding was illegal).

On the other hand, it is hilarious to see the repeated attempt to couch rates after government subsidies as the actual cost of insurance premiums. But then this is the same group that likes to call single payer "free". :roll:
 
jmotivator said:
On the one hand, absolutely false.
Click to expand...

Look around the country. In Montana, two of their insurers predicted Trump wouldn't sabotage the ACA and asked for single digit increases; the other assumed Trump would sabotage the ACA and thus asked for an increase 15-20% higher than the others. That's your Trump Effect on premiums.

Blue Cross Blue Shield, the other participant in Montana's exchange, accounted for the possibility of no subsidies when it set its 2018 rates. The company’s average rate increase was 22.3 percent, while the Co-op's was 4 percent and PacificSource’s was 7.4 percent.
Click to expand...

You can find it in every corner of the country.

North Carolina
"Ending these federal reimbursements will drive up premium costs and make it harder for insurers to participate in the ACA marketplace in the long run," the company said in a statement. "Had CSR payments not been eliminated, Blue Cross NC’s final rate request for ACA customers’ average would have been near zero."
Click to expand...

Tennessee
BCBST attributes nearly all of its average 21 percent premium increase request to the unknowns of the upcoming year.*
Click to expand...

Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania insurers offering Obamacare plans will need to raise premiums an average 30.6 percent in 2018, nearly four times the increase that had been anticipated before President Donald Trump scrapped government subsidies five days ago. . .

Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department had projected an average 7.6 percent rate hike for individual health insurance plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act’s government exchange in this state.
Click to expand...

Georgia
But even companies that originally filed for mild double-digit increases are now going for the gold as well. Ambetter, Alliant and Kaiser each plan to raise rates from 51 percent on average to 56.7 percent on average.

It doesn’t have to be that way, according to the list. In comparison, if Washington does assure the industry that the subsidies won’t be yanked, the rate increases would be perhaps 25 percentage points lower.
Click to expand...

And so on.
 
Greenbeard said:
Obamacare premium increases for 2018 would have been single digits, zero in some cases. Trumpcare premium increases are 15, 20, 25% or more.
Click to expand...

No, they were predicted up to 25%. Including in my state.
 
Greenbeard said:
Look around the country. In Montana, two of their insurers predicted Trump wouldn't sabotage the ACA and asked for single digit increases; the other assumed Trump would sabotage the ACA and thus asked for an increase 15-20% higher than the others. That's your Trump Effect on premiums.

And so on.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the spin, but the projection was double digit hikes by the experts before any talk of ending the insurance company illegally funded bail outs.

Also, these insurers were required to submit their rates to the states for approval long before last week! :lamo
 
Lursa said:
No, they were predicted up to 25%. Including in my state.
Click to expand...

Your state is reacting to the same thing as every other state. The average premium request in your state was 22%, but:

According to Kreidler’s office, insurance companies have said they would cut their proposed premium increases by five to 16 percent if the federal subsidies were guaranteed.
Click to expand...

That's a big difference. Policy choices made by the current administration clearly played a role in those premium requests.

Molina: “The preliminary rates Molina Healthcare filed in Washington take into consideration uncertainties around the individual marketplace as well as increasing costs. Molina is constantly looking for ways to improve access to affordable, high quality health care for people receiving government assistance. We will continue to work closely with our state and federal partners on innovative solutions to achieve that.”

Premera: “The proposed rate increases are due primarily to rising medical and pharmacy costs, as well as to uncertainty around the stability of the individual market with the anticipated loss of subsidized care through cost sharing reductions (CSRs) and weakening of incentives to purchase coverage.* We believe approval of these rates will allow us to continue to serve customers in more counties than any other carrier on the Exchange, and achieve our goal of serving our individual market customers for many years to come."
Click to expand...
 
jmotivator said:
I'm aware of the spin, but the projection was double digit hikes by the experts before any talk of ending the insurance company illegally funded bail outs.

Also, these insurers were required to submit their rates to the states for approval long before last week! :lamo
Click to expand...

No kidding. Rates are filed in the spring/summer, which is after Trump started making his threats. And those threats played a big role in the rate request/review process this year.

April: Trump Threatens to Withhold Payments to Insurers to Press Democrats on Health Bill
WASHINGTON—Nearly three weeks after Republican infighting sank an overhaul of the Affordable Care Act, President Donald Trump dug back into the battle on Wednesday, threatening to withhold payments to insurers to force Democrats to the negotiating table.
Click to expand...

May: Health insurers plan big Obamacare rate hikes — and they blame Trump
Health insurers across the country are making plans to dramatically raise Obamacare premiums or exit marketplaces amid growing exasperation with the Trump administration’s erratic management of the program and its conflicting signals about the fate of aid for low-income consumers and other key issues. . .

Instead, according to many officials, it is the Trump administration that is driving much of the current instability by refusing to commit to steps to keep markets running, such as funding aid for low-income consumers or enforcing penalties for people who go without insurance.
Click to expand...

August: Health insurers weigh double-digit premium increases amid Trump 'uncertainty': Study
Because of policy "uncertainty" from the Trump administration that is "far outside the norm," some health insurers are considering double-digit increases to premiums in 2018, according to a new study from the Kaiser Family Foundation.

The study found that the vast majority of providers cited "uncertainty" over the individual mandate and cost sharing reductions, CSRs, as a factor in proposing increased premiums, according to preliminary rate filings in 20 states and Washington D.C.
Click to expand...

September: State Insurance Commissioners Ask Senators to Continue Subsidy Payments to Insurers
State insurance commissioners from Alaska, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington all said that Congress should continue subsidy payments to insurance companies that offer health insurance plans on the exchanges to cover cost sharing reductions (CSRs) that lower the amount that eligible consumers pay for deductibles, copays and coinsurance. They urged the committee to move quickly and meet its planned deadline of having legislation in place by the end of September to help stave off significant premium increases to be imposed by nervous insurers who may otherwise suffer the risk of substantial losses from providing coverage to disproportionate numbers of high-risk individuals.
Click to expand...

October: Trump Administration To End Obamacare Subsidies For The Poor
The Trump administration said Thursday that it would end the Affordable Care Act's cost-sharing reduction payments designed to help low-income Americans get health care. Not paying the subsidies, health care experts have warned, could send the health insurance exchanges into turmoil.
Click to expand...

You may have only just become aware of this issue last week, but this has been a big deal all year long. And it's the driving force behind the big premium hike Trump is forcing.
 
Greenbeard said:
Your state is reacting to the same thing as every other state. The average premium request in your state was 22%, but:



That's a big difference. Policy choices made by the current administration clearly played a role in those premium requests.
Click to expand...

Again, these are excuses made by people pretending the internet doesn't exist and we can easily look up what experts were saying all year.
 
jmotivator said:
Again, these are excuses made by people pretending the internet doesn't exist and we can easily look up what experts were saying all year.
Click to expand...

See the post above yours. Experts have been predicting all year long that Trump's actions would drive huge premium increases.
 
Greenbeard said:
No kidding. Rates are filed in the spring/summer, which is after Trump started making his threats. And those threats played a big role in the rate request/review process this year.
Click to expand...

LOL! Their premium hikes were filed before Trump stated that he was ending the illegal subsidies last week so the premiums reported have nothing to do with the rates announced.
 
Greenbeard said:
Your state is reacting to the same thing as every other state. The average premium request in your state was 22%, but:



That's a big difference. Policy choices made by the current administration clearly played a role in those premium requests.
Click to expand...

I meant double digits for my state...yeah, up to 16%, not 25%

But 17-25% was predicted for a majority of states.

And this was 2nd half of last yr, not around the election.
 
jmotivator said:
LOL! Their premium hikes were filed before Trump stated that he was ending the illegal subsidies last week so the premiums reported have nothing to do with the rates announced.
Click to expand...

Which he signaled back in April he would do. The rate hikes filed in the summer were in anticipation of that action. You have contemporaneous sources in which these insurers specifically cited this in their rate filings. Talking about ignoring things that can easily be looked up on the internet!

And as I said, those that didn't build that assumption into their rate requests asked for low single digit increases. And indeed are now asking to re-file their rates so they can jack up their rates to match the big double digit hikes requested by insurers who did anticipate Trump's action. Like the two insurers in Montana's exchange I mentioned on the previous page:

Two health insurance companies in Montana will be allowed to refile their rates to account for the Trump Administration’s decision to end payments for some individual policies.
Click to expand...

They originally asked for 4 and 7% increases while their BCBS competitor, anticipating Trump's decision, asked for 22%. Now their new rate requests will look more like BCBS's.
 
Greenbeard said:
See the post above yours. Experts have been predicting all year long that Trump's actions would drive huge premium increases.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA!! That has nothing to do with the rates that the insurers are charging! You guys need to get your arguments straight. Obamacare gives subsidies to the individual to help pay for their insurance, and the insurers also get kick backs from the government to help cover losses from providing insurance on the exchanges. The former hasn't been changed, the latter has. The cost hikes are before the payments were ended last week, and regardless of the tax credits given to the individuals.
 
Fiddytree said:
While cynical, a more realistic reason why this could fail is that the narrative is one of losing control and shared victory--not unilateral victory through incredibly unusual means.

Though it would do serious injury to the traditions of the Senate, there is greater perceived glory in doing it by yourself and "without the help of" the other Party.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



While that is true, I have a feeling things might be changing. I have seen dozens of posts in here, criticizing the president and calling on/hoping for congress to find a "bi partisan" solution.

Certainly in a sane world, after 15 years of the same argument the people must be ready to say "just sign the ****ing thing", however I have to note the same argument about "illegals" has been going on unchanged longer than I've been alive.

Then I have always dealt with the conflict that individual Americans are usually very bright, reasoned and honest people, but in a large body are dumber than the chair I'm sitting on.
 
jmotivator said:
HAHAHA!! That has nothing to do with the rates that the insurers are charging! You guys need to get your arguments straight. Obamacare gives subsidies to the individual to help pay for their insurance, and the insurers also get kick backs from the government to help cover losses from providing insurance on the exchanges. The former hasn't been changed, the latter has. The cost hikes are before the payments were ended last week, and regardless of the tax credits given to the individuals.
Click to expand...

Good lord. The CSRs are reimbursement for cash insurers are required to front enrollees who can't afford to pay their deductibles. They have nothing to do with premiums, they have nothing to do with risk mitigation.

And yes, they have everything to do with the 2018 rate requests (as I just documented for you). As was made known and publicly reported on at the time they filed the requests.

Insurers have to explain and justify the rate increases they request, otherwise they can't and won't get approval for them. Those filings are publicly available and have been analyzed by plenty of folks. Guess what? The primary reason insurers who requested big increases for next year did so was in anticipation of what Trump has done (which he began telegraphing in the first quarter of the year). It's not speculation, we know this.
 
Greenbeard said:
Good lord. The CSRs are reimbursement for cash insurers are required to front enrollees who can't afford to pay their deductibles. They have nothing to do with premiums, they have nothing to do with risk mitigation.
Click to expand...

So if, by your own argument, the CSRs have nothing to do with premiums and risk mitigation then how does ending them impact the rates insurers charge? :lamo

And yes, they have everything to do with the 2018 rate requests (as I just documented for you). As was made known and publicly reported on at the time they filed the requests.
Click to expand...

By your own argument they wouldn't! The rates that the insurers request from the states are based on risk, and assume that the customer is going to pay the price on the tag. If the CSRs have nothing to do with risk mitigation then ending them would not change the rate the insurer sought.

Insurers have to explain and justify the rate increases they request, otherwise they can't and won't get approval for them. Those filings are publicly available and have been analyzed by plenty of folks. Guess what? The primary reason insurers who requested big increases for next year did so was in anticipation of what Trump has done (which he began telegraphing in the first quarter of the year). It's not speculation, we know this.
Click to expand...

Your sources break your narrative. For instance, based on the article for Georgia provided they argue that the rate would be "25 points lower" which would put the rate AFTER the assurances in the 20+% range... not the single digits you claimed. That would put the rates in line with what I posted from Kaiser, which blows your claim out of the water.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
You do understand what hat bolded portion means, yes?

Since the CSRs have nothing to do with premiums and risk mitigation then how does ending them impact the rates insurers charge? :lamo
Click to expand...

Insurers are required to front cash to help low income people pay their deductibles when they go to get care. Doesn't have anything to do with the risk profile of their enrollees and indeed it should have zero impact on premiums because the ACA requires that HHS reimburse them for fronting that money. It shouldn't impact their bottom line at all.

Enter Trump and the GOP, reneging on the government's responsibility. Now they've turned a little funds flow exercise into a gaping financial liability that can only be fixed by jacking up premiums. Once again: hence the giant premium requests in response to Trump's policy choices.

Have you been asleep all year or something?
 
Greenbeard said:
Insurers are required to front cash to help low income people pay their deductibles when they go to get care. Doesn't have anything to do with the risk profile of their enrollees and indeed it should have zero impact on premiums because the ACA requires that HHS reimburse them for fronting that money. It shouldn't impact their bottom line at all.
Click to expand...

It's insurance, fronting money for healthcare is what they do...

Enter Trump and the GOP, reneging on the government's responsibility.
Click to expand...

LOL! The payments were deemed illegal.

Now they've turned a little funds flow exercise into a gaping financial liability that can only be fixed by jacking up premiums. Once again: hence the giant premium requests in response to Trump's policy choices.
Click to expand...

It is all BS, though, since the exchange is hemorrhaging carriers because they operate at a loss anyway. In fact, the attempt to measure Obamacare success by the lowest Silver plan cost is smoke and mirrors since the lowest silver plan invariably loses the insurer money... it is more of a marketing gimmick than a viable insurance plan. A "loss leader" of sorts.

Interestingly, the one story left out of this whole event that most Obamacare supporters would actually enjoy (but can't stop their Trump hate long enough to let it happen) is that apparently ending the insurance subsidies would create a sort of Single Payer system in a lot of states with bronze plans ending up being essentially free for a large group of low income people and gold plans cheaper than current silver plans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom