• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Oklahoma blames Trump officials for higher premiums

The statewide premium increase is directly correlated to how many people in that state receive the federal CSR subsidy.

Patients who receive a subsidy will still receive healthcare, but the cost will now be borne by the non-subsidized in that state due to Trump ending federal CSR subsidy payments.

Let's take Louisiana as an example. ~64.3% required the Cost Sharing Reduction federal subsidy. But Trump ended the CSR federal subsidy payments.

What happens then is that the entire Louisiana subsidy cost is borne by the ~35.7% of people in Louisiana that do not receive the CSR federal subsidy.

Their premiums increase by 45% to cover the subsidy shortfall in Louisiana that Trump created by withholding federal payments.

It works this way in every state, but every state has a different % of CSR subsidized so the numbers change per state.

Trumps CSR action hurts Mississippi (77.6%) the most and Minnesota (16.4%) the least. Capiche?

So, what you wrote reads like, the actual cost is not affected.

The impact is that the costs will be re-distributed.

Is that correct?
 
So, what you wrote reads like, the actual cost is not affected.

The impact is that the costs will be re-distributed.

Is that correct?

In the Louisiana example, the un-subsidized minority will wind up paying higher premiums to cover the subsidized majority.

It is like this in virtually every red southern state that voted for Trump.
 
It was literally a week ago that the talking point was that the best thing we can do is give the states the money they would've gotten anyway and let them try out their own solutions to their problems.

Gee whiz, that's what the State Innovation Waivers under the ACA are for. Looks like the Trump administration didn't really buy into that talking point. Instead, they've passed on an opportunity to help Oklahoma drive premiums down by 30%.

Oklahoma blames Trump officials for higher premiums


I for one will be over joyed to see any 'red state' get screwed on health care by Trump; some times irony is sweet :lol:
 
I for one will be over joyed to see any 'red state' get screwed on health care by Trump; some times irony is sweet :lol:

Perhaps but they were toying with some interesting ideas. See this thread from back in March: OKLAHOMA to be the first true Obamacare innovator?

I'd be very interested in seeing a state experiment with collapsing down to two metal tiers. Anyway, I guess it doesn't really matter now.
 
In the Louisiana example, the un-subsidized minority will wind up paying higher premiums to cover the subsidized majority.

It is like this in virtually every red southern state that voted for Trump.

So, the root problem remains and is still unaddressed.

The actual cost of healthcare is rising.

After my parents had both passed and we, the children, were going through the items saved, we found bills for our various births. It cost a whopping 173 dollars to bring me into the world.

The first entry on the current cost of birthing a child from the link below is $34,000.

I think we may have stumbled onto the actual problem. That's an increase of 19,653%.

My father built a 4 bedroom home on an acre of land in 1957 in Duluth MN, a few years later and paid $19,500.

A similar house in my neighborhood today in Indianapolis IN costs about $200,000,

This is obviously not a perfect comparison, due to regional real estate market valuations and so forth, but that percent of increase is 1025%.

19,653% minus 1025% is about a 18,628% difference in the rise in price.

Could it be that the crisis in the cost of healthcare has more to do with the cost of healthcare than finding the right person to pay for it?

THAT is why I keep asking why nobody is addressing the actual costs.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/...t is the average hospital bill to give birth?
 
Back
Top Bottom