• 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

Greenbeard

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
20,191
Reaction score
21,539
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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
Oklahoma officials are blaming the Trump administration for rising health-care premiums in the state after the administration missed a deadline to approve a key waiver for the state under ObamaCare.

In a letter addressed to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tom Price, Oklahoma's health commissioner rips the administration for missing a final deadline for a State Innovation Waiver, which would be used to lower premiums around the state.

The waivers provide federal funds "to implement innovative ways to provide access to quality health care that is at least as comprehensive and affordable as would be provided absent the waiver," according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The Oklahoma health commissioner's letter said that approving the waiver would have helped more than 130,000 Oklahoma residents and reduced premiums by 30 percent.
Click to expand...
 
Greenbeard said:
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
Click to expand...

he waivers provide federal funds
Click to expand...
So it was an unnecessary subsidy with different strings attached. Last time I checked, insurance premiums have been going up since insurance has existed.
 
reinoe said:
So it was an unnecessary subsidy with different strings attached. Last time I checked, insurance premiums have been going up since insurance has existed.
Click to expand...

1332 waivers are required to be budget neutral.
 
Greenbeard said:
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
Click to expand...

That sounds like the normal trash anti trumps say about him. But how can anyone say something like that that knows how health care costs have developed over three decades.
 
Greenbeard said:
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
Click to expand...

This was not submitted till AUG 7, by law Washington has 180 days to decide, so you see the real problem (Which so-called journalists will not inform you of because of vast corruption) is that the state was way too late in submitting their plans.

https://www.ok.gov/health2/documents/OK_1332 Waiver_DraftForPublicComment_7.14.17.pdf

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-f...-of-a-compromise-on-state-innovation-waivers/
 
Hawkeye10 said:
This was not submitted till AUG 7, by law Washington has 180 days to decide, so you see the real problem (Which so-called journalists will not inform you of because of vast corruption) is that the state was way too late in submitting their plans.
Click to expand...

Read the second paragraph in Oklahoma's withdrawal letter. They'd worked with CMS, passed the review, and had preliminary approval when the Trump administration reversed itself (probably someone important found out this would reduce premiums--can't have that!).

DK7tHsYXkAIhN91.jpg:large
 
Greenbeard said:
Read the second paragraph in Oklahoma's withdrawal letter. They'd worked with CMS, passed the review, and had preliminary approval when the Trump administration reversed itself (probably someone important found out this would reduce premiums--can't have that!).

DK7tHsYXkAIhN91.jpg:large
Click to expand...

Alleged facts not in evidence.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Alleged facts not in evidence.
Click to expand...

I literally posted a letter from Oklahoma's Secretary of Health and Human Services as evidence. You even copied it in your quote!

Oklahoma's been working with CMS for months. For no apparent reason, the rug was pulled out from underneath them.
 
Greenbeard said:
I literally posted a letter from Oklahoma's Secretary of Health and Human Services as evidence. You even copied it in your quote!

Oklahoma's been working with CMS for months. For no apparent reason, the rug was pulled out from underneath them.
Click to expand...

It never said that there was anything called a "pre-approval". So what we are left with is that they submitted a plan that gave Washington 39 days to decide when the guidance the law offers is that this should take anywhere up to 180 days.

I say that this fault belongs to the state unless there is some proof that they had been going through a pre approval process, and that it was granted, AND that this not their negligence is why they were so late in filing.

WHATCHA GOT?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
It never said that there was anything called a "pre-approval". So what we are left with is that they submitted a plan that gave Washington 39 days to decide when the guidance the law offers is that this should take anywhere up to 180 days.

I say that this fault belongs to the state unless there is some proof that they had been going through a pre approval process, and that it was granted.

WHATCHA GOT?
Click to expand...

Federal-state collaboration doesn't start when the waiver gets submitted, any more than your thesis advisor provides her first feedback on the day you submit your thesis. This process has been going on for months.

You make it sound as if the contents of the waiver are some surprise to CMS. CMS knows what's in it before it comes in because they provide feedback during the development process. Given that the contents of this one are time-sensitive, Oklahoma asked for (and apparently received) an expedited final review.

The "we didn't have time" excuse doesn't hold water.
 
Greenbeard said:
Federal-state collaboration doesn't start when the waiver gets submitted, any more than your thesis advisor provides her first feedback on the day you submit your thesis. This process has been going on for months.

You make it sound as if the contents of the waiver are some surprise to CMS. CMS knows what's in it before it comes in because they provide feedback during the development process. Given that the contents of this one are time-sensitive, Oklahoma asked for (and apparently received) an expedited final review.

The "we didn't have time" excuse doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...

We are a nation of laws, the law says that the state must give WASHINGTON 180 days, they gave them 39 then whined when they did not get what they wanted holding a gun to Washington.

The state was in the wrong here not Washington as they clam, so they are liars as well.

CASE CLOSED



edit: If you can show me that the state had reason to believe that they were going to be granted instant approval because they were "pre-approved", if you have a contract stating such, then the above is moot.
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
We are a nation of laws, the law says that the state must give WASHINGTON 180 days, they gave them 39 then whined when they did not get what they wanted holding a gun to Washington.

CASE CLOSED
Click to expand...

Nothing says Washington must take 180 days. It's interesting to see a red state trying to launch its own program treated this way by the administration.

Anyway, the Trump premium hikes will be a topic of national conversation soon enough.
 
Greenbeard said:
Nothing says Washington must take 180 days. It's interesting to see a red state trying to launch its own program treated this way by the administration.

Anyway, the Trump premium hikes will be a topic of national conversation soon enough.
Click to expand...

So your argument is "I want what I want and I want it now and I dont give a damn about the law".

I'll pass.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
So your argument is "I want what I want and I want it now and I dont give a damn about the law".

I'll pass.
Click to expand...

There's no law against an expedited review. What are you talking about?
 
Greenbeard said:
There's no law against an expedited review. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I am talking about the law, that which governs us.

You are talking about your expectations.

I WIN!

:2wave:
 
Greenbeard said:
It should surprise neither of us that you know nothing of the law.
Click to expand...

The law was in a link I posted, I did my part, your ignorance is no excuse.

You are very disappointed in your quality, I hope that you are not the product of one of them IVY Schools...that would be embarrassing for them..
 
Greenbeard said:
Federal-state collaboration doesn't start when the waiver gets submitted, any more than your thesis advisor provides her first feedback on the day you submit your thesis. This process has been going on for months.

You make it sound as if the contents of the waiver are some surprise to CMS. CMS knows what's in it before it comes in because they provide feedback during the development process. Given that the contents of this one are time-sensitive, Oklahoma asked for (and apparently received) an expedited final review.

The "we didn't have time" excuse doesn't hold water.
Click to expand...
In all your experience does a 30% reduction in insurance premium sound real for an entire state? Use common sense. Obviously, the Oklahoma state government was using magic numbers to come up with these figures.
 
reinoe said:
In all your experience does a 30% reduction in insurance premium sound real for an entire state? Use common sense. Obviously, the Oklahoma state government was using magic numbers to come up with these figures.
Click to expand...

Given that Alaska is a achieving a 26.5% premium reduction for 2018 with a similar program, I would say that sounds about right.
 
reinoe said:
In all your experience does a 30% reduction in insurance premium sound real for an entire state? Use common sense. Obviously, the Oklahoma state government was using magic numbers to come up with these figures.
Click to expand...

When was the last time government claims of projection where anywhere near reality?

Government lies constantly, we all know that now, those awake anyways.

Ya, I noticed that too..

:2wave:
 
Greenbeard said:
Given that Alaska is a achieving a 26.5% premium reduction for 2018 with a similar program, I would say that sounds about right.
Click to expand...

****...Alaska Seriously....they are so weird....Alaska results dont mean squat for the lower 48, as every educated person knows!

Where exactly was your Brain Trained?

Where did you go to school?

?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
****...Alaska Seriously....they are so weird....Alaska results dont mean squat for the lower 48, as every educated person knows!
Click to expand...

Minnesota's program achieved 25% reductions this year.

Believe it or not, reinsurance is a pretty well-understood concept. And Milliman generally knows what it's doing.

The Trump premium hikes are easily avoidable, if the will exists.
 
Greenbeard said:
Minnesota's program achieved 25% reductions this year.

Believe it or not, reinsurance is a pretty well-understood concept. And Milliman generally knows what it's doing.

The Trump premium hikes are easily avoidable, if the will exists.
Click to expand...

OK then, there is hope for you!

:thumbs:



NOTE: The state was still negligent as you have produced no proof of this so-called pre-approval.
 
Greenbeard said:
Minnesota's program achieved 25% reductions this year.

Believe it or not, reinsurance is a pretty well-understood concept. And Milliman generally knows what it's doing.

The Trump premium hikes are easily avoidable, if the will exists.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Greenbeard. :2wave:

There are two things about this topic I just don't understand - or maybe I'm just missing something:

1. What has Trump to do with Obamacare premiums? He had no part in anything to do with Obamacare - that was a program set up years ago by Obama, and the premiums did increase yearly on his watch.

2. Isn't it up to Congress to apportion monies for spending on anything? What is Trump expected to do to help any given State?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom