While congressional Republicans have been unable to repeal former President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul in its entirety, two major changes could soon upend the program's insurance exchanges by encouraging customers to bolt.

First, Republicans killed the tax penalty for individuals who don’t purchase health insurance. Then last week, the Trump administration unveiled a new rule expanding short-term plans that typically cost less than ObamaCare policies.

Both could lead to people choosing to leave ObamaCare’s marketplaces, because they want a less expensive plan or because they won't be penalized for exiting -- or both.

This scenario helps explain why Democrats sounded the alarm over the short-term plan expansion. They have slammed the policies as “junk insurance” not required to cover pre-existing conditions and more.

“These new short-terms plans are nothing short of junk insurance and are so dangerous for Americans that it's no wonder not a single group representing patients, physicians, nurses or hospitals has voiced support. Democrats will do everything in our power to stop this,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said last week.

The Trump administration moved to expand short-term health care plans from 90 days to 12 months, reversing an Obama rule limiting this type of coverage to less than three months. The new regulation is expected to go into effect by early October.

The change is significant, because under the current system, those with short-term plans see their deductibles reset after just three months -- meaning they could be on the hook for thousands of dollars in medical expenses every year if they kept renewing.

The expansion could make those policies more attractive.

Speaking at the White House last month, President Trump called it "much less expensive health care at a much lower price; will cost our country nothing."

The health care industry has pushed back, with the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association warning that "the broader availability and longer duration of slimmed-down policies that do not provide comprehensive coverage has the potential to harm consumers."

Short-term plans don't have to take people with pre-existing medical conditions, or provide benefits like coverage for maternity, mental health, prescription drugs and substance abuse treatment.

But Bruce Telkamp, the CEO of AgileHealthInsurance.com, a provider of short-term policies, said the option is needed because of increasing premiums for Affordable Care Act plans.

The latest push comes in the wake of a study that found that ObamaCare plans are facing an average price increase of 15 percent.
“One year short-term plans will bring immediate relief to consumers needing low premiums and unrestricted provider network coverage so they will not join the ranks of the uninsured,” Telkamp said.

Meanwhile, under Obama’s health care law, the individual mandate required most people to have health insurance meeting specific standards. The law imposed tax penalties for violations.

But under last year’s final tax-reform bill, people no longer face a penalty for noncompliance as of January 2019.

“We eliminated the individual mandate that said that people had to buy government-approved insurance,” Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., told Fox News last month. “In a sense, it blew a big hole in ObamaCare.”

The idea behind the mandate was to make sure young and healthy customers are buying into the system, to offset the cost of taking on more sick and elderly customers.

Is this a promise that candidates can actually keep?
Of the two changes, the penalty repeal might have the bigger impact on enrollment.

“The elimination of the fine for individuals who lack ObamaCare-compliant coverage poses a much greater peril for exchange enrollment than the removal of the three-month restriction on short-term plans,” said Kev Coleman, the head of research at HealthPocket, a health insurance comparison website.


Coleman said a low-cost option like short-term insurance, though, could be more appealing to consumers than ObamaCare because they won’t have to consider the fine.

“This will make a low-cost option like short-term insurance even more attractive, particularly if short-term insurers further adapt their benefits and conditions of coverage to better align with the needs of the unsubsidized population,” Coleman said.



http://www.foxnews.com/politic...exchange-exodus.html

I love how the call them "junk" plans because they don't cover pre-existing conditions etc.

Why should a young healthy male w/o any pre-existing conditions have to pay through the nose for a fancy plan covering pre-existing conditions he doesn't have and pregnancy and birth control he can't possibly use? That makes it junk?

I'm so glad Nat. Guard is eligible for Tricare now and I feel really bad for everyone else. My family has been spared this national nightmare so far.

If you accept the notion that the way to fix the problem of the insurance companies screwing up our health care is to add government to the mix and give the insurance companies a bigger role, forced customers, and more money, (I most certainly don’t) then it all makes sense. If you see this train wreck as a way to make single payer look better, it is more believable. I am very happy that it appears we are “backing away” from the cluster that is obummercare rather than “progressing forward” to single payer.

Notice who is killing this POS scam.... DJT!
Not the limp-dicks in Congress...

“Democrats will do everything in our power to stop this,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said last week.”

If Schumer and those cocksuckers are against these changes, it’s good enough for me. Where do I sign up?

These "short term" policies are basically what we had before the ACA debacle.
My wife and I qualify and are both old enough in age that the ACA policy wasn't even close to affordable. The subsidies stop when you get to $64,000 line 30 something combined income on your tax return. Like that's a lot of money these days.
The ACA Silver plan, the second to the bottom in cost, was a $37,000 premium with a $11,500 deductible for us.

The short term non-ACA plan has a $2 million cap and a $5,000 deductible and doesn't cover pregnancy, drug/alcohol rehab but otherwise is much better than the ACA. Premium for our 2 policies is $9600 a year.

quote:

Originally posted by arfmel:
“Democrats will do everything in our power to stop this,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said last week.”

If Schumer and those cocksuckers are against these changes, it’s good enough for me. Where do I sign up?

Its widely known this to be a fact about Obama, but Schumer is too?????

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
Notice who is killing this POS scam.... DJT!
Not the limp-dicks in Congress...

They are limp-dicks in Congress. They could have repealed it on Day #1 of the DJT Presidency. And they should have. Instead, they pussy foot around with "replace" which means different things to different people... and we still have Obamacare, though it seems to be dying a slow death by 1000 cuts.

Why can't Congressmen just man up?

And remember who caused the Obama Care Scam not to be fully repealed. The fake, phony and fraud; Songbird John McCain, all because he doesn't like Pres. Trump. What a disgrace Songbird McCain has brought upon himself. He is nothing but a self serving PoS. BTW, how is his brain tumor progressing?

quote:

While congressional Republicans have been unable to repeal former President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul in its entirety...

Fuck you John McShitstain!

quote:

BTW, how is his brain tumor progressing?

Clearly not fast enough. Go Cancer Go!

How much was pissed away on the website?

TWICE.

quote:

Why can't Congressmen just man up?

They don't even have to man up. It would at least be refreshing if they'd just wipe the slate clean by eliminating the ACA in its entirety and then start the debate over replacement from there. It will be nice to see that freak of legislation finally die. But when it does, we'll still have to worry about some idiot deciding to recycle the damned thing's bones.

The real death blow was President Trump refusing to budget for or spend the billions of dollars on covering the losses of the insurance companies.

With that gone, a facet known since the ACA was enacted, the insurance companies are forced to seek approval of double digit price increases for their ACA policies or to drop out altogether.

What’s bothering me here, is the fact that they were forcing the healthy folks (or those willing to roll the dice on not having insurance) to get insurance to help with the cost of the unhealthy.

We already have 2 programs in place that do that for those who can’t, don’t we? Medicare and Medicaid? Aren’t we all required to pay in federally and state as well (at least in MN)? I know I have to pull money from everyone’s paychecks every pay period and hand it over to the federal government, and as a health care provider, we are also required to hand over 2% of our gross every quarter to the state to be used in Medicaid programs. All folks in MN who get any health service or prescribed product have to pay a 2% health care tax. It’s usually built in so consumers don’t realize it, but we itemize it in our office so our patients know what’s going on.

quote:

Originally posted by irreverent:

<snip> . . . forcing the healthy folks (or those willing to roll the dice on not having insurance) to get insurance to help with the cost of the unhealthy.

We already have 2 programs in place that do that for those who can’t, don’t we? Medicare and Medicaid?

I look at Medicare a bit differently. Medicare was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, so for the majority of my working life these "insurance premiums" were taken from the income that I earned. I had no choice about it, my "contribution" was not voluntary. Each and every year, for more than fifty years, money was taken from me, and also from my employer (when I was self-employed I had to pay both sides of that "contribution). It was sold to me as a pre-paid insurance plan (if it was pre-paid, why is is still being deducted from my Social Security income?). OK, that's what the government told me it was when they took the money that I had earned, and I fully expect this medical insurance to come through when I need it.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by irreverent:

<snip> . . . forcing the healthy folks (or those willing to roll the dice on not having insurance) to get insurance to help with the cost of the unhealthy.

We already have 2 programs in place that do that for those who can’t, don’t we? Medicare and Medicaid?

I look at Medicare a bit differently. Medicare was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, so for the majority of my working life these "insurance premiums" were taken from the income that I earned. I had no choice about it, my "contribution" was not voluntary. Each and every year, for more than fifty years, money was taken from me, and also from my employer (when I was self-employed I had to pay both sides of that "contribution). It was sold to me as a pre-paid insurance plan (if it was pre-paid, why is is still being deducted from my Social Security income?). OK, that's what the government told me it was when they took the money that I had earned, and I fully expect this medical insurance to come through when I need it.

You’re absolutely correct, V-Tail, my error.

I was just off-the-cuff writing in the middle of the night instead of thinking, knowing that as a country, comprehending or not, we ALREADY make contributions to our health care. All our lives we contribute to our own health care with Medicare, but I do see a number of patients in our office who do not work, are definitely less than 65 (some as young as 30’s, so there is someone paying for them through Medicare- perhaps that’s our contribution as employers. As for Medicaid, without question most don’t realize what they’re being taxed for, or even that they’re being taxed. I think only 5 states in the country do that, I’m not sure how others collect money for those who require health care in their state.
My point is, we are already paying for health care, in some cases, for many. Why would anyone think it’s ok to force more on us?

quote:

My point is, we are already paying for health care, in some cases, for many. Why would anyone think it’s ok to force more on us?

The government has itself in a pickle. The government already insures:
1. all government employees
2. everyone over 65 (medicare)
3. the poor (medicaid)

Is that over half the people in the country? It must be close.

The providers want to be paid based on what they would earn in a free market. But there is no price competition because we have a 3rd party payment problem. So Medicare/Medicaid simply limit what they pay providers. This causes providers to NOT want Medicare/Medicaid patients if someone else will pay more.

The government is going broke. It pays out more than it takes in (health care is the biggest part of this).
So... the government wants to take over the rest of health care so it can pay providers whatever it decides to pay, and limit care to whatever care it deems worthy.
When you have limited supply and unlimited demand the only way to keep it going is rationing, or telling people they can't have treatment.