One has to wonder if that will be legal, since the ACA includes a risk adjustment payment to companies with a higher risk index score (i.e., sicker enrollees).
The risk corridor function such that companies that have a healthier pool share profits with those that got a sicker pool. It is not designed to bail out most or all of the insurance companies and the money comes from the insurance companies, not the taxpayers. If the insurance companies don’t have profits to share, then we’re not talking risk corridors, we’re talking just a straight bailout, which the law does not cover, since it’s funded by payments from the insurers.
Needless to say, the money the administration will have to work with will be strictly what the profitable insurers have paid. If there aren’t any profitable insurers, or not enough, then the risk corridors program will not cover industry-wide losses. And congress will not be interested in doing an industrywide bailout.
Here in New Hampshire, there was one insurance company offering Obamacare policies in 2014. Next year, there will be three. Are insurance companies so poorly run that they will jump in to markets where money is already being lost?
I’m honestly curious whether you share the same disdain for the perpetual risk corridors in Medicare Part D.
And here in Georgia we are going from five companies to nine. You can check out your own state here.
As to the alledged lack of profitability, my link has this tidbit:
“Some of the nation’s largest insurers will be offering coverage for the first time in more
than a dozen states, suggesting that the FFM and SBMs represent an increasingly
attractive business opportunity”
Or they could be assuming that taxpayers will bear any risks, and they will keep any profits.
I don’t have a problem with risk corridors. I have a problem with an industrywide bailout. If all the insurers are losing money, they are undercharging and premiums should reflect the actual cost of the plans.
You had like 12 hours to read the post above yours. And you could’ve read your own link:
So you’re wrong that it’s his own proposal. Wrong again.
You can’t continue to pretend the insurers might be losing money without any sort of evidence. We have already seen that there will be a 25 percent increase in the number of insurers offering policies through the marketplaces; are you suggesting private insurers don’t know their market? Name one state where will be fewer insurers in 2015 than in 2014. Either put up some evidence that insurers are losing money, or just stop pretending that is a credible possibility.
That’s the mother of all nitpicks. Gillespie rolled it out as part of his campaign, making it his proposal whether or not he wrote it.
If Gillespie thinks he, as one Senator out of 100, can get his proposal going anywhere he is delusional. There are too many splits within the GOP to advance any health care reform law, let alone any that Obama would sign. I doubt the GOP caucus could agree on a “Sense of the Senate” resolution in favor either motherhood or apple pie. Kudos to Gillespie for at least proposing something, but his plan is a non-starter.
That’s practically a given for Republican-proposed legislation like ACA, and part of the reason we need to do better. Glad you’re beginning to come around.
Yet you support the party that can be best counted on to do exactly that. About time to knock that shit off, ain’t it?
For those keeping tabs on this, Ohio Gov. John Kasich has been twisting himself into some seriously stupid logical pretzels after making the strongest argument IN FAVOR of the ACA from any GOP - or, for that matter, Democratic - politician a few days ago.
A few days ago? Then he must have retracted it by now after the right wing nutjobs heard about it and howled at the truth
Within a few hours actually. That is the contortions he is going through. He is trying to remove the Medicaid expansion from the ACA, saying they aren’t really connected.
Still, from a substantive point of view, he does favor the Medicaid expansion. That’s pretty significant.
/oldrolleyes
Do you seriously believe this?
Sure, he knew he was going to be running for office again this year. Ohio is a purple state, and screwing over hundreds of thousands of poor people might have pissed them off enough to get them out and voting.
Still, it is beyond bizarre to claim that the Medicaid expansion is somehow “not connected” to the ACA. Seriously, at least half of the newly insured population are beneficiaries of expanded Medicaid, which wouldn’t exist - nor could it continue to exist - in the absence of the law.
It just doesn’t follow.
It’s completely a conscious act to make that claim. It only has to convince just enough people for a couple of weeks longer.
Exactly. And once Gillespie was in (in the unlikely event that he were to win) he would vote with his party on almost everything of significance.
At this point in our history, it’s stupid to vote for/against the candidate rather than the party. R or D is just about all that matters.