Millions lose coverage

[Manonthestreet]

yes they did thanks to Obama

 

[eagle1462010]

10% of the insured drive 2/3rd's the cost of all spending according to the above report.

Expanding High Risk pools and getting them out of the regular market will determine if rates go up or down. And the cost of doing so is very high. Much higher than the added spending in the current bill. MUCH more than temporary PCIP under Obamacare. It is this portion that is the Crux of the problem with getting insurance rates down for the country.

Doing so without kicking those with pre-existing conditions to the curb is the real deal debate.

What if, high risk participants are diverted to welfare, instead of more commercial exchanges.

The reasoning is, that a "common offense" can be advance on "common denominators" that affect the most people; or other criteria that may meet a given exigency.

That way, we can simply, "concentrate wealth" to overcome those mundane and "human afflictions".

In my opinion, it should be a more effective use of resources.

If we increase the high risk pools more than the small increases under Obamacare and the new plan perhaps we could make it easier for States to implement a plan that would remove high maintenance, high cost, pre-existing conditions from the regular market. Perhaps 10% which drive 23% of the cost with the most serious pre-existing conditions. By getting those out of the normal market, it would reduce rates of the remaining 90% by targeting the main high cost individuals and/or families. The amounts designated in Obamacare and the new bill are way below par in this aspect.

 

[eagle1462010]

Would high-risk pools have enough money to function well?

IS THERE INTEREST?

High-risk pools existed in 35 states before Obamacare, and enrollees generally paid 1.5 to 2 times normal premiums to participate. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 33 pools had lifetime limits, most between $1 million and $2 million.

Even with the higher premiums, the cost to subsidize about 225,000 people in pools around the country was $1.2 billion, or $5,510 per enrollee, on average.

A separate federal high-risk pool, put into place as a transition before Obamacare exchanges were in place, had even higher costs, because it was restricted to those who had no insurance at the time they applied. There, average claims costs were $32,108, a year, and premiums were the same as for healthy people in the individual market.

Avalere Health consulting firm put out a study this week saying the $23 billion set aside in AHCA to fund pools for ill patients without continuous coverage would likely be insufficient. The money is supposed to last for nine years.


According to this, 23 Billion over 9 years would still not be enough. could be double or triple the cost to put a dent in it. In the article showing an example of the massive costs of cancer treatment. Perhaps the MOST EXPENSIVE treatments such as CANCER need to be taken out of the equation. via subsidies........target not the insurance companies........but pay for the treatment or offset costs directly. With no middle man.

 

[eagle1462010]

Sounds Like A Good Idea? High-Risk Pools

The first video in KHN’s “Sounds Like A Good Idea” series examined selling insurance across state lines. The second dealt with regulating drug prices. Scroll down for the full transcript.

For more information on high-risk pools, check out:

• The Kaiser Family Foundation: High-Risk Pools For Uninsurable Individuals
• healthinsurance.org: Health Insurance And High-Risk Pools

* The $25 billion cited in the video for high-risk pools referred to an earlier GOP replacement proposal. The total amount of money for high-risk pools and other “stability” measures for states to share is $138 billion in the version of AHCA that passed the House.


Ok. Learn something new everyday. The new house bill shows $138 Billion for high risk pools for the states. WAY BEYOND ANY PROPOSED BEFORE.

appears 25 billion Federal and the rest funded by the States.

 

[danielpalos]

10% of the insured drive 2/3rd's the cost of all spending according to the above report.

Expanding High Risk pools and getting them out of the regular market will determine if rates go up or down. And the cost of doing so is very high. Much higher than the added spending in the current bill. MUCH more than temporary PCIP under Obamacare. It is this portion that is the Crux of the problem with getting insurance rates down for the country.

Doing so without kicking those with pre-existing conditions to the curb is the real deal debate.

What if, high risk participants are diverted to welfare, instead of more commercial exchanges.

The reasoning is, that a "common offense" can be advance on "common denominators" that affect the most people; or other criteria that may meet a given exigency.

That way, we can simply, "concentrate wealth" to overcome those mundane and "human afflictions".

In my opinion, it should be a more effective use of resources.

If we increase the high risk pools more than the small increases under Obamacare and the new plan perhaps we could make it easier for States to implement a plan that would remove high maintenance, high cost, pre-existing conditions from the regular market. Perhaps 10% which drive 23% of the cost with the most serious pre-existing conditions. By getting those out of the normal market, it would reduce rates of the remaining 90% by targeting the main high cost individuals and/or families. The amounts designated in Obamacare and the new bill are way below par in this aspect.

Solving "pre-existing conditions" could "return those participants to more commercial markets.

 

[eagle1462010]

10% of the insured drive 2/3rd's the cost of all spending according to the above report.

Expanding High Risk pools and getting them out of the regular market will determine if rates go up or down. And the cost of doing so is very high. Much higher than the added spending in the current bill. MUCH more than temporary PCIP under Obamacare. It is this portion that is the Crux of the problem with getting insurance rates down for the country.

Doing so without kicking those with pre-existing conditions to the curb is the real deal debate.

What if, high risk participants are diverted to welfare, instead of more commercial exchanges.

The reasoning is, that a "common offense" can be advance on "common denominators" that affect the most people; or other criteria that may meet a given exigency.

That way, we can simply, "concentrate wealth" to overcome those mundane and "human afflictions".

In my opinion, it should be a more effective use of resources.

If we increase the high risk pools more than the small increases under Obamacare and the new plan perhaps we could make it easier for States to implement a plan that would remove high maintenance, high cost, pre-existing conditions from the regular market. Perhaps 10% which drive 23% of the cost with the most serious pre-existing conditions. By getting those out of the normal market, it would reduce rates of the remaining 90% by targeting the main high cost individuals and/or families. The amounts designated in Obamacare and the new bill are way below par in this aspect.

Solving "pre-existing conditions" could "return those participants to more commercial markets.

If underfunded........yes........exactly what happened before Obamacare. Funding was limited.........caps were on and ate up by conditions such as Cancer......and the people needing it were priced out of coverage................

So, if it doesn't get a lot of money in it..........it would be destined to fail...........

 

[eagle1462010]

11 Most Expensive Diseases in the U.S. - Slide 9 | GOBankingRates

Perhaps complete targeting Cancer treatment and drugs would be a viable solution.......and take it out of the Commercial Market Equation.....That being said.......I don't know how much of that amount per year is already covered by the Federal Gov't already. And get to the bottom of why we have the most expensive drug costs in this aspect in the entire world.

Almost double the cost of the nation coming in second.......

 

[eagle1462010]

Perhaps this is why we allow our drug cost for treatments to be so high........as my example showed almost double the cost for one drug to treat cancer.

 

[eagle1462010]

Australia's solution to high drug costs..............they subsidize the drugs there.

Drug Regulation in Australia

Drug regulation in Australia involves initially having prescription drugs registered by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Drugs listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are subsidized by the Australian government.

A special-access scheme allows companies to distribute certain drugs for limited periods of time to patients with life-threatening conditions, such as cancer. Under this scheme, drugs that have completed clinical trials but are awaiting listing may be made available with the approval of an institutional ethics committee.

As cancer drugs become increasingly expensive, subsidization by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is critical to patient access. However, these increasing costs are putting pressure on the system overall.

Drug Policy Down Under: Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme

 

[danielpalos]

10% of the insured drive 2/3rd's the cost of all spending according to the above report.

Expanding High Risk pools and getting them out of the regular market will determine if rates go up or down. And the cost of doing so is very high. Much higher than the added spending in the current bill. MUCH more than temporary PCIP under Obamacare. It is this portion that is the Crux of the problem with getting insurance rates down for the country.

Doing so without kicking those with pre-existing conditions to the curb is the real deal debate.

What if, high risk participants are diverted to welfare, instead of more commercial exchanges.

The reasoning is, that a "common offense" can be advance on "common denominators" that affect the most people; or other criteria that may meet a given exigency.

That way, we can simply, "concentrate wealth" to overcome those mundane and "human afflictions".

In my opinion, it should be a more effective use of resources.

If we increase the high risk pools more than the small increases under Obamacare and the new plan perhaps we could make it easier for States to implement a plan that would remove high maintenance, high cost, pre-existing conditions from the regular market. Perhaps 10% which drive 23% of the cost with the most serious pre-existing conditions. By getting those out of the normal market, it would reduce rates of the remaining 90% by targeting the main high cost individuals and/or families. The amounts designated in Obamacare and the new bill are way below par in this aspect.

Solving "pre-existing conditions" could "return those participants to more commercial markets.

If underfunded........yes........exactly what happened before Obamacare. Funding was limited.........caps were on and ate up by conditions such as Cancer......and the people needing it were priced out of coverage................

So, if it doesn't get a lot of money in it..........it would be destined to fail...........

Should we ask the Surgeon General, to advance a common health Offense?

 

[danielpalos]

11 Most Expensive Diseases in the U.S. - Slide 9 | GOBankingRates

Perhaps complete targeting Cancer treatment and drugs would be a viable solution.......and take it out of the Commercial Market Equation.....That being said.......I don't know how much of that amount per year is already covered by the Federal Gov't already. And get to the bottom of why we have the most expensive drug costs in this aspect in the entire world.

Almost double the cost of the nation coming in second.......

How much of that is due to R&D?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Sanders: How can you call it 'reform' when millions will lose insurance?

Nice one repubs, good luck with your pile of shit.

The usual leftist fib. No one's losing anything.

The Obamacare law that forced everybody to sign up whether they wanted to or not, is gone now. Everybody can remain signed up to whatever they had before if they want to, no one loses anything.

But at least the leftist hysterics were able to take advantage of their own lie to call names and falsely accuse Republicans even more.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Insurance companies are whiney , greedy brats. They are doing very well with Obama care. They are making tons of money!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/business/health-insurers-profit.html?_r=0

Selected excerpts:

Over the last few years, big managed care companies like UnitedHealth Group have contributed to the furor over the fate of the Affordable Care Act by saying that important parts of it are fundamentally flawed.

But Obamacare hasn’t been a curse for the managed care companies. Over all, based on their share performance, it has been something of a blessing.

Since March 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the managed care companies within the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index — UnitedHealth, Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana and Centene — have risen far more than the overall stock index. This is no small matter: The stock market soared during that period.

“If Obamacare has been bad for the managed care stocks, why have they performed so well under it?” asked Paul Hickey, a founder of Bespoke Investment Group. “And do they really need to be rescued by Congress?”

The answers are complex but boil down to this: Basically, several analysts on Wall Street and in Washington said, the underlying businesses of the big managed care companies have actually done extremely well under Obamacare. They have run into some problems but are hardly in need of a rescue.

The companies have notched profits — from expansion of Medicaid, for example, and from services aimed at cutting medical costs — while learning how to insulate themselves from parts of the law that have crimped their income. They have diversified, earning money from businesses that include data management, outpatient clinics and surgical services, as well as traditional health insurance.

They are making a lot of money from government programs like Medicaid and Medicare — and they are likely to keep doing so,” he said, regardless of what happens in Washington.

 

[eagle1462010]

11 Most Expensive Diseases in the U.S. - Slide 9 | GOBankingRates

Perhaps complete targeting Cancer treatment and drugs would be a viable solution.......and take it out of the Commercial Market Equation.....That being said.......I don't know how much of that amount per year is already covered by the Federal Gov't already. And get to the bottom of why we have the most expensive drug costs in this aspect in the entire world.

Almost double the cost of the nation coming in second.......

How much of that is due to R&D?

Seems many articles are saying we are subsidizing everyone else. Our high cost R and D are a driving factor while other countries reap the benefit while we pay the costs.

 

[eagle1462010]

Insurance companies are whiney , greedy brats. They are doing very well with Obama care. They are making tons of money!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/business/health-insurers-profit.html?_r=0

Selected excerpts:

Over the last few years, big managed care companies like UnitedHealth Group have contributed to the furor over the fate of the Affordable Care Act by saying that important parts of it are fundamentally flawed.

But Obamacare hasn’t been a curse for the managed care companies. Over all, based on their share performance, it has been something of a blessing.

Since March 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the managed care companies within the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index — UnitedHealth, Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana and Centene — have risen far more than the overall stock index. This is no small matter: The stock market soared during that period.

“If Obamacare has been bad for the managed care stocks, why have they performed so well under it?” asked Paul Hickey, a founder of Bespoke Investment Group. “And do they really need to be rescued by Congress?”

The answers are complex but boil down to this: Basically, several analysts on Wall Street and in Washington said, the underlying businesses of the big managed care companies have actually done extremely well under Obamacare. They have run into some problems but are hardly in need of a rescue.

The companies have notched profits — from expansion of Medicaid, for example, and from services aimed at cutting medical costs — while learning how to insulate themselves from parts of the law that have crimped their income. They have diversified, earning money from businesses that include data management, outpatient clinics and surgical services, as well as traditional health insurance.

They are making a lot of money from government programs like Medicaid and Medicare — and they are likely to keep doing so,” he said, regardless of what happens in Washington.

Making so much they are leaving the exchanges.

 

[edward37]

Just remember republicans ;;;;;If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. John F. Kennedy
Read more at: John F. Kennedy Quotes

 

[edward37]

Just remember republicans ;;;;;If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. John F. Kennedy
Read more at: John F. Kennedy Quotes

BUFFETT knows
Billionaire Warren Buffett on Saturday criticized the Republican healthcare plan, passed through the House last week, as a "huge tax cut for guys like me" and bad news for the less fortunate.

"When there's a tax cut, either the deficit goes up or they get the taxes from somebody else," Buffet told shareholders at Berkshire Hathaway's annual shareholders' meeting in Omaha, Neb.

The Trump White House: Week 15 Highlights
Washington Examiner

• • 
    0:50
    
    
    
  • 
    1:06
    
    
• • 
    2:03
    
    
    
  • 
    1:31
    
    
• • 
    0:50
    
    
    
  • 
    1:06
    
    
• • 
    2:03
    
    
    
  • 
    1:31
    
    

He noted that his federal income taxes last year would have dropped down 17 percent had the bill, which would partially repeal and replace Obamacare, already been law.

Buffet, who is worth over $74 billion according to Forbes, scorned rising healthcare costs as being an economic buzzkill for businesses.

"Medical costs are the tapeworm of American economic competitiveness," he said, according to Reuters. "That is a problem this society is having trouble with and is going to have more trouble with."

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Insurance companies are whiney , greedy brats. They are doing very well with Obama care. They are making tons of money!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/business/health-insurers-profit.html?_r=0

Selected excerpts:

Over the last few years, big managed care companies like UnitedHealth Group have contributed to the furor over the fate of the Affordable Care Act by saying that important parts of it are fundamentally flawed.

But Obamacare hasn’t been a curse for the managed care companies. Over all, based on their share performance, it has been something of a blessing.

Since March 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, the managed care companies within the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index — UnitedHealth, Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana and Centene — have risen far more than the overall stock index. This is no small matter: The stock market soared during that period.

“If Obamacare has been bad for the managed care stocks, why have they performed so well under it?” asked Paul Hickey, a founder of Bespoke Investment Group. “And do they really need to be rescued by Congress?”

The answers are complex but boil down to this: Basically, several analysts on Wall Street and in Washington said, the underlying businesses of the big managed care companies have actually done extremely well under Obamacare. They have run into some problems but are hardly in need of a rescue.

The companies have notched profits — from expansion of Medicaid, for example, and from services aimed at cutting medical costs — while learning how to insulate themselves from parts of the law that have crimped their income. They have diversified, earning money from businesses that include data management, outpatient clinics and surgical services, as well as traditional health insurance.

They are making a lot of money from government programs like Medicaid and Medicare — and they are likely to keep doing so,” he said, regardless of what happens in Washington.

Making so much they are leaving the exchanges.

I didn't say that the exchanges are not a drag on profits. The article that I posted points that out. However, even while in the exchanges, they are making a ton of money as the result of other aspects of Ocare and will continue to if they leave the exchanges. But they are greedy bastards. Now lets see you actually refute anything that I posted.

 

[Eaglewings]

This new Trumpcare-2 is just going to die in the Senate.

I hope so...these dumb jerks better be more worried about their future job that passing something just to say they did.

Sent from my XT1575 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

 

[edward37]

This new Trumpcare-2 is just going to die in the Senate.

I hope so...these dumb jerks better be more worried about their future job that passing something just to say they did.

Sent from my XT1575 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

I still can't understand why the WH moron had a party to celebrate a half time victory with the opponents coming out with their big guns in the 2nd half