Trump to Terminate Sketchy ACA Subsidies

[Krugminator2]

Under all insurance plans (health, financial, auto, other), those who don't file claims help pay for (subsidize) those who do. It is how the business operates. Healthcare premiums were rising long before Obama even became president.

Every liberal publication even admits premiums are much higher specifically as a result of Obamacare. ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, and Washington Post all have articles explaining this with a simple Google search.

Here is the first thing that shows up on Google from ABC in an article titled Why Health Care Premiums Are Rising Under Obamacare

. "HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell cautioned that insurers are “continuing to adapt” to a market that looks very different from before “Obamacare,” one in which they are trying to compete for costumers “based on price and quality” and not necessarily by “finding the healthiest customers.” http://abcnews.go.com/Health/health-care-premiums-rising-obamacare/story?id=43047190

[Zippyjuan]

This is before his most recent actions.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...810-story.html

Trump's moves are causing health insurance premiums to jump, study says

Actions by the Trump administration are triggering double-digit premium increases on individual health insurance policies purchased by many people, according to a nonpartisan study.

The analysis released Thursday by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that mixed signals from President Trump have created uncertainty “far outside the norm” and led insurers to seek higher premium increases for 2018 than would otherwise have been the case.

Republicans in Congress have not delivered on their promise to repeal and replace the Obama-era Affordable Care Act. Trump is insisting that lawmakers try again and that Obama’s signature health overhaul is collapsing. At the same time, he has threatened to stop billions of dollars in payments to insurers. Some Republicans are considering fallback measures to stabilize markets.

Kaiser researchers looked at proposed premiums for a benchmark silver plan across major metropolitan areas in 20 states and Washington, D.C. Overall, they found that 15 of those cities will see increases of 10% or more next year.

The highest is a 49% jump in Wilmington, Del. The only decline: a 5% reduction in Providence, R.I.

The researchers analyzed publicly available filings through which insurers justify their proposed premiums to state regulators. Insurers are struggling with sicker-than-expected customers and disappointingly low enrollment, and an industry tax is expected to add 2 to 3 percentage points to premiums next year.

On top of that, researchers found that mixed signals from the administration account for some of the higher charges. Those could increase before enrollment starts Nov. 1.

“The vast majority of companies in states with detailed rate filings have included some language around the uncertainty, so it is likely that more companies will revise their premiums to reflect uncertainty in the absence of clear answers from Congress or the administration,” the report said. Once premiums are set, they're generally in place for a whole year.

Insurers that assumed that Trump would make good on his threat to stop billions of dollars in payments to subsidize copayments and deductibles requested additional premium increases ranging from 2% to 23%, the report found.

Insurers that assumed the IRS under Trump would not enforce unpopular fines on people who remain uninsured requested additional premium increases ranging from 1.2% to 20%.

“In many cases, that means insurers are adding double-digit premium increases on top of what they otherwise would have requested,” said Cynthia Cox, a co-author of the Kaiser report. “In many cases, what we are seeing is an additional increase due to the political uncertainty.”

That doesn't sound like what Trump promised when he assumed the presidency.

In a Washington Post interview ahead of his inauguration, Trump said, “We're going to have insurance for everybody.”

[nobody's_hero]

Ripping the band-aid off sucks, but it's gotta be done. The wound is festering.

I'm actually surprised that Trump has the balls to do this. It's gonna be rough for markets to adjust (just as it was when the ACA went into effect), and the media is going to rake him face-down over the coals for the short-term negative consequences, but they already use him as a punching bag anyway. Maybe he figured he has nothing to lose.

[Madison320]

The states aren't preventing insurance companies from going across state lines, THE FEDS ARE!!!

...and it is Constitutional, right? I mean, that is the actual purpose of the Interstate Commerce Clause, right? Is there any other area in the market where the government has intervened and disallowed companies from purchasing legal goods across state lines besides things maybe like raw milk?

Yeah, the commerce clause is horribly abused. It was intended to be a check on government power by not allowing states to tax imports and exports to other states. Instead it does the exact opposite, it greatly expands the power of govt.

[Zippyjuan]

Ripping the band-aid off sucks, but it's gotta be done. The wound is festering.

I'm actually surprised that Trump has the balls to do this. It's gonna be rough for markets to adjust (just as it was when the ACA went into effect), and the media is going to rake him face-down over the coals for the short-term negative consequences, but they already use him as a punching bag anyway. Maybe he figured he has nothing to lose.

It's OK. Trump says everybody will have cheap, awesome insurance plans.

[Madison320]

Rates for sick people will go up, rates for healthy people will go down. Boo $#@!in hoo.

But who determines the rates? Is it a voluntary contract between the insurance company and the customer? Or does the govt set the rates? I thought one version of TrumpCare "allowed" insurance companies to charge 30% more for sick patients. That's still a joke if it's something like that.

Peter Schiff explained this really well. He said the only way insurance works is if healthy people sign up for it before they get sick (duh!). And there's only two ways to get healthy people to sign up, by govt law or by the free market. The way the free market gets healthy people to sign up is the knowledge that they can't get insurance after they get sick. Just like you can't get fire insurance after your house burns down. So you can either go free market or if you want to mandate coverage for sick people you have to make healthy people get insurance by force. Like in Switzerland. You can't have it both ways. You can't remove the individual mandate and then force companies to cover sick people otherwise everyone will just wait until they get sick to get insurance. Which is what's happening now and it's why rates for healthy people are going up.

[Krugminator2]

Peter Schiff explained this really well. He said the only way insurance works is if healthy people sign up for it before they get sick (duh!). And there's only two ways to get healthy people to sign up, by govt law or by the free market. The way the free market gets healthy people to sign up is the knowledge that they can't get insurance after they get sick. Just like you can't get fire insurance after your house burns down. So you can either go free market or if you want to mandate coverage for sick people you have to make healthy people get insurance by force. Like in Switzerland. You can't have it both ways. You can't remove the individual mandate and then force companies to cover sick people otherwise everyone will just wait until they get sick to get insurance. Which is what's happening now and it's why rates for healthy people are going up.

That's exactly right. That would be my ideal. That is what would happen in a free society. The problem is that will never happen. So I am for forcing people like in Singapore and Switzerland to get insurance and forcing people to save. It isn't a good way to do things but it is more free market than the current system of Obamacare, the VA hospital Medicare, Medicaid and letting people stiff the emergency room when they don't have insurance and can't pay. And it is a much better alternative to French and Canadian style socialized medicine.

[angelatc]

This is before his most recent actions.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...810-story.html

Subsidies are bad. Downward pressure to prices is good.

[angelatc]

But who determines the rates? Is it a voluntary contract between the insurance company and the customer?.

Sure. The insurer looks at the pool of the insured, assesses risk, then offers a rate.

[juleswin]

Actuarian professional usually help come up with insurance rates for groups if the insurance market is allowed to operate uninterupted.

[Madison320]

Sure. The insurer looks at the pool of the insured, assesses risk, then offers a rate.

But I mean Trump's plan. I'm guessing it doesn't let insurance companies set whatever rates it wants but I don't know for sure.

[Madison320]

That's exactly right. That would be my ideal. That is what would happen in a free society. The problem is that will never happen. So I am for forcing people like in Singapore and Switzerland to get insurance and forcing people to save. It isn't a good way to do things but it is more free market than the current system of Obamacare, the VA hospital Medicare, Medicaid and letting people stiff the emergency room when they don't have insurance and can't pay. And it is a much better alternative to French and Canadian style socialized medicine.

I agree, it seems to be the best compromise. The problem with the current system is that healthy people are having to pay much higher rates to cover all the people who get it for free/subsidized.

Another thing Schiff mentioned is that we should do it the right way and amend the constitution because currently it's unconstitutional to force people to get healthcare. Of course I seriously doubt that would happen, they'll just do it without authority.

[Swordsmyth]

18 states sue over Trump-halted ObamaCare payments

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/355360-15-states-sue-over-trump-halted-obamacare-payments

[angelatc]

All Rand/Trump did was legalize freedom, what the hell is wrong with this??

I believe the Constitution gives the states the right to regulate insurers within their borders. This takes that away. Sorry for supporting the constitution here on Ron Paul forums.

[Swordsmyth]

I believe the Constitution gives the states the right to regulate insurers within their borders. This takes that away. Sorry for supporting the constitution here on Ron Paul forums.

Where does it allow them to block interstate commerce?

[angelatc]

Yeah, the commerce clause is horribly abused. It was intended to be a check on government power by not allowing states to tax imports and exports to other states. Instead it does the exact opposite, it greatly expands the power of govt.

The only thing that keeps insurers from operating in multiple states is state laws. Blue Cross / Blue Shield proves that point. This makes me crazy - people that don't understand insurance deciding how it should be run.

As it stands, there are 50+ sets of rules and regulations dictating what hoops insurers have to jump through in order to sell policies in each 50+ states/territories. Most specifically, the biggest hurdles are items that states dictate MUST be covered, and the amount of cash the company must hold in reserve to pay claims.

This is just paving the way for the next big collapse. One insurer in one state collapses? Meh. One insurer collapses with millions of customers in all 50 states? Bailouts and stimuli!!!!

[angelatc]

Where does it allow them to block interstate commerce?

They aren't blocking interstate commerce. They're regulating intrastate commerce.

[Swordsmyth]

They aren't blocking interstate commerce. They're regulating intrastate commerce.

By prohibiting me from purchasing insurance from another state?

Where does it allow states to regulate it anyway? it seems to me it gives that power to the feds.

[angelatc]

By prohibiting me from purchasing insurance from another state?

Yes. The state you live in has the right to regulate the products and services sold within its boundaries.

Where does it allow states to regulate it anyway? it seems to me it gives that power to the feds.

Which enumerated power gives the federal government the right to regulate health insurance at the federal level?

[Swordsmyth]

Yes. The state you live in has the right to regulate the products and services sold within its boundaries.

It doesn't have the right to prevent me from buying a product offered by a company in another state.

Which enumerated power gives the federal government the right to regulate health insurance at the federal level?

None, they shouldn't be doing it any more than a state should be regulating interstate commerce.

[angelatc]

It doesn't have the right to prevent me from buying a product offered by a company in another state.

Maybe not morally but legally it does indeed have the right (or it did, until Trump erased another constitutional line) to regulate goods and services sold within its boundaries.

I'll type this again because I'm apparently having an insomniac night - each state currently regulates insurers operating within its boundaries. Those regulations include training, licensing, coverages and reserves. The only thing that stops you from buying a policy from a company not currently operating in your state is the decision of that company not to adhere to your local government's regulations.

Taking away the right of the states to write those regulations is not a win for freedom when it means only the federal government will be allowed to write those rules now. This is a loss for local, smaller government.
.

None, they shouldn't be doing it any more than a state should be regulating interstate commerce.

It's intrastate commerce. You're buying the policy from your basement in your home state, and you're using a system of medical providers in your home state.

Whether they should do it is a different issue than whether they have the right to do it. I actually have a cite for my position, which is obviously that the Tenth Amendment clearly gives all rights not specifically delegated to the Fedgov to the states or the people.

[Swordsmyth]

Maybe not morally but legally it does indeed have the right (or it did, until Trump erased another constitutional line) to regulate goods and services sold within its boundaries.

I'll type this again because I'm apparently having an insomniac night - each state currently regulates insurers operating within its boundaries. Those regulations include training, licensing, coverages and reserves. The only thing that stops you from buying a policy from a company not currently operating in your state is the decision of that company not to adhere to your local government's regulations.

They are not operating within my states boundaries, I am purchasing a service that takes place in another state.

Taking the right of the states to write those regulations is not a win for freedom when it means only the federal government will be allowed to write those rules now. This is a loss for local, smaller government.

They can still regulate insurance companies in their state, and the feds already regulate anything they feel like whether they should or not so this doesn't change that, if they stopped the state/s with the best regulations (in the opinion of the customers) would end up deciding what the rules should be.
.

It's intrastate commerce. You're buying the policy from your basement in your home state, and you're using a system of medical providers in your home state.

The cashing and cutting of checks and all the calculations involved in the business takes place in the other state, I am engaging in interstate commerce when I buy their services.

Whether they should do it is a different issue than whether they have the right to do it. I actually have a cite for my position, which is obviously that the Tenth Amendment clearly gives all rights not specifically delegated to the Fedgov to the states or the people.

And that does not include the regulation of interstate commerce.

[dannno]

Trump erased another constitutional line

..because Rand Paul told him to??

Wow..

I gotta agree with Swordsmyth on the issue that you are purchasing the service in the other state. They are the ones who have the money. You get a bill, you send it to them, and they pay some part or all of your expenses. That service occurs in another state, they just send the money back to your state. The medical service occurs in the state you are in.

[Working Poor]

Did it give me back my right to not be forced to buy something that I do not want?

[timosman]

It's OK. Trump says everybody will have cheap, awesome insurance plans.

This would be awesome for you. You could finally afford to treat your exhibitionistic disorder.

[nobody's_hero]

That's exactly right. That would be my ideal. That is what would happen in a free society. The problem is that will never happen. So I am for forcing people like in Singapore and Switzerland to get insurance and forcing people to save. It isn't a good way to do things but it is more free market than the current system of Obamacare, the VA hospital Medicare, Medicaid and letting people stiff the emergency room when they don't have insurance and can't pay. And it is a much better alternative to French and Canadian style socialized medicine.

The problem with mandates is that if the insurance companies are f'king you over you can't really just say to hell with them and apply market pressure. The insurance companies have people by the balls right now. Actually, the IRS has people by the balls on behalf of the insurance companies, so it's actually a bit worse.

The customers aren't blameless, either. One cost-driver for insurance premiums is using the ER for every little sniffle and scrape. I would wager that at least 90% of the patients who come through the ER where I work aren't experiencing a true emergency. Much of the stuff we treat could and should wait for a clinic visit in the morning that might cost $50 out-of-pocket versus the $600 that gets charged just for walking through the ER's doors.

Australia's "ER abuse" has gotten so bad some hospital systems have started running ads as if to try to dissuade people from coming to the ER.

I wish like hell our hospital system would do this:

[enhanced_deficit]

TRUMP MOVES HARD TO UNDO OBAMA:
IRAN NUKES, HEALTHCARE, CHRISTMAS!

Corrected:


TRUMP MOVES HARD TO UNDO OBAMA:
IRAN NUKES, HEALTHCARE, CHRISTMAS, HOLLYWOOD WEINSTEIN EXPLOITS !


Michelle Obama could any minute now luanch "Save Our Girls from Obama bundler Harvey Weinstein" campaign with the help of hollywood experts.

It made Jimmy Kimmel cry.

He like Obama is also a compassionate guy.


"Every Time I Think About Those Kids It Gets Me Mad"

[donnay]

When I lived in rural Maine, I owned a shoppe and was told that my insurance, Aetna, was not allowed in the state. The only insurance that was recognized was Anthem/Blue Cross and Blue Shield. When I cut my hand and needed stitches they declined my insurance and then tried to push me on the welfare one. I declined and told them to send me the bill. When the bill finally came in, it was only $300.

The state was hoping I would just give-in and take the welfare so they could get more federal funds.

[Madison320]

The only thing that stops you from buying a policy from a company not currently operating in your state is the decision of that company not to adhere to your local government's regulations.

I understand what you are saying but I think this can get tricky. What if the state regulation was that the insurance company has to operate within the state? What if Florida said you can only buy oranges grown in Florida, otherwise you have to pay an import tax?

I'm confused about something. I'm under the impression that almost no one can buy out of state insurance, but maybe I'm wrong. Unless the states are making the regulations impossible for out of state insurance companies to conform to, why aren't people buying out of state policies? You wouldn't think the regulations are that different from state to state. It seems like something else is going on here.

[angelatc]

..because Rand Paul told him to??

Wow..

I gotta agree with Swordsmyth on the issue that you are purchasing the service in the other state. They are the ones who have the money. You get a bill, you send it to them, and they pay some part or all of your expenses. That service occurs in another state, they just send the money back to your state. The medical service occurs in the state you are in.

You literally fabricating an alternate reality to avoid the uncomfortable current reality.

You are right. You will be contracting with an agency in another state. You cannot do that now because of states' rights. The 10th Amendment says that the state has the right to regulate the products sold to the residents of the state.

This legislation erases those lines and hands the regulations to the feds. Constitutionally this is a loss. Freedom-wise, this is a loss.