Ed Morrissey:
State by state, insurers keep bailing out of the ObamaCare exchanges, leaving consumers with no options to satisfy the mandate. Just a few weeks after Anthem announced it would leave 20 counties in Ohio without any access to ACA-compliant individual insurance plans, another Ohio insurer pulled out of the state’s ACA exchanges. Premier’s exit impacts nine Ohio counties, and once again points up the crisis as Congress tries to muddle through to a solution:
A Dayton-based insurer is the latest to leave Ohio’s health care exchange, leaving people in nine Southwest Ohio counties with one fewer option.
The Premier Health Plan said Thursday that uncertainty surrounding the future of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, fueled its decision to leave the Ohio exchange as of Jan. 1, 2018. The move affects people in nine counties, including Butler and Warren. …
The move comes weeks after Anthem announced it would withdraw. The decision left residents in 20 counties with no insurer on Ohio’s exchange for 2018.
In a healthy market, the exit of a major player would prompt smaller companies to fill the demand left behind. (Or for that matter, the larger player wouldn’t leave in the first place.” Premier’s decision to rid itself of the ObamaCare business while keeping its employer-based plans in place show that the issue isn’t in the overall health insurance business, but only in the segment that the federal government took over in 2010.
The meltdown is accelerating, so what exactly will Congress do about it? So far, the process is stalled, even with Mitch McConnell doing his best Monty Hall impersonation. Late last night, another $62 billion of the estimated $180 billion or so cushion got allocated to an innovation fund that will allow states to backstop insurers while they set up non-compliant plans that will pull in more enrollees. The program will target low-income Americans who struggle to pay the premiums and deductibles in the compliant plans:
The legislation, as currently drafted, dedicates $62 billion over eight years to encourage low-income people with high healthcare costs to buy insurance, according to a summary posted by the Senate Budget Committee.
A GOP aide said leaders are prepared to “pour a lot of money” into the fund to address concerns from a variety of moderates that the bill’s tax credits are not generous enough to help low-income people buy insurance. ….
It would come on top of $50 billion the legislation includes in its short-term stabilization fund, which is designed to reduce premium costs and give consumers “more choice in insurance markets,” according to the Budget panel summary.
Republican negotiators have concluded that not much more money can be spent through the short-term fund given the limits of the market to absorb it, according to the aide.
This is a sop to the moderates, who worry that the Senate’s BCRA gives away too much to higher-end earners while leaving lower-income Americans without any help at all. Since the money is granted to the states, some moderates aren’t entirely sold on the idea, as they wonder whether the money will go where intended. If that’s the problem, though, then there’s not much point in repealing ObamaCare at all, which is predicated on federal control of the market.
As if that’s not enough of a complication, Donald Trump tweeted out that the GOP should just do a repeal now, and worry about replacing later:
aca was similar to loans on expensive houses in chi. recall that the muslin terrorist,who has never been barred, threatened the bankers in chi to issue these mortgages that could not be met. physician reimbursement is very poor under aca. what the public never understood was aca was a means of reimbursement and not a method or health care delivery. the current propaganda of idiots staging sit in and clueless congressional members is stunning in stupidity. one must never forget that when a patient is on aca he/she has transportation via cab provided to and from the office.
You might want to consider the possibility that companies are bailing out right and left owing to the extreme uncertainty republicans are producing about the future of health care law.
It’s virtually impossible to make sound business decisions when every rule and regulation you’re basing cost projections on could be turned upside down at any moment. “Repeal now and replace later” is the most recent absurdity to emerge in the discussion. It would remove industry parameters that currently exist and put nothing in their place, with the extreme difficulty republicans are having in coming up with new rules already clearly demonstrated.
Who would issue policies under such circumstances? The only way it could be done while protecting a company from unacceptable financial risk would be to increase premiums enormously.
@Greg: Nah, no consideration. You’re a biased employee of the Democratic Party trying to take over the country.
You, however, might consider you and your party are one voice among myriad, and you don’t get to have everything your way.
Any time one party uses a majority in the House, with an aligned president, to drive home it’s own agenda without any bilpartisan support (0 votes from the Reps), there is always hell to pay.
Pay up, Greg. It’s your fault.
@Nathan Blue:
Don’t forget to send a note about that to your House and Senate leadership.
Sasse: ‘Repeal with a delay,’ then replace
So, repeal, but with an effective future date, so you don’t have to come up with a replacement before the next election, and don’t have to deal with the consequences of not having one.
We’ve gone from red Trump hats to red clown noses.
Insurers warn Cruz provision will ‘skyrocket’ premiums for sick people
Well, yes, if you price sick people out of the health insurance market, health insurance will obviously become cheaper for younger, healthier people. And the point is what? That this makes it a good idea?
@Greg: Yeah, the left f**ked this up, real good.
If — if — the Senate passes a health bill, get ready for lightning round in the House
And then republicans can brace themselves for a lightning round at the ballot boxes in November 2018 and again in 2020, because the predicted consequences of this bill for many Americans will be disastrous. Millions will lose their health insurance, people trying to save for their own retirement will be wondering how to pay for their elders’ nursing home costs as Medicaid funding rapidly declines, and private health insurance premiums for older Americans—age 50 to 65—will skyrocket. That’s the projection.