Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Open Discussion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Open Discussion Discuss GOP Plan To Trim Insurance Benefits Might Not Tame Premiums at the General Forum; If the right can help I wish they would stop fuqing with things. They can't govern. Never could. As House ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2017, 04:32 AM
Mikeyy's Avatar
Enchanted One
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PNW
Gender: Male
Posts: 67,674
Thanks: 21,406
Thanked 18,162 Times in 13,335 Posts
Default GOP Plan To Trim Insurance Benefits Might Not Tame Premiums

If the right can help I wish they would stop fuqing with things. They can't govern. Never could.

As House Republicans try to find common cause on a bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, they may be ready to let states make the ultimate decision about whether to keep a key provision in the federal health law that conservatives believe is raising insurance costs.

Conservatives from the House Freedom Caucus and members of a more moderate group of House Republicans, the Tuesday Group, are working on changes to the GOP health overhaul bill that was pulled unceremoniously by party leaders last month when they couldn't get enough votes to pass it.

At the heart of those negotiations is the law's requirement that most insurance plans offer 10 specific categories of "essential health benefits." They include hospital care, doctor and outpatient visits and prescription drug coverage, along with things like maternity care, mental health and preventive care services.

The Freedom Caucus had been pushing to strip required benefits, arguing that the coverage guarantees were driving up premium prices.

"We ultimately will be judged by only one factor: if insurance premiums come down," the Freedom Caucus chairman, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told The Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal last month.

But moderates, bolstered by complaints from patient groups and constituents, fought back. And a brief synopsis of a proposal outlined by Rep. Tom MacArthur, R-N.J., suggests that the compromise could be letting states decide whether they want a federal waiver to delete essential health benefits.

"The insurance mandates are a primary driver of [premium] spikes," Meadows and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wrote in March.

But health analysts and economists say that eliminating those benefits probably won't bring premiums down — at least not in the way conservatives are hoping.

"I don't know what they're thinking they're going to pull out of this pie," says Rebekah Bayram, a principal consulting actuary at the benefits consulting firm Milliman. She is the lead author of a recent study on the cost of various health benefits.

Opponents of the required benefits point to coverage for maternity care and mental health and substance abuse treatment as things that drive up premiums for people who will never use such services.

But eliminating those benefits wouldn't have much of an impact, Bayram says. Hospital care, doctor visits and prescription drugs "are the three big ones," she says. "Unless they were talking about ditching those, the other ones only have a marginal impact."

John Bertko, an actuary who worked in the Obama administration and served on the board of Massachusetts' health exchange, agrees: "You would either have very crappy benefits without drugs or physicians or hospitalization, or you would have roughly the same costs."

Maternity care and mental health and substance abuse, he says, "are probably less than 5 percent" of premium costs.

Of course, requiring specific coverage does push up premiums to some extent. James Bailey, an assistant professor of health economics at Creighton University in Omaha, has studied the issue at the state level. He estimates that the average state health insurance mandate "raises premiums by about one-half of 1 percent."

Those who want to get rid of the required benefits point to the fact that premiums in the individual market jumped dramatically from 2013 to 2014, the first year the benefits were required.

"The ACA requires more benefits that every consumer is required to purchase regardless of whether they want them, need them or can afford them," Ohio Insurance Commissioner Mary Taylor said in 2013, when the state's rates were announced.

But most of that jump was not due to the broader benefits, Bayram says, but to the fact that for the first time sicker patients were allowed to buy coverage.

"The premiums would go down a lot if only very healthy people were covered and people who were higher risk were pulled out of the risk pool," she says. (Some conservatives want to change that requirement, too, and let insurers charge sick people higher premiums.)

Meanwhile, most of the research that has been done on required benefits has looked at plans offered to workers by their employers, not policies available to individuals who buy their own coverage because they don't get it through work or the government. That individual market is the focus of the current debate.

Analysts warn that individual-market dynamics differ greatly from those of the employer insurance market.

Bailey says he "saw this debate coming and wanted to write a paper" about the ACA's essential health benefits. But "I very quickly realized there are all these complicated details that are going to make it very hard to figure out," he says, particularly the way the required benefits work in tandem with other requirements in the law.

For example, says Bertko, prescription drugs can represent 20 percent of costs in the individual market. That's far more than in the employer market.

Another big complication is that the required benefits do double duty, Bayram says. They not only ensure that consumers have a comprehensive package of benefits, but enable other parts of the health law to work by ensuring that everyone's benefits are comparable.

For example, the law adjusts payments to insurers to help compensate plans that enroll sicker-than-average patients. But in order to do that risk adjustment, she says, "all of the plans have to agree on some kind of package. So if you think of essential health benefits as an agreed-upon benchmark, I don't know how they can get rid of that and still have risk adjustment."

GOP Plan To Trim Benefits Might Not Lower Insurance Costs : Shots - Health News : NPR
__________________
Itís hard to win an argument with a smart person, but itís damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2017, 06:29 AM
300 H and H's Avatar
newer isn't always better
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Western Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,320
Thanks: 6,465
Thanked 3,667 Times in 2,341 Posts
Default Re: GOP Plan To Trim Insurance Benefits Might Not Tame Premiums

Anything is better than Obama care. I pay more in premiums than most people make in a year. This I have no say in either.

My individual plan is good under ACA, and will be continued next year, unlike many individual plans. But for $29K, and another $35K in income taxes, $64K for health insurance and federal taxes is more than my fair share. Is it any wonder why I HATE FUQING DEMOCRATS and all that comes with these idiots? ..

And these idiots want to bring in all who come here with free everything.

I hope one day I get up in the morning and all the Democrats in America would be found dead.

Forced to pay for those who can not. Great..... The idiots on the left wonder why we HATE them so fuqing much. We detest them and their socialistic policies to the bone. We want the left, left for dead.

Regards, Kirk
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2017, 06:33 AM
300 H and H's Avatar
newer isn't always better
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Western Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,320
Thanks: 6,465
Thanked 3,667 Times in 2,341 Posts
Default Re: GOP Plan To Trim Insurance Benefits Might Not Tame Premiums

Anything is better than Obama care. I pay more in premiums than most people make in a year. This I have no say in either.

My individual plan is good under ACA, and will be continued next year, unlike many individual plans. But for $29K, and another $35K in income taxes, $64K for health insurance and federal taxes is more than my fair share. Is it any wonder why I HATE FUQING DEMOCRATS and all that comes with these idiots? ..

And these idiots want to bring in all who come here with free everything. There is nothing fair about this at all. It is extortion, or worse. I can not put in words how angry I am about the ACA piece of sh1t the Dems forced on us all. With luck we will make them pay out their noses, some how.

I hope one day I get up in the morning and all the Democrats in America would be found dead.

Forced to pay for those who can not. Great..... The idiots on the left wonder why we HATE them so fuqing much. We detest them and their socialistic policies to the bone. We want the left, left for dead.

Regards, Kirk
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2017, 07:58 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,767
Thanks: 6,696
Thanked 5,378 Times in 3,321 Posts
Default Re: GOP Plan To Trim Insurance Benefits Might Not Tame Premiums

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
If the right can help I wish they would stop fuqing with things. They can't govern. Never could.

As House Republicans try to find common cause on a bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, they may be ready to let states make the ultimate decision about whether to keep a key provision in the federal health law that conservatives believe is raising insurance costs.

Conservatives from the House Freedom Caucus and members of a more moderate group of House Republicans, the Tuesday Group, are working on changes to the GOP health overhaul bill that was pulled unceremoniously by party leaders last month when they couldn't get enough votes to pass it.

At the heart of those negotiations is the law's requirement that most insurance plans offer 10 specific categories of "essential health benefits." They include hospital care, doctor and outpatient visits and prescription drug coverage, along with things like maternity care, mental health and preventive care services.

The Freedom Caucus had been pushing to strip required benefits, arguing that the coverage guarantees were driving up premium prices.

"We ultimately will be judged by only one factor: if insurance premiums come down," the Freedom Caucus chairman, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told The Heritage Foundation's Daily Signal last month.

But moderates, bolstered by complaints from patient groups and constituents, fought back. And a brief synopsis of a proposal outlined by Rep. Tom MacArthur, R-N.J., suggests that the compromise could be letting states decide whether they want a federal waiver to delete essential health benefits.

"The insurance mandates are a primary driver of [premium] spikes," Meadows and Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wrote in March.

But health analysts and economists say that eliminating those benefits probably won't bring premiums down ó at least not in the way conservatives are hoping.

"I don't know what they're thinking they're going to pull out of this pie," says Rebekah Bayram, a principal consulting actuary at the benefits consulting firm Milliman. She is the lead author of a recent study on the cost of various health benefits.

Opponents of the required benefits point to coverage for maternity care and mental health and substance abuse treatment as things that drive up premiums for people who will never use such services.

But eliminating those benefits wouldn't have much of an impact, Bayram says. Hospital care, doctor visits and prescription drugs "are the three big ones," she says. "Unless they were talking about ditching those, the other ones only have a marginal impact."

John Bertko, an actuary who worked in the Obama administration and served on the board of Massachusetts' health exchange, agrees: "You would either have very crappy benefits without drugs or physicians or hospitalization, or you would have roughly the same costs."

Maternity care and mental health and substance abuse, he says, "are probably less than 5 percent" of premium costs.

Of course, requiring specific coverage does push up premiums to some extent. James Bailey, an assistant professor of health economics at Creighton University in Omaha, has studied the issue at the state level. He estimates that the average state health insurance mandate "raises premiums by about one-half of 1 percent."

Those who want to get rid of the required benefits point to the fact that premiums in the individual market jumped dramatically from 2013 to 2014, the first year the benefits were required.

"The ACA requires more benefits that every consumer is required to purchase regardless of whether they want them, need them or can afford them," Ohio Insurance Commissioner Mary Taylor said in 2013, when the state's rates were announced.

But most of that jump was not due to the broader benefits, Bayram says, but to the fact that for the first time sicker patients were allowed to buy coverage.

"The premiums would go down a lot if only very healthy people were covered and people who were higher risk were pulled out of the risk pool," she says. (Some conservatives want to change that requirement, too, and let insurers charge sick people higher premiums.)

Meanwhile, most of the research that has been done on required benefits has looked at plans offered to workers by their employers, not policies available to individuals who buy their own coverage because they don't get it through work or the government. That individual market is the focus of the current debate.

Analysts warn that individual-market dynamics differ greatly from those of the employer insurance market.

Bailey says he "saw this debate coming and wanted to write a paper" about the ACA's essential health benefits. But "I very quickly realized there are all these complicated details that are going to make it very hard to figure out," he says, particularly the way the required benefits work in tandem with other requirements in the law.

For example, says Bertko, prescription drugs can represent 20 percent of costs in the individual market. That's far more than in the employer market.

Another big complication is that the required benefits do double duty, Bayram says. They not only ensure that consumers have a comprehensive package of benefits, but enable other parts of the health law to work by ensuring that everyone's benefits are comparable.

For example, the law adjusts payments to insurers to help compensate plans that enroll sicker-than-average patients. But in order to do that risk adjustment, she says, "all of the plans have to agree on some kind of package. So if you think of essential health benefits as an agreed-upon benchmark, I don't know how they can get rid of that and still have risk adjustment."

GOP Plan To Trim Benefits Might Not Lower Insurance Costs : Shots - Health News : NPR
Mikeyy, for years the left has been saying that OK we broke it, now it's the Right's problem to fix. Aside from waivers, deferments, and exemptions, the left has come up with no improvements. Now you want the Right to stop fuquing with things. I agree. Stop fuquing around and repeal the mess in total.

The use of the standard lefty disclaimer "might" is noted.

Mikeyy might stop posting useless shlt as well. Both are unlikely.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2017, 09:25 AM
Mikeyy's Avatar
Enchanted One
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PNW
Gender: Male
Posts: 67,674
Thanks: 21,406
Thanked 18,162 Times in 13,335 Posts
Default Re: GOP Plan To Trim Insurance Benefits Might Not Tame Premiums

Again, I can't read Kirk or Jimbo but I will bet it's ok with them.
__________________
Itís hard to win an argument with a smart person, but itís damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 04-21-2017, 10:37 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 14,258
Thanks: 6,976
Thanked 7,809 Times in 4,909 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: GOP Plan To Trim Insurance Benefits Might Not Tame Premiums

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeyy View Post
Again, I can't read Kirk or Jimbo but I will bet it's ok with them.
Again, you lie. You cower behind the ignore list and whine about what you think others may have written, nothing but sheer cowardice.
__________________
Susan Rice misled about Benghazi, Obama promoted her to national security advisor. Flynn misled about his phone calls to the Russian ambassador, Trump fired him as national security advisor. Obama rewarded spreading misleading information, Trump punishes those doing it.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 04-24-2017, 07:30 PM
Uncle Jim's Avatar
Counselor
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Nashville, tn
Gender: Male
Posts: 548
Thanks: 217
Thanked 204 Times in 182 Posts
Default Re: GOP Plan To Trim Insurance Benefits Might Not Tame Premiums

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Again, you lie. You cower behind the ignore list and whine about what you think others may have written, nothing but sheer cowardice.
HHHMMM: Those who are living in and by large clans are ALL cowards: That's what makes 'em clannish...So "Republicans" as they call themselves...
__________________
Keep Truckin'


Inverse Fascism is as bad as - any -
Perhaps WORSE!!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 04-24-2017, 07:35 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 70,528
Thanks: 51,504
Thanked 24,430 Times in 17,254 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: GOP Plan To Trim Insurance Benefits Might Not Tame Premiums

ban health insurance policies
see everything come down
__________________
He's right and I didn't vote for him but the people who did this are goat fricken less than low life losers. God bless the families of the harmed. God has already condemned the losers who did this cowardly crime.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 04-24-2017, 08:12 PM
cnredd's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Gender: Male
Posts: 51,067
Thanks: 1,844
Thanked 30,455 Times in 17,977 Posts
Default Re: GOP Plan To Trim Insurance Benefits Might Not Tame Premiums

Headline lie of omission...

Reality below...

Quote:
GOP Plan To Trim Insurance Benefits Might Not Tame Premiums, But ObamaCare DEFINITELY Didn't Tame Them; Contrary to the Liar-In-Chief

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama
We're gonna work with your employer and lower premiums by $2,500 per family per year. We will do it by the end of my first term as the president of the United States.
Liar...
__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 04-24-2017, 09:10 PM
300 H and H's Avatar
newer isn't always better
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Western Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,320
Thanks: 6,465
Thanked 3,667 Times in 2,341 Posts
Default Re: GOP Plan To Trim Insurance Benefits Might Not Tame Premiums

Instead of falling $2,500 it went up by $9,000.

Not just Obama is the liars here. It is in fact the entire Democratic party who did this, by majority vote. Every stinking Dem voted for the piece of sh1t we call Obama care.

Those idiots broke our medical system, through out the entire food chain. This mess will take a generation to sort out. And believe me Republicans will NEVER FORGET who gave us this situation.

Pissed I am. And a lot of others like me out there. Democratic party liars beware. The truth might set you free from this earth.

Regards, Kirk
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
benefits, gop, insurance, might, not, plan, premiums, tame, trim

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0