- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 18 States Sue to Challenge Loss of Subsidies
Posted on 10/13/17 at 10:42 pm to I B Freeman
Posted on 10/13/17 at 10:42 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
I disagree.
Trump is putting this on Congress. He is saying "you have not authorized the funding needed to provide the subsidies to insurance companies--basically the profit guarantees to insurance companies--you want to give".
People will see ACA for what it is---a huge subsidy to insurance companies and providers.
Lets clear this up.
The law states this:
quote:
(3) Methods for reducing cost-sharing
(A) In general
An issuer of a qualified health plan making reductions under this subsection shall notify the Secretary of such reductions and the Secretary shall make periodic and timely payments to the issuer equal to the value of the reductions.
(B) Capitated payments
The Secretary may establish a capitated payment system to carry out the payment of cost-sharing reductions under this section. Any such system shall take into account the value of the reductions and make appropriate risk adjustments to such payments.
LINK
The cost-sharing subsidies are administered and paid by insurers, who are after-the-fact reimbursed by the government. What Trump is doing is saying "I will not pay this bill." But since the law still requires insurers to pay and administer these cost sharing subsidies, they will have to continue to do so. Republicans have argued they had to appropriate the funding to pay this bill first, which they refused to do. So they sued the Obama administration for paying the bills. The first ruling sided with the Republicans but has been appealed and is still ongoing.
What Trump's decision does is force insurers to find ways to make up for that non-payment. Their solution has largely been to offset those costs by over-correcting with premium increases. So the net cost to the government is actually greater than if Trump just paid the cost-sharing subsidies.
The subsidies to insurers are not going away, to the contrary, they are now going to get bigger.
What is happening, is if you do not have subsidies(since all of the subsidies increase with the increased costs of premiums and out-of-pocket expenses) you are facing much higher premiums to make up for the loss of the reimbursements for the cost sharing administration. You feel the full brunt of the increases. So this is going to harm the middle income people without subsidies but stuck on the individual market the hardest.
This post was edited on 10/13/17 at 10:46 pm
Posted on 10/13/17 at 11:32 pm to bonhoeffer45
Yeah, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. This has nothing to do with subsidies. It's about CSRs. And guess what? Insurance companies haven't been getting the CSRs for a couple years anyway. The payments that he signed to stop, had already stopped when it went to court.
Posted on 10/14/17 at 12:07 am to bonhoeffer45
Didn't the president just sign a law that allowed individual payers to create their own market? So couldn't they just abandon the subsidized market and force insurers to close up shop.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News