tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post485235577970091471..comments2024-03-10T13:59:19.230-04:00Comments on xpostfactoid: Betsy McCaughey, mother of the death panel myth, is gaslighting the ACA againAndrew Sprunghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17601269968798865106noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-40929695844659880412017-01-22T14:52:08.359-05:002017-01-22T14:52:08.359-05:00Let me expand on my short argument yesterday.
Ass...Let me expand on my short argument yesterday.<br /><br />Assume that before the ACA, a healthy 40 year old paid $150 a month for decent health insurance, and a sick 40 year old (5-10 per cent of the group).<br /><br />Then we get guaranteed issue and community rating in the ACA, and both persons above must pay $450 a month in most states, and so need subsidies.<br /><br />Wasn't there a way to leave the healthy guy alone and give subsidies to the sick guy? Now maybe the taxpayers would not have approved such subsidies, so a universal guaranteed issue plan was the only way to go. Comments welcome.<br /><br />Even a broken clock is right twice a day, in terms of underwriting.bob.hertzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09686373408419885558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-4897485510496125082017-01-21T19:21:18.406-05:002017-01-21T19:21:18.406-05:00You are correct that McGauphey is very devious, bu...You are correct that McGauphey is very devious, but actually I saw a ray of hope in her article. She did state that it might take $32 billion to cover high risk persons. That is better than Tom Price or Paul Ryan, who apparently intend to leave high risk persons to the not so tender mercies of each state.<br /><br />The Republicans have one half an argument. The fastest and surest way to bring lower insurance premiums to 75% of people is to bring back medical underwriting. You do get into the greatest good for the greatest number here. The challenge is, how to you get the 'winners' who are preferred risks to pay some tax money to help out the losers.bob.hertzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09686373408419885558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8512362.post-44863818796395333732017-01-20T17:10:44.811-05:002017-01-20T17:10:44.811-05:00Ignore for the moment the number of people who are...Ignore for the moment the number of people who are expensive and would qualify for the high risk pool. Just look at the ratio of the funding for the high risk pool versus the total premiums paid by all subscribers. Ryan's promising $2.5 billion for the high risk pools. A reasonable guess for the total premiums paid by all in private insurance is on the order of $100 billion. If you subsidize them with a subsidy of $2.5 billion, you're only lowering average premiums by 2.5%. Doesn't matter whether you put high-risk people in one pool and everybody else in the other or whether you stick them all together, you're still only lowering premiums by 2.5%. So either nobody gets much of a premium break, or you jack up premiums enormously on the high risk group to lower premiums for everyone else. <br /><br />Putting people in high risk pools doesn't make their health care costs any cheaper.Cardinal Fanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07895278919938671087noreply@blogger.com