Court REJECTS Claim that Health Insurers are Owed Billions in Obamacare Risk Corridor Payment

Reply
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
313
Views

Re: Court REJECTS Claim that Health Insurers are Owed Billions in Obamacare Risk Corridor Payment

313 Views
Message 1 of 24

@GailL1 wrote:

@john258

 

You seem to be rambling - to the extreme. 

 

Are you saying that laws, even those written and passed by a Democratic Administration and had all the rules surrounding the Law written by the same Administration, can be interpreted 70 different ways?

 

Should we not be able to challenge in court and up the legal hierarchy, various aspects of a law if we, as individuals or as states, feel that it is somehow over its bounds?

 

You say, I don't know anything about healthcare coverage - but it sounds to me like you don't know much about how our various branches of government work together to make sure we do have those checks and balances in power and in money.

 

You also never give any specifics to back up what you say even after I presented many reliable sources, even the actual law and section covering the Co-Op design and plan.  

You just say . . . . . . I covered that in detail several years ago .

 

Come on, john258 - give me a reputable place that will substantiate your (incorrect) claim - if you can find one. 

 

A discussion is not just one person telling the other they are wrong - a discussion is backing up what you are saying with facts from reliable resources. You are very short on these and it lessens your own credibility in a discussion.

 

Name-calling is not a discussion either.  

 

I challenge you to find a reliable source that says the Republican changed the funding of the Co-OP's from grants to loans.  You have said that numerous times in this thread to me and I have said you were wrong and gave you the actual law and section backing up my claim, plus numerous links.

 

But you just say that isn't right, that I am wrong and that's it - proves nothing to me or anybody else.  

 

I challenge you to find a reliable source that says the Republican changed the funding of the Co-OP's from grants to loans.  

 

There were both in the legislation, for different purposes as defined by the law, but the majority of the money was a LOAN and was described as such in the PPACA passed by a Democratic body of Legislators in 2010, under a Democratic President with rules for the entire law put in place by his Administration.  

A LOAN To be repaid - that was the plan - helpful in making what President Obama said was to be a revenue neutral piece of legislation.

 

This is a discussion board, let's discuss -

BTW, paragraphs are our friends - they make reading WOT (walls of text) easier to read.

 

Do you need technical help creating links, once you have found any source that backs up your claims, in this thread or elsewhere, if so there are many here that could help you.

 

We can even teach you how to edit messages too.  It does begin with hitting the QUOTE button, which you have that down.  Is that because you are a Democrat and leave it up to others to keep control of things - doing the blathering but leaving up to someone else for the clean up.

 

 


I am answering what are totally wrong posts by someone who has no idea how the system works and has shown that for years. Go look at what I told you years ago when you were ranting about the Co-ops. It has not changed. You stupid last para. shows just what level you are at.  You have no idea what I am, but as in everything you comment on you take your views and try and force them on all. Yes we thinking people spend a lot of time cleaning up what the far right enablers try and put out as fact. I will say this I do spend more time on your posts as they really are never correct, so clean up is needed so people will not be hurt. In closing you have no understanding of health care.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
313
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
321
Views

Re: Court REJECTS Claim that Health Insurers are Owed Billions in Obamacare Risk Corridor Payment

321 Views
Message 2 of 24

@GailL1 wrote:

@gruffstuff

 

THE REST OF THE STORY -

 

The article you quote from does give good info - but it is missing one big important part and that is the actual why the Republican back in 2015 had a problem with the risk corridors in the 1st place.

 

The then HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebilus, had a problem interpreting exactly where the money was suppose to come from to pay these risk corridor payment after the 3rd year.

 

The law required that ALL insurers pay into the risk program if certain markers were met.  So for three years, money flowed into the risk program - when it came to analysis the inflow and what would be the outflow (meaning paying insurers who had these losses), the HHS Secretary had a problem - THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH MONEY.  As the article you posted said.

 

WHAT TO DO ?

The Administration could take money from somewhere else in the program but that would also create havoc in some other area.  The Administratin could tell Congress that the budget had to make up the difference to make the risk corridor payment whole and paid at 100% instead of what was in the present fund (about 13%).

 

What Senator Rubio and other Supporting Republicans did was to clearly interpret the law and which has been validated by the Courts.  That is to say the programs of collections and payments of these risk corridor payments were to be BUDGET NEUTRAL and only the amount collected could be paid out.  By taking money from somewhere else in the law or from the General Fund would constitute a "bail out " of the insurance companies.

 

i think you can understand how such an open ended payment for losses could be construed as such.  After all, the insurers, for profit or non-profit, were the ones setting their own premiums and competing with other insurers in the same geographical marketplace.  

 

What would have prevented any of them from setting their premiums low (as many of the Co-OP's)  and then asking for their losses to be covered by the risk corridor payments?  Nothing - and that is what many of the Co-OP's did - the ones that were already established before the budget cuts.  

 

So so when the insurers losses were only reimbursed at 13% rather than 100% because HHS paid the claims based on the Budget neutral position, private insurers just began to raise their premium to adequately cover their risk and then they filed a court case(the subject one) to see if they could recover - 

 

The originally established Co-OP's were hit extremely hard with is budget neutral decision.  For many reasons, covered in my previous links, they had gone in with low premiums and had attracted some of the most sickest patients.  The HHS Secretary at the time even encouraged some of the PCIP (Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan of the ACA beginnings) to enroll in the Co-Op plans when they were closing down the interim PCIP Federal program - the sickest patients.

 

These Co-OP's , by design and administratively, were designed to fail from the get go; this just put in a swifter death by insolvency.

 

Thank You, Senator Rubio, from stopping what could have been an insurer bail out.  Every penny of what was collected from the insurers payment into the risk corridor program was paid out to them but based on a budget neutral formula rather than an open ended formula.  And all of this was one by the Obama Administration with the Republicans only questioning where the money was coming from for such disbursement.  President Obama often touted the supposed  budget neutrality of the ACA at the time.  But it is when the money hits the fan that  this claim would be tested - it failed again.

 

 

 

 


Once again you show that you do not understand this subject in any way shape or form. An article from the web which you do not understand and try and pass off as support for your objective of doing away with health care in the US.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
321
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
329
Views

Re: Court REJECTS Claim that Health Insurers are Owed Billions in Obamacare Risk Corridor Payment

329 Views
Message 3 of 24

@gruffstuff

 

THE REST OF THE STORY -

 

The article you quote from does give good info - but it is missing one big important part and that is the actual why the Republican back in 2015 had a problem with the risk corridors in the 1st place.

 

The then HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebilus, had a problem interpreting exactly where the money was suppose to come from to pay these risk corridor payment after the 3rd year.

 

The law required that ALL insurers pay into the risk program if certain markers were met.  So for three years, money flowed into the risk program - when it came to analysis the inflow and what would be the outflow (meaning paying insurers who had these losses), the HHS Secretary had a problem - THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH MONEY.  As the article you posted said.

 

WHAT TO DO ?

The Administration could take money from somewhere else in the program but that would also create havoc in some other area.  The Administratin could tell Congress that the budget had to make up the difference to make the risk corridor payment whole and paid at 100% instead of what was in the present fund (about 13%).

 

What Senator Rubio and other Supporting Republicans did was to clearly interpret the law and which has been validated by the Courts.  That is to say the programs of collections and payments of these risk corridor payments were to be BUDGET NEUTRAL and only the amount collected could be paid out.  By taking money from somewhere else in the law or from the General Fund would constitute a "bail out " of the insurance companies.

 

i think you can understand how such an open ended payment for losses could be construed as such.  After all, the insurers, for profit or non-profit, were the ones setting their own premiums and competing with other insurers in the same geographical marketplace.  

 

What would have prevented any of them from setting their premiums low (as many of the Co-OP's)  and then asking for their losses to be covered by the risk corridor payments?  Nothing - and that is what many of the Co-OP's did - the ones that were already established before the budget cuts.  

 

So so when the insurers losses were only reimbursed at 13% rather than 100% because HHS paid the claims based on the Budget neutral position, private insurers just began to raise their premium to adequately cover their risk and then they filed a court case(the subject one) to see if they could recover - 

 

The originally established Co-OP's were hit extremely hard with is budget neutral decision.  For many reasons, covered in my previous links, they had gone in with low premiums and had attracted some of the most sickest patients.  The HHS Secretary at the time even encouraged some of the PCIP (Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan of the ACA beginnings) to enroll in the Co-Op plans when they were closing down the interim PCIP Federal program - the sickest patients.

 

These Co-OP's , by design and administratively, were designed to fail from the get go; this just put in a swifter death by insolvency.

 

Thank You, Senator Rubio, from stopping what could have been an insurer bail out.  Every penny of what was collected from the insurers payment into the risk corridor program was paid out to them but based on a budget neutral formula rather than an open ended formula.  And all of this was one by the Obama Administration with the Republicans only questioning where the money was coming from for such disbursement.  President Obama often touted the supposed  budget neutrality of the ACA at the time.  But it is when the money hits the fan that  this claim would be tested - it failed again.

 

 

 

 


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
329
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
344
Views

Re: Court REJECTS Claim that Health Insurers are Owed Billions in Obamacare Risk Corridor Payment

344 Views
Message 4 of 24

Once again Republicans play word games instead of admitting their offense.

 

The PPACA works when the risk to insurers is acceptable. The original law made this possible, and that is what Democrats passed and President Obama signed.

 

The Republicans, under the false flag of reducing Government spending,  passed laws that made the risk UNacceptable by cutting the amount the Government would pay the insurers. Same nonsensical approach they take every time the debt ceiling needs to be raised and they insist they're "saving taxpayer money" by increasing the interest demanded by those "buying" our debt, increasing the cost of servicing the debt, and leaving less to make things better for all Americans.

 

The Republicans in Congress are not all stupid. Some are just evil, and concoct these Byzantine webs of deceit to conceal their true objective - to deprive Americans of things the citizens of every other developed country have had for decades - universal health care.

 

No mater how Gail and others slice it, the legislation passed by Republicans has harmed millions of Americans by increasing the cost of their health care insurance while benefiting NO ONE.

 

But Republicans are okay with this because the ones harmed are poor and many are not white, and none of the Republicans harmed have the wit to understand it was THEIR Party that shafted them because the GOPerLords tell them it was the Democrats fault for designing PPACA so it was possible for Republicans to shaft them. And they swallow it.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
344
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
353
Views

Re: Court REJECTS Claim that Health Insurers are Owed Billions in Obamacare Risk Corridor Payment

353 Views
Message 5 of 24

https://www.salon.com/2017/03/22/how-republicans-quietly-sabotaged-obamacare-long-before-trump-came-...

 

How Republicans quietly sabotaged Obamacare long before Trump came into office

 

When the ACA was rolled out, telling insurance companies that they had to insure anybody who signed up, regardless of previous conditions or sickness, everybody realized that the insurance companies would probably lose money in the first decade or so, until previously-uninsured-but-sick people got into the system, got better, and things evened out.


To get the insurance companies to go along with this danger of losing money, the ACA promised to make them whole for any losses in any of the first decade's years.  At the end of each fiscal year, the insurance companies merely had to document their losses, and the government would reimburse them out of ACA funds provided for by the law.


The possibility of their losing money was referred to as the "risk corridor," and the ACA explicitly filled those risk corridors with a guarantee of making the insurance companies, at the very least, whole.


And then something happened.  As The New York Times noted on December 9, 2015, "A little-noticed health care provision slipped into a giant spending law last year has tangled up the Obama administration, sent tremors through health insurance markets and rattled confidence in the durability of President Obama’s signature health law."


Rubio and a number of other Republicans had succeeded in gutting the risk corridors.  The result was that, just in 2015, end-of-fiscal-year risk corridor payments to insurance companies that were supposed to total around $2.9 billion were only reimbursed, according to Rubio himself quoted in the Times, to the tune of around $400 million.  Rubio bragged that he'd "saved taxpayers $2.5 billion."


And, indeed, he had.  But the insurance companies were thrown into a crisis.  And, with Republicans in Congress absolutely refusing to re-fund the risk corridors, that crisis would get worse as time went on, at least over a period of a few years.


So the insurance companies did the only things they could.  In (mostly red) states with low incomes and thus poorer health, they simply pulled out of the marketplace altogether.  This has left some states with only one single insurer left.  In others, they jacked up their prices to make up their losses.

 

As Robert Pear in the Times noted, Rubio's "plan limiting how much the government can spend to protect insurance companies against financial losses has shown the effectiveness of quiet legislative sabotage."


To add to the political psychodrama, the first hack by Rubio  was maintained by Republicans into the 2016 budget, meaning that things got even worse in October, 2016 – the first month of the federal fiscal year when these cuts hit the worse, and, no coincidence, the month before the presidential election.


Rubio's October Surprise was extraordinarily effective.  October 2016 saw an explosion of stories in the news about how health insurance companies were either pulling out of ACA exchanges, or jacking their prices up wildly.


Time magazine wrote "8 States Where Obamacare Rates Are Rising by at Least 30%" without mentioning Rubio's role in why. Ditto for NPR's "22 Percent Hike in Obamacare Rates…" and CNN's "Obamacare Premiums Soar By 22%."  If you date-limit just to October of 2016 - the month before the election - you can find hundreds of similar articles.  It was a huge story, but somehow Little Marco's role in it all - along with his friends in the GOP - never made it into any of the stories.


Only the Times, back the previous year, had really given much coverage to the story, noting, "[B]ecause of Mr. Rubio’s efforts, the administration says it will pay only 13 percent of what insurance companies were expecting to receive this year. The payments were supposed to help insurers cope with the risks they assumed when they decided to participate in the law’s new insurance marketplaces."


Meanwhile, federal judge Thomas Wheeler of the US Court of Federal Claims, ruled recently (as reported last month by Forbes) that the feds actually have to pay back - to the tune of about $8 billion – the moneys lost by health insurance companies operationg in good faith.

 

But it's way too late; dozens of nonprofits started to provide health insurance through the exchanges have already gone bankrupt, and the health insurance giants are both subsuming their smaller competitors and merging like there's no tomorrow. Additionally, Wheeler's ruling is certain to be appealed – meaning it's in limbo for the moment.


So, yes, Donald Trump is right that Obamacare had been sabotaged, in a way that would virtually guarantee at least some level of crisis by 2017.  Where he's sadly, paranoiacly wrong is in attributing that sabotage to President Obama.


Democrats should have been screaming bloody murder for the past 2 years.  Maybe they can start now, every time a reporter or Republican says, "Obamacare is failing…"

 

 

 

Yep ............ constant attack from Republicans, the plan is not to make the ACA work, the plan is to make the ACA fail.

 

Detractors on these boards do their part in that.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
353
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
405
Views

Re: Court REJECTS Claim that Health Insurers are Owed Billions in Obamacare Risk Corridor Payment

405 Views
Message 6 of 24

@john258

 

You seem to be rambling - to the extreme. 

 

Are you saying that laws, even those written and passed by a Democratic Administration and had all the rules surrounding the Law written by the same Administration, can be interpreted 70 different ways?

 

Should we not be able to challenge in court and up the legal hierarchy, various aspects of a law if we, as individuals or as states, feel that it is somehow over its bounds?

 

You say, I don't know anything about healthcare coverage - but it sounds to me like you don't know much about how our various branches of government work together to make sure we do have those checks and balances in power and in money.

 

You also never give any specifics to back up what you say even after I presented many reliable sources, even the actual law and section covering the Co-Op design and plan.  

You just say . . . . . . I covered that in detail several years ago .

 

Come on, john258 - give me a reputable place that will substantiate your (incorrect) claim - if you can find one. 

 

A discussion is not just one person telling the other they are wrong - a discussion is backing up what you are saying with facts from reliable resources. You are very short on these and it lessens your own credibility in a discussion.

 

Name-calling is not a discussion either.  

 

I challenge you to find a reliable source that says the Republican changed the funding of the Co-OP's from grants to loans.  You have said that numerous times in this thread to me and I have said you were wrong and gave you the actual law and section backing up my claim, plus numerous links.

 

But you just say that isn't right, that I am wrong and that's it - proves nothing to me or anybody else.  

 

I challenge you to find a reliable source that says the Republican changed the funding of the Co-OP's from grants to loans.  

 

There were both in the legislation, for different purposes as defined by the law, but the majority of the money was a LOAN and was described as such in the PPACA passed by a Democratic body of Legislators in 2010, under a Democratic President with rules for the entire law put in place by his Administration.  

A LOAN To be repaid - that was the plan - helpful in making what President Obama said was to be a revenue neutral piece of legislation.

 

This is a discussion board, let's discuss -

BTW, paragraphs are our friends - they make reading WOT (walls of text) easier to read.

 

Do you need technical help creating links, once you have found any source that backs up your claims, in this thread or elsewhere, if so there are many here that could help you.

 

We can even teach you how to edit messages too.  It does begin with hitting the QUOTE button, which you have that down.  Is that because you are a Democrat and leave it up to others to keep control of things - doing the blathering but leaving up to someone else for the clean up.

 

 


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
405
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
426
Views

Re: Court REJECTS Claim that Health Insurers are Owed Billions in Obamacare Risk Corridor Payment

426 Views
Message 7 of 24

@GailL1 wrote:

@john258

 

The PPACA (The Law) establish the Obamacare Co-OPs; in fact it was detailed in the coverage of them.  That is the law that was passed.

 

The subsequent rules and interpretation was done by the Obama Administration Secretary of HHS.

 

The Republican did not change anything about the loan for these Co-OP's that were already establish or had already gotten their loan.  They have been functioning or NOT based on their own solvency.  

 

Yes,as other insurers, they were expecting money from the government to cover some of their EXTREME patient cost but that did not happen because no enough money flowed into the fund and as the court has now ruled, it was suppose to be BUDGET NEUTRAL.

 

I have given you links from reliable sources explaining the problem but you still don't seem to understand that to stay afloat as an insurer, for profit or non-profit, premiums have to be set to cover the cost.  Many, Most of those Co-OP's would not have been able to have any customers if they had based their premiums on covering their cost - meaning healthcare usage and Administrative cost - because their premiums would have been based in reality rather than the government will bail us out - 

 

The PPACA has been failing from the get go - from the folding of the CLASS ACT, months after the law passed to Court actions that have not supported large block of it.

 

If we are to start over with a new plan, we need to start at the beginning and put some controls on the cost of healthcare - that is what other countries do and did when they were deciding what to do with their system.  If we cannot deal with healthcare cost similar to the way other countries do it, then we might as well just forget it because the country cannot afford it.

 

THE END


Let me say again you do not understand the health care system or law making. You can give me all the laws you want that were passed, and if there are 100 people you can 70 different interpretations. Yes a lot of them were by the agency who was trying to put the program in place. There was nothing but blocking from the far right Reb. mainly at the Fed. and State level and that lead to changes by the agency to work around those road blocks. There were times they could not work around the road blocks like Reb. States not expanding Medicaid which has lead to more problems. The court ruling that the Sub. was a tax is another one, since congress could have fixed that in a second but the far right Reb. blocked it. The initial Grant to Co ops was changed to a loan and that was covered in detail some years ago. I post on it in answer to some of your post saying how bad the ACA was. As I have said to you before by getting all these articles you end up on every side of an issue even opposing today what you said yesterday. I have not been the only one that has told you that. You need to learn the subject before you try and get articles to support your idea. Your links are from reliable sources and even cover the small area they are written about, but they do not cover the entire health care system, and you just can not accept that so they become of no use in the way you try and use them. The cost of the total health care system is known now and yes there can be savings. One is to try and end ER Care. Another is drug prices. Control them by treating drug Cos. as we do public Utilities. Have users of an area pay to cover any medical cost. An example is Auto accidents. Have each state add an auto accident charge as part of the drivers license fee is an idea, then create a pool which would be used to either become a reinsurer on large claims (cheapest to Admin), or pay so much of each auto accident claim. There are other ways you could do this to. The ACA has worked and if restored could become the starting point. The end point for the Insurance side is Medi Care for all. It has been proven to work. There are a lot of other ways you can cut the total coast of the health care system, and there are enough experts around that could put a plan into operation. You need govt to allow it, and that means you have to get rid of the far right, as that group has never done anything but hurt people. Learn the  system and then you will be able to think outside the box. Drop out of the far right group and join the main stream.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
426
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
462
Views

Re: Court REJECTS Claim that Health Insurers are Owed Billions in Obamacare Risk Corridor Payment

462 Views
Message 8 of 24

@john258

 

The PPACA (The Law) establish the Obamacare Co-OPs; in fact it was detailed in the coverage of them.  That is the law that was passed.

 

The subsequent rules and interpretation was done by the Obama Administration Secretary of HHS.

 

The Republican did not change anything about the loan for these Co-OP's that were already establish or had already gotten their loan.  They have been functioning or NOT based on their own solvency.  

 

Yes,as other insurers, they were expecting money from the government to cover some of their EXTREME patient cost but that did not happen because no enough money flowed into the fund and as the court has now ruled, it was suppose to be BUDGET NEUTRAL.

 

I have given you links from reliable sources explaining the problem but you still don't seem to understand that to stay afloat as an insurer, for profit or non-profit, premiums have to be set to cover the cost.  Many, Most of those Co-OP's would not have been able to have any customers if they had based their premiums on covering their cost - meaning healthcare usage and Administrative cost - because their premiums would have been based in reality rather than the government will bail us out - 

 

The PPACA has been failing from the get go - from the folding of the CLASS ACT, months after the law passed to Court actions that have not supported large block of it.

 

If we are to start over with a new plan, we need to start at the beginning and put some controls on the cost of healthcare - that is what other countries do and did when they were deciding what to do with their system.  If we cannot deal with healthcare cost similar to the way other countries do it, then we might as well just forget it because the country cannot afford it.

 

THE END


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
462
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
474
Views

Re: Court REJECTS Claim that Health Insurers are Owed Billions in Obamacare Risk Corridor Payment

474 Views
Message 9 of 24

@GailL1 wrote:

@john258

 

No, john258, it is not cost shifting - it is because people who make over 400% of the FPL get NO government subsidy for their premium cost and they are feeling the brunt of all the increases in premiums, no matter what the cause of the escalation.  

 

They will ill continue to leave the exchange and seek coverage under some other method.  MediShare plans as well as others are still sanctioned under Obamacare - even some short term plans.

 

As to your reference to those people that lost those CSR - they didn't skip a beat -  they lost nothing - they didn't even blink an eye - they just picked another plan, sometimes a better plan and the government increased their premium subsidy.  The insurers were the ones that lost.  Look it up.

 

The Republican did not change the funds given to the Obamacare Co-OP's to LOANS - the LOANS were established in the PPACA.

Here is the Law and the Section:

HR 3590, Section 1322

https://www.gao.gov/about/hcac/section1322.pdf

 

This is the part of the law that describes EVERYTHING about the Obamacare

Co-OP's - the grants, the loans, the rules,mother who what when and where - and when the loans were due to be repaid (5-years).

 

The Co-OP's that were already funded and had their loan were not affected by an budget cuts which were done under the Obama Presidency - with,the "Fiscal Cliff" budget deal negotiated by VP Joe Biden and Senator McConnell - 

One of the links which I gave you, wondered why then President Obama didn't go to bat more for the Co-OP's - think he knew that without lots of government money,mthey were not gonna succeed - how could they, the government had tied their hands in many respects - I covered this in my last post in detail.

 

READ THE PPACA HR 3590, Sect. 1322


As I have told you over and over Gail you do not understand the health care system. You have to fix the total system not just parts. When you fix parts what you really do is move the money to another part which usually cost more than the part the person left so the total cost of the system goes up. I told you what happened to the co-ops and that is the story. You give me a law that can be and was used to do this. If you understand what you pulled from the Internet you would know that. As I told you before these laws are broad, and direction comes from the make up of congress as time passes along with how they allocate money. As I told you some time ago under the Medicaid law a school Dist. got funds for a school crossing guard. It would have taken about 5 to 10 years to know if the all or most of them would make it  because they were small, had no support from other lines to help them. Worst of all a lot of the underlying assumptions made when rating was done on the ACA were being destroyed by the far right Reb. so that made the assumptions in forming them bad also. The far right killed health care. Your state did not expand MEDICAID which was one factor in the problems, and that was far right Reb. You do not understand the health care system, and you do not really understand how the Govt. works. You are good at finding articles on the Inter net, but then you do not understand them.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
474
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
480
Views

Re: Court REJECTS Claim that Health Insurers are Owed Billions in Obamacare Risk Corridor Payment

480 Views
Message 10 of 24

@john258

 

No, john258, it is not cost shifting - it is because people who make over 400% of the FPL get NO government subsidy for their premium cost and they are feeling the brunt of all the increases in premiums, no matter what the cause of the escalation.  

 

They will ill continue to leave the exchange and seek coverage under some other method.  MediShare plans as well as others are still sanctioned under Obamacare - even some short term plans.

 

As to your reference to those people that lost those CSR - they didn't skip a beat -  they lost nothing - they didn't even blink an eye - they just picked another plan, sometimes a better plan and the government increased their premium subsidy.  The insurers were the ones that lost.  Look it up.

 

The Republican did not change the funds given to the Obamacare Co-OP's to LOANS - the LOANS were established in the PPACA.

Here is the Law and the Section:

HR 3590, Section 1322

https://www.gao.gov/about/hcac/section1322.pdf

 

This is the part of the law that describes EVERYTHING about the Obamacare

Co-OP's - the grants, the loans, the rules,mother who what when and where - and when the loans were due to be repaid (5-years).

 

The Co-OP's that were already funded and had their loan were not affected by an budget cuts which were done under the Obama Presidency - with,the "Fiscal Cliff" budget deal negotiated by VP Joe Biden and Senator McConnell - 

One of the links which I gave you, wondered why then President Obama didn't go to bat more for the Co-OP's - think he knew that without lots of government money,mthey were not gonna succeed - how could they, the government had tied their hands in many respects - I covered this in my last post in detail.

 

READ THE PPACA HR 3590, Sect. 1322


* * * * It's Always Something . . . Roseanne Roseannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
480
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

AARP Coronavirus Call-in Event

AARP will host a weekly, live Coronavirus Information Tele-Town Hall on Thursdays at 1 pm (ET). Learn more on AARP's Coronavirus Tele-Town Hall page and join us each week for the latest information.

Calling is toll-free. During the 90-minute live event, government experts will answer your questions and address health concerns related to COVID-19.