Obamacare to bypass Repub congress to pay Health Insurance companies $Billions$ in order to survive

[JEDI]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/barack-obama-bypass-congress-pay/2016/09/29/id/750955/

The program was intended to bring reluctant insurance companies onboard by creating "risk corridors" in which companies that had lower expenses from new customers would pay into a fund that would compensate those with higher costs. The risk corridors began in 2014 and end this December.


The Repubs gained control of congress, they blocked such payments.
Obamacare is on the verge of collapse as lots of health insurance companies are reducing their presence or out right dropping out of Obamacare.

I guess the forced premiums/IRS penalties from healthy young people aren't overcoming the expenses from sick people that Insurance companies could refuse to insure b4 Obamacare?

anyway, health insurance companies are suing the Fed govt for the $.
Obama may just payout the $Billions$ instead of opposing the lawsuit as if he lost in court.

GENIUS!
Go Obama!

but will this save Obamacare?
These 'Risk corridor' payouts end this Dec.
Health insurance companies are losing $$$ w/o these payouts.

 

[senseamp]

A deal is a deal.

 

[MongGrel]

Just another reason a lot of the GOP need to be booted out of Congress.

My two cents.

 

[guachi]

If the government didn't pay, they'd just get sued and lose and have to pay anyway.

Except they by waiting to get your money means many of those insurance companies would go out of business.

Which to the Republicans is a feature not a bug.

It's a total mystery how a party that doesn't want to pay its bills would nominate a candidate that doesn't pay his bills.

 

[zinfamous]

and yet somehow, someway, Texashiker and his buddies will support whatever side of this argument doesn't get them the insurance that they need.

 

[brycejones]

and yet somehow, someway, Texashiker and his buddies will support whatever side of this argument doesn't get them the insurance that they need.

Healthcare is only for those who work....

You know until you're unable to for some reason then you should get healthcare because you're the special snowflake. However those other lazy losers shouldn't get a damn thing. Because reasons.

 

[Thump553]

Amazing that the GOP Congress critters quoted in the article are outraged that Obama may have the government pay it's legal obligations. I have plenty of bills I don't want to pay, maybe I follow the same example as the so-called fiscally prudent GOP.

 

[zinfamous]

Amazing that the GOP Congress critters quoted in the article are outraged that Obama may have the government pay it's legal obligations. I have plenty of bills I don't want to pay, maybe I follow the same example as the so-called fiscally prudent GOP.

Just look at whom they are (somewhat reluctantly) championing as their figurehead this season.

 

[glenn1]

If the government didn't pay, they'd just get sued and lose and have to pay anyway.

Except they by waiting to get your money means many of those insurance companies would go out of business.

Which to the Republicans is a feature not a bug.

It's a total mystery how a party that doesn't want to pay its bills would nominate a candidate that doesn't pay his bills.

So they'll pay for the rest of the year and then come January when the statutory authority to make risk corridor payments has expired what then? The upside down nature of the program that OP pointed out (i.e. too many sick people getting benefits versus not enough gullible young healthy people paying in) isn't going away.

 

[sactoking]

Meh, it's news that's not news. It's Republicans complaining about something they created.

The ACA has the 3 Rs. Reinsurance is permanent, pays for individuals' claims in excess of a certain threshold, and is paid for by insurer fees. Risk adjustment is temporary, pays for groups of unhealthy people, and is paid for by insurer fees. Risk corridors is temporary, pays for unprofitable business and is paid for by insurer fees and supplemented by Treasury funds.

Risk corridors was supposed to keep insurers afloat for a few years while they figured out the new pricing. Due to silly partisanship Congress targeted the supplemental Treasury funds and essentially barred them from being used. This led to insurers becoming insolvent and Congress pointing to the insolvencies as proof that the law didn't work. The problem is that while Congress defunded the program the law REQUIRES the money to be paid. The insurers sued and they WILL win so why spend the money to defend a losing cause?

 

[trenchfoot]

Same thing with the 2006 Repub controlled Congress having the Postal Service enormously pre-fund their retirement program so that it would seemingly bury itself in cost over-runs not attributable to that fact, with the hoped for result of having the USPS getting chopped up and sold piecemeal to private entities.

 

[glenn1]

Meh, it's news that's not news. It's Republicans complaining about something they created.

The ACA has the 3 Rs. Reinsurance is permanent, pays for individuals' claims in excess of a certain threshold, and is paid for by insurer fees. Risk adjustment is temporary, pays for groups of unhealthy people, and is paid for by insurer fees. Risk corridors is temporary, pays for unprofitable business and is paid for by insurer fees and supplemented by Treasury funds.

Risk corridors was supposed to keep insurers afloat for a few years while they figured out the new pricing. Due to silly partisanship Congress targeted the supplemental Treasury funds and essentially barred them from being used. This led to insurers becoming insolvent and Congress pointing to the insolvencies as proof that the law didn't work. The problem is that while Congress defunded the program the law REQUIRES the money to be paid. The insurers sued and they WILL win so why spend the money to defend a losing cause?

I'll repeat my question from earlier. Given that the need for the subsidies isn't going away and probably never will given how Obamacare was written, what's the plan for January once the subsidies expire? Redouble your efforts in attempting to trick the young and healthy into buying overpriced insurance that makes zero economic sense for them in order to sustain the goodies you want to keep giving out?

 

[Jhhnn]

I'll repeat my question from earlier. Given that the need for the subsidies isn't going away and probably never will given how Obamacare was written, what's the plan for January once the subsidies expire? Redouble your efforts in attempting to trick the young and healthy into buying overpriced insurance that makes zero economic sense for them in order to sustain the goodies you want to keep giving out?

Your given isn't necessarily a given, at all. We'll be playing catch-up for awhile. People are getting problems fixed that they couldn't afford to have fixed prior to the ACA.

You also encourage extreme short sightedness. If SS were voluntary then homelessness would be a big problem for seniors. It's the same with healthcare insurance. It's hard to see when a person is young but 30 years go by in a flash. What the ACA represents is a generational compact & a paradigm shift. Fully implemented, you pay in when you can, never more than a small % of income, but you're always covered. If your employer has a plan you pay even less & most employers are required to have plans. All along the way, you're making an investment in your own future. You have ownership & vested interest unlike the way it was before.

It requires a little higher order of thinking to appreciate that.

 

[glenn1]

Your given isn't necessarily a given, at all. We'll be playing catch-up for awhile. People are getting problems fixed that they couldn't afford to have fixed prior to the ACA.

You also encourage extreme short sightedness. If SS were voluntary then homelessness would be a big problem for seniors. It's the same with healthcare insurance. It's hard to see when a person is young but 30 years go by in a flash. What the ACA represents is a generational compact & a paradigm shift. Fully implemented, you pay in when you can, never more than a small % of income, but you're always covered. If your employer has a plan you pay even less & most employers are required to have plans. All along the way, you're making an investment in your own future. You have ownership & vested interest unlike the way it was before.

It requires a little higher order of thinking to appreciate that.

It requires a "higher order of thinking" to appreciate screwing young people? And WTF are you going on about "ownership and vested interest" about? You have neither of those with either a health insurance account, Obamacare, Social Security, or any social welfare program for that matter. There have literally been Supreme Court decisions codifying that lack of ownership and vested interest for decades.

 

[Jaskalas]

The upside down nature of the program that OP pointed out (i.e. too many sick people getting benefits versus not enough gullible young healthy people paying in) isn't going away.

1: Does everyone get Healthcare?

If the answer is yes, then there is only one way to pay for it. Single payer.​

The ACA is an attempt to do this without paying for it. The resulting consequences send shockwaves through the system. Insurers fleeing, providers straining. It's ugly out there. You cannot mandate something that is not paid for and expect the system to survive for long.

 

[Jhhnn]

It requires a "higher order of thinking" to appreciate screwing young people? And WTF are you going on about "ownership and vested interest" about? You have neither of those with either a health insurance account, Obamacare, Social Security, or any social welfare program for that matter. There have literally been Supreme Court decisions codifying that lack of ownership and vested interest for decades.

It requires a higher order of thinking to realize that everybody who doesn't die before they get there gets old.

You can go on about legal technicalities all you want, but the system works as I described anyway. Well, unless the right wing manages to tear down civil society entirely, which is apparently the goal. They want us to be totally dependent on the obviously unreliable Job Creators rather than the Govt of the People.

 

[Jhhnn]

1: Does everyone get Healthcare?

If the answer is yes, then there is only one way to pay for it. Single payer.​

The ACA is an attempt to do this without paying for it. The resulting consequences send shockwaves through the system. Insurers fleeing, providers straining. It's ugly out there. You cannot mandate something that is not paid for and expect the system to survive for long.

It would be paid for if Repubs weren't desperately trying to kill it.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Obamacare is a misnomer, it is properly called "The Republicare compromise sure to fail health care program."

 

[Jaskalas]

It would be paid for if Repubs weren't desperately trying to kill it.

Next time try funding it in the legislation, instead of leaving it up to the Republicans later.

 

[JSt0rm]

I'll repeat my question from earlier. Given that the need for the subsidies isn't going away and probably never will given how Obamacare was written, what's the plan for January once the subsidies expire? Redouble your efforts in attempting to trick the young and healthy into buying overpriced insurance that makes zero economic sense for them in order to sustain the goodies you want to keep giving out?

Honestly I do kind of agree with this. We need universal care. Right now this is another example of the baby boomers looting their children. Funny how a big voting block gets to take and take and take.

 

[bshole]

Same thing with the 2006 Repub controlled Congress having the Postal Service enormously pre-fund their retirement program so that it would seemingly bury itself in cost over-runs not attributable to that fact, with the hoped for result of having the USPS getting chopped up and sold piecemeal to private entities.

Given the age of instant communication, is the USPS needed anymore? The total first class mail volume has been halved in the last decade. There are already providers for packages.

I remember the days when I used to send and receive letters. I don't miss them. The only worry is an EMI event from the sun that wipes out the electronics.

 

[Jhhnn]

Honestly I do kind of agree with this. We need universal care. Right now this is another example of the baby boomers looting their children. Funny how a big voting block gets to take and take and take.

More of that short sightedness I mentioned earlier.

 

[bshole]

Honestly I do kind of agree with this. We need universal care. Right now this is another example of the baby boomers looting their children. Funny how a big voting block gets to take and take and take.

It will come eventually and it will need to be triaged care.

 

[Jhhnn]

Given the age of instant communication, is the USPS needed anymore? The total first class mail volume has been halved in the last decade. There are already providers for packages.

I remember the days when I used to send and receive letters. I don't miss them. The only worry is an EMI event from the sun that wipes out the electronics.

If nothing else, we need the steady good paying jobs.

The USPS has agreements with major shippers to deliver in more remote locations. It might have been shipped UPS but the postman delivers it to your door.

 

[ivwshane]

If nothing else, we need the steady good paying jobs.

The USPS has agreements with major shippers to deliver in more remote locations. It might have been shipped UPS but the postman delivers it to your door.

That's also ignoring the fact that usps is a constitutionally mandated entity.