Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:24 PM Mar 2017

House considering nixing continuous coverage piece of health care bill

Source: Axios


Caitlin Owens

The House Republican leadership is discussing removing the "continuous coverage" provision of the House Obamacare repeal and replacement bill in response to conservative concerns about it, according to a senior GOP aide.

What it does: It requires insurers to impose a one-year, 30 percent premium penalty on anyone enrolling in the individual or small group markets who was uninsured for more than 63 days within the past year.

Why it might go: The concerns center around estimates provided Monday by the Congressional Budget Office about the impact of the provision:

- It would increase the number of covered people in 2018, but then decrease that number in 2019 and on.


Read more: https://www.axios.com/house-considering-nixing-continuous-coverage-piece-of-health-care-bill-2315367282.html
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

karynnj

(59,504 posts)
2. I bet the insurance companies do not allow this to happen
Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:35 PM
Mar 2017

The Republican bill eliminates the mandate. Without the mandate, it would make sense for all basically healthy people to skip getting insurance until they are ill. If the law requires companies to accept people applying and does not have some extra cost for those who did not buy it before, only those sick enough to know that they will pay less with insurance (including the premiums) than without will buy insurance.

NickB79

(19,270 posts)
7. And those who are so sick they need continuous coverage will be charged incredibly high rates
Wed Mar 15, 2017, 03:40 PM
Mar 2017

To offset the money insurance companies would be hemorrhaging.

Or, the insurance companies may just cease to function at all, and then there would be no insurance policies available in large portions of the nation, no matter how much money you have.

karynnj

(59,504 posts)
9. Exactly - and that is the sadder problem
Wed Mar 15, 2017, 04:37 PM
Mar 2017

The costs rising would further push more healthy people to just not buy insurance driving the costs up to where they would be essentially the costs of high risk pools.

I suspect that insurqance companies would find ways to cheat and to reject the sickest customers - as they used to.

toska

(199 posts)
3. Might also break reconciliation rules
Wed Mar 15, 2017, 01:44 PM
Mar 2017

Not an expert, but I've heard that a penalty on premiums might not be allowed under the reconciliation rules. Because it forces you to pay a private company it is not a tax and no longer a budget item. It would run into the same reason why we don't see their attempt to allow insurance across state lines in this bill.

SunSeeker

(51,705 posts)
6. They don't need to have anything to allow cross-state sales because there is no law against it.
Wed Mar 15, 2017, 02:15 PM
Mar 2017

That is one of the GOP's myths--that the ACA blocks insurance companies from selling across state lines. It does not. As Ali Velshi recently debunked this lie, emphasizing that there are "ZERO federal restrictions on selling insurance across state lines." That is why it is not listed in Trumpcare. As he explained, it is the insurance companies themselves that stick to certain states/regions, since you need relationships with the hospitals and doctors in that state/region to set up "preferred provider networks" and that sort of thing. What the GOP is really talking about is getting rid of the insurance coverage quality standards of the ACA, so some crappy, no real coverage policy can be sold nationwide.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017428948

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
14. Yes! But actually irrelevant to what's really happening.
Wed Mar 15, 2017, 05:02 PM
Mar 2017
The goal of the right-wing extremists driving this deconstruction is repeal of almost all federal taxes, certainly all federally funded programs, and almost all federal regulation.

And fast, within the next few years. As much as they can while they can. And, of course, they're busy at the state level also.

I get caught up in the policy details, too, then remember that all these "issues" are merely their movements on a multidimensional checkerboard, with the components of ACA and other programs pieces to be captured.

NoMoreRepugs

(9,461 posts)
5. 6 years working on a replacement plan and there are problems???
Wed Mar 15, 2017, 02:09 PM
Mar 2017

there isn't enough popcorn on the planet for this clownshow....

DK504

(3,847 posts)
10. What concerns me is that's all we will be able to eat.
Wed Mar 15, 2017, 04:37 PM
Mar 2017

I'd like to see what happens to these bastards if they try to have two halls now.

Looks like it will have to become a fax/email blizzard for these butt heads.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»House considering nixing ...