The Trumpcare Zombie Rises From the Grave: Trump Desperate For A Win Before 100 Days!

[paralleluniverse]

Actually, reinsurance is a form of high-risk pooling:

http://chirblog.org/whats-difference...ng-conditions/

''One type of high-risk pool is called reinsurance. It is among the premium stabilization programs employed in the ACA. In place for just the first three years of the ACA’s marketplaces (2014-2016), the reinsurance program provided payments to insurers to help pay claims for high-cost enrollees. Another type of high-risk pool, included in Speaker Ryan’s ACA replacement proposal and others, would place unhealthy consumers into a risk pool that is separate from the rest of the individual market.''

So while I do agree with your general point (as well as the point that this ''improved'' version is an abomination), you are incorrect on the specifics and because high-risk pooling is a term that is used for both kinds, it might confuse people.

The quote confirms everything I've been saying except for the semantic argument that reinsurance is a form of "high-risk pool".

The fact is the term "high-risk pool" is always used in politics to mean the 2nd kind, that is what's in Trumpcare, that is what people mean when they use the term. http://khn.org/news/sounds-like-a-go...gh-risk-pools/

[Deleted]

The quote confirms everything I've been saying except for the semantic argument that reinsurance is a form of "high-risk pool".

The fact is the term "high-risk pool" is always used in politics to mean the 2nd kind, that is what's in Trumpcare, that is what people mean when they use the term. http://khn.org/news/sounds-like-a-go...gh-risk-pools/

If by ''semantic'' you mean you are using the wrong word then sure.

I just don't want people to think that high-risk pools are automatically a bad thing, they are just bad when they are implemented in the way the republicans are currently planning on doing it.

Anyways, feels like im going a bit off-topic now

[DocSavageFan]

The quote confirms everything I've been saying except for the semantic argument that reinsurance is a form of "high-risk pool".

The fact is the term "high-risk pool" is always used in politics to mean the 2nd kind, that is what's in Trumpcare, that is what people mean when they use the term. http://khn.org/news/sounds-like-a-go...gh-risk-pools/

High risk pools can be a very good solution.

[ati87]

If by ''semantic'' you mean you are using the wrong word then sure.

I just don't want people to think that high-risk pools are automatically a bad thing, they are just bad when they are implemented in the way the republicans are currently planning on doing it.

Anyways, feels like im going a bit off-topic now

WHen are high risk pools in any insurance scheme good, not just with health but also insurance in general.

SOunds like what that idiot Ryan wrote on his PP about how Obamacare has healthy people paying for those sick people...that's like how every single insurance works.

- - - Updated - - -

High risk pools can be a very good solution.

to kill everybody off while feeling good?

[DocSavageFan]

If by ''semantic'' you mean you are using the wrong word then sure.

I just don't want people to think that high-risk pools are automatically a bad thing, they are just bad when they are implemented in the way the republicans are currently planning on doing it.

Anyways, feels like im going a bit off-topic now

What's bad about the Republican high risk pools?

[Kujako]

High risk pools can be a very good solution.

For whom would they be a solution?

[DocSavageFan]

to kill everybody off while feeling good?

And just how is that going to happen? Do you have a clue as to what you're talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

For whom would they be a solution?

It would help to provide stability in the healthcare market which would ultimately benefit everyone.

[Edge-]

High risk pools can be a very good solution.

For everyone who is lucky enough to not be a part of one, sure.

If you're unlucky enough to be a part of one, you're fucked.

[Nadiru]

It could be that Trump is desperate for a win before 100 days. It could also be that 10-ish states already only have one insurer available to them on the ACA's healthcare exchanges. In some counties there are no insurers available to them and it will only get worse as Humana completes its Obamacare exit in 2018. It'll get even worser if Anthem follows suit in 2018/2019.

Aw, heck. Why not both? The best political victories are ones which need to happen and which were going to happen anyway.

[ati87]

And just how is that going to happen? Do you have a clue as to what you're talking about?

Do you?

Do you seriously know how insurances work?

You spread the risk (risk means expenses and payouts) so if the risk is low the cost of that insurance is low.

I don't live in a area with earthquakes so for me to get insurance that covers would probably mean that the insurance company would never have to pay out, the cost of the insurance would be low since the risks for the insurance company is also low.

- - - Updated - - -

It would help to provide stability in the healthcare market which would ultimately benefit everyone.

Do you just repeat talking points?

What's the point in a stable market if nobody can afford it? The insurance companies will just jack up the prices till they can make a profit which means high premiums.

[alexw]

What's bad about the Republican high risk pools?

Whats bad is that republicans throw all the very sick people into it then give only a token amount of subsidy to the pool (currently $2.5B per year is being proposed). That allows republicans to kill off those sick people via neglect and reroute subsidy monies to tax cuts to the 1% without losing too many votes. Whereas if those very sick people are in the general insurance pool, then defunding that for the 1%er tax cuts loses them a huge amount of votes.

Personally I think killing people so you can give tax cuts to the 1% is immoral and wrong. How about you?

[Kujako]

It would help to provide stability in the healthcare market which would ultimately benefit everyone.

How? Pushing sick people into a different risk pool seems unstable to me.

[Auxora]

Don't be fooled by all the "tweaks" and small print+smoke and mirrors around the TrumpCare/FreedomCaucus plan. The end goal is very clear. Reduce government spending on HealthCare by making government-subsidized healthcare so expensive that people can't afford it. They will have to inevitably drop off it because nearly everyone over the age of 30 or 40 has a pre-existing condition of some type (or they have a spouse of child with one). And that's where the massive penalties for renewing insurance after a lapse comes in. The key being it all shifts the responsibility for not having coverage to the individual rather than the government. So it's easy to then say, it's your own fault for not having insurance and then you lost your house or got sent home from the hospital without treatment after being diagnosed with cancer/heart attack/etc. It goes back to the reason Obama's mom died at home due to lack of coverage, which was his reason for pushing so hard for the ACA to help the uninsured.

It would be so much better to just take a look at other countries where health care and coverage is working well and replicating that, rather than experimenting and trying to reinvent the wheel here in the US. And it would be especially bad to go with a super-complicated plan just meant to disguise how badly it harms consumers. ObamaCare isn't really the answer either, even though it's failing is partially to blame on red states taking action to intentionally make it fail. But just take a look at a country where healthcare is working better than the US, and it's a long list, pick one and copy it.

[Glorious Leader]

Nothing to do with "needing a win", don't think he cares about that really since all he has is people around him telling him he's doing great. What they need, is the money saved from letting poor people die to pay for the tax cuts they want.

Basically they have an agenda to ram through. Tax cuts and deregulation. They have a limited time to do it in. They will do ss much damage as they can.

[ati87]

How? Pushing sick people into a different risk pool seems unstable to me.

It would a useless kind of stability...the insurance companies could just jack up the prices till they could make a profit.

[Glorious Leader]

Personally I think killing people so you can give tax cuts to the 1% is immoral and wrong. How about you?

Every single democrat and or.progressive needs to shout this from the fucking roof tops. Wether your name is tom perez kr bernie sanders.

[DocSavageFan]

For everyone who is lucky enough to not be a part of one, sure.

If you're unlucky enough to be a part of one, you're fucked.

Shooting craps is a risky business. Why should responsible people have to shoulder all the cost for the irresponsible? Should not the irresponsible pay a reasonable penalty for their irresponsibility?

[alexw]

Shooting craps is a risky business. Why should responsible people have to shoulder all the cost for the irresponsible? Should not the irresponsible pay a reasonable penalty for their irresponsibility?

Ahh right so you are for killing people to enable to give tax cuts to the 1%. I'm glad we've cleared that up.

[ati87]

It could be that Trump is desperate for a win before 100 days. It could also be that 10-ish states already only have one insurer available to them on the ACA's healthcare exchanges. In some counties there are no insurers available to them and it will only get worse as Humana completes its Obamacare exit in 2018. It'll get even worser if Anthem follows suit in 2018/2019.

Aw, heck. Why not both? The best political victories are ones which need to happen and which were going to happen anyway.

Or it could be that pretty soon something is going to be leaked which destroy Trump to such a degree that they won't be able to do anything.

It's pure speculation but when it looks like Chaffetz is almost running away from congress ( head of the Oversight Committee ) and washington it does make people wonder question his motives since ''want to be with my family'' is a pretty stupid and lame excuse.

Pure speculation (can't emphasises this enough just in case any right-winger tries to jump on this)

[wheresmywoft]

Shooting craps is a risky business. Why should responsible people have to shoulder all the cost for the irresponsible? Should not the irresponsible pay a reasonable penalty for their irresponsibility?

Why is illness being tied to responsibility? I don't think someone wakes up one day and say to themselves 'Let's have a dose of cancer for the rest of my life'.