Will Trump scrapping CSR payments spike premiums?

[Don Vito Corleone]

Cause if it will, this seems like a really, really stupid thing to do.

[7,052,770]

Yes, indisputably, but it's possible that states can scheme a way for the federal government to pay the increased costs through APTC subsidies.

If you aren't eligible for subsidies and you buy Exchange insurance, you're SOL.

[BudgieForce]

Depends on how quickly this gets resolved.

[dead0man]

wait wait wait....NOW you people (pro-ACA people) care about spiking premiums?

[Koharu]

wait wait wait....NOW you people (pro-ACA people) care about spiking premiums?

I cared about it before. There obviously were issues with the ACA, and increased premiums (and out-of-pocket expenses) continuing to rise was the major issue. However, this is going to make it way worse than it was.

[Person Man]

wait wait wait....NOW you people (pro-ACA people) care about spiking premiums?

I cared about it before. There obviously were issues with the ACA, and increased premiums (and out-of-pocket expenses) continuing to rise was the major issue. However, this is going to make it way worse than it was.

And this neglects what could have happened if we would have done NOTHING.

[7,052,770]

wait wait wait....NOW you people (pro-ACA people) care about spiking premiums?

Really dumb post. We've always cared about rising premiums and have always supported increasing the subsidies to cover the very small number of Americans who've fallen through the cracks. We've consistently supported adding teeth to the individual mandate to get more young and healthy people into the pool and lower rates, we've consistently supported ending grandfathered and transitional policies to bring better risk into the pool, and we've consistently opposed all Republican sabotage efforts that have continually raised the cost insurance to the benefit of no one but the feeeeeelings of their base.

The premiums are what they are - it was always going to be expensive to cover the people locked out of the old system, but we're the ones who are trying to lower the overall costs, and especially the costs to the consumers, all the while Republicans are fighting us every step of the way. It should come as no surprise that the ACA is working really well in the Democratic states and not as well (but to be fair, still is providing millions with cheaper insurance than they had before, if they had any before) in the red states.

[Pericles]

Yes it will.

[dead0man]

wait wait wait....NOW you people (pro-ACA people) care about spiking premiums?

Really dumb post. We've always cared about rising premiums and have always supported increasing the subsidies to cover the very small number of Americans who've fallen through the cracks. We've consistently supported adding teeth to the individual mandate to get more young and healthy people into the pool and lower rates, we've consistently supported ending grandfathered and transitional policies to bring better risk into the pool, and we've consistently opposed all Republican sabotage efforts that have continually raised the cost insurance to the benefit of no one but the feeeeeelings of their base.

The premiums are what they are - it was always going to be expensive to cover the people locked out of the old system, but we're the ones who are trying to lower the overall costs, and especially the costs to the consumers, all the while Republicans are fighting us every step of the way. It should come as no surprise that the ACA is working really well in the Democratic states and not as well (but to be fair, still is providing millions with cheaper insurance than they had before, if they had any before) in the red states.

Why were we told our premiums wouldn't go up and then they went up 300%?  Why, if it's only a "very small number of Americans who've fallen through the cracks" did they rise so astronomically fast?

You can call me dumb or selfish or whatever, I don't care.  None of it changes the fact that I pay a grand a month for insurance I don't use.

[Person Man]

wait wait wait....NOW you people (pro-ACA people) care about spiking premiums?

Really dumb post. We've always cared about rising premiums and have always supported increasing the subsidies to cover the very small number of Americans who've fallen through the cracks. We've consistently supported adding teeth to the individual mandate to get more young and healthy people into the pool and lower rates, we've consistently supported ending grandfathered and transitional policies to bring better risk into the pool, and we've consistently opposed all Republican sabotage efforts that have continually raised the cost insurance to the benefit of no one but the feeeeeelings of their base.

The premiums are what they are - it was always going to be expensive to cover the people locked out of the old system, but we're the ones who are trying to lower the overall costs, and especially the costs to the consumers, all the while Republicans are fighting us every step of the way. It should come as no surprise that the ACA is working really well in the Democratic states and not as well (but to be fair, still is providing millions with cheaper insurance than they had before, if they had any before) in the red states.

Why were we told our premiums wouldn't go up and then they went up 300%?  Why, if it's only a "very small number of Americans who've fallen through the cracks" did they rise so astronomically fast?

You can call me dumb or selfish or whatever, I don't care.  None of it changes the fact that I pay a grand a month for insurance I don't use.

Don't jinx it!

[dead0man]

 


(it took me about 12 seconds to figure out what you meant, I need jokes to be a little more clear at this hour)

[7,052,770]

wait wait wait....NOW you people (pro-ACA people) care about spiking premiums?

Really dumb post. We've always cared about rising premiums and have always supported increasing the subsidies to cover the very small number of Americans who've fallen through the cracks. We've consistently supported adding teeth to the individual mandate to get more young and healthy people into the pool and lower rates, we've consistently supported ending grandfathered and transitional policies to bring better risk into the pool, and we've consistently opposed all Republican sabotage efforts that have continually raised the cost insurance to the benefit of no one but the feeeeeelings of their base.

The premiums are what they are - it was always going to be expensive to cover the people locked out of the old system, but we're the ones who are trying to lower the overall costs, and especially the costs to the consumers, all the while Republicans are fighting us every step of the way. It should come as no surprise that the ACA is working really well in the Democratic states and not as well (but to be fair, still is providing millions with cheaper insurance than they had before, if they had any before) in the red states.

Why were we told our premiums wouldn't go up and then they went up 300%?  Why, if it's only a "very small number of Americans who've fallen through the cracks" did they rise so astronomically fast?

You can call me dumb or selfish or whatever, I don't care.  None of it changes the fact that I pay a grand a month for insurance I don't use.

I don't know enough about your particular situation to say what's going on with you, but all these Republican "ZOMG rate increases!!!!1" stories always omit the fact that people with subsidies (which is most people on the Exchange) have their bill entirely based on their income and don't see any of that increase.

You can throw out all the numbers like 300% you want and it's probably true for somebody somewhere, but it's not like the average American has seen anything close to that. The majority of Americans have Large or Self-Funded coverage through work, meaning the ACA hasn't affected their premiums at all. Unfortunately, these days any rate increase is going to be blamed on the ACA by its detractors, even though rate increases were very common pre-2010 and have actually slowed down since the ACA went into effect in 2014.

[dead0man]

link-US Fed govt

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was paying 300ish a few years ago for pretty good family health insurance.  Then the rates went crazy so we switched to cheaper (still more expensive than what we were paying) for sh**tty insurance that was too expensive to use.  Then the contract I work under ran out and we got a new company.  They didn't have options.  It's $987/month.  It's good and I can afford to go to the doctor again (which I really need to do since I haven't been for almost 20 years), but damn, it's a quarter of my (after tax) pay.  I got a $6k raise with new company but bring home less money than before.  It's all very frustrating.

[7,052,770]

Your link (which says 105%, not 300% ftr) still doesn't have an apples-to-apples comparison.

• 2013: Unhealthy people were denied from buying insurance, $10,000 or more deductibles were common in the individual market, as were coverage limits, RX restrictions, pre-existing conditions often lasered out, insurers didn't have to cover EHBs like maternity and mental health, etc.
• post-2014: Guaranteed issue to everyone, regardless of health status, deductibles limited to ~$7000 (depending on the year), no coverage limits, all EHBs covered without regard to pre-existing conditions.

Of course an individual market premium is more expensive now. It covers a lot more services and a much less healthier population. But it's not really a valid comparison - and study of "what rate increases have been since 2010" should very comparing similar/identical insurance products from year to year or at least explicitly adjusting for things like a suddenly different risk profile of the market.

And again, your link is ignoring the premium subsidies that most people buying on Exchange coverage receive that shield them from paying the full premium.

[7,052,770]

I was paying 300ish a few years ago for pretty good family health insurance.  Then the rates went crazy so we switched to cheaper (still more expensive than what we were paying) for sh**tty insurance that was too expensive to use.  Then the contract I work under ran out and we got a new company.  They didn't have options.  It's $987/month.  It's good and I can afford to go to the doctor again (which I really need to do since I haven't been for almost 20 years), but damn, it's a quarter of my (after tax) pay.  I got a $6k raise with new company but bring home less money than before.  It's all very frustrating.

I'd be frustrated by that too but you haven't demonstrated how that's all due to the ACA, nor how any Trumpist or Republican proposal will make your situation better.

If you're getting your insurance through work, your rate is going to be based on the demographics of your group, claims history (unless you're in a ACA-compliant Small Group), and whatever decides to take out of your paycheck.

[Person Man]

link-US Fed govt

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was paying 300ish a few years ago for pretty good family health insurance.  Then the rates went crazy so we switched to cheaper (still more expensive than what we were paying) for sh**tty insurance that was too expensive to use.  Then the contract I work under ran out and we got a new company.  They didn't have options.  It's $987/month.  It's good and I can afford to go to the doctor again (which I really need to do since I haven't been for almost 20 years), but damn, it's a quarter of my (after tax) pay.  I got a $6k raise with new company but bring home less money than before.  It's all very frustrating.

That's what its like switching from employee to subcontractor.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Going back to the original question, most insurers already priced in the possibility of Trump doing this, which largely accounted for the rate hikes for 2018. By waiting, Trump has attempted to give himself plausible deniability for those hikes since they were announced before he pulled the trigger he's had his finger on for months now.

[Don Vito Corleone]

Going back to the original question, most insurers already priced in the possibility of Trump doing this, which largely accounted for the rate hikes for 2018. By waiting, Trump has attempted to give himself plausible deniability for those hikes since they were announced before he pulled the trigger he's had his finger on for months now.

I doubt that's gonna be very convincing.

[Person Man]

Going back to the original question, most insurers already priced in the possibility of Trump doing this, which largely accounted for the rate hikes for 2018. By waiting, Trump has attempted to give himself plausible deniability for those hikes since they were announced before he pulled the trigger he's had his finger on for months now.

I doubt that's gonna be very convincing.

It's a gamble. People are gullible, but even they have limits..

[TPIG]

Regardless of whether it will increase premiums (and it will), these CSR payments are illegal. Congress never appropriated the funds to allow these subsidies to go through and them being "implied" in the ACA doesn't cut it. Obviously eliminating these payments will increase premiums, but that's simply the way Obamacare was written. Forcing insurers to lower costs leads to losses which will have to be offset with premium increases. Trump is allowing Obamacare to work the way it was written, and congressionally authorized, to work. The blame lies at the feet of congress and president Obama for never including specific appropriations for these payments in the bill. Trump is doing his duty and eliminating an unconstitutional payment system.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Regardless of whether it will increase premiums (and it will), these CSR payments are illegal. Congress never appropriated the funds to allow these subsidies to go through and them being "implied" in the ACA doesn't cut it. Obviously eliminating these payments will increase premiums, but that's simply the way Obamacare was written. Forcing insurers to lower costs leads to losses which will have to be offset with premium increases. Trump is allowing Obamacare to work the way it was written, and congressionally authorized, to work. The blame lies at the feet of congress and president Obama for never including specific appropriations for these payments in the bill. Trump is doing his duty and eliminating an unconstitutional payment system.

Most hard working american people don't give a damn about "congressionally authorized" -- they just want to pay lower for health insurance. And if it raises health insurance for the same coverage, you bet your butt people will be upset!

[TPIG]

Regardless of whether it will increase premiums (and it will), these CSR payments are illegal. Congress never appropriated the funds to allow these subsidies to go through and them being "implied" in the ACA doesn't cut it. Obviously eliminating these payments will increase premiums, but that's simply the way Obamacare was written. Forcing insurers to lower costs leads to losses which will have to be offset with premium increases. Trump is allowing Obamacare to work the way it was written, and congressionally authorized, to work. The blame lies at the feet of congress and president Obama for never including specific appropriations for these payments in the bill. Trump is doing his duty and eliminating an unconstitutional payment system.

Most hard working american people don't give a damn about "congressionally authorized" -- they just want to pay lower for health insurance. And if it raises health insurance for the same coverage, you bet your butt people will be upset!

Well I'm sorry, but the constitutionality of provisions of a law are not just some secondary afterthought. The constitution supersedes political considerations of whether voters like something or not. If it's that important to voters, Congress should have had the guts to include appropriation to this aspect of ObamaCare in the first place.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Regardless of whether it will increase premiums (and it will), these CSR payments are illegal. Congress never appropriated the funds to allow these subsidies to go through and them being "implied" in the ACA doesn't cut it. Obviously eliminating these payments will increase premiums, but that's simply the way Obamacare was written. Forcing insurers to lower costs leads to losses which will have to be offset with premium increases. Trump is allowing Obamacare to work the way it was written, and congressionally authorized, to work. The blame lies at the feet of congress and president Obama for never including specific appropriations for these payments in the bill. Trump is doing his duty and eliminating an unconstitutional payment system.

Most hard working american people don't give a damn about "congressionally authorized" -- they just want to pay lower for health insurance. And if it raises health insurance for the same coverage, you bet your butt people will be upset!

Well I'm sorry, but the constitutionality of provisions of a law are not just some secondary afterthought. The constitution supersedes political considerations of whether voters like something or not. If it's that important to voters, Congress should have had the guts to include appropriation to this aspect of ObamaCare in the first place.

I agree, but Congress in the past 6 years has sucked hard lol. People are really mad that it hasn't been delivering, and they want better health insurance now.

You really think a working class american gives a flying f*** about constitutionality when they're trying to put bread on the table?

[TPIG]

Regardless of whether it will increase premiums (and it will), these CSR payments are illegal. Congress never appropriated the funds to allow these subsidies to go through and them being "implied" in the ACA doesn't cut it. Obviously eliminating these payments will increase premiums, but that's simply the way Obamacare was written. Forcing insurers to lower costs leads to losses which will have to be offset with premium increases. Trump is allowing Obamacare to work the way it was written, and congressionally authorized, to work. The blame lies at the feet of congress and president Obama for never including specific appropriations for these payments in the bill. Trump is doing his duty and eliminating an unconstitutional payment system.

Most hard working american people don't give a damn about "congressionally authorized" -- they just want to pay lower for health insurance. And if it raises health insurance for the same coverage, you bet your butt people will be upset!

Well I'm sorry, but the constitutionality of provisions of a law are not just some secondary afterthought. The constitution supersedes political considerations of whether voters like something or not. If it's that important to voters, Congress should have had the guts to include appropriation to this aspect of ObamaCare in the first place.

I agree, but Congress in the past 6 years has sucked hard lol. People are really mad that it hasn't been delivering, and they want better health insurance now.

You really think a working class american gives a flying f*** about constitutionality when they're trying to put bread on the table?

I never claimed that an average working class person does care, but the President of the United States certainly should care whether the Constitution is being adhered to.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Regardless of whether it will increase premiums (and it will), these CSR payments are illegal. Congress never appropriated the funds to allow these subsidies to go through and them being "implied" in the ACA doesn't cut it. Obviously eliminating these payments will increase premiums, but that's simply the way Obamacare was written. Forcing insurers to lower costs leads to losses which will have to be offset with premium increases. Trump is allowing Obamacare to work the way it was written, and congressionally authorized, to work. The blame lies at the feet of congress and president Obama for never including specific appropriations for these payments in the bill. Trump is doing his duty and eliminating an unconstitutional payment system.

Most hard working american people don't give a damn about "congressionally authorized" -- they just want to pay lower for health insurance. And if it raises health insurance for the same coverage, you bet your butt people will be upset!

Well I'm sorry, but the constitutionality of provisions of a law are not just some secondary afterthought. The constitution supersedes political considerations of whether voters like something or not. If it's that important to voters, Congress should have had the guts to include appropriation to this aspect of ObamaCare in the first place.

I agree, but Congress in the past 6 years has sucked hard lol. People are really mad that it hasn't been delivering, and they want better health insurance now.

You really think a working class american gives a flying f*** about constitutionality when they're trying to put bread on the table?

I never claimed that an average working class person does care, but the President of the United States certainly should care whether the Constitution is being adhered to.

He should, but the current occupant definitely doesn't and I don't think any sane person could make a rational argument that he does.