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
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)briv1016
(1,570 posts)karynnj
(59,475 posts)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
(19,114 posts)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
(59,475 posts)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)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.
Friend or Foe
(195 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)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)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.
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)NoMoreRepugs
(9,260 posts)there isn't enough popcorn on the planet for this clownshow....
DK504
(3,847 posts)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.
Kimchijeon
(1,606 posts)it's total garbage