Rivers

The vote in the House was close, but the American Health Care Act passed 217-213. Now it’s on to the Senate to see if we can get a bill that a) can pass; and b) can be worked out with the House’s version in conference committee.

It won’t be easy, but it can be done – and I think Republicans understand their differences on these issues aren’t big enough to warrant letting the failing ObamaCare stand.

One thing that will help a lot is if people realize what a bunch of bullfeathers they’re being fed with this whole business about pre-existing conditions. ObamaCare requires that people with pre-existing conditions who don’t already have insurance be allowed to sign up for it, and be charged premiums no different than those who are totally healthy. While this sounds wonderfully compassionate, it goes completely against everything that makes the economics of insurance work – which is why it’s been one of the leading drivers of soaring premiums since ObamaCare took effect.

And because of this, it’s one of the leading causes of ObamaCare’s failure and the need to replace it with something better.

The Democrats and the media would have you believe that repealing and replacing ObamaCare means people with pre-existing conditions will never be able to get coverage. That is simply not true. The House-passed AHCA sets up a $130 billion fund (over 10 years) that will help states pay for high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions. How does this work? If you are already sick and you don’t have insurance, you will apply for coverage through this federally funded pool.

Now, why do it this way? Why not just require the insurers to cover everyone at the same rate? Wouldn’t that be more fair?

No, because that would mean people who will consume far less in terms of health care services would pay the same as those who consume a lot. And because insurers can’t charge more for high-utilizers, that means everyone’s premiums will go up even as the insurers themselves lose money on the deal and find themselves incentivized to get out of markets entirely.

We’ve been seeing insurers leave ObamaCare exchanges on a steady pace for the past three years, and this is the reason. Because ObamaCare doesn’t allow them to price their products reasonably, they can’t make money.

A high-risk pool would cost the taxpayers some money. But it would cost less than we’re likely to pay in ObamaCare premium subsidies, and more importantly, it would allow healthy people to buy insurance within a pool that will utilize far fewer services and allow insurers to charge much lower premiums.

The mainstream media don’t like it when we call them fake news. But when they tell you the Republican bill is abandoning people with pre-existing conditions, that is simply fake news. It does no such thing. This $130 billion fund will make sure their needs are met while protecting everyone else from having to deal with soaring premiums because already-sick people are in a risk pool where they don’t belong.

By the way, when we talk about people who are already sick, don’t have insurance and want to get it, we’re talking about a very small percentage of the population. Fully 96 percent of the country will see its premiums reduced by the AHCA. The other 4 percent are driving up costs for everyone else – not by any fault of their own, but because Obama and the Democrat insisted on putting them in the same pool with everyone else.

That was always a disastrous idea, and the results have been exactly what we predicted. The Republican approach is far better, and the media claims that people with pre-existing conditions are being left out in the cold are the definition of fake news.

By Herman Cain

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Did you hear yourself? The "economics of insurance", THAT'S the bullfeathers in this story. Where is it written in the Constitution saying Americans must protect the profits if insurance companies, or ANY industry for that matter? Google this: Wheel wright, Cooper, Lamp lighter and a 100 other industries that don't exist anymore, except as tourist attractions. Know why? America progressed beyond them - and they adapted or disappeared.

What would healthcare look like in America;

if the people funded medical research thereby owning the results, getting treatments/drugs at cost, getting profit overseas.

If the people funded medical training, getting a year of public service, for every year funded.

if the people paid for their own healthcare, through payroll deductions, standard premiums, co-pays and co-insurance - and every single person was insured.

if the people set price controls on treatments, drugs, services, facilities, etc.

if the people owned the healthcare delivery systems.

The insurance industry will adapt. After all they can still fleece us for home, business insurance.

Rivers

And, they can let left-leaning fence straddlers like you to continue posting your inane crap.

buffalo Loc: Texas

You and Cain just made the argument as to why there is Medicare and Medicaid. Private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations wouldn't be able to extract $500 BILLION in annual profits from the US health CARE system if they had to "insure" the elderly, the poor, and the already sick. Hell, they couldn't make it even getting a taxpayer subsidy. That's why the government (taxpayers) already pay for 65% of the cost of medical CARE.

Why should WE, the taxpayers, subsidize big, private, for profit health INSURANCE instead of just cutting them out and funding Medicare for ALL? Because the politicians are monkeys for their corporate organ grinders.

Rivers

More bullshit wisdom from a socialist....sigh.

$105T in unfunded liabilities, and climbing. $28T unfunded liabilities in just Medicare. Get the government out of healthcare!!!!!!!!!!!!

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

You are never going to convince him. $500 billion in profits to insurance companies is bad, but $500 billion more in debt for the American people isn't? Look I hate health insurance companies but I want the right to choose my provider and policy. Imagine what car insurance would cost us if individuals could purchase insurance after having an accident. Premiums would sky rocket. Buffalo believes in single payer I don't. We will never agree. I wish health insurance was totally free of government regulation and was 100% transparent. I could see what I am purchasing and how much. Maybe both options should be available.

Rivers

You're right. What get's me about people, like Buffalo, who put trust in the government to run healthcare more efficient and cheaper. It never happens! Show me one government program that has ever come in at less cost than predicted. Show me one government program that is not rift with waste, fraud, and abuse. Single payer will result in less doctors, lower quality healthcare, longer waits, cost over runs, inefficiency, more quacks, and a huge debt that this country will never recover from. These socialists think money grows on trees, and don't have a clue about the national debt, the interest on that debt, and the unsustainable unfunded liabilities that will eventually come due.

vernon

Look there is no way to cover pre-existing conditions it will be a disaster,as it was in aca and it will in trump care.people are paying high premiums now and when you throw in pre-existing conditions you destroy every ones coverage.now that is a just letting the lazy and irresponsible
to just lay around and do nothing until they get sick and have done nothing to help them selves.as far the insurance companies making obsene profits that's not true.but you are obsessed with someone making a profit and you do away profit you will quickly run out of food and fuel and power for your home and it will also destroy life as we know it.

buffalo Loc: Texas

Nah, here is how we pay off the debt.....Remember Joe Isuzu?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGUBm0XQbqA

buffalo Loc: Texas

Why do you think that the private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations do not insure the elderly and the poor either? Because they are not profitable. They are the sickest and generate the most in health CARE expenses. Private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations could not extract $500 BILLION (yes, insane) profits by paying claims on the elderly and poor. Hell, they couldn't make that $500 BILLION even with government (taxpayer) subsidies.

vernon

I don't believe that 500 Billion.Where did you get that number?

vernon

I guess i would be considered elderly (83).But i was covered by insurance for over 60 yrs and by humana for at least the last 30 yrs.when i got on medicare i didn't feel i should be forced but having been paying for most of my working life i felt i had paid for it and had to take it.And was quite unhappy when obama stole 750 billion out the medicare fund and dam sure unhappy when he went in and took another 250 billion.Just proves
you can't government with money,especially demorats.

vernon

trust

buffalo Loc: Texas

Your the bullshitter....

Most of the projected costs of the fix Medicare during the next 10 years would be paid by those that pay Medicare taxes and premiums and thus add to federal budget deficits.” You are working with the same misguided premise that lawmakers use, which is that Medicare is part of the federal budget. All the time I was working, in addition to the standard income tax that was taken out of my monthly paycheck, I also paid a separate Social Security tax, and a separate Medicare tax. This means that both Social Security and Medicare have nothing to do with Congressional budgets, and can neither add to nor detract from the discretionary budget Congress works with…. So... How do we get this information into the heads of the lawmakers and sheople like you so hell-bent on reducing Medicare payments so as to “save” their budget, thus making seniors pay even more out of their Social Security check? How do we explain to them that Medicare is NOT part of their budget, any more than Social Security is?

buffalo Loc: Texas

When you take social Security at 65 you have no choice but have to take Medicare part A whether you want it or not.