Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Blue Cross Blue Shield: If Republicans kill a bailout for insurers under ObamaCare
hot air ^ | january 10, 2014

Posted on 01/10/2014 7:02:57 PM PST by lowbridge

You remember the “risk corridor” provisions, right? If a new ObamaCare plan comes in under budget, the insurer pays the difference between the actual cost and projected cost to HHS. If it comes in over budget, HHS pays the difference to the insurance. It’s a way for insurers to spread risk among the industry with HHS as middleman. (The bit in the excerpt about the White House modifying the rules for its new “transitional policy” is a reference to this.) Problem is, there’s no cap on how much HHS might need to pay out if lots and lots of plans come in over budget — a plausible scenario given the whispers from Humana about what it’s seeing among the demographic mix of ObamaCare enrollees so far. If too many plans have lopsided numbers of sick enrollees who need expensive treatments and few healthy ones to supply the revenue needed to offset that expense, HHS could be on the hook for the shortfall via a de facto bailout — unless Congress repeals the risk corridor provisions, in which case the insurers will be stuck with the bill. How many of them will be able to cover it and how many will go belly up? Of the ones who stay in business, how many will have to charge exorbitant premiums next year to make up for their losses? And if premiums soar, some portion of their consumers are bound to cancel their plans, which means even less revenue for the insurers and the need for even higher premiums, etc. That’s the “death spiral,” and in theory that’s where single-payer comes in. If the insurance industry melts down because Congress cut its financial lifeline, what replaces it?

(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; deathpanels; insurancebailout; insurerbailout; insurersbailout; obamacare; obamacareinsurers; singlepayer; zerocare
Full title: Blue Cross Blue Shield: If Republicans kill a bailout for insurers under ObamaCare, it’ll lead to single-payer
1 posted on 01/10/2014 7:02:59 PM PST by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Bama has screwed up our insurance and medical system so bad, I doubt it will ever recover. And I think that was the object. His thought from the beginning was a socialist one payer system, after all it has worked so well everywhere it has been tried (tongue in cheek).


2 posted on 01/10/2014 7:07:52 PM PST by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Tip of the iceberg.


3 posted on 01/10/2014 7:10:15 PM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

I doubt that a bail-out of the insurance industry would even work.


4 posted on 01/10/2014 7:10:47 PM PST by virgil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

This whole thing was designed to create government medicine


5 posted on 01/10/2014 7:12:25 PM PST by GeronL (Extra Large Cheesy Over-Stuffed Hobbit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

By design


6 posted on 01/10/2014 7:14:37 PM PST by lonestar (It takes a village of idiots to elect a village idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: virgil

If there is a government bailout, it will just be a payoff to the heads of the various major insurance companies. IMHO


7 posted on 01/10/2014 7:15:28 PM PST by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: lonestar

Believe it.


8 posted on 01/10/2014 7:16:49 PM PST by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

obumbler himself has determined that portions of the law are unworkable, as witnessed by his various executive actions and directives to his troops.

So then why is not someone going to court to settle the question of severability?


9 posted on 01/10/2014 7:17:29 PM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

What the hell BCBS think was gonna happen? They have known since the beginning that people did not want Obamacare. They should have never entered into this fascist scheme.


10 posted on 01/10/2014 7:21:04 PM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

The insurance companies decided to commit suicide by getting into bed with Obama. Good riddance.

Sadly, the Republican party seems to be following them by getting into bed with Obama on amnesty.


11 posted on 01/10/2014 7:22:00 PM PST by RugerMini14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Are the Republicans required to back up the Democrats on a bad bill the Rats passed? To bail them out by reimbursing the insurers?
12 posted on 01/10/2014 7:23:30 PM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
“We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.” — Michelle Obama, May 14, 2008

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” — Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

13 posted on 01/10/2014 7:28:50 PM PST by Brandonmark (OWCM is The new American Minority! 11.06.12 - Day of Infamy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Not one of them will go belly-up. Don’t be silly.

I *do* think that insurance company bailouts just might be the thing that will bring out the pitchforks. People are going to go absolutely nuclear. But I have underestimated public complacency over these issues in the past.

And yes, it will lead to single payer. Because at some point, the insurance companies may very well just wash their hands of the whole thing. I cannot predict the future.

But with single payer, a reverse Cloward Piven strategy might be employed. People are just going to have to get to the point where they will act in general strikes.


14 posted on 01/10/2014 7:29:12 PM PST by Attention Surplus Disorder (At no time was the Obama administration aware of what the Obama administration was doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon

Lack of intestinal fortitude? Who wants to garner the wrath of a dictator. After all, with a single executive order, he can cause untold misery to any true objector.

Even without an executive order bad things can happen to anyone who doesn’t agree with him (IRS).

Considering that the DOJ is in his pocket (if Obama had a son his name would be Holder) and it seems that any dissenter in the SCOTUS is afraid of him ... who is left to complain?


15 posted on 01/10/2014 7:29:22 PM PST by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon
So then why is not someone going to court to settle the question of severability?

Because...

"There is no distinctly American criminal class - with the possible exception of Congress." Mark Twain.

16 posted on 01/10/2014 7:29:26 PM PST by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good g race to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

If they’re going to make threats it might be time for them to face extinction. Medical insurance wasn’t in widespread use till the late 60s to mid 70s.

In 1964 my dad paid cash for my hospital birth and it was only about $85. About a week and a half pay out of his garbage man’s salary.


17 posted on 01/10/2014 7:31:33 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon
So then why is not someone going to court to settle the question of severability?

The issue is resolved (depending on whether you care about the rule of law or just about precedent).

(1) There is no severability clause in the "Affordable" Care Act, so if we have the rule of law, ObamaCare is not severable. If any portion is unconstitutional, the whole thing must be invalidated.

(2) When Chief Justice Roberts rewrote the bill to legislate from the bench, he pretended that ObamaCare was severable. Roberts already rewrote some portions and deleted others; the precedent has been set.

18 posted on 01/10/2014 7:33:01 PM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Bailout won’t work. If obamacare is repealed, the market will fill the gaps.


19 posted on 01/10/2014 7:40:32 PM PST by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

Krauthammer got it right.

Force the Dems to vote against repealing the bailout.

The argument that we must bail out the health insurance companies is like the arguments for TARP and worse bailing out GM.


20 posted on 01/10/2014 7:47:55 PM PST by sickoflibs (Obama : 'If you like your Doctor you can keep him, PERIOD! Don't believe the GOPs warnings')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

the reconciliation is manual. no electronic feeds for these.


21 posted on 01/10/2014 7:48:03 PM PST by kvanbrunt2 (i don't believe any court in this country is operating lawfully anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

I have not read Robert’s decision.

I thought his main thrust was toward making the law constitutional by calling it tax law.

I thought the matter of severability was still an open question.


22 posted on 01/10/2014 7:50:55 PM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

They wanted Ocare in the first place. They lobbied for it and now they have to live with it.

We tried to want people that this would lead to single payer and hence to the same ‘fabulous’ kind of health care they have in Great Britain


23 posted on 01/10/2014 8:05:08 PM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dforest
you act like BCBS had a choice in the matter.
24 posted on 01/10/2014 8:52:04 PM PST by Shadowstrike (Be polite, Be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

I would cancel my BCBS tomorrow and self-insure, if I could make sure I could access their negotiated rates for care. My insurance plan now includes a $1000 increase in the deductible and significantly higher co-payments.


25 posted on 01/10/2014 8:58:01 PM PST by bjc (Show me the data!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dforest

I am on BCBS as a retired government employee. All of the employees paid the same premium be they 20 years old or 66. In effect I paid far more than I should when I was young as we were all in the same risk pool. When and if I lose my insurance because of Obamacare, I will get a real screwing over as I will then be put in a risk pool that is relevant to my present age of 65.


26 posted on 01/10/2014 9:45:51 PM PST by cpdiii (Deckhand, Roughneck, Mud Man, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Full title: Blue Cross Blue Shield: If Republicans kill a bailout for insurers under ObamaCare, it’ll lead to single-payer

You are correct sir, and that has been the plan from day one.

27 posted on 01/11/2014 12:01:06 AM PST by Mark17 (Chicago Blackhawks: Stanley Cup champions 2010, 2013. Vietnam Veteran, 70-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon
I have read the entire decision Roberts/Ginsburg/Sotomayor/Breyer/Kagan. Here's the summary passage:

____________________________________________________________

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 648 F. 3d 1235, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to con-strue what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Con-gress’s power to tax.

As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of the Affordable Care Act.

The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

It is so ordered.

____________________________________________________________

By striking down the Medicaid expansion and upholding the remainder of the law, Roberts implicitly found the law to be severable, even though there is no written severability clause in the final written version of the ObamaCare law (Congress purposely removed that passage).

28 posted on 01/11/2014 2:44:37 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Shadowstrike

I am sure they entered in because they were threatened they would be destroyed. Well guess what, they are still going to be destroyed, er well, so are we except entering into this was not voluntary and will cost in money and actual lives.

Democrats need to be strung up, all of them.


29 posted on 01/11/2014 2:47:02 AM PST by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder
People are just going to have to get to the point where they will act in general strikes.

How does a general strike unfold in the 21st century against an opponent such as the USG?

E.g., how does the internet fit in? How about the Joint Chiefs? How about nuclear weapons?

30 posted on 01/11/2014 3:15:41 AM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

It will be like the Ukraine and the rich wheat farmers in the 1930s. The government will will demonize and then encircle the evil capitalists, denying the passage of food and water. The capitalists will slowly starve to death.


31 posted on 01/11/2014 5:57:24 AM PST by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Thankyou for going to the trouble to present that information.

One more question in my mind,

I was not aware that the court can change the definition of words.

In other words, a contract either has the severable clause or it does not. And since the severable clause and whether it exists or not is a matter of law that applies to any and all contracts ever written in the US, how can the court ignore it in this case?

So from now on the severable clause is superfluous?


32 posted on 01/11/2014 6:48:27 AM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

You know .... this is like choosing between the worse of two evils. Government is definitely evil and I’m not interested in single payer... but holy cow... the only business more corrupt than the insurance business is horse racing. :)


33 posted on 01/11/2014 6:56:30 AM PST by kjam22 (my newest music video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7gNI9bWO3s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I read somewhere .... open heart surgery last year average cost was 110k. The only people who can afford to be without insurance are people with no money. OR people with a LOT LOT of money.


34 posted on 01/11/2014 7:01:03 AM PST by kjam22 (my newest music video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7gNI9bWO3s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

It’ll lead to Government Health Care no matter WHAT we do.


35 posted on 01/11/2014 7:18:35 AM PST by Lazamataz (Early 2009 to 7/21/2013 - RIP my little girl Cathy. You were the best cat ever. You will be missed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kjam22

How much would it cost without insurance artificially inflating the prices? Adjusted to today’s dollars, the $85 my birth cost in 64 doesn’t come anywhere near the 7 to 10 grand it costs today.

My vet explains that the lack of pet insurance is why it doesn’t cost $10,000 to repair or amputate a damaged toe on my dog. She said most people wouldn’t pay the kind of premiums the insurance companies would charge and the result is minimal coverage in the industry and minimal influence over costs.

In this case, the insurer is making threats that if they don’t get what they want, we’ll get socialized medicine. Screw em. Fear of death is too high a price to pay. If it means dying when my time comes to prevent the enslavement of future generations, so be it.


36 posted on 01/11/2014 7:25:24 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I understand what you're saying. Let me say this 1) pets aren't people. Few people are going to pay to save a pets life what they will pay to save their own, or their kids lives. I'm not sure insurance has as much to do with it. 2) I'm not going to give the health care industry a "pass" for raising prices to crazy levels... just because insurance companies have to pay for those they cover.

I agree supply and demand and all that. Free country and we can charge whatever the market will bear. I get it. Doesn't mean its right. Doesn't mean that health care costs aren't based in large part out of greed.

At least that's my opinion. I have a friend (actually acquaintance) who retired from medical practice. Spent about 10 years building small hospitals... patient care facilities. Run them a couple of years and then sell them for millions of dollars of profit. I know him. Trust me.. its greed.

37 posted on 01/11/2014 7:40:40 AM PST by kjam22 (my newest music video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7gNI9bWO3s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon
In other words, a contract either has the severable clause or it does not. And since the severable clause and whether it exists or not is a matter of law that applies to any and all contracts ever written in the US, how can the court ignore it in this case?

The reasoning is that the National Federation of Independent Business lacked standing to challenge the rest of the law, so the Court was not ruling on a challenge to the entire law. That's horse manure, of course, since they found part of what they were ruling on to be unconstitutional and the natural remedy in the absence of a severability clause is to strike down the entire Affordable Care Act. Still, that was the position Roberts constructed, almost without reference to the rule of law (as Scalia pointed out in his brilliant dissent).

I miss the old days, when our government had legitimacy and was constrained by a Constitution that mattered.

38 posted on 01/11/2014 9:43:53 AM PST by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: old curmudgeon
I was not aware that the court can change the definition of words.

My first thought was about Supreme Court changing the meaning of Right To Privacy and abortion. Courts can do whatever they want.

39 posted on 01/11/2014 10:18:34 AM PST by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dforest
Democrats need to be strung up, all of them.

Couldn't agree more.

40 posted on 01/11/2014 8:32:15 PM PST by Shadowstrike (Be polite, Be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson