UPDATED - McConnell to release new GOP health plan allowing bare-bones insurance policies

[DonViejo]

Last edited Thu Jul 13, 2017, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: The Washington Post

McConnell to release new GOP health plan allowing bare-bones insurance policies

By Sean Sullivan, Kelsey Snell and Juliet Eilperin July 13 at 11:06 AM

Senate GOP leaders plan to unveil a revised health-care proposal Thursday that would allow insurers to sell austere plans that do not compy with requirements imposed under the Affordable Care Act, according to three Republicans familiar with the plans.

The Republicans, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record, said the proposal would incorporate a version of a controversial proposal from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), which conservatives have been pushing vocally during the last few weeks in an effort, they say, to lower premiums and give consumers more choices.

Details of the proposal were closely guarded Thursday morning, and it was unclear what precise form the Cruz idea would take in the final bill.

Cruz’s plan would allow insurers to sell plans that don’t comply with Obamacare coverage requirements, such as mandated coverage of preventive care and mental and substance abuse treatment, provided they offer at least one that does.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/mcconnell-to-release-new-gop-health-plan-allowing-bare-bones-insurance-policies/2017/07/13/8f0509c4-67bb-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?pushid=59678d57f1dad71d00000017&tid=notifi_push_breaking-news&utm_term

---

---------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE:


Senate Republicans release new Obamacare repeal bill

Republicans meet Thursday to see if they can ever find the votes to repeal Obamacare.

By BURGESS EVERETT , JENNIFER HABERKORN and SARAH KARLIN-SMITH 07/13/2017 08:59 AM EDT Updated 07/13/2017 11:19 AM EDT

UPDATE 12:05:

Senate Republicans released their revised health care bill Thursday to gut the Affordable Care Act. Unlike their previous bill, which faced stiff GOP resistance, it would maintain some Obamacare taxes on the wealthy, provide new financial support to purchase health insurance and allow health insurers to offer skimpier coverage.


ORIGINAL STORY:

Senate Republicans' draft Obamacare repeal bill will tentatively include a controversial amendment from Ted Cruz, a change aimed at building enough GOP support to open debate on the bill next week, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will unveil the bill on Thursday morning at a closed-door, GOP members-only meeting. It is also expected to maintain Obamacare's taxes for the wealthy, include new financial support for low-income people's insurance, allow people to pay for insurance with pre-tax money, and include billions more to fight opioid addiction, according to a summary obtained by POLITICO.

The amendment from the conservative Texas Republican could be altered or removed later, those sources said. The amendment would allow the sale of cheap, deregulated insurance plans as long as Obamacare-compliant plans are still sold.

It is not yet clear whether the inclusion of Cruz's proposal will be enough for conservatives. Utah Sen. Mike Lee has previously advocated for the amendment with Cruz, but Cruz has been handling the lion's share of negotiating with McConnell. Lee is not yet supportive of the latest version because he’s unaware of its content, a spokesman for Lee said.

more
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/13/senate-republicans-health-care-bill-cruz-lee-240498

[riversedge]

2. Obama's insurance reform (he did call ACA that several times) is being widdled down down down. 'Junk

insurance is back in vogue by Republicans.

[harun]

3. Democrats should have always been yelling Insurance is not Health Care

Just because you have insurance doesn't mean you are going to get reimbursed for the care you need. All people are entitled to the care they need.

[DK504]

4. I don't think we can call & write Congress enough

to deal with these thieves.

[turbinetree]

5. Its still a tax cut for those that can afford really big and nice coffins, that cost thousands

because eventually everyone on this planet will be nothing but bones

I knew the media was blowing smoke.............knew it, they are going to delay, they don't have the votes

[global1]

6. Seems To Me That These Bare Bones Plans Would Be A Form Of Junk Insurance.....

perhaps marketed to provide a basic plan to give people the warm feeling in their tummy that they have health insurance - but if they'd ever have to use it - their deductibles and out of pocket would be prohibitive.

The only ones that would benefit by such plans are the insurance companies that would be offering them.

[Ligyron]

7. The insurance companies are not thrilled with this idea either.

It forces them to score different policies to an unknown result. Actuarial challange at the very least.

[Honeycombe8]

8. I think having choices is a good thing.

If someone can't afford full coverage, it's helpful to be able to buy something for protection against something serious. Having access to catastrophic-only coverage has a long history in our country, and is what insurance USED to be.

This is still a big tax cut for rich people. And how they handle pre-existing conditions is critical. But this part of allowing people a choice as a way to be able to afford something, or to control costs, is a part that is good, IMO. I don't understand why people want other people to buy coverage that the first person thinks is necessary. Isn't being Democratic all about choices?

I don't understand why people want or need to tell other people what kinds of insurance they have to buy. Is there a reason for that, for the country or for the people who want you to buy coverage according to their wish? Serious question.

Single payer is the answer. Maybe if we vote in Dems and take back Congress, we can get started on that.

[Maggiemayhem]

13. How far back are you talking about castastrophic insurance.

My deceased parents always had regular health insurance back as far as the fifties. I have spent many an hour going through their papers. The prices would blow your mind. I know two people who constantly complain about having to buy health insurance. One thinks she and her husband can roll the dice and if something happens, they could just negotiate prices with hospital. The other is not on her husbands policy from his former job and pays separately. Both take numerous trips a year. They can pay for expensive vacations ,but not ACA. Ill health can affect anyone at any time and everybody needs a policy. A decent policy , not some bare bones pOS that financially ruins US citizens. Healthcare for all is the future.

[Honeycombe8]

16. 2013 was the last time I could get it.

That wasn't allowed as of 2014, when the individual ACA plans hit the market (altho they came close, with high deductibles and co-insurance...but they weren't called catastrophic or priced as catastrophic plans...and they still included things like maternity coverage, drug rehab, & such).

I understand your post...that YOU think other people should get it. But that's really none of my business, what someone else should buy or not.

If the cost is too high, buying less is a way to at least have some health coverage. If it is $960 a month or nothing, I would have to choose nothing. If I could buy less coverage for $500 a month, that would give me an option.

That's where we are, because of the high cost of premiums for some. (The ACA allows for different payment structures; younger people don't grasp how high the premiums are for older people. A 30 year old should take his premium and triple it...that's how much he would pay if he were over a certain age. Cut it by say 35%...that's how much he'd pay for it, if he were younger.)

The premiums are also different prices, depending on the state. Some states charge hundreds more per month for essentially the same policy.

This is one of the problems with the ACA, as I see it. So fixing it would allow people to buy less coverage. If a person is able to fund his own medical expenses for something costing him $20,000 (on the low odds that is necessary), so that he can afford to buy insurance, why not? That's his choice.

BTW...they're not talking ONLY about bare bones. They're talking about coverage that is less than everything. It might be just what used to be a standard policy. As we have seen, how things work in the real world is different sometimes from how it looked on paper.

[LeftInTX]

14. I think this option is still available

It is not available on Healthcare.gov, but I think it can be purchased through an insurance agent.

I might be wrong.....

Would Cruz's option be available on Healthcare.gov?

I think if this option exists, it should be not on Healthcare.gov.

Can anyone correct me?

[Honeycombe8]

17. No. Everyone MUST buy ACA-compliant policies, or be subject to a penalty.

Whether it's on the exchange (healthcare.gov) or not.

You CAN buy alternate coverage that is not ACA-compliant in some states (in my state, that's only available for short term policies, not a real policy; you have to renew it every 6 mos.; they'll kick you off if you turn in too many claims; and you are subject to the penalty, since the government views that as not having insurance at all).

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. If someone can't afford full or decent coverage they probably can't afford to use a...

.... catastrophic plan.


Go bankrupt for $100k or $500k. What's the difference, I guess. Maybe the thank you for your premium receipts?

The whole idea of of universal coverage is to help make people more healthy and improve outcomes. Catastrophic plans won't help.


I'm sure some wise-ass Libertarian can come up with all sorts of scenarios where he has means to basically self-insure up to the catastrophic plan kick in. But that's not going to be the case for the vast majority who will get suckered in to these plans.

This is more smoke and mirrors to deregulate the insurance companies so they can take more premiums in and refuse to pay out.

[Honeycombe8]

18. Medical bills are not excused by bankruptcy. Yes, one can afford something that costs less.

If I have to get everything at a cost of $950, or not get it at all, why not have an option to get something less than everything for, say, $500? Or $600? I have more of a chance of being able to pay for that.

But in my view, it's not my business what someone else chooses to buy. Maybe a person is healthy and has tens of thousands saved up, so that he would be able to fund his own medical care on the off chance he was injured, before his ins. kicked in. He doesn't want to spend his savings, but he CAN, if necessary. That's his choice, to buy a scaled down policy at a reasonable rate, and self-insure the difference, or take the risk.

I don't see this as smoke & mirrors. This is actually the case with a lot of people, and WILL BE EVEN MORE SO, once the subsidies are cut under the new bill.

This will keep some people from losing insurance entirely.

[not fooled]

9. Oh, yeah

and then the GOPee can parade their dimwitted, brainwashed followers on faux and flush to brag about how now--thanks to the wonderful puke party--they can once again buy affordable health insurance. After that evil Obummer raised their rates.

Of course, the fact that it's junk coverage won't be mentioned.

Facts and critical thinking skills not wanted.

[Honeycombe8]

19. Scaled down coverage is not necessarily junk coverage. And it's none of my business...

what someone else wants to buy.

Is it that you want people to lose ins. coverage entirely, rather than take a chance that this one option will be helpful and thus make the pukes look good? That's what your post seems to say.

[karynnj]

12. One way to describe this insurance is high deductible insurance where nothing is paid

until the deductible is, including all the preventive services. The problem is the only group of people for whom this could be acceptable are those with the assets to both pay the premium and the deductible, but they almost always have better alternatives. What they would actually be buying would be catastrophic insurance where they are limiting their risk above the level of the deductible.

Except for the deductible being far higher, this is not unlike some of the excellent employer healthcare plans in the 1970s. If I remember right, the deductible was between $100 and $200. As a healthy young woman, I don't think the insurance company paid anything for me in most years before an HMOs became an option in the early 1980s. What it provided was peace of mind if I actually developed a major health problem.

Even if you ASSUME that the plans would be good once the deductible is met, problems with this are:

- It eliminates the push for everyone to get the routine preventative services that are shown to lead to better health. It is your money that pays for the annual exam.

- There has to be a way to prevent agents from selling this to people who take it because it costs less than the one comprehensive plan who do not understand that they need to spend the deductible before getting anything. The Republicans would hate it, but what if you require that anyone buying it have an HSA to cover the entire deductible? Then, only people willing to explicitly take the risk themselves up to the deductible, with proven ability to pay could take those plans.

- It acts against community rating because it would be most attractive to young, healthy people with a reasonably low risk that they would come near to hitting the deductible. This would make the costs of the Obamacare compliant plan increase as the resulting mix it has would have higher average costs.

[Honeycombe8]

21. "Hi deductible where nothing is paid" is what it is now. The options being discussed...

as I understand it are having the option not to pay for specific coverages that are set out separately by ins. cos., like inpatient drug rehab, inpatient mental care, maternity care.

The provision allows the cos. to sell policies that don't contain all the ACA-mandated coverages. It's not related to deductibles, although I guess that could be included.

But it is an OPTION that would enable someone to have something, rather than nothing at all, because of the high cost of premiums at this time.

This IS one of the problems with the ACA, in my view. It traps some people. They have to buy coverage that doesn't apply to them, at a super high cost, or do without ins. altogether, or buy a short term policy (if they can in their state) that doesn't meet ACA standards AND pay a penalty for not having ACA-compliant coverage. They're trapped. Nothing is in their hands, really. Nothing is their choice.

This would maybe provide a real option and a way to get some coverage at a more reasonable cost and not having to pay a penalty. It offers relief and a solution for those people.

I take the position that it's none of my business who marries who, or what kind of insurance other people buy, or what kind of auto insurance they buy over the minimum required by law.

I guess in essence what this provision might do is change the minimum required...from an "everything" to a more reasonable level of coverage that makes it more affordable, esp since the subsidies will be slashed.

[hunter]

10. These kind of insurance policies are fucking worthless when shit falls out of the sky.

You might as well throw your premiums into the ocean. At least that way people who suck don't get your money.

My wife and I have experienced the financial ruin even a "good" 80/20 insurance plans can't protect you from. 20% of a big number is still a big number, and in the end it turns out not to be 80/20, but more like 70/30 or even 60/40. We've both experienced uninsurability, all for things that are random and might happen to anybody.

We once ran out a COBRA plan to the bitter end when my wife was very ill, leaving my wife on the waiting list for our state's high risk insurance pool in the midst of very expensive medical treatment. Fortunately my wife was accepted to that program before her treatment was dangerously interrupted.

Obamacare has protected many people from some of the terrors we experienced.

So-called GOP leaders can go fuck themselves with a cholla cactus.

I would sincerely love to see the inhumane and disgusting Republican Party die on this beachhead.

[Honeycombe8]

22. The choice for some isn't 80/20 vs junk...it's something vs. nothing.

We don't know what the policies would look like, so it's not necessarily true that they'd be junk.

You don't seem to understand the ACA requirements, from your post. You speak of 70/30 or 60/40, like you think the ACA prevents that. NO. The ACA requirements go to TYPES of coverage (maternity, mental, drug rehab, etc.). MANY people are paying high premiums for 70/30 or 60/40 coverage with $6,000 deductibles. (The ACA caps the deductible, I think.)

The requirements under the ACA are extreme in some cases...requiring men to pay for maternity coverage, for instance. That's fine for someone who gets a full subsidy or is wealthy, but for someone who is healthy and is taking money from somewhere elsein his budget to pay for $950 premium, cutting down the coverage somewhat (the requirements are lessened) makes a huge difference.

ACA-compliant coverage can be lousy coverage because of the high deductibles, high co-insurance, scarcity of providers who will take it, and very narrow provider lists and drug lists. But it's ACA-compliant because it includes maternity coverage, drug rehab, mental, etc., and has a ded. of $6k or less.

What this provision does, in my understanding, is let ins. cos. not include all those coverages (maternity, drug rehab, mental, hospital, prescriptions, etc.), at reduced cost. It does NOT relate to deductibles or coinsurance. Those are ALREADY being offered under the ACA, and in many cases, is all that a person can afford...BECAUSE they have to pay for maternity coverage, mental health, inpatient drug rehab, etc.

This bill won't pass, looks like. But I would hope that this flaw is cured by someone someday.

I see no reason to force people to buy coverages (COVERAGES does not refer to deductibles and coinsurance) that they don't need, or fine them if they don't.

[hunter]

23. We are all born of women. That's why it's just that everyone pays for maternity care.

Bad things can happen to any of us at any time. And we all grow old.

Your arguments don't make any sense to me, but then I'd nationalize medicine and pay for it straight up with steeply progressive income taxes.

The ACA was a great improvement over what existed before, but it's nowhere near ideal. The Republicans want to claw that back.

They can go to hell.

First world nations manage to provide appropriate medical care to all their citizens by many diverse means. The U.S.A. has never been a first world nation.

[turbinetree]

11. Ted Cruz Gets Proposals Included In Revised Obamacare Repeal Bill

Proposals being pushed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), with the support of other conservative senators and outside groups, will be included in the revised Obamacare repeal language being unveiled Thursday, Senate aides confirmed to TPM.

An amendment allowing insurers to sell unregulated plans – which would be cheaper but could discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions – as long as they also sold an Obamacare-compliant policy, will be in the base text, as first reported by Axios. According to Axios, the amendment might still be changed or removed altogether, and the language in the draft bill will appear in brackets.

In the days leading up the revised bill’s unveiling, expected late Thursday morning, other Republicans were already throwing out suggestions to tweak Cruz’s idea to make it more workable and appealing to the conference.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamaca-repeal-revised-senate-ted-cruz

His so called amendment is still a death panel bill and a tax cut, he is trying to get language in there to have people sell unregulated insurance

And then there's Rand Paul and his libertarian "stuff:

https://thinkprogress.org/markets-how-do-they-work-9764b6b4deb5

[Sgent]

20. The bigger problem is that these policies can be MEDICALLY UNDERWRITTEN

meaning pre-existing conditions are back.

It also means ACA policies will become high risk pools, so skyrocket in cost.