The inability to exclude pre-existing conditions and the mandate to cover anyone regardless of age (new coverage) does not work well in any Health insurance scenario.
Im talking about the idea of the co-op and its parallel to insurance captives. Not pre-existing conditions. however, you are wrong in your opinion.
my understanding is that it will come out of payments to providers. seems fine by me. covers most/all uncovered, but no illegals, no abortions.
So they still have to shop it with private insurers? Why don't they lump them together and essentially start their own captive. They could run it with a captive manager and if they went into the red, their overage would be paid for by the government but premiums would go up the next year to pay it back. We have got to force ownership and accountability in each individuals health situation.
Which means services are cut. Obama made the statement a long time ago that difficult decisions would have to be made. This is one of them. You either cut services or raise taxes. Its the only way to pay for something like this. Im not buying the story they will save money by cutting waste. Its never happened before and I wouldn't believe it if a republican government was selling that steaming pile. Show me you can do it then use the money for your health plan but prove you can actually live up to the claim.
I assume that the expenses of paying insurance premiums for medicaid recipients would be covered by eliminating the regulatory agencies and expenses of directly compensating hospitals and doctors that provide for them now.
That would be interesting but is eliminating a regulatory body going to save enough money to expand medicaid? Im not seeing it off the top of my head but I will reserve judgment until I have a better understanding of the Baucus proposal.
Assuming insurance companies will continue to be for profit corporations, how do you propose they make money by removing risk analysis from the equation?
