Don’t Prop Up ObamaCare, AAPS Urges Republican Leaders

unnamed (1)If subsidies are threatened, there will likely be television ads showing people who are in the middle of cancer treatment, Orient notes. The media blitz will be paid for by special interests—the ones benefiting directly from the “safety net”: such as insurance companies, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies.

“It would be far less expensive to buy actual care for the few who need it than to subsidize outrageously expensive, mandate-larded coverage for all,” she stated.

“Those who don’t need care will have more money if they drop coverage they don’t like and might not have bought, despite subsidies, if ObamaCare didn’t threaten to punish them.”

States have the option of licensing low-cost, true insurance plans that are not ACA-compliant. And such plans might have a burgeoning market if millions of potential customers were free of ObamaCare threats.

According to a Heritage Foundation survey, 69 percent agree that “passing new legislation to continue the Obamacare subsidies doesn’t fix the problem—it just prolongs it.”

via Don’t Prop Up ObamaCare, AAPS Urges Republican Leaders.

3 thoughts on “Don’t Prop Up ObamaCare, AAPS Urges Republican Leaders

  1. Money should follow people, not insurance products in form of subsidies to offset mandatory purchase laws, or employer-sponsored plans “subsidized” with tax dollars via exempted status of benefits. Instead take the aggregate of all of these misplaced subsidies (which as a society we have decided we are going to spend on public component of healthcare) and give them directly to individuals in form of advance-able, refundable tax credit… if used directly to offset costs of health insurance. This method completely eliminates need for any mandate or enforcement or income/job/employment verification. It also gets rid of the perverse incentives that are driving a part-time work force because it would obviate the need for an employer mandate as well. It’s good public policy based on sound economics.

  2. Makes a lot of sense. Of course AARP wants you to get their related United Health Care. The medicare advantage plans are so much cheaper than the supplemental plans. In South Florida PreferredCarePartners has a 0 co-pay and no premium but had to lose it as I moved to NC. I am surprised how many doctors refuse to accept a medicare advantage plan. Can they do that if they accept medicare patients ?

    • Of note is the fact that Medicare coverage rules didn’t change much with ACA. We are really talking about the Individual Non-Elderly market when we are talking about subsidies and mandates. The key difference in Medicare Advantage vs. Supplemental policies is the greater flexibility (and related complexities) that can come with Advantage plans. Whereas Advantage plans are basically private insurance that receives government “medicare dollars” it has more freedom in plan design. Not sure about why docs may chose not to take an Advantage plan if they accept straight medicare; it would seem to me if they already accept medicare, they would want to maximize payment sources at the least. I will say that every plan, even supplemental plans, usually require a Credentialing process for the practice/doctors which can be arduous and time consuming. If reimbursement rates are not favorable, they may chose not to pursue certain plans.
      Good source for reading about differences between Medicare Advantage vs Supplemental can be found on ehealthinsurance
      http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/medicare/advantage-vs-supplement

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s