Individuals’ Catastrophic Medical costs.

[Supposn]

I originally posted this topic last year within a different group. The link from which I quote is from a NY Times article dated July 3, 2018 and was linked the next day within an MSN web site. The article's title is entitled “Obamacare Is Proving Hard to Kill”, by Reed Abelson.

Respectfully, Supposn
///////////////////////////////////////////

Individuals’ Catastrophic Medical costs:
Federal insurance for catastrophic medical costs on behalf of individuals:

Excerpted from Congressman Paul Ryan’s website. He forwarded a transcript concerning his positions of regarding USA’s healthcare policies; Racine [WI] Journal News, Mark Schaaf, July 7, 20217.
“Republicans have proposed the federal and state governments subsidize the cost of care for people in the individual market with catastrophic illnesses, Ryan said. He believes that will make it easier to insure people in those high-risk pools at a more affordable price”.

Paul Ryan’s advocating federal insuring catastrophic medical costs of individuals. That’s a concept that both sides of the political aisle could agree upon.
I’m a proponent for federal acceptance of fiscal responsibility for catastrophic medical condition regardless if patients were or were not previously insured. Hospitals must be reimbursed for those extraordinary expenditures.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

​

Excerpted from: Obamacare Is Proving Hard to Kill​

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ob...cid=spartanntp

“...In Minnesota, which created a reinsurance program to help pay for customers’ expensive medical conditions, carriers are actually seeking lower premiums. A midlevel policy in Minneapolis is priced at $302 a month. ...”.

 

[debbiedowner]

Well I read an article yesterday republican's say if they can keep the congress they will overturn it, lol wtf have they been doing this past year and half. Now making the same promise just to get elected.

 

[dblack]

Figures that it'd be a Republican proposing government death panels.

 

[Supposn]

To what extent do USA taxpayers now directly or and indirectly, pay for USA's entire catastrophic medical expenses?

Insurers catastrophic medical expenditures are passed on to those paying for the insurance, (unless the insurer is a government or a charitable organization willing to eat those costs). Thus, excluding such organized or individual altruistic charitable donors, individual insured patient's catastrophic expenses are entirely paid by the same people and organizations that provide our governments' tax revenues.

If the federal government assumed financial responsibility for catastrophic All patients that are legal U.S. residents, the proportional net difference between current or the addition of increased U.S. governments' expenses would statistically be extremely tiny; USA's net costs per taxpayer would statistically be extremely tiny; the distribution of those catastrophic costs among USA's taxpayers between our current and the proposed change would statistically little differ.

But if those identified catastrophic costs were no longer expenses to any medical insurer, that would somewhat reduce the expenses and prices of ALL, (government and non-government) medical insurers.

If healthy people refrain from purchasing medical insurance, the concept of considering pre-existing condition as a factor of medical insurance pricing is less sustainable. Those younger and/or healthier people that refrain from purchasing medical insurance, (i.e. those “free riders”) effectively increase the per capita costs of all those other persons that are medically insured.

Regardless if you're a proponent or opposed to socialized medical insurance, (which is not socialized medicine), eliminating medical insurer's responsibility for catastrophic medical expenses better enable sustaining the concept of medical insurance prices disregarding pre-existing conditions.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Individuals' annual basic medical screenings.

The concept of insured parties' co-payments is to discourage inappropriate and/or excessive expenses to insurance plans. But most, (if not possibly all) U.S. medical insurance plans have annual finite amounts of deductible expenses not qualified for insurance reimbursement. Isn't this contrary to the concept of “a stitch in time saves nine”?

[I'm not certain, but I believe insurers qualified under the Affordable Care Act are required to provide some specified medical screening procedures at no additional insurance prices or co-payments; that does conform to “saves nine” concept].

Similar to, and due to the same reasoning as proposed legal resident patients' entitlement of catastrophic medical insurance, regardless if you're a proponent or opposed to socialized medical insurance, (which is not socialized medicine), individuals' entitlements for some specified medical screening procedures would be to the net best interests of our nation's economic and social condition and our taxpayers' finances.

Respectfully, Supposn]

 

[debbiedowner]

To what extent do USA taxpayers now directly or and indirectly, pay for USA's entire catastrophic medical expenses?

Insurers catastrophic medical expenditures are passed on to those paying for the insurance, (unless the insurer is a government or a charitable organization willing to eat those costs). Thus, excluding such organized or individual altruistic charitable donors, individual insured patient's catastrophic expenses are entirely paid by the same people and organizations that provide our governments' tax revenues.

If the federal government assumed financial responsibility for catastrophic All patients that are legal U.S. residents, the proportional net difference between current or the addition of increased U.S. governments' expenses would statistically be extremely tiny; USA's net costs per taxpayer would statistically be extremely tiny; the distribution of those catastrophic costs among USA's taxpayers between our current and the proposed change would statistically little differ.

But if those identified catastrophic costs were no longer expenses to any medical insurer, that would somewhat reduce the expenses and prices of ALL, (government and non-government) medical insurers.

If healthy people refrain from purchasing medical insurance, the concept of considering pre-existing condition as a factor of medical insurance pricing is less sustainable. Those younger and/or healthier people that refrain from purchasing medical insurance, (i.e. those “free riders”) effectively increase the per capita costs of all those other persons that are medically insured.

Regardless if you're a proponent or opposed to socialized medical insurance, (which is not socialized medicine), eliminating medical insurer's responsibility for catastrophic medical expenses better enable sustaining the concept of medical insurance prices disregarding pre-existing conditions.

Respectfully, Supposn

Supposn,

Risk corridor's were set up to help insurance companies offset the cost of many catastrophic claims, Trump admin just put them on hold to the tune of $10 billion I believe the figure was, therefore many plans will have a much larger increase in premium's for 2019 than was anticipated. As many trumpettes will cheer this move because on the outside it appears as a money saver, but in the end higher premium's equate to higher advanced premium tax credits (subsidies) and with a little higher Federal Poverty Level for 2019 will wipe out any savings. It appears the administration is really working against policy holders instead a screwing over the insurance companies by not paying the risk corridor money owed.