Are we allowed to talk about it yet?

[ShokWaveRider]

If I understand about High Risk Pools, they are only open as long as the money is projected to last or a certain number of folk apply. I remember looking into it years ago, when I was thinking of ER and all the Pools I looked at were closed as there were too many people in them. so membership is finite........ It think anyway.

[JoeWras]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulligan This bill is important to me, but I am beaten down from the constant changes and such....So I am just going to ask and be lazy...Is doubling the HSA contribution limits still a possibility on this latest go around?

I told you in the other thread that I was working on that!

Seriously, according to PBS article, the HSA doubling is in there. This is important to me since it looks like I might go OMY again next year.

Search HSA on this:

What's in the House GOP health care bill? | PBS NewsHour

[foxfirev5]

With 5 and 4 years until Medicare DW and I are hoping my retiree medical doesn't get trashed with the overall shift in public policy. We're already out of luck with minor preexisting conditions. I guess the only thing we can do is continue with our diet and exercise programs and quit watching the news.

[kgtest]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeea There's nothing to talk about quite yet. Even if it actually comes to vote, even if it actually passes the house, it still has to go to the Senate. The Senate almost certainly will make changes. The changes will need to be reviewed and voted upon by both the House and Senate. Whatever is on the agenda for tonight will not be whatever does or doesn't make its way into law. Once there is an actual change to current healthcare law, then we should have a lot of discussion about the impact. Until then, your guess is as good as mine.

+1 amendments and revisions

[rodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeea There's nothing to talk about quite yet. Even if it actually comes to vote, even if it actually passes the house, it still has to go to the Senate. The Senate almost certainly will make changes. The changes will need to be reviewed and voted upon by both the House and Senate. Whatever is on the agenda for tonight will not be whatever does or doesn't make its way into law. Once there is an actual change to current healthcare law, then we should have a lot of discussion about the impact. Until then, your guess is as good as mine.

+2.
Even though this just passed - it is not at all close to what the final bill will look like. The Senate is a different group. They will pass their own version. Then teams from both sides of the legislature will conference and come up with reconciliation bills (compromises between the two, likely very different, bills.) Then this reconciliation has to pass both legislative bodies.

I am waiting for CBO analysis and am waiting for what will come out of the Senate. We've got lots of time to figure it all out.

[Mulligan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWras I told you in the other thread that I was working on that! Seriously, according to PBS article, the HSA doubling is in there. This is important to me since it looks like I might go OMY again next year. Search HSA on this: What's in the House GOP health care bill? | PBS NewsHour

Joe, I thought you was going to tell me, your letter is what influenced them to increase the deduction, lol.
Thanks for the brief summary link. It was short enough for my small brain to soak in.
We know things will get adjusted in senate if even approved....But with that being said, I guess I am being more cynical as I am older. It appears to just be a constant game of cost shifting since ACA originated without any real solutions for the underlying costs... One first blush, I lose points on old age ratio premium caps to younger people. But score on larger HSA deductions and maybe some old age premium assistance. Im sure this weak self analysis will change by the time the senate gets a hold of it.

[Cobra9777]

Glad to see the HSA provisions are still there. That's the only dog I have in this hunt.

[rodi]

[ Mod hat on ]

The moderator team would like to keep this thread and discussion open. We will be editing out any and all comments that stray off topic.

Hot topic also enabled.

[ Mod hat off ]

[kimcdougc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB This white paper by Milliman provides the rational and analysis for risk pools and the Federal Invisible Risk Pool. It spells out pretty clearly how they might be structured. https://thefga.org/wp-content/upload...-Risk-Pool.pdf In it, they identify 8 conditions that automatically classify as "high risk".

Interesting article. Too bad they don't write it in layman's terms so it is easier to understand. Thanks for posting.

Now I guess it is just a wait and see game.

[RetireAge50]

I treat this like the stock market. When the market price changes I update the plan going forward.

[simple girl]

Insurers have to put plan prices for 2018 out by June or July, right?

Just wondering when this would need to pass by in order for it to have impact on the 2018 offerings...

[EastWest Gal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mulligan Joe, I thought you was going to tell me, your letter is what influenced them to increase the deduction, lol. Thanks for the brief summary link. It was short enough for my small brain to soak in. We know things will get adjusted in senate if even approved....But with that being said, I guess I am being more cynical as I am older. It appears to just be a constant game of cost shifting since ACA originated without any real solutions for the underlying costs... One first blush, I lose points on old age ratio premium caps to younger people. But score on larger HSA deductions and maybe some old age premium assistance. Im sure this weak self analysis will change by the time the senate gets a hold of it.

+1

As an underpaid pediatrician my entire career (they said I needed to see patients faster and care less) I have seen greed largely get in the way in medical care. Not to mention fraud and waste.

[rodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by simple girl Insurers have to put plan prices for 2018 out by June or July, right? Just wondering when this would need to pass by in order for it to have impact on the 2018 offerings...

I read through (skimmed) the bill and it appears that it is not immediate. Most of the defunding of subsidies, high risk pools, etc wouldn't kick in till 2020... so 2018 should still be under the existing ACA rules.

Similar to the way the ACA phased in with exchanges not in place for several years after the ACA passed.

[JoeWras]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodi I read through (skimmed) the bill and it appears that it is not immediate. Most of the defunding of subsidies, high risk pools, etc wouldn't kick in till 2020... so 2018 should still be under the existing ACA rules. Similar to the way the ACA phased in with exchanges not in place for several years after the ACA passed.

The one thing that does seem to take hold in 2018 are the new higher HSA contribution limits. At least the PBS summary says so.

[imoldernu]

Will be interesting to see what changes will be made to this last CBO estimate. (see page 6)

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115...lthcareact.pdf

[24601NoMore]

All these changes and talk of pre-existing not being covered in all cases (ie: state opt-out) is seriously going to make me think twice about RE this year.

I was never a fan of the ACA for various reasons but at least we could RE and be covered.

Now..who knows? The House version seems to say States can opt out. Senate will come up with their own bill that may or may not contradict that.

SO frustrating when it comes to thinking about RE this year - which I seriously would do "now" due to unmanageable stress and health issues if it weren't for all the uncertainty about what will / won't be covered, IF I will be able to get HC for me and DW and how much it will cost (probably lots, since the insurance companies can now charge us "old" people up to 5X the "young" people compared to 3X under the ACA..and premiums were already $18K/yr for 2 of us with a PPO..what's it supposed to go to? $25-30K? UGHHHH!!!)

I'm not going to sleep well until this all gets ironed out and finalized..hopefully with some coverage for pre-existing and not gouging us "old" people, or we'll be in a world of hurt..

Someone please re-assure me and convince me that they won't do away with coverage for pre-existing..that will screw up my entire plan to RE this year.

[AllDone]

Reliable healthcare economists are saying that the high risk pools proposed in this bill are severely underfunded.

[photoguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fedup You should read more without getting way too emotional. Wordings like getting screwed is to that effect. From what I've read, Arkansas implemented the high risk pool with very limited cost, $55 million, if I remember correctly, and was able to reduce premiums overall.

Do you know what was the mechanism for reduced premiums? I'm struggling with this because if there's a fixed amount of health care that is needed, separating people into different buckets shouldn't change the overall and average cost.

Did they deliver less healthcare on net? or were they getting more healthy people on the insurance market due to price sensitivity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetireSoon All these changes and talk of pre-existing not being covered in all cases (ie: state opt-out) is seriously going to make me think twice about RE this year.

What's the practical advantage of opting out for a state? And if this clause remains, what states would be likely to do so?

[Fedup]

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoguy Do you know what was the mechanism for reduced premiums? I'm struggling with this because if there's a fixed amount of health care that is needed, separating people into different buckets shouldn't change the overall and average cost. Did they deliver less healthcare on net? or were they getting more healthy people on the insurance market due to price sensitivity. For example, Alaska had multiple 40% premium increase back to back, when they paid $55 million to the high risk pool, the premium for the non-existing conditions people only rises 7%. Granted, Alaska is a small state. But it's the same principle. What's the practical advantage of opting out for a state? And if this clause remains, what states would be likely to do so?

From what I've read, people with predicting conditions need to be taken care off separately. When you lump people with preexisting conditions and the people with no existing conditions, you raise the premium overall.

[eytonxav]

I am not going to pay much attention or speculate until there is something more concrete coming from the Senate. What I will say, is that I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.