Oops, I take that back. Now they want to cost the government $8 billion in revenue and throw that away. So we're back to square one again?
That's what they call "fiscal conservatism," which is crazy and by all measurable standards, a massive failure. It's just more obvious now.
Bloomberg: Obamacare foes have been harping for the last few months on what they call the law’s “bailout” for insurance companies. Florida Senator Marco Rubio has been particularly vocal about his desire to repeal the piece of the law known as risk corridors: The provision lasts three years and applies only to companies offering plans on healthcare.gov and state-run exchanges. If those insurers pay out much more in medical claims than they anticipated when setting premiums, the government will backstop some of their losses. That’s why critics call it a bailout, even though the government offers insurers similar protection from catastrophic risks such as floods and terrorism.
I want to note here that “risk corridors” are also a permanent part of the unpaid for Republican Medicare Part D law. Hypocritical…ya think? But they won’t remind you of that.
If insurers set rates too high and pay out much less in medical claims than they expected, they will have to pay some of that money back to the government … an incentive to be on the safe side and not price premiums too high. And it removes insurers’ incentives to recruit only the healthiest people.
Brilliant plan, isn't it. Knowing Rubio’s plan is pure idiocy, anyone want to take a chance on their own health care reform plan? Anyone?Chris Hayes proves my point below, with guest Josh Barro:
A new budget outlook (PDF) published Tuesday (by the CBO), however, estimates the provision will cause a net gain of $8 billion over three years.