Oklahoma blames Trump officials for higher premiums

Rogue Valley said:

The statewide premium increase is directly correlated to how many people in that state receive the federal CSR subsidy.

Patients who receive a subsidy will still receive healthcare, but the cost will now be borne by the non-subsidized in that state due to Trump ending federal CSR subsidy payments.

Let's take Louisiana as an example. ~64.3% required the Cost Sharing Reduction federal subsidy. But Trump ended the CSR federal subsidy payments.

What happens then is that the entire Louisiana subsidy cost is borne by the ~35.7% of people in Louisiana that do not receive the CSR federal subsidy.

Their premiums increase by 45% to cover the subsidy shortfall in Louisiana that Trump created by withholding federal payments.

It works this way in every state, but every state has a different % of CSR subsidized so the numbers change per state.

Trumps CSR action hurts Mississippi (77.6%) the most and Minnesota (16.4%) the least. Capiche?

Click to expand...

So, what you wrote reads like, the actual cost is not affected.

The impact is that the costs will be re-distributed.

Is that correct?

code1211 said:

So, what you wrote reads like, the actual cost is not affected.

The impact is that the costs will be re-distributed.

Is that correct?

Click to expand...

In the Louisiana example, the un-subsidized minority will wind up paying higher premiums to cover the subsidized majority.

It is like this in virtually every red southern state that voted for Trump.

Greenbeard said:

It was literally a week ago that the talking point was that the best thing we can do is give the states the money they would've gotten anyway and let them try out their own solutions to their problems.

Gee whiz, that's what the State Innovation Waivers under the ACA are for. Looks like the Trump administration didn't really buy into that talking point. Instead, they've passed on an opportunity to help Oklahoma drive premiums down by 30%.

Oklahoma blames Trump officials for higher premiums

Click to expand...

I for one will be over joyed to see any 'red state' get screwed on health care by Trump; some times irony is sweet :lol:

cuban smokes said:

I for one will be over joyed to see any 'red state' get screwed on health care by Trump; some times irony is sweet :lol:

Click to expand...

Perhaps but they were toying with some interesting ideas. See this thread from back in March: OKLAHOMA to be the first true Obamacare innovator?

I'd be very interested in seeing a state experiment with collapsing down to two metal tiers. Anyway, I guess it doesn't really matter now.

Rogue Valley said:

In the Louisiana example, the un-subsidized minority will wind up paying higher premiums to cover the subsidized majority.

It is like this in virtually every red southern state that voted for Trump.

Click to expand...

So, the root problem remains and is still unaddressed.

The actual cost of healthcare is rising.

After my parents had both passed and we, the children, were going through the items saved, we found bills for our various births. It cost a whopping 173 dollars to bring me into the world.

The first entry on the current cost of birthing a child from the link below is $34,000.

I think we may have stumbled onto the actual problem. That's an increase of 19,653%.

My father built a 4 bedroom home on an acre of land in 1957 in Duluth MN, a few years later and paid $19,500.

A similar house in my neighborhood today in Indianapolis IN costs about $200,000,

This is obviously not a perfect comparison, due to regional real estate market valuations and so forth, but that percent of increase is 1025%.

19,653% minus 1025% is about a 18,628% difference in the rise in price.

Could it be that the crisis in the cost of healthcare has more to do with the cost of healthcare than finding the right person to pay for it?

THAT is why I keep asking why nobody is addressing the actual costs.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/...t is the average hospital bill to give birth?