<<As the CBO concluded, under the Republicans' system, “individuals’ cost-sharing payments, including deductibles, in the nongroup market would tend to be higher than those anticipated under current law.” Indeed, according to an analysis from the Center for American Progress, average total costs to consumers would be significantly higher.>>
Here's the rub. Which do you go with? The CBO position that cost-sharing would 'tend to be higher' or the writer's position that "average total costs...would be significantly higher.
It seems to me that it's time for the Democrat critics of the AHCA to start making arguments for leaving Obamacare as it is in spite of it's failures or offering their own ideas for bringing down costs, bringing more insurers into the program, and bringing more healthy younger uninsured into the program.
Having read the CBO report for myself, I spent some time on the issue of "actuarial values". Can't say I have a full grasp of all the ramifications, but it did seem to me that plans covering ten categories of essential health products would be sufficient for most people. Those who need more coverage can decide to spend more and buy a plan appropriate to their needs.
Also, this writer doesn't mention the AHCA proposes establishing 'high risk pools' that receive additional subsidization over and above the corresponding tax credits that individual would receive. Hence, those who need a plan with a higher 'actuarial value', those with present expensive health issues, would get help paying for it. |
