No price controls

[pkbarbiedoll]

Masterfully penned by the insurance companies. Lack of price controls is this Act's Achilles heel.

The insurance companies win either way.

The Supremes just gave the GOP more than a fighting chance later this year.   Had they overturned it, Dems would have won big in November.

Comments

Well, kinda

[maxomai]

There are two price controls of a sort in there.

1) 80% of insurance company premiums must be spent on health care. No less.

2) The compensation structure for health care providers has been overhauled completely.

So, there are soft price controls, even if no hard caps.

Re: Well, kinda

[pkbarbiedoll]

How does #2 translate into a soft price cap?

The devil is always in the details. How insurance company define "health care" is one issue - does that include administration of health care? Are only 20% of premiums going to salaries/bonuses?

Re: Well, kinda

[maxomai]

How insurance company define "health care" is one issue - does that include administration of health care? Are only 20% of premiums going to salaries/bonuses?

No; that's considered overhead under ACA.

[denabeth]

I'd rather see it stuck down and the Dems go back for Single Payer.

[pkbarbiedoll]

same here.

[maxomai]

Not going to happen any time soon. You've got to have a huge change in the public discourse and back it up with a veto-proof majority of progressive Democrats. That's going to take a while.

[pkbarbiedoll]

aka - never, or probably not in our lifetimes.