High risk pools equals segregation or apartheid for sick people

[Kber]

Segregate all sick people into one crappy system so the genetically lucky and healthy can pay less.

Sounds fair, right?

No wonder the GOP love's the concept so much.

[Warpy]

1. It beats the alternative of charging sick people more

Republicans are really something, treating illness like it's a personal choice. If that were the case, only the wealthy would ever need chemo or heart transplants while the rest of us would have to be content to skyve using the common cold.

Clearly Republicans are the meanest, ugliest, cruelest, most short sighted assholes on the planet. They live in a perverted fairyland.

[Kber]

3. They are underfunding the high risk pools, by billlions.

So the sick will be segregated and also pay more.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. This completely defeats the purpose of insurance.

Insurance - more or less as we know it now - was invented in the 17th century in response to the Great Fire of London, and by Lloyd's of London to protect merchant shippers against the risk of lost ships and cargo and to spread that risk among all shippers. The whole idea was to have shippers pay into a pool that would be sufficient to cover a loss due to storms, pirates, shipwrecks, etc. Since more was paid into the pool than the costs of losses, the pool would cover whatever losses did occur. The whole idea of high risk pools is kind of stupid because these make it difficult, if not impossible, to distribute the risk sufficiently that the pool will cover losses without requiring the premiums paid in to be essentially unaffordable. As a result, even fewer people will pay into the pool, making it even smaller and requiring premiums to be even higher.

This isn't rocket science, FFS. Why do these nimrods think this half-assed scheme could possibly work?

[Kber]

4. I don't think they think it will work

I think they are hoping we will think it will work.

[AnnaLee]

5. The state high risk pools in the last decade.

Kaiser wrote a review of the high risk pools that existed between 2000 and 2008. The problems with them was obvious before the ACA pushed the data out of the limelight. One section:
"HIGH-RISK POOL CHALLENGES
Enrollment in state high-risk pools has been extremely low. Nearly 200,000 individuals are enrolled in the 34 programs across the country, representing a very small percentage of the total insured population. Low enrollment in high-risk pools is primarily attributable to the high cost of coverage. Coverage typically costs between 125 and 200 percent of the standard market rate and out-of-pocket costs can be substantial. Many individuals may not be able to afford to purchase coverage through high-risk pools. Additionally, because premiums can vary based on demographic characteristics, some people, including women and those who are older, may pay even higher premiums.

High-risk pools are also extremely expensive for states to operate. Because most states do not have sufficient funding to cover everyone who needs coverage, states are forced to implement enrollment caps and strict eligibility requirements, purposely limiting enrollment. Although the California high-risk pool does not currently have a wait list, it had a wait list for most of its existence because state funding comes from tobacco taxes. Enrollment is currently capped at 7,100 enrollees. Illinois also had a wait list in 2004 and 2005 and Florida’s high-risk pool has been closed to new enrollment since 2001. Nationally, the Government Accountability Office estimates that 3.97 million people may be eligible for state high-risk pools based on their uninsured status and pre-existing health conditions.35"

https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/8041.pdf