Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: New Study Shows Medicare for All Would Save US $5.1 Trillion Over Ten Years [View all]grantcart
(53,061 posts)122. You have it reversed. If they don't spend the 80% then they have to rebate the difference
Over $ 3 billion dollars has been rebated since ACA started.
I got a $ 200 credit this month.
If you are an individual you get the money. If your company pays for your insurance they get the money.
It was a brilliant provision added by Senator Al Franken
https://www.healthinsurance.org/obamacare/billions-in-aca-rebates-show-80-20-rules-impact/
Medical loss ratio forced carriers to devote more premium dollars to care. The proof of its impact? $3.24 billion refunded to consumers over the last six years.
Ever since 2012, millions of Americans have received rebates from their health insurers each fall, refunding portions of prior-year premiums that were essentially too high.
Its all thanks to the Affordable Care Acts medical loss ratio (MLR) a provision sponsored by Minnesotas former Senator, Al Franken that forces health insurance companies to use your premium dollars to provide actual health care and quality improvements for plan participants, or return that money to you. In 2017, insurers were required to pay nearly $447 million in rebates to about 3.95 million people, bringing the total over six years of the program to about $3.24 billion.
In 2017, the highest average rebates were in California, where nearly 31,000 consumers got rebates that averaged $559. Arizona residents who received rebates averaged $268, followed closely by North Dakotans, who received an average of $264.
To clarify, the goal is to have insurers spending the majority of your premium dollars on medical claims so that rebates arent necessary. But given that insurers set premiums a year in advance, its not always possible to accurately project membership (and thus revenue) and claims costs. So the rebates serve as a backstop, ensuring that even if premiums are ultimately set too high in a given year, the MLR rules still apply.
So if the claims only come to 79% then the insurers must return the 1% back to the clients.
The suggestion that is often made that health insurance companies can make more profits by denying claims is simply no longer true.
That's because we elected Senator Al Franken and President Obama and a whole bunch of others.
It is astonishing that so many people don't understand how great the ACA turned out to be.
In January I will be paying $ 5 for my ACA insurance plan. In April when I go on to Medicare my part B will cost me $ 135 per month.
In my opinion the ACA is way out performing its promises even as the Republicans try to sabotage it. In my district when Martha McSally lied about the benefits of the ACA hundreds of her constituents gathered at her town halls, mostly middle aged professional women. She couldn't announce her town halls more than a few hours in advance because they were literally stormed and she tried to get just her followers.
She announced a town hall two hours before it happened and it was an hour out of town. Three hundred protesters showed up and she cancelled, didn't try to run in this district and lost in her Senate race because she could only get questions about the ACA and nothing about the caravan.
Again, if the health insurance company denies claims and the Medical Loss Ratio is below 80% (or 85% for groups) then the company has to rebate the money back to the clients, they don't get more money.
Hope this helps
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
204 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
New Study Shows Medicare for All Would Save US $5.1 Trillion Over Ten Years [View all]
guillaumeb
Dec 2018
OP
By that logic, European healthcare systems should employ lots of insurance company workers and
Doodley
Dec 2018
#202
This type of nonsense is now just fodder for ignore. I am so over small minded short sighted spew
tymorial
Dec 2018
#105
Its not 3% and its not 20% and insurance companies cannot "declare certain things are costs"
grantcart
Dec 2018
#111
I've noticed along with co pays and deductibles I am being charged with "facility fees"
Autumn
Dec 2018
#129
You have it reversed. If they don't spend the 80% then they have to rebate the difference
grantcart
Dec 2018
#122
I didn't mean to blame the patient... only that for profit preys on that sort of thing
KentuckyWoman
Dec 2018
#50
Supported Medicare-for-All - actually MediCAID-for-All - since about 1980, as right thing to do.
Hoyt
Dec 2018
#10
No question, but that is built into the 14%. The study assumes the system is transformed.
Hoyt
Dec 2018
#16
Unfortunately this study is an oversimplification. Many who read these studies....
George II
Dec 2018
#18
That is correct. Medicare Advantage is VERY affordable (my wife and I each pay $25/month), but....
George II
Dec 2018
#21
The only fixing I see that Medicare needs is to provide full coverage, not just 80%, but...
George II
Dec 2018
#27
That article doesn't mention Medicare once, and the Pentagon is rather infamous...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2018
#87
So in your view, the government is incapable of running things efficiently?
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2018
#89
There is no "evidence as applied to Medicare" because a big part of Medicare is administered....
George II
Dec 2018
#92
I have further questions, is this problem unique to the United States?
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2018
#90
The study proposes a 3.75% national sales tax as a possible way to fund the $1,000,000,000,000
lapucelle
Dec 2018
#112
What I missed was the specifics of the vague plan. So, is there anything proposed on how....
George II
Dec 2018
#120
That's ridiculous. The sales tax is collected (or not) by the merchants.
Hassin Bin Sober
Dec 2018
#148
Bizarre. A sales tax is a sales tax and a value added tax is a value added tax.
Hassin Bin Sober
Dec 2018
#154
Lol. Your own link contradicts how and why you jumped in to this silly subthread asserting....
Hassin Bin Sober
Dec 2018
#157
LOL-they are both taxes on consumption and both taxes are eventually paid for by the consumer
Gothmog
Dec 2018
#158
And the regressive nature of the tax is that it's based on consumption (however one may define that)
George II
Dec 2018
#161
A sales tax has been determined to be the most regressive tax possible, except for a poll tax....
George II
Dec 2018
#159
I don't know where you are, but in the four states in which I've lived (NY, NJ, OH, CT)....
George II
Dec 2018
#160
We have one percentage for the state tax but there are different tax rates for local taxes
Gothmog
Dec 2018
#172
Actually based on studies done for the ACA, it costs 13% less for the govt to do
cbdo2007
Dec 2018
#167
You are using facts concerning a study that is based on very aggresive assumptions
Gothmog
Dec 2018
#175
What does Medicare for All have to do with Native American Genocide or Slavery?
red dog 1
Dec 2018
#40
I worked for almost 50 years, never had a problem changing jobs because I was trapped by healthcare.
George II
Dec 2018
#145
While I support medicare for all there are significant errors on the percentage
grantcart
Dec 2018
#46
Then sanders should stop selling his book and go work to get this plan adopted in vermont
Gothmog
Dec 2018
#118
I understand some of the savings will come from funeral costs of those with inadequate...
George II
Dec 2018
#69
All the comparisons are with countries that have a fraction of the population of the US....
George II
Dec 2018
#81
That actually makes no sense, any insurance system is more cost effective...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2018
#86
Yep. That's the most asinine argument against single payer that gets thrown around.
Hassin Bin Sober
Dec 2018
#150
Those who wrote the plan and are pushing it should explain how it works and is paid for....
George II
Dec 2018
#85
The biggest fault in the ACA is allowing individual states to implement it differently....
George II
Dec 2018
#98
True, but your going to have to abolish Federalism or find a way to Federalize the ACA...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2018
#102
One of the issues is I think it still allows for age based discrimination...
Humanist_Activist
Dec 2018
#123
true single pyer would be better but medicare for all is a decent starting place
questionseverything
Dec 2018
#124
Strengthening an already existing system rather than start from scratch is common sense to me.
betsuni
Dec 2018
#103
Yes. It would cost a business $11k per employee per year. They pay that or more now.
KWR65
Dec 2018
#66
And increased taxes should be less than Americans currently pay for insurance premiums.
guillaumeb
Dec 2018
#68
Unfortunately every time it gets down to specifically stating how the plan would be paid for and....
George II
Dec 2018
#95
Because I live in the real world and I also know how studies like the one cited in OP are prepared
Gothmog
Dec 2018
#133
I know it's two years old, but the third paragraph in your link is very interesting.
George II
Dec 2018
#135
Hell, you can't even get them to do something about climate change...
Ferrets are Cool
Dec 2018
#106
Single payer was not on the ballot but protection of pre-existing coverage was an important issue
Gothmog
Dec 2018
#146
The French system has non profit insurance companies people can choose from
GulfCoast66
Dec 2018
#171
sanders has cited the study cited in OP to justify his magical plan and has failed to get it adopted
Gothmog
Dec 2018
#192
Don't forget the overall savings of funeral costs for people who have inadequate healthcare!!
George II
Dec 2018
#193
