re: #637 subsailor68

Hmmm…from your link:

What’s more important is what is in the new amendment. Much of it reflects Democrats’ concerns that their bill would cause an increase in health insurance premiums. Remember when the House leadership, the White House, and sympathetic media commentators everywhere attacked the insurance industry for predicting that the Democratic bill would cause premiums to go up? The manager’s amendment is, in effect, the House Democrats’ admission that it would do just that. Their answer: more government control. The new language sets up a process for the government to monitor “unjustified premium increases” and threaten insurance companies with exclusion from the government-run Health Insurance Exchange if they exhibit a “pattern of excessive or unjustified premium increases.” The government, of course, will determine what is “excessive” or “unjustified.”

It’s rapidly becoming a game of whack-a-mole. As unintended consequences begin to arise, legislators respond to each individual issue by modifying the bill - thus creating new and improved unintended consequences. And the mole reappears - only to be whacked again.

I’m assuming excessive and unjustified would be when a company raises their premiums 40% (like ours are going up next year). Since these will be (I assume) negotiated premiums then companies would have to keep to a price schedule already set up.

I don’t see what is wrong with that?
They already do this in the health insurance exchange for federal employees. The gov’t negotiates with the insurance companies within it for the premiums and coverage. There are dif plans and prices along with a drug plan. The insurance companies are not allowed to hold pre-existing conditions against the consumer/employee.
I don’t understand why this exchange can’t just be opened up to small businesses and people who are uninsured or under insured with subsidies for those who are under a certain income but make to much for medicade?