Rubio on his anti-bailout bill: The insurance industry under ObamaCare is headed for a death spiral

posted at 8:01 pm on November 20, 2013 by Allahpundit

I was tempted to subhead this as “comedy gold” because … Rubio’s new O-Care bill would increase the risk of a death spiral. Right? Remember, the “risk corridor” (a.k.a. bailout) provisions of the law say that if a plan on the exchange comes in slightly under budget, the insurer has to cut a check for the difference to HHS. If it comes in slightly over budget, HHS cuts a check for the difference to them. Without those provisions, an insurer who came in way over budget would need to charge higher premiums next year to cover its loss, and higher premiums are the first baby step towards a “death spiral” — premiums increase, healthy people decide the new premiums are too expensive and drop the plan, the remaining risk pool is thus older and sicker, then the insurer has no choice but to increase premiums again, and on and on. Eventually premiums become so expensive that there’s not enough healthy people left in the risk pool to keep it afloat and the plan goes belly up. The “risk corridor” reduces the odds of that by essentially sharing profits, up to a certain point, among plans that participate in the exchange. If a particular plan comes in slightly over budget, no need to raise premiums next year to make up the shortfall. HHS will cover it by paying you out of the extra revenue it received from insurers who came in under budget.

In other words, if you want to raise the odds of a death spiral, the first thing you should do is get rid of the “risk corridor” so that insurers have no alternative to covering their losses except raising premiums. So here comes Rubio, saying: Let’s get rid of the risk corridor.

If Rubio were truly motivated by concern that taxpayers might end up footing a “bailout,” there’s an easy solution: Write a bill stipulating that risk corridors must be budget-neutral. Presto, problem solved. But Rubio’s bill is far more sweeping than that—it eliminates risk corridors altogether by striking Section 1342 from the law. This is a clue that his real motivation isn’t to eliminate the possibility of a payout but to eliminate the Affordable Care Act altogether.

“The insurers who signed up for the exchange did so with the understanding that their risk was limited,” says Professor Timothy Jost, a health-care expert at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. “So repealing those risk corridors is basically breaking a contract with the insurers that if they would come into this program, there’d be some limit to their risk exposure.”

Eliminating risk corridors could set off a chain reaction that undermines the law. Some insurers would drop out or decline to participate in the exchanges. Others would run into solvency issues or start charging a risk premium. The actuaries who set rates would jack up premiums for 2015. This could lead to the death spiral of rising costs and declining participation that the law’s supporters worry about. “Basically, it’s a way of killing the exchanges,” says Jost.

Exactly. It’s an attempt to force repeal by making the exchange plans potentially so risky for insurers to offer that they’ll flee the exchanges instead. If enough insurers run screaming, Democrats will have to revisit the law in its entirety. What you could do as an alternative, as Joshua Green notes in the excerpt, is stop short of getting rid of the risk corridors altogether and rather provide that they need to be “budget neutral” — in other words, that HHS can’t pay out to over-budget plans any more than it takes in from under-budget ones. As the law stands now, there’s no requirement like that; in theory, HHS could pay billions and billions of dollars to reimburse insurers for cost overruns, which is actually more likely today than it was a week ago thanks to Obama’s administrative “fix.” (Letting healthy people re-enroll in less expensive un-canceled plans will mean less revenue for insurers this year than they were counting on and hence a lot of busted budgets.) I assume that, in the unlikely event that Rubio’s bill gets traction with some red-state Democrats, that’s how it’ll be re-written as a bipartisan compromise. HHS will be capped on how much it can pay out to insurers, but the provision won’t be repealed in its entirety. That’s a bit too close to “death spiral” territory than Democrats probably want to go.

Reihan Salam, flagging Green’s “budget neutral” idea, says Rubio’s bill is bad policy insofar as it would undo the obligations of the federal government to insurers after the industry had reorganized itself to accommodate the new federal ObamaCare regime. True, but even Green’s “budget neutral” bill does that, albeit to a lesser extent. Given the likelihood of cost overruns for many plans (not only because of O’s administrative fix for cancellations but because “young healthies” have been thwarted by the website from enrolling so far), it seems like a safe bet that there’ll be fewer companies paying in to HHS next year than there are waiting for HHS to pay out. Some insurers are going to get stiffed, albeit not as badly as they would if Rubio’s bill passed. Plus, we’re already past the point of worrying about insurers having to adjust expectations on the fly; Obama himself has pulled the rug out from the industry twice already, first with the employer mandate delay and second with his cancellation “fix.” If worse came to worst and Rubio’s bill was enacted, I assume insurers could/would arrange privately among themselves to re-create the “risk corridor,” at least temporarily while they’re all adjusting to the new ObamaCare regime, by sharing profits on exchange plans to indemnify each other from massive loss. But we don’t need to game it out too thoroughly. Rubio’s bill won’t pass. It’s great politics, though, even if it’s not great legislation.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

…JugEars …HAS to DESTROY everything AMERICAN!

KOOLAID2 on November 20, 2013 at 8:05 PM

I wonder how many illegals Rubio would demand the insurance companies to hire to achieve his objectives?

viking01 on November 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

The insurance companies were for 404ChoomCare before they were against it.

RoadRunner on November 20, 2013 at 8:07 PM

Marco who?

The guy is still (and always will be) dead to me. I don’t forgive and forget quite so easily.

bofh on November 20, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Fine.
You still don’t have my vote. Ever.

RovesChins on November 20, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Yeah, because these guys are geniuses at recognizing “bad” policy.

John the Libertarian on November 20, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Brilliant. Glad we have a Senator who’s actually doing something, instead of just giving speeches.

GOPRanknFile on November 20, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Brilliant. Glad we have a Senator who’s actually doing something, instead of just giving speeches.

GOPRanknFile on November 20, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Yeah, he’s working with the democrats to sell us out on amnesty.
Effing rino hack.

RovesChins on November 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM

Reihan Salam, flagging Green’s “budget neutral” idea, says Rubio’s bill is bad policy insofar as it would undo the obligations of the federal government to insurers after the industry had reorganized itself to accommodate the new federal ObamaCare regime.

I’m no fan of insurance companies that played footsie with Bambi care, but I agree with this. It’s BS to change the rules on them now. Besides, the death spiral is going to happen regardless in my opinion.

JusDreamin on November 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM

What you could do as an alternative, as Joshua Green notes in the excerpt, is stop short of getting rid of the risk corridors altogether and rather provide that they need to be “budget neutral” — in other words, that HHS can’t pay out to over-budget plans any more than it takes in from under-budget ones.

That may be what “budget neutral” means in the Unabridged, but what does it mean to a President and progressive-run Senate who haven’t even offered up an actual budget in five years?

To them, it means

“Pass more emergency spending bills and shovel however much money it takes into O-Care to keep it ‘officially solvent’.”

Which is guaranteed to turn O-Care into FM-Squared on steroids, a financial black hole that would eventually consume a lot more than just one-sixth of the economy.

Is Rubio’s bill extreme? Probably.

But then, so were Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Sometimes, an extreme dose of shock treatment is the only way to make some delusional types realize that they’re out of time, out of options, out of alibis, and out of luck.

And that their fanaticism and dogmas aren’t going to make it in the real world anymore, and were a stupid idea to begin with.

clear ether

eon

eon on November 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM

… MEANWHILE … Rubio continues to work directly with obama and democrats, behind the scenes, to make sure that AMNESTY will get rammed through, at some point in the near future.

Pork-Chop on November 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM

…Rubio may be forgiven for his amnesty brain farts…if this does happen…

It’s an attempt to force repeal by making the exchange plans potentially so risky for insurers to offer that they’ll flee the exchanges instead.

KOOLAID2 on November 20, 2013 at 8:15 PM

“The insurers who signed up for the exchange did so with the understanding that their risk was limited,” says Professor Timothy Jost, a health-care expert at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. “So repealing those risk corridors

is basically breaking a contract

with the insurers that if they would come into this program, there’d be some limit to their risk exposure.”

Now that would be an Administration first, wouldn’t it? GM stockholders and defunct dealership owners, call your offices.

de rigueur on November 20, 2013 at 8:15 PM

The insurance industry under ObamaCare is headed for a death spiral

and Hussein will find out about it in next week’s newspapers !

burrata on November 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Yeah, he’s working with the democrats to sell us out on amnesty.
Effing rino hack.

RovesChins on November 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM

No legislator is perfect. I would still rather have one who actually does serious work and is wrong 10% of the time than some of those legislators who go there and just talk. We have one of those in the WH right now.

GOPRanknFile on November 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

…Rubio may be forgiven for his amnesty brain farts…if this does happen…
It’s an attempt to force repeal by making the exchange plans potentially so risky for insurers to offer that they’ll flee the exchanges instead.
KOOLAID2 on November 20, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Agreed.

GOPRanknFile on November 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Eliminating risk corridors could set off a chain reaction that undermines the law. Some insurers would drop out or decline to participate in the exchanges. Others would run into solvency issues or start charging a risk premium.

of course there’s another option: nationalize the insurance companies. Kucinich was b*tching about the insurance bailouts last week. He’d vote for the bill

r keller on November 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Yeah, he’s working with the democrats to sell us out on amnesty.
Effing rino hack.

RovesChins on November 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM

No legislator is perfect. I would still rather have one who actually does serious work and is wrong 10% of the time than some of those legislators who go there and just talk. We have one of those in the WH right now.

GOPRanknFile on November 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

He’s not even viable. Your hate for Ted Cruz is noted, though. While Rubio was fetching coffee for Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin and being McCain’s asscaptain, Ted Cruz was making the democrats OWN obamacare.

RovesChins on November 20, 2013 at 8:20 PM

So what do the OccuPooperzz have to say about bailing out big mean richie rich predatory insurance companies ?

burrata on November 20, 2013 at 8:22 PM

I would still rather have one who actually does serious work and is wrong 10% of the time than some of those legislators who go there and just talk. We have one of those in the WH right now.

GOPRanknFile on November 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM

You’re kidding, right? Barky has done more solid damage to the country than we even know yet. He is far from “just talk”.

bofh on November 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM

Karma.

The death of Obamacare will lead to the saving of America.

/FUBO. Never liked ya in the first place, ya plastic jug eared bastige. Feign illness and step down. “We Can’t Wait”

Key West Reader on November 20, 2013 at 8:24 PM

As the law stands now, there’s no requirement like that; in theory, HHS could pay billions and billions of dollars to reimburse insurers for cost overruns,

Can this really be right? I’m not a policy wonk, but I would think money would have to be appropriated for this via legislation, no? Or did the ACA come with a perpetual blank check for bailing out the insurance industry?

So many fun surprises we’re finding in this thing!

RINO in Name Only on November 20, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Is that anything like a repeal bill..?

d1carter on November 20, 2013 at 8:26 PM

A good laugh

Obamacare Then, Affordable Care Act Now

faraway on November 20, 2013 at 8:27 PM

He’s not even viable. Your hate for Ted Cruz is noted, though. While Rubio was fetching coffee for Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin and being McCain’s asscaptain, Ted Cruz was making the democrats OWN obamacare.

RovesChins on November 20, 2013 at 8:20 PM

No one is talking about presidential ambitions. I was talking about his work in the legislature. I don’t know and, at this point, I don’t care if either Rubio or Cruz is viable. Neither Rubio nor Cruz is in my top 3 for 2016, so I wasn’t pushing Rubio on anyone. I don’t hate Ted Cruz. I actually supported him the primary. I’ve praised him quite a bit, actually. There are plenty of others on the hill who just talk.

You’re kidding, right? Barky has done more solid damage to the country than we even know yet. He is far from “just talk”.

bofh on November 20, 2013 at 8:23 PM

I didn’t say he was “just talk” in his capacity as President. I was solely talking about his time as a legislator.

GOPRanknFile on November 20, 2013 at 8:32 PM

As the law stands now, there’s no requirement like that; in theory, HHS could pay billions and billions of dollars to reimburse insurers for cost overruns,

Can this really be right? I’m not a policy wonk, but I would think money would have to be appropriated for this via legislation, no? Or did the ACA come with a perpetual blank check for bailing out the insurance industry?

So many fun surprises we’re finding in this thing!

RINO in Name Only on November 20, 2013 at 8:25 PM

If they fail, America Wins.

Key West Reader on November 20, 2013 at 8:32 PM

One by one issues arise that demonstrate the harm done
by “comprehensive” legislation, especially when that legislation is not openly debated.

GaltBlvnAtty on November 20, 2013 at 8:36 PM

A good laugh

Obamacare Then, Affordable Care Act Now

faraway on November 20, 2013 at 8:27 PM

…everybody look at that LINK!…because “Obama Care” has disappeared the last couple of weeks from the DemoRat LIPS!

KOOLAID2 on November 20, 2013 at 8:36 PM

…Rubio may be forgiven for his amnesty brain farts…if this does happen…
It’s an attempt to force repeal by making the exchange plans potentially so risky for insurers to offer that they’ll flee the exchanges instead.
KOOLAID2 on November 20, 2013 at 8:15 PM

I guess. It’s better than nothing, anyway, and it has the benefit of directly stripping away a fundamentally anti-capitalist feature of the bill – that it rewards losers and punishes winners.

Still, you know what other kind of bill would do the same thing, and also force repeal?

That’s right – a bill to repeal Obamacare.

All these ideas they’re putting forward, from defund, to delaying various mandates, to the Upton bill, to this – these would all be wonderfully creative ways to deftly snipe at the bill while displaying l33t legislative skilz, if Obamacare was not on life-support.

Everyone will have plenty of opportunities in the future to show off – could you please just put this thing out of its misery before it gets back up?

Surely these people understand how dangerous cornered/wounded animals and almost-defeated video-game bosses can be. Just FINISH IT!

RINO in Name Only on November 20, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Why is everybody cheering about the fact that the private insurance sector is heading for the death spiral? Obama, who will never have to run for anything ever again, will veto all attempts to change 0-care and when the dust settles all that will be left standing is public insurance or am I missing something?

Valkyriepundit on November 20, 2013 at 8:39 PM

Rubio, wearing pink, proposed an anti-bailout bill.

Dongemaharu on November 20, 2013 at 8:40 PM

GOPRanknFile on November 20, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Yes, but when he does something, he circumvents his constituents and teams up with McCain and those traitors, so is rather he just sit on his thumb and be quiet.

RovesChins on November 20, 2013 at 8:43 PM

aaaaaannnnd we were right about this too :
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/11/jack-cashill-vindicated-bill-ayers-book-promotion-event-announces/
The thug is the Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers

burrata on November 20, 2013 at 8:45 PM

If worse came to worst and Rubio’s bill was enacted, I assume insurers could/would arrange privately among themselves to re-create the “risk corridor,” at least temporarily while they’re all adjusting to the new ObamaCare regime, by sharing profits on exchange plans to indemnify each other from massive loss.

Would that even be legal? Couldn’t that be considered collusion of some kind, and violate anti-trust rules? RWM? Anyone?

Wait a second, never mind, forget I asked. We’re way way WAY past that kind of question at this point.

Sorry, Resist We Much and other Hotair law gurus, but your legal expertise, from which we have all benefited so much over the years, is officially useless at this point.

It’s nothing personal, we’re just in a post-legal paradigm now. Best of luck in your new endeavors in this Brave New World.

RINO in Name Only on November 20, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Yes, but when he does something, he circumvents his constituents and teams up with McCain and those traitors, so is rather he just sit on his thumb and be quiet.

RovesChins on November 20, 2013 at 8:43 PM

I didn’t realize he teamed up with McCain when he was fighting with Cruz and Lee with respect to the government shutdown.

GOPRanknFile on November 20, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Yes, but when he does something, he circumvents his constituents and teams up with McCain and those traitors, so is rather he just sit on his thumb and be quiet.

RovesChins on November 20, 2013 at 8:43 PM

I didn’t realize he teamed up with McCain when he was fighting with Cruz and Lee with respect to the government shutdown.

GOPRanknFile on November 20, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Uh. No. He wasn’t working with them. Maybe just latching on to try and get his reputation back.
So. I’m curious. Who are your three candidates?

RovesChins on November 20, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Uh. No. He wasn’t working with them. Maybe just latching on to try and get his reputation back.
So. I’m curious. Who are your three candidates?

RovesChins on November 20, 2013 at 8:52 PM

If he doesn’t do anything, he would be accused of being a sellout, who is doing nothing for the cause. If he does do something, he’s just “latching on to try and get his reputation back.” Of course, this anti-bailout bill is also just “latching on to try to get his reputation back,” I’m sure. I guess you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

My three candidates, as it stands right now, are Pence, Jindal, and Walker. Anything can change of course, but those three are my favorites right now.

GOPRanknFile on November 20, 2013 at 8:58 PM

I wonder how many illegals Rubio would demand the insurance companies to hire to achieve his objectives?

viking01 on November 20, 2013 at 8:06 PM

More! Always more.

David Blue on November 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM

The minute you throw in terms like risk corridors, you get rid of the LIVs. They are off to check if they can see nips on Kim Kardashian’s appearance on her baby daddy’s video.

The fact of the matter is that stuff like healthcare reform would be done much better without the cameras, social media, and 24/7 news cycle.

Happy Nomad on November 20, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Why is everybody cheering about the fact that the private insurance sector is heading for the death spiral? Obama, who will never have to run for anything ever again, will veto all attempts to change 0-care and when the dust settles all that will be left standing is public insurance or am I missing something?

Valkyriepundit on November 20, 2013 at 8:39 PM

That’s the dangerous line we’re walking here. We have to support private enterprise and that means private insurance companies even though some of them have jumped into bed with the REB and others forced into cooperation at the point of a gun.

The answer is reform and deregulation so that a private corporation is insulated from a fascist government and the enterprise really is ‘free’ and competitive.

slickwillie2001 on November 20, 2013 at 9:19 PM

So what do the OccuPooperzz have to say about bailing out big mean richie rich predatory insurance companies ?

burrata on November 20, 2013 at 8:22 PM

They’d think it’s horrible, but really great that Rubio is a Democrat working for the little guy.

txhsmom on November 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM

Uh. No. He wasn’t working with them. Maybe just latching on to try and get his reputation back.
So. I’m curious. Who are your three candidates?

RovesChins on November 20, 2013 at 8:52 PM

If he doesn’t do anything, he would be accused of being a sellout, who is doing nothing for the cause. If he does do something, he’s just “latching on to try and get his reputation back.” Of course, this anti-bailout bill is also just “latching on to try to get his reputation back,” I’m sure. I guess you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

My three candidates, as it stands right now, are Pence, Jindal, and Walker. Anything can change of course, but those three are my favorites right now.

GOPRanknFile on November 20, 2013 at 8:58 PM

If he stuck to being a conservative, that would be a start.
I like Pence. I liked Rubio. Until he started paling around with McCain and acting like him.

RovesChins on November 20, 2013 at 9:35 PM

No legislator is perfect. I would still rather have one who actually does serious work and is wrong 10% of the time than some of those legislators who go there and just talk. We have one of those in the WH right now.

GOPRanknFile

Right…because it’s the percentage that’s important and not the actual issue. Sure, he wants to give Chuck Schumer 50 million new voters and total control of government, but hey, at least he agrees with me 90% of the time, lol.

xblade on November 20, 2013 at 9:39 PM

xblade on November 20, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Heh. You have such a way with words.

Cleombrotus on November 20, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Rubio is a proven back-stabber. Someone who will stab you in the back once will do it a hundred times. Rubio should not be trusted at all.

David Blue on November 20, 2013 at 9:49 PM

They’d think it’s horrible, but really great that Rubio is a Democrat working for the little guy.

txhsmom on November 20, 2013 at 9:24 PM

:)

burrata on November 20, 2013 at 9:50 PM

I guess it’s something, but he’s still Empty-Gesture Rubio to me.

BuckeyeSam on November 20, 2013 at 10:24 PM

Rubio on his anti-bailout bill: The insurance industry under ObamaCare is headed for a death spiral

Rather like the Republican Party’s death spiral coming with the signing up of 20 million new Democrat voters via the Rubio/Schumer amnesty.

RJL on November 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM

The answer is reform and deregulation so that a private corporation is insulated from a fascist government and the enterprise really is ‘free’ and competitive.
slickwillie2001 on November 20, 2013 at 9:19 PM

I shake my head everytime I come here and read empty platitudes like the one quoted above. Government so bad, private sector best thing since slice bread. Same ol bs everyday. Think with your brain and stop being wedded to empty ideological talking points. The world isn’t black or white. There are many good things the government does just like there are many good things the private sector does. This U.S government hating talks is getting old. Its also ironic that the ones who claim they hate govt the most are the ones who will drown their first born if it guarantees them a congressional win.

loveofcountry on November 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM

Rather like the Republican Party’s death spiral coming with the signing up of 20 million new Democrat voters via the Rubio/Schumer amnesty.

RJL on November 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM

That is a bigger death spiral.

There didn’t need to be mass immigration or white decline at all; these are products of politics.

But now they exist, the more non-white natural Democrats are in play the harder the GOP chases them to the detriment of its own base, and that means the Republican base continues to wither under political pressure while the Democrat base grows through mass immigration, amnesty and official favoritism of all kinds.

The more white working class families reduce fertility because they can’t afford kids, the more the white population from which the Republican Party gets 90% of its votes shrinks, long-term, and becomes disproportionately old.

This is a disaster for the long term future of conservative politics in America, and it’s been a growing disaster for half a century (since the Hart-Celler Act of 1965), but all the Republican Party does is constantly revise up its estimate of how badly it wants to be loved by naturally conservative Blacks, naturally conservative Hispanics and so on.

I’d say this points the way to California, but California isn’t an end-point. Things are going to get much worse.

David Blue on November 20, 2013 at 10:44 PM

If he stuck to being a conservative, that would be a start.
I like Pence. I liked Rubio. Until he started paling around with McCain and acting like him.

RovesChins on November 20, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Yeah, if you think Rubio is McCain Jr., then I don’t know what to tell you. I disagree with him on amnesty, but I’m not going to say he’s the second coming of McCain just for that, just like I wouldn’t call Walker or the bunch of other Republicans that seem to favor some form of pathway now.

GOPRanknFile on November 20, 2013 at 10:57 PM

Right…because it’s the percentage that’s important and not the actual issue. Sure, he wants to give Chuck Schumer 50 million new voters and total control of government, but hey, at least he agrees with me 90% of the time, lol.

xblade on November 20, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Yup, I’ll just have to agree with Ronald Reagan on this one when he said, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.”

I disagree with him on amnesty, but I’m not going to call for his exile from the party. If you don’t like him, find a viable candidate to primary him. Good luck.

GOPRanknFile on November 20, 2013 at 10:59 PM

Reihan Salam, flagging Green’s “budget neutral” idea, says Rubio’s bill is bad policy insofar as it would undo the obligations of the federal government to insurers after the industry had reorganized itself to accommodate the new federal ObamaCare regime.

Let them go to Hell and burn. Go under all of you, one by one, with no exceptions. You are all traitors.

Schadenfreude on November 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM

Think with your brain and stop being wedded to empty ideological talking points.

And thats followed by:

The world isn’t black or white. There are many good things the government does just like there are many good things the private sector does. This U.S government hating talks is getting old. Its also ironic that the ones who claim they hate govt the most are the ones who will drown their first born if it guarantees them a congressional win.

loveofcountry on November 20, 2013 at 10:32 PM

You lack any self-awareness whatsoever, dont you?

Valkyriepundit on November 20, 2013 at 11:37 PM

The more I see of Rubio, the less impressed I become.

This is STUPID. All he is doing is giving Obama another target for blame. There is no chance of it ever coming to a vote while Reid controls the Senate agenda.

Rubio is reducing himself to just another grandstanding first-term Senator out to make a name for himself. These kids would be be far better to spend their first terms with their eyes and ears open and their mouths shut. They might learn something.

Adjoran on November 20, 2013 at 11:58 PM

Reihan Salam, flagging Green’s “budget neutral” idea, says Rubio’s bill is bad policy insofar as it would undo the obligations of the federal government to insurers after the industry had reorganized itself to accommodate the new federal ObamaCare regime.

Let them go to Hell and burn. Go under all of you, one by one, with no exceptions. You are all traitors.

Schadenfreude on November 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM

And then what? After we finally rid the land of ObamaCare, if the insurance carriers are all either bankrupt or out of the health business, who carries the coverage?

How are you any different from Obama other than using the power of the federal government to destroy those you dislike from the other direction?

Adjoran on November 21, 2013 at 12:01 AM

“The insurers who signed up for the exchange did so with the understanding that their risk was limited,” says Professor Timothy Jost, a health-care expert at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. “So repealing those risk corridors

is basically breaking a contract

with the insurers that if they would come into this program, there’d be some limit to their risk exposure.”

“The American people who voted for Obama did so with the understanding that they could keep their policies and their doctors; so un-grandfathering those policies is basically breaking a contract …”

Well, it was just a promise, not an actual contract contract, so what difference, at this point, does it make?

AesopFan on November 21, 2013 at 1:46 AM

And then what? After we finally rid the land of ObamaCare, if the insurance carriers are all either bankrupt or out of the health business, who carries the coverage?

Adjoran on November 21, 2013 at 12:01 AM

New insurance carriers.

“Too big to fail” is a bad idea. So is “too established to fail”.

David Blue on November 21, 2013 at 6:24 AM

I agree with no bailout but haven’t seen Rubio’s bill so will withhold judgement on it.

The insurance companies sold out to the government with visions of millions of conscripted policy holders in their eyes when they made their decision to join in supporting the ACA rather than fighting it as they did HillaryCare.

When you lie down with dogs it is likely that you will get up with fleas so don’t expect me to come to your rescue.

Nomas on November 21, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Reihan Salam, flagging Green’s “budget neutral” idea, says Rubio’s bill is bad policy insofar as it would undo the obligations of the federal government to insurers after the industry had reorganized itself to accommodate the new federal ObamaCare regime.
I’m no fan of insurance companies that played footsie with Bambi care, but I agree with this. It’s BS to change the rules on them now. Besides, the death spiral is going to happen regardless in my opinion.

JusDreamin on November 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM

I am much less sympathetic than you are. The insurers made a corrupt bargain with the administration — a law would be passed requiring all Americans to buy their product, in exchange for a much closer level of government involvement in their industry practices. If they were paying any attention whatsoever, they must have realized that signing on to this deal meant they were going to be partners in a government enterprise, for better or for worse. And part of the “worse” meant that government, which it must always be assumed will be constantly changing the rules, has a lot more rules to change now. The insurance industry chose this outcome.

Secondly, the rules have already changed. Now it’s a question of whether the change of rules will be accompanied by a massive federal bailout of insurers after this portion of the law (the risk corridor program) was originally sold as having no costs.

Well, now there are big costs to that provision. So the only question now is who has to pay for them — taxpayers or the insurance industry. I vote for the insurance industry, who helped bring about this mess. And yes, I know that if the industry swallows the costs then the effects must be passed on to consumers, but it’s better that these costs of the ACA be felt transparently than obscured by being dispersed among all taxpayers and financed with more debt.

Chuckles3 on November 21, 2013 at 8:13 AM

Rubio is running back to the right (like Cornyn)……it’s just temporary though.

Done with you Jeb Junior.

PappyD61 on November 21, 2013 at 8:19 AM

Reihan Salam, flagging Green’s “budget neutral” idea, says Rubio’s bill is bad policy insofar as it would undo the obligations of the federal government to insurers after the industry had reorganized itself to accommodate the new federal ObamaCare regime.

Let them go to Hell and burn. Go under all of you, one by one, with no exceptions. You are all traitors.

Schadenfreude on November 20, 2013 at 11:27 PM
And then what? After we finally rid the land of ObamaCare, if the insurance carriers are all either bankrupt or out of the health business, who carries the coverage?

How are you any different from Obama other than using the power of the federal government to destroy those you dislike from the other direction?

Adjoran on November 21, 2013 at 12:01 AM

Well, the difference is that he is not advocating using the power of government to destroy anyone. He is opposing using the power of government to prop up an industry that is being destroyed by a law he opposes. I agree with him. It’s a terrible idea to allow the ACA to contort the health insurance market and then disguise the effects with a back-door bailout. This risk corridor program was supposed to be budget-neutral. If the ACA can’t be implemented in a way to keep this risk-corridor program costless, the answer is NOT to start a huge bailout but rather to repeal the problematic provisions of the ACA. The bailout only gets bigger over time if the ACA isn’t fixed — it solves nothing.

Chuckles3 on November 21, 2013 at 8:52 AM

One other point that I think is being lost here: even if Rubio’s amendment doesn’t pass, it is useful for the Congressional Budget Office to score it. That creates an updated score for the estimated cost of an insurer bailout — a score that was not provided to legislators at the time the ACA was passed and they were being told the ACA would reduce the federal deficit. If the updated situation reveals that the ACA is now clearly a huge drain on the treasury, CBO ought to be required to disclose that.

Chuckles3 on November 21, 2013 at 9:50 AM

All seeing, All knowing ALLAHPUNDIT:

Thank you for showing Rep. Rubio’s vision of the collapse of Heath Care (ObamaScare).

What I espouse to those in my circle of friends is that at the Start of the Next Congress all D.C. politicians are given the mandate from leadership (the citizens are their leaders), to read the Constitution and Federalist Papers.

The bottom line is the Federal level of our Government has butchered the phrase in the Constitution “promote the General Welfare”. to mean it must provide its citizens everything therefore control it as well.

Promote means to get out of the citizens way and let them define what is in their best interest i.e welfare.

MSGTAS on November 21, 2013 at 1:32 PM