The risk corridor for Medicare Part D was easily forecast because it was limited to seniors for the most part and was predictable so pharmaceutical companies/insurance companies could pretty much know what their costs and charges would be for predictable medications. With Obamacare everything is totally estimated and unknown at this point since what they were told would happen and what was forecast by this administration has turned upside down.........not enough 'young' people are signing up so the risk factor for mostly already sick and/or elderly but not yet on Medicare or ones looking for supplemental insurance are the pools that are actually signing up. Costs can't be predicted any longer anywhere even close to what it is actually turning out to be.
they passed in 2003 under George W. Bush. Whaaa?
" The target of Republicans' new criticism is a sensible mechanism to ensure an even distribution of risks across insurance companies. According to Republican leaders like House Budget Chairman Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, these risk corridor provisions are "massive insurance company bailouts." Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has even introduced a bill to strip them from the ACA. Some conservative groups are calling them "nothing more than a built-in, blank check bailout for insurance companies." [Right. And IF true, whose fault is that? RTB]
" What's most remarkable about their comments on risk corridors is that Republican leaders are denouncing a model they created to smooth out rate increases in prescription drug coverage under Medicare. When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell voted in 2003 to create Medicare Part D, he called the law "the most important social legislation ... in my memory" and said it provided "a genuine opportunity for the private sector to actually compete in offering this new drug benefit." House Republican Leader John Boehner made similar comments, noting in 2007, "By almost every measure, this drug benefit has exceeded expectations, and it continues to score high marks among seniors for providing big savings on their prescription costs."
" An innovative part of the law McConnell and Boehner voted for was its "risk corridors" program, a new idea back in 2003. The corridors are a mechanism to distribute or balance risks across insurance companies, so that those that sign up healthier enrollees help those that attract sicker enrollees. Under the program, if insurers' actual costs for medical claims are more than 3 percent below their expected costs, they will transmit a portion of their profits into the federal Treasury. Those funds will then be redistributed to insurers whose actual costs exceed their expected costs by more than 3 percent. The provisions were included in Medicare Part D to give the insurers confidence to enter a new market. And they worked."
Now despite this article's authors (that means that you don't get to jump up and down screaming over the source, because everything I've posted so far is incontrovertibly true) Medicare Part D was a programme with broad Republican support especially from the current leadership who voted in favour of it. Was Paul Ryan a supporter, or was he languishing in the outer darkness with his cloven hoofed masters?
If this isn't a "four legs good, two legs bad" argument I haven't met one. "When it was our programme it was wonderful. The second the Administration changed it became anathema despite its origins. We only passed it in order to attack it later." Politics as usual in other words.
If many (most?) Democratic representatives as individuals revolt me, and many do, Republicans, at least the Hyper-Conservative Corporate-backed crypto-fascist half, or three-quarters, leave me in a state paralysed between projectile vomitting and a desire to go all Postal on their ***. Picking off one (and their sycophants) after another then settling down to eradicate all those Private Think Tanks and their funders. Funders first I think. Let them get along on individual mail in contributions.
Now you can't accuse me of doing anything about this or even of advocating that someone else do it. I'm old enough that I may not care what happens to me for the last five, ten, or fifteen years I may have left, but I'd never deprive anyone younger of one minute of un-incarcerated freedom. I don't have the resources or even physical contact with my single shot Savage scoped .22 rifle circa 1945. It's 500 miles away and I'll never recover it, not that it would be useful in this case.
I am building a drone in my imaginary garage, however.
But the upper echelon of the Republican Party has become so disconnected from the voting public and the national mood that something quite dramatic needs to happen IMO. Time for a paradigm shift, where the Representatives and Senators are brought back to earth and into contact and made to act responsibly in the vast middle ground of political reality.
It may be possible to fool 30% of the people all of the time, but if it truly were one man one vote, instead of Democrats I/2 vote, Teapublicans 2 votes due to clever re-districting, the 30% would remain the enflamed and purulent Appendix they really are. If ever there was need for National Legislation regarding Representative Democracy, I can't think of a more important one since 1775.
I'm a Democrat willing to accept rule by Eisenhower Republicans. Even Richard Nixon, despite his sad conduct in 1972, looks better than the vast majority.