Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - The USCHO debates
Flip this to nationwide and if the insurance companies start losing copious quantities of money, they'll bail and who will be left holding the bag? The government (taxpayers).
Except in order to provide coverage, the amount of coverage is less and the author reports that the insurance companies will not be making any money on the policies.What exactly are you outraged about? That a state which has committed itself to covering all its residents worked a deal so that it could continue to insure legal immigrants with refugee status (a.k.a. equal protection)? That the state had the nerve to negotiate with a new private insurance company to provide that coverage when the existing players wouldn't meet the price the government was looking for (a.k.a. a free market)?
Seems like a non-story to me.
But it comes at a price, for both patients and the providers of care - and it was greeted with an amalgam of relief and concern from advocates for immigrants, and with skepticism from competitors of the insurer selected to cover this group. The new plan will no longer cover dental, vision, hospice, or skilled nursing services, and, in some cases, it will boost medication and treatment co-payments for patients. And the insurer, a subsidiary of a Missouri company, will probably lose money on the deal.
Flip this to nationwide and if the insurance companies start losing copious quantities of money, they'll bail and who will be left holding the bag? The government (taxpayers).
Last edited: