Wow this is a great idea, please implement this!

So is that $130 billion number would be over 5 years right?

I think it's $130 Billion over 8 years.

Huh? No, the AEI never said $130 billion. Dr. Carroll said $130 billion in this video, but I think he's mistaken. The AEI said something like $20 or $25 billion EACH year. So it's obvious that the $8 billion over 5 years that's included in the AHCA amendment wouldn't be enough. That's Dr. Carroll's overall point, and he's totally right. But I think he got some numbers wrong. Also important to note that the AEI is conservative, so the real amount it would take to cover high-risk people with pre-existing conditions is probably higher than what they said. Health care is expensive, and sick people use a lot of it. And there's lots of sick people....

Well if it cost $25 billion a year it would cost about $125 billion over five years. Probably a little more because of inflation and things. So he probably meant to compare the five year funding from the bill to the five year actually required amount.

There are two different numbers: $130 billion and $8 billion. "The original AHCA set aside $130 billion over 10 years for a state stability fund. That fund wasn't explicitly earmarked for high-risk pools, but they were among the functions for which the states could use the funding. Also, a new amendment from Rep. Fred Upton would add another $8 billion to this funding over five years." www.businessinsider.com/ahca-high-risk-pools-healthcare-vote-obamacare-2017-5 Either way, $130 billion over 10 years or $138 billion over 10 years, it's not enough funding for high risk pools in 50 states. Also, the money can be used for other things besides high risk pools.

how is it that you think the AHCA will provide people with care they can afford? I haven't seen any evidence so far that that would be the case.

I mean, it's a very long discussion. The AHCA is a start. I'm hoping for more. But, hopefully, in the short term. Catastrophic plans will be back. Reduced regulation will get it so docs can run their on "membership" plans without fear of prosecution etc. The Pre-Existing part of the bill makes sense. A 12 month 30% increase in premiums is a start. The ACA went in the totally wrong direction to achieve any decent healthcare reform. Reducing regulations and restrictions. Adding price transparency etc. was the way to go. Rand Paul's plan was the best template to strive for in the near term. But yea, I was involved in plan picking for a company for years. Small and Medium sized companies are in a shitstorm right now. Self employed-individual buyers are even worse unless they make no money. Those two things were not even remotely the case before the ACA. I want to reiterate. People may have insurance plans right now. But their deductibles, even for business enrolled plans, are more than most can cover. It was a completely horrible idea. That much has been proven thus far. It's just sad people can't realize it.

I will not argue that there are issues with the ACA and the affordability of its plans. I will not argue that there is a problem with the availability of coverage options under the ACA. However, I believe you have misinterpreted the underlying problem. The problem is not offering coverage or pricing coverage. The initial problem is the division of populations to be covered. And, the secondary problem is adequacy of the coverage offered. Private insurance can not be a profitable industry if the money coming into the company offering the coverage does not out-weigh the individual user costs. It will not be possible to offer adequate coverage on an individual basis for single clients or small groups because of the structure of America's healthcare system. One user with a chronic medical condition will negate an individual's or small group's REASONABLE investment in terms of premiums, copays, deductibles, out of pocket maximums, etc... resulting in a non-profitable or minimally profitable outcomes for the private insurance company as witnessed by the current behaviors of various insurance carriers with the ACA. This is not fixed by decreasing coverage (essential benefits, etc...) or by penalizing the sick for their illnesses with increased person costs (as if they are likely to be working enough to handle the increased fees). This is fixed by increasing the pool to be covered as a group. Employer based plans are an innate problem because they group segments of the population falsely be age, exposure to risk, lifestyle choices, and basically all sorts of inappropriate conditions. I propose grouping by at least county level to create larger groups which might balance the flow for private insurance carriers in terms of money coming in and out. And, I propose individual cost be assessed as a tax on income. And, as an aside to everyone reading in general... I pay my taxes for your roads that I don't drive on, your bridges I don't cross, your schools I don't attend, your public programs I don't access, and your justice system which is more of an INjustice system. I pay for your healthcare cost via Medicaid and increased premiums to cover self-pay patients. So, don't complain to me about a tax for healthcare for everyone just because to never go to the doctor! Think of it as the freedom to go if you need it ... like due to that car accident you just had... Or, as a 401k plan you pay into for your retirement hospitalization due to the flu next month.

Mr. Humpty, I Implore you to read what Wolfco47 just wrote. Every word. Mr. Humpty you and I agree on some things. I think that price transparency could be much improved where applicable because in many cases it isn't realistic to expect but in other cases it could be much improved. I don't however see how the AHCA does that. I agree that the employer mandate was the wrong way to go. I assume that's what you meant by small businesses being a shitstorm. Mandating that employers provide coverage to their employees, if they have over 50, just made it so that small companies had to pay their employees less. That doesn't make any sense. I also agree that the ACA didn't go where we needed it to go. Forgive me a healthcare related simile but I think the ACA was like putting a bandaid on a wound that needed a ton of stitches. But so far it looks to me like the AHCA would be more like ripping off the bandaid and hoping the bleeding stops on its own. I don't really see how you think that increasing premiums for some people and reducing deductibles will do anything to improve affordability or access to care. It sounds like you just picked deductibles to hate, rather than being concerned about the overall affordability for health insurance to all citizens. As a person with a preexisting condition, I can tell you it will be no more affordable for me to receive coverage and care if my deductible is reduced but my monthly premiums are increased by 30 percent.

Wolfco is correct in that the only way I can see our country really truly improving affordability of health coverage is by finding a way to increase the size of pools. This could be achieved in a few ways, but until I see our government officials discussing how to achieve larger pools, I don't see how anything is going to improve.