Thank you for reading. Criticism of high-risk pools is entirely justified if the GOP is not being truthful from the start about how much more it will cost and how few people it will actually cover. We can’t seriously access the viability of an idea if those who are presenting it are not being tru…
“Criticism of high-risk pools is entirely justified if the GOP is not being truthful from the start about how much more it will cost and how few people it will actually cover.”
This is of course true, but any assessment of the cost will come from the CBO, not a journalist working for a left wing agitprop site like ThinkProgress.
I would point out to you that nobody is trying to lie to anyone on this matter; you seem to assume the GOP is being disingenuous simply because you’ve settled on a contrary analysis which paints their current ideas (which haven’t been completely presented yet) in a negative light. That’s weak tea. High risk pools, if I am not mistaken, work fairly well in certain European dual-payer plans.
At any rate, pricing these sorts of plans out over time requires algorithms with many assumptions. People on the right and the left exaggerate their assumptions for political reasons. So, best to let the people who scored the ACA score the replacement as well.
I won’t just move on if they try to skirt the hard realities by trying to cover them up.
Well, people on the left are still trying to pretend that the ACA isn’t in a death spiral. I’d refer you to extensive research written on the matter by Megan McArdle at Bloomberg. So, somebody needs to move on from something, I’d say, considering that the ACA is going to be removed.
Give some consideration to the cowardice on both sides of the aisle for getting us to where we are today.