3 ms·
Yes, it would be unworkable without the subsidies. There are 34 states using the Federal exchange. Most of these states are in the south and midwest. The incom
by hwstar 11y ago
Yes, it would be unworkable without the subsidies.
There are 34 states using the Federal exchange. Most of these states are in the south and midwest. The income per capita in these states is much lower than the states with their own exchanges. It is estimated that 70% of those covered would cancel their insurance in these states if the
subsidies were eliminated. The remaining 30% would try to hang on as they probably really need the insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies would not be able to make a profit off of the remaining 30% and they would raise unsubsidised rates to try and compensate. As they raised the rates, more people would drop out and then the insurance companies would start raising rates in the states with their own exchanges, and on employers who offer health insurance to employees to compensate. The whole thing would have come crashing down.
- ikeboy 11y agoWhy are the people getting subsidies and are poor also the ones the insurance companies are profiting most off of? If you don't assume such a correlation, then the worst that will happen is a slightly smaller economy of scale. Am I missing something? Also, if an insurance company is losing money in a state, stopping to service that state is strictly better for profits than continuing and raising money by raising prices elsewhere. One state shouldn't affect others like that.