Obamacare Bleeding Out
 

What a surprise. I thought you could just insure everyone, even people with costly pre-existing conditions that require $100,000 a year in treatments (and medication), and that the system would be totally sustainable. I can't believe that is not the case. This is shocking news:

OBAMACARE BLEEDING OUT: Insurers warn losses unsustainable...

"Health insurance companies are amplifying their warnings about the financial sustainability of the ObamaCare marketplaces as they seek approval for premium increases next year."

"Insurers say they are losing money on their ObamaCare plans at a rapid rate, and some have begun to talk about dropping out of the marketplaces altogether."

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...-unsustainable

Yes I believe anything an insurance company looking to jack up rates so they can give execs hundreds of millions in stock options tells me cause I read it on the Internet.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/21/inve...ngs-obamacare/

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...03-column.html

:tro::tro:

Maybe it depends on which specific market we are talking about, but the article gives plenty of examples and plenty of statistics. And it's not just United Health.

"A report from McKinsey & Company found that in the individual market, which includes the ObamaCare marketplaces, insurers lost money in 41 states in 2014, and were only profitable in 9 states."

"There have been some rumblings of discontent from Blue Cross plans. The plan in New Mexico already dropped off the marketplace there last year after it lost money and state regulators rejected a proposed 51.6 percent premium increase. Now, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina says that it might drop out of the marketplace because of its losses."

I doubt these companies would be dropping out of these markets if they were doing well.

Anyway, we will see who is right. If the article is right we will see premiums rise substantially in the near future. I think the main problems are with the PPO market, not the HMO market. I would guess there are probably 10x more people with HMO's than PPO's.

Dude seriously the insurers have been reporting record earnings every quarter since Obama care has gone live. Now due to the law of large numbers they cant hit their projections and ACA is the problem. Why wasn't it a problem while they were crushing it? These people/ companies are the scum of the earth they would not bat an eyelash as they refuse care to your mother as she is dying meanwhile rewarding thiir execs with HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS in stock options. I know you hate anything Obama did but this transcends parties. I have worked in the industry and have friends that have worked in the industry. I refuse to do business now and in the future with any company looking for a loophole to avoid paying out on coverage they gladly accept premiums for.

I think the insurance companies that do mainly HMO's have been doing great. But why wouldn't they? Most of the people who are insured through their work were insured through their work before Obamacare. The companies that are not doing well are the ones who insure individuals. Those companies had to start insuring individuals with pre-existing conditions who are in very poor health. And this is not just a case of companies not making their numbers. This is a case of companies actually losing money.

By the way, I'm not saying Obamacare is all bad. It has surely helped millions of people. It has probably helped more people than it has hurt. I have never denied that. But it has also hurt plenty of people. There are plenty of people out there (including myself) whose premiums have skyrocketed and whose coverage has actually gotten worse.

Even Hillary Clinton has admitted that there are huge problems with the ACA and she is planning on making some major changes to it.

With regard to whether insurance companies are good guys or bad guys, I don't think they are either. It's a business like any other business. They're in business to make money. They don't do it to be altruistic. It is a necessary business too. There is a need for insurance companies. And in the vast majority of cases, people get their claims paid. With regard to the CEO's, I agree with you. I think the vast majority of CEO's are overpaid, whether we are talking about insurance companies or any companies.

Here is another article that talks about what is going on right now with insurance companies. I think pretty much all the problems are in the individual market. That probably covers only about 10% of the insured (but that is still around 10 or 15 million people).

"Is Obamacare in trouble? This week, UnitedHealth Group, America’s largest health insurer, announced that it had sustained heavy losses in selling insurance on the Obamacare exchanges and that it might be forced to pull out of the exchanges altogether. The news from other insurers is not much better. Aetna, Anthem, and Cigna, three of UnitedHealth’s biggest competitors, will no longer offer exchange coverage in a number of counties across the country, which could be a sign that they’ll retrench even further in the future. You might have heard that insurance premiums on the exchanges are rising substantially, which isn’t exactly welcome news."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...re_doomed.html

Rupert, I just read the article you linked to and, probably due to your ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome), I don't think you understood it. It wasn't a gloom-and-doom-catastrophe-is-imminent piece at all. I took from it that there's going to be a scuffle over rate increases in 2017 as companies look to make a profit (as the resident of a rent-stabilized apartment in NYC, I experience this scuffle every year between the city and the landlords), but nowhere in the article does anyone say collapse is on the near horizon.

Basically the article says the program is new, and it's got kinks. One of the kinks, which no one really discusses, is that OF COURSE individuals seeking coverage are going to, on the whole, be sicker than those who get insurance through their jobs. To have employer-covered insurance, you have to be healthy enough to work a 30-40 hour a week job, so by tying insurance to work, the market is already filtering out the chronically and severely ill (especially because it's ridiculously easy for an employer to drop an employee who gets too sick to work). Which makes capitalist sense, but is morally bankrupt. This new program is going to naturally attract people who need care more urgently, and many of them are going to be catching up on years of health issues that were neglected while they couldn't get insurance, which have since snowballed into bigger health problems. That difference won't entirely disappear, but as more people get coverage and regular medical care, including getting chronic conditions like diabetes, treated early, when it's cheap, as opposed to waiting and having to get a limb amputated later, which is not cheap, the level of "sick" versus "healthy" customers will start to even out a bit.

The ACA, until such time as the nation wises up and does Universal Medicare, will continue to be the "until something better comes along, meaning employer-provided health insurance" option. It's up to the government to keep tinkering with the regulations to find the balance that keeps large companies like BCBS in the game (because no one cares if the smaller ones drop out; they were victims of competition, and that's capitalism for you) and provides decent coverage for the majority of Americans. But hey, Social Security was not an effective program when it started, either, and decades later, it keeps millions of seniors out of poverty. But it needed time.

It is what it is. The article was pretty clear. You can spin it any way you like. But is sounds like the bottom line is that rates are going to go way up. Could things get better in 10 years from now if more healthy individuals enter the market? Yes, I'm sure that could happen. But over the next few years, it sounds like there is going to be a real problem and it sounds like the result will be skyrocketing premiums in the individual market. I hope it's not too bad. My premium already went up 75%. I sure hope it doesn't go up another 50%. The good news is that I think this only affects a relatively small percentage of Americans, maybe 5-10%. Those people are basically paying for all the sick people. This isn't a surprise. Somebody was going to have to pay for all the sick people who didn't have insurance. It's a zero-sum game. The money was going to have to come from somewhere.

When they were marketing this thing, they certainly weren't going to tell you the truth. Obama wasn't go to say, "We need to insure all the sick people. So all you healthy people need to pay for it. It's the right and moral thing to do." I'm not saying that isn't a legitimate argument. I'm just saying very few people would have supported it if they would have told the truth.

And as I'm sure you know, one of the top architects of the ACA basically admitted that. He said that if they would have told the truth, nobody would have supported it. Here are a few of his quotes:

“And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."

“Look, I wish . . . that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

“If you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in — you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.”
http://nypost.com/2014/11/13/obamaca...voters-stupid/

All I know is that it was cheaper and easier to deal with before the change. We are totally screwed. For me it is literally throwing out $500.00 per month for something that never even gets past the deductible amount. B.S.

You dont often see someone bitching that theyre healthy. What next, complaining you havent used your car insurance?

United Healthcare here in PA pulling out of Obama care for 2017. Losing massive amounts. Not enough healthy workers to pay for the freebies.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...03-column.html

It is a ****ing exchange they set the price they are willing to take the business for. It is like you buying a stock and watching it tank and blaming the exchange.

"Aetna, Anthem, and Cigna, UnitedHealth's biggest competitors, will no longer offer Exchange coverage in a number of counties across the country."

This is the way I understand it. Let's look at another business model and use the same dynamics. Let's call it the "Newspaper Exchange". We agree that everyone should be entitled to read the news and learn about the world. People in Brooklyn can't afford the newspaper. But still, the newspaper will be delivered to them free of charge. But in order to make up for this loss, the Manhattanites will be charged 5.00 a day for the paper. Some Manhattanites balk at paying 5.00 a paper and 20 percent cancel. Now the following year the remaining 80 percent must be charged 6.25 for the paper to make up for the Brooklyn freebies. Now 20 percent more cancel the paper and the downward spiral continues. Even though it is an "Exchange" and the Newspaper company can charge what they want, they know the ceiling that exists.

never said i was healthy....and you have no clue....I'm saying the insurance is too costly and the deductible is too high and they take long to payout and the doctors dont like it and they often refer my treatments to out of net work providers which means it cant be used towards the deductible.

and car insurance is 1,000 per year, not 600$ per month

"Hey doc that doctor you referred me to is not in my network, can you please refer me to someone else?" Try it and if you get pushback then go to a different doctor. All the issues you cite I empathize with and quite frankly have been experiencing them for my entire adult life. At least now if you REALLY get sick your insurance can't drop you forcing you into financial ruin. I saw that happen and it scared the **** out of me.

you need to double check on that out of network stuff. it depends on if it's covered. when I had neck surgery last fall, the neurosurgeon wasn't in network, but I didn't have any others within 50 miles, so they covered just like it was in network. if they refer you to a specialist, and they're the only game in town, it may be covered.
and yes, it is costly-blame those trying to make a profit off of illness. blame trying to create dividends for shareholders.
as for your last line...I know, I'm in the business. health care is nothing like insurance for property or vehicles, etc.

Everything the government does with taxes concerning the levels is to embed your precious mind with the thought process that it is absolutely pointless to earn more money unless you make enough where you can hire an accountant and attorneys to hide the money from the IRS.

So any person who is making good money but not enough to be like a politician is literally effed sideways by an infected schlong.

So yeah Obamacare is great if you're a broke idiot who wants Hillary to win because Trump is a white man and you hate strong white men who want to protect other white men and women from a group of people that have hated our kind for centuries.

But yeah it's good. It's all the evil insurance companies fault and not the assholes who didn't read the bill but signed it anyways because omg racism black guy in office have to lick his ******* cause slavery.

I pay the tax, btw. The deductibles are way too high. If anything were to happen I'd be bankrupt anyway.

It's horrible, unfair coverage that discriminates and punishes the healthy.

I am taxed for being healthy.

So 10 bad health welfare queens can continue their bad habits.

Sorry but there's no way it's going to save ME money. Maybe Scumbag Magee.

But then again it seems all our politicians care about are the super rich and they use the poor to invoke fear in the working class.

Working class needs to all quit. Then what? It all ends..

In fact all white men should stop working in protest.

2nd year of paying the tax. It was cheaper than one month's premium. Haven't had health insurance in 26 years. :)

Brilliant decision

Yes it was. By not paying for something I don't use, I paid off my mortgage early and am debt free. And I can afford to go to the doctor because I am not paying huge health insurance premiums. Ironically if I had the insurance, I couldn't afford to go to the doctor. Not having insurance is my choice. I would think that would be fine for all the pro choice people.

Hey, its a free country, you can do what you want. Hope it works out for you. That you dont become another bankruptcy due to an illness.
I never met my deductible due to illness...til last year. Two herniated discs in my neck, had to be fused because of how bad they were.
And now, at the end of may a full hysterectomy...and hubby already hit his this year too, with a bout with high blood pressure.
So, teo years in a row for me, and him this year too...
So, the older you get, the more the odds swing. So, be careful gambling.
All it takes is to wait just a little too long.
You might want to get with a financial adviser.

Strategy worked for you. But like any strategy they work until they don't. And yours seems like you are pushing all in every year. I would think everyone that faced a catastrophic bankrupting illness one day crossed the line from health costs being a non issue to a catastrophic one.

With the deductibles it's worth the "risk".

Especially when you know the economy is going to crash and burn. It's really weak to just give in and pay $400-$800 month for practically nothing.

The poverty line is so low on it that if you make north of 25k you're not getting a subsidy at all.

It's not fair. It's a disaster. I read comments of people supporting it and I just think these people have been conditioned to be dupes.

Unless you own a business or are extremely wealthy and have many investments, I've never understood paying someone to tell you how to handle your own money. Then again, I look at today's youth whining about loans THEY signed and understand it completely.

You're talking about catastrophic insurance. I would have no problem buying a catastrophic only policy. Used to have that, affordable monthly premiums with a high deductible (25,000). Can't get one anymore. Now every plan has to cover everything. Prescription drugs, birth control, wellness visits-that's why the costs are so high. I live in Mass. We have the highest premiums in the country. We've also had the mandatory insurance longer.

I had to self insure early in my career and realized insurance companies would gve you a teaser rate for a year before they hold you up. I did the dance and have seen a lot of small companies doing the same, I changed companies every year to capitilize on intro rate. Not sure that opportunity still exists though since I have been using wifes plan for a bit. She works for a small starup they have changed a couple times so it still may.

Actually, Massachusetts isn't even in the top 15.

There are a lot of folk out there who confuse being lucky with being smart. So far, you've been very, very lucky. May you continue to be so. Medical debt is the number one cause of bankruptcies in this country.

The reason i sad talk to someone is so that maybe they can help you understand that one catastrophe with a medical issue can ruin your debt free lifestyle. You have a house paid for, that you are risking every day.
Health insurance with the highest deductible would give you catastrophic care, so that if god forbid you had an emergency, it wouldnt completely wipe you out.
Look outside of the exchange, which only unhealthy or subsidized people should shop thru. Any insurance companies not jnvolved in the exchanges can rate accordingly, whereas those who are in the exchanges have to keep pricing the same in or outside of the exchange.

Massachusetts pays the highest family health care premiums in the U.S.

David Seltz
David Seltz, executive director of the Massachusetts Health Policy Commission, spoke to health care and business leaders in Worcester on Tuesday, the 10th anniversary of the Massachusetts health care reform law. Seltz, who helped write the law, is holding the Boston Globe from that day in 2006. (Michael D. Kane | MassLive)
Print Email Michael D. Kane | mkane@masslive.com By Michael D. Kane | mkane@masslive.com
Follow on Twitter
on April 12, 2016 at 4:28 PM
WORCESTER -- Ten years after Massachusetts signed into law Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 -- which called for affordable health care for all -- the state is still struggling with how to deal with the cost of a law that has insured nearly everyone, but one that has also created the highest premiums for families in the country.

Today's issues with costs were not unexpected 10 years ago, according to the state's healthcare expert, David Seltz, who spoke before the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday.

Seltz heads up the Health Policy Commission, and independent state agency with a mission of developing policy to both improve patient care and control costs in the state. As the chief health care advisor to then-Senate Therese Murray, Seltz helped write the 2006 health care reform law, particularly when it came to financials.

Holding up a copy of the Boston Globe from 2006, when the law passed, Seltz noted the Globe noted the "joy" and "worries" of the law.

"We could write the same headline today," he said, noting the proponents of that 2006 law understood the difficulties the state faced trying to make sure all of its residents had health insurance.

In 2016, Massachusetts has the lowest rate of uninsured residents in the country and it consistently ranks highest among public health quality surveys, Seltz noted. But it also has the highest family premiums in the country, and health insurance costs are outpacing wage growth.

A family of four in Massachusetts, earning two times above the federal poverty level, spends roughly 40 percent of their income on health insurance premiums and co-pays, he said.

Seltz'€™s numbers are also reflective of two earlier studies of Massachusetts'€™ health care reform.

A 2012 report on the state of Massachusetts healthcare by the Kaiser Family Foundation found Massachusetts per capita spending on healthcare was 15 percent higher than the country's average and that Massachusetts consumers paid the highest premiums in the country. However, the same report noted rising costs in healthcare was not unique to Massachusetts.

A 2014 (taken from a late 2012 survey) study found many positives in the law, including increases to the number of people insured and the number of people who had access to places to go other than emergency rooms when sick. Also, fewer Massachusetts residents reported having trouble finding a primary care doctor in 2012 than in 2008, and the 2012 number is Massachusetts was better than the national average.

However, 40-percent of non-elderly respondents also told Blue Cross that health care costs had been a problem in the year prior to the survey. More than 16 percent of those surveyed said they had gone without needed care because of the costs.

Being insured did not eliminate problems with costs, with almost 39 percent of the insured polled reporting problems with health care spending in the prior year. Problems arising from costs were felt more by those with lower incomes, according to that study.

The Blue Cross report noted that part of cause was the shifting of costs onto employees by employers, including so-called high-deductible plans and requiring more services be paid for out-of-pocket.

Overall, the quest to accomplish sustainable, universal healthcare, is a group effort, and one that is beginning, Seltz noted.

Among the drivers of cost in Massachusetts is both the rising cost of medicines and more people seeking treatment at hospitals in places like Boston for routine services that could be provided in lower-cost markets.

"Many equate price with quality, saying 'it costs more, it must be better.' But that is not the case in healthcare," he said.

Among the actions being taken by the Health Policy Commission is offering innovation grants to groups who have come up with an innovative idea to reduce the cost of medical treatment.

Among the requirements is that the applying agency must have a partner. Partner agencies do not have to be health care providers, but they must be able to be part of the solution.

While Seltz expected about 40 groups to apply for the grants, more than 100 have sent letters of interest, 400 unique partner organizations have been identified. They include law enforcement agencies, specialty courts, housing agencies and employers, among others, he said.

Seltz said he is also advocating for the same type of coalition of government, healthcare providers, insurers and business/employers that helped write the 2006 law to reconvene to tackle the problems of costs.

Not to worry. I understand the risks completely.

If you did, you would have insurance. And dont forget, if its affordability that is the issue, you may well qualify for a subsidy.
You have a house...you have assets to protect, and income to protect? You are quite literally flirting with disaster in opting to not buy health insurance. The number one cause of bankruptcy in this country is medical bills. There are three times as many collections made for medical bills then for credit cards.

If you can, start a health savings account also, especially if your employer offers it. Any money in the account is retirement money down the road if you dont use it. It is not use or lose, and is free money if your employer kicks any in.

So you have a family and you are letting them go uninsured? :eek:

Because if you are a single looking for health insurance, your state isn't even in the top 15.

No you don't.

And in general health care advice, having just come back from burying my father, barely a year and a half after burying my aunt, those DTers who are still smoking, please quit. If not for yourselves, do it for those who love you and will grieve you when you leave them too soon.

:tro:
we quit 19 years ago. what a waste of money, it literally goes up in smoke.

Destroy cultural Marxism and take our country back from overbearing dumb asses.

It was you and GR who don't understand. "Not to worry. I understand the risks completely" was my polite way of saying butt out. I didn't ask for your advice concerning my private life. Good luck with all your medical issues.

Well, that is true, i do not understand at all. Well, at least the people i deal with on these issues every day at work understand i am there to help them and that they trust my judgement.