![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/21/inve...ngs-obamacare/ http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...03-column.html |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]()
__________________
"Wise men talk because they have something to say, fools talk because they have to say something" - Plato |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
"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. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
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 |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() 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.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|