Obamacare Bleeding Out

[GenuineRisk]

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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/

[richard burch]

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.

[Danzig]

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

[saratogadew]

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

[jms62]

Originally Posted by saratogadew

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.

[saratogadew]

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

[saratogadew]

Originally Posted by jms62

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.

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.

[richard burch]

Originally Posted by Danzig

You dont often see someone bitching that they're healthy. What next, complaining you haven't used your car insurance?

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

[jms62]

Originally Posted by richard burch

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by richard burch

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

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.

[Pants II]

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.