DescentBB

Obama keeps lecturing on how the AHCA is working and all is good. But is it?:

Earlier this month, Aetna, once one of ObamaCare’s biggest cheerleaders, slammed the breaks on its expansion plans and became the last of the five major national health insurers to project significant losses tied to the Affordable Care Act.

CEO Mark Bertolini blamed “structural challenges” associated with the health care overhaul and said Aetna intends to withdraw all its “2017 public exchange expansion plans” and undergo “a complete evaluation of future participation in our current 15-state footprint.”

If the head cheerleader for Obamacar "Originally" is now stopping it's expansion plans, it puts the lie to Obama's continued statements that it is working. How about the other major insurers?:

One by one, the nation’s top insurers – Humana, UnitedHealth Group, Blue Cross and Anthem – have shifted their tone on the law.

Once optimistic, each has reported struggles with plans sold on the exchanges. Many say they weren’t ready for the influx of customers that have generated more claims than predicted.

The problem? The influx of high risk customers that put a drain on resources more than was expected. I guess this is the problem when you paint a new system thru rose tinted glasses and don't know anything about the act until after the law was enacted. Something of this magnitude should of had vigorous debate. Since the Dems controlled everything, no one read it, there was no debate and we now have a real mess brewing.

yep, the only longterm solution is obvious: Cradle to Grave Medicare for all, with the private insurers handling the supplemental market.

woodchip wrote:...Obama's continued statements that it is working.

Heh, maybe that was the plan all along. Good, put those insurance companies out of business and roll out national health care. We are decades overdue.

The insurance companies are straight up admitting that healthcare costs are too expensive, which is amusing because for the last 50+ years they were in a position with significant control over those costs but instead of controlling them they actually deliberately contributed to their rise. It was their own hubris as a result of them manipulating the system while cherry picking the most profitable customers that led to this in the first place. If they had used their position to actually control costs like an insurance company is supposed to, none of this would have happened.

And when you cap insurance company profits the incentive to let prices rise becomes even more of an incentive because 20% of 10 million is more than 20% of 5 million.

Ehhhh…I’m going to try to not get started again…

We never got death panels.

Spidey wrote:And when you cap insurance company profits…

Oh those poor babies! How terrible they don't get to rob the public!

Vander wrote:We never got death panels.

Don't worry. We will.

Krom wrote:The insurance companies are straight up admitting that healthcare costs are too expensive, which is amusing because for the last 50+ years they were in a position with significant control over those costs but instead of controlling them they actually deliberately contributed to their rise. It was their own hubris as a result of them manipulating the system while cherry picking the most profitable customers that led to this in the first place. If they had used their position to actually control costs like an insurance company is supposed to, none of this would have happened.

Why would they do that? Control costs and you'd end up controlling their profits.

Oh, and Spidey, since you're the one who compared house insurance to food insurance, I've started seeing commercials for home repair insurance to cover things like a broken A/C or a leaking roof. I guess these greedy slimballs are learning what a gold mine it is to cover everything in our lives, just like our health insurance system! Americans are suckers AND math deprived.

Nightshade wrote:

Vander wrote:We never got death panels.

Don't worry. We will.

We already have a form of "death panels" NS. It's called "some people just can't afford to live". What's insidious is that those who survive are those who can pay, and money doesn't care who dies or suffers.

You rejoice too soon. There's still that messy problem of rising costs. Eventually, healthcare WILL break most people's bank accounts. Obamacare has never really addressed the non-transparent and rising cost issues. I only reason Obamacare sounds good now is because Ryan released the Republican's repeal and replace plan and it was far worse for most people, especially for those looking forward to Medicare at 65.

tunnelcat wrote:Eventually, healthcare WILL break most people's bank accounts.

My god you're like ThunderBunny. No, it will not break most people's bank accounts. Such ridiculousness.

Like slick said, wait and see. But in my opinion, Obamacare is the bastard child progeny of a bunch Republicans who wanted to nuke it from the start and a bunch of Democrats who were so clueless, they didn't see that they were being scammed. Right now, if I wasn't being forced into buying some now very expensive health insurance, I'd drop it like a hot potato and self-insure with the money I'd save. As a liberal-minded person, I'd rather see Medicare for All and private insurance a thing of the past.

the critical mass to have universal coverage carry the day is damned close, I'd estimate, so hang in there and keep vocal.

tunnelcat wrote:Like slick said, wait and see. But in my opinion, Obamacare is the bastard child progeny of a bunch Republicans who wanted to nuke it from the start and a bunch of Democrats who were so clueless, they didn't see that they were being scammed. Right now, if I wasn't being forced into buying some now very expensive health insurance, I'd drop it like a hot potato and self-insure with the money I'd save. As a liberal-minded person, I'd rather see Medicare for All and private insurance a thing of the past.

And do you really think medicare for all would be free? I suspect by the time the govt. and medical insurer lobbyists get done the Medicare will cost you more than regular insurance did before Obamacare. Increases would be seen in the increase in medicare portion of the fica taxes, High deductibles and exclusion of medical costs as a tax deductible write off. So be careful what you wish for.

so, ,you think our elected officials will manage to develop a system of medicare for all, a concept already in practice worldwide, and manage
to make costs go up? This despite the fact that ALL the rests have LOWER costs per capita? How little faith!

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Like slick said, wait and see. But in my opinion, Obamacare is the bastard child progeny of a bunch Republicans who wanted to nuke it from the start and a bunch of Democrats who were so clueless, they didn't see that they were being scammed. Right now, if I wasn't being forced into buying some now very expensive health insurance, I'd drop it like a hot potato and self-insure with the money I'd save. As a liberal-minded person, I'd rather see Medicare for All and private insurance a thing of the past.

And do you really think medicare for all would be free? I suspect by the time the govt. and medical insurer lobbyists get done the Medicare will cost you more than regular insurance did before Obamacare. Increases would be seen in the increase in medicare portion of the fica taxes, High deductibles and exclusion of medical costs as a tax deductible write off. So be careful what you wish for.

I didn't say it would be free. Right now, patients get great medical care for less money than private insurance and it's far more cost efficient for every patient dollar spent. The only really expensive parts are those privatized add-ons courtesy of Republicans and the health insurance and senior lobbyists, Medicare Advantage Plans and Medicare Part D (which is a real expensive fiasco for seniors since the government is not allowed to negotiate for better drug prices).

http://www.epi.org/publication/pm142/

The ACA's death spiral has begun. To slick, Clinton's ideas will only exacerbate the premium increases. To woody, Trump's ideas are only going to help the really wealthy. With most of the nation's largest health insurers leaving the market in 2016 as well, it's probably guaranteed to happen sooner than later.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... are-priced

more gloom and doom, although with a Clinton win, you'll see a public option adopted, I suspect. No changes reported for my market, save a couple very similar plans from Highmark merging into one.

Well, she'd better come up with a public option if she wins. If she does what she says and caps out of pocket expenses at $250 per person just for prescription drug coverage, insurers will invariably have to make up for the losses by raising premiums, which are already climbing around the country to astronomical levels, despite what's happening in your state slick. If Trump wins and gets rid of the mandate and brings in higher deductible plans, I'm all for it frankly. Next year, getting the cheapest bronze plan, I'll still be paying $7906 a year, just for the privilege of having health insurance and that's only for myself, one person, I might add. That's a lot of f*cking money to a retired person! I'd rather self insure and have a vastly higher deductible with a lower monthly premium, but that's not available in Obamacare.

What gets me is that all these big health insurers are leaving many state markets in droves and complaining that they can't make a profit on the high deductible plans that are offered by the ACA. What high deductible plans? A $6200 deductible plan sounds like a pretty damn low figure to me for a deductible. What are they griping about? I'd prefer a $10,000 deductible plan with a lower monthly premium and then pay out of pocket for my usual medical expenses every year, which are pretty low since I don't see the doctor but once or twice a year. I'd save a lot of money every month that I could apply towards health care when and if I needed it.

From my earlier Bloomberg link:

What’s the answer? Hillary Clinton’s platform calls for a $250-per-month per person cap on out-of-pocket expenses for covered prescription drug costs “to provide financial relief for patients with chronic or serious health conditions.” The flaw in her plan is that insurers would have to raise premiums to compensate for losses on the cost cap. That could accelerate the “death spiral” in which healthy people drop insurance because of high premiums, leaving behind only those most costly to care for. “It looks good on the surface, but I hope the average American can see what it looks like on the back end,” says Tyrone Squires, founder of TransparentRx, a boutique pharmacy benefit manager in Henderson, Nev.

Donald Trump’s platform doesn’t even attempt to deal with the problem directly. It encourages high-deductible plans, coupling them with health savings accounts that families could use to set aside money for health expenses tax-free. Such accounts are of most value to families in high tax brackets.

Holy crap TC, dial down the ridiculously inflated rhetoric, will you?

Where is TC's rhetoric inflated other than in your mind?

woodchip wrote:Where is TC's rhetoric inflated other than in your mind?

tunnelcat wrote:...premiums, which are already climbing around the country to astronomical levels...

False. And besides, it's not the top price but the rate of increase that is important. A healthy economy dictates that prices will continue to increase.

tunnelcat wrote:...insurers are leaving many state markets in droves....

False. Some insurers are closing shop in some states while keeping branches open in others. This is the states rights and free market you all wanted, remember?

tunnelcat wrote:...“death spiral” in which healthy people drop insurance because of high premiums, leaving behind only those most costly to care for.

Good grief, what a bunch of nonsense. Remember, this quote is an opinion by a person who makes a profit working for Big Pharma.

vision wrote:Holy crap TC, dial down the ridiculously inflated rhetoric, will you?

First of all vision, my premiums are going up from $247 a month this year to $659 for the cheapest plan next year. That's a pretty hefty increase, far above the national inflation rate and which will take a huge chunk out of my relatively fixed income. I'm also willing to make a bet that one of the reasons these insurers are leaving certain states is so that they can dump all those unprofitable individual "grandfathered plans", like the one I had, that didn't match up to the ACA rules. I'm betting that after a couple of years, they'll re-enter those markets with far higher premiums, if the ACA and it's markets are still around.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/24 ... care-texa/

try and remember the purpose of the ACA, and how much taxpayers and hospitals were paying for the uninsured:
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12815076/am ... ured_vox_2
just keep competetive pressure on the insurers via a public option and you move even further forward.

Yea, taxpayers aren’t paying a damn thing now.

thus far, they haven't......in terms of taxes. The goal wasn't around bringing costs down, only capping the pace of inflation, which has also thus far been accomplished.

callmeslick wrote:thus far, they haven't......in terms of taxes. The goal wasn't around bringing costs down, only capping the pace of inflation, which has also thus far been accomplished.

Keeping costs under control, and transparent to the government and consumer, should be the first priorities, or else no one in the middle class or most employers will be able to keep up. Right now, costs are climbing far in excess of the inflation rate.

As for Medicare for All, here's a nice opinion piece on it's benefits.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... story.html

callmeslick wrote:so, ,you think our elected officials will manage to develop a system of medicare for all, a concept already in practice worldwide, and manage
to make costs go up? This despite the fact that ALL the rests have LOWER costs per capita? How little faith!

What I see is my Type C medigap plan doubling in price in the next few months. So I'm to listen to you about the wonders of Obamacare? First you had once posted how wonderful it was and now you are blaming elected officials. It was the Dem. elected officials that got us in this mess in the first place. So yeah, lets vote Hillary Clinton in so we wind up with even more expensive health care.

tunnelcat wrote:
Keeping costs under control, and transparent to the government and consumer, should be the first priorities, or else no one in the middle class or most employers will be able to keep up. Right now, costs are climbing far in excess of the inflation rate.

right now? Try for 25 years straight. If you think those things should be a priority, I'd suggest you contact your Congressional representatives, as you'd need a whole new bill. The ACA, a massive compromise, only attempted to address the issues caused by massive numbers of uninsured Americans.

don't have to sell me on Medicare for all. It is such common sense an approach to most ALL of the issues, it should have been adopted long ago. Why does it keep getting blocked in Congress?

The problem with healthcare reform in America is that politicians like to suggest if we just go after one or two bad actors we can straighten things up, but the reality is that virtually the entire cast are all bad actors and they are all woven together in a tight web. So any attempts at reform immediately run into industry wide protests and extreme resistance because real reform would negatively impact the income of just about everyone in the industry.

Practically everyone in the entire healthcare industry umbrella has gotten so comfortable with their own little bits of contributing to the costs that they don't realize it isn't "taking their piece of the pie" anymore but is instead forcing the public to make whole additional pies just for them. Every step of the way someone is doing some little thing, probably hardly worth mentioning to them, but it drives up costs and it is compounded by the next person, and the next person after that, until the final result is a completely removed from reality but it is spread out so evenly that everyone can claim to avoid the blame.

Until the politicians come to grips with the concept that actual effective healthcare reform is going to put a not insignificant amount of people out of a job and a not insignificant amount of companies out of business, it won't happen. As the saying goes, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Perhaps that is why it is eye-roll inducing when someone comments about how evil and dangerous socialism is; yeah there are problems when government controls industry, however we currently live in a time when industry controls government and it is just as evil and just as dangerous for exactly the same reasons.

well put, Krom. I'd add that, in relation to those thoughts, I get more than a few disapproving comments when I suggest elsewhere that the move to Universal Healthcare should include compensation(one time) for stockholders of insurance corporations, as you are going to instantly devalue their asset. I'm not quite sure how or why a LOT of people lose their incomes, overall, beyond that, but your suggestion that SOME job losses will come from any re-arrangement is sound logic.

It's still a twisted system even if we wanted to keep it, at least for one that is supposed to be based on the "free market". If Republicans want to see change and still keep their vaunted health system ideals of a free market system, get rid of the hidden prices and costs and force transparency for a start.

Slick, here's an interesting history of the attempts to get a universal healthcare system going in the U.S. We've apparently been trying for over a century. I wonder what it would finally take to actually get such a system set into law? Our previous track record pretty much dooms the chances of achieving universal healthcare to zero.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a-brief-histo ... -in-the-us

tunnelcat wrote: Slick, here's an interesting history of the attempts to get a universal healthcare system going in the U.S. We've apparently been trying for over a century. I wonder what it would finally take to actually get such a system set into law? Our previous track record pretty much dooms the chances of achieving universal healthcare to zero.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a-brief-histo ... -in-the-us

So basically all of the bull★■◆● illogical arguments against universal healthcare being trotted out today are already more than a century old. Way to go right-wing nutjobs, you've been ★■◆●ing the rest of us over for a hundred years!

One could think an argument that works for a century might actually have some merit.

Just saying…

Also during that century long period the Democrats had complete control over the congress and the presidency more than once. Hell before the Republicans took the Senate during Reagan’s term, the Democrats had control of the congress for like a fifty year period, if memory serves.

Just saying…

Considering that the argument has since its start been phrased as "onoz omg socialism/communism/whatever-ism!", no, it doesn't have any merit to speak of. It's just the usual odious reactionary fear of new things, coupled with the most vile strains of McCarthyism. And so what if Democrats had control of government branches at various points? Those points didn't necessarily correlate with times when universal healthcare was being pushed as a viable position, nor did being part of that party mean the personalities at the time agreed with said position.

Americans must have some sort of allergy to anything that even remotely smells of socialism. It must come from all that dust kicked up while driving on our socialistic national road system that they drive on everyday.

tunnelcat wrote:Americans must have some sort of allergy to anything that even remotely smells of socialism. It must come from all that dust kicked up while driving on our socialistic national road system that they drive on everyday.

At least we are allowed to drive more than 1 make and model of car like the Trabant.

Thanks to our socialistic roads, we don't have to pay tolls to every private landowner those roads cross every time we need to go somewhere in our great selection of cars.