« prev   random   next »

2
1

Obamacare should compell insurers to stay in exchanges

By anotheraccount following x   2016 Apr 19, 10:40am 8,732 views   36 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


http://www.businessinsider.com/united-healthcare-quitting-obamacare-2016-4

This is BS. They are essentially getting out of preexisting conditions this way.

1   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2016 Apr 19, 10:48am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

They could stay in, but they would have to jack up the rates even more.

2   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2016 Apr 19, 10:59am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says

They could stay in, but they would have to jack up the rates even more.

lol--god forbid they don't rape the consumer for ever increasing profits each year. Yes, please let's bend over and let the insurance companies get off again (pun intended).

3   EBGuy   ignore (0)   2016 Apr 19, 12:06pm   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. These idiots decided they DID NOT WANT TO COMPETE in the ACA marketplace in its inaugural year and lost first mover advantage. And then are wondering why they only have sick people on their plans. The CEO should be fired. It's America, compete or die.
When the new health insurance exchanges launched in 2014, United was noticeably absent from most state marketplaces.

4   curious2   ignore (0)   2016 Apr 19, 1:09pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

tatupu70 says

(pun intended)

That's precisely the pun CIC has used to describe the legislation for years. Glad to see you've come around.

EBGuy says

compete

You linked to a report from the Kaiser octopus, which competes with United Health Group. The Kaiser report may be correct or not, but they have their own agenda, and they've been promoting Obamneycare since it was called Hillary's Plan (when Obama opposed it) and before that ClintonCare and probably since Heritage Foundation first proposed something like it around 1990. One chart in the Kaiser report says the percentage of counties with only one insurer will triple from 7% to 24% of all counties nationwide. Since the legislation has no price controls on providers, and allows the parent corporations of insurers to buy providers and shift profits from the insurance side of the business to the provider side, these monopolies will likely raise prices. That was part of the design of the legislation, to maximize guaranteed revenue for its authors. (Everyone else perceives that guaranteed revenue as mandatory spending.) Kaiser being another recipient of the guaranteed revenue, they have been supporting the legislation and it is predictable they would try to shift the blame so they can continue to collect the $$$. I don't want to accuse anybody of anything illegal, but it would be very interesting to know what deals may have occurred between United and the insurers that have now got monopolies in an additional 17% of all counties nationwide. Unfortunately, insurers have special exemptions from anti-trust law, so even deals that might be illegal in other sectors might be perfectly legal in that sector.

5   anonymous   ignore (null)   2016 Apr 19, 1:16pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

That was part of the design of the legislation, to maximize guaranteed revenue for its authors

------------

Be careful. Democrat fan boys will be here to call you a retard, for so succinctly wording truth to an issue whose complexities seem to leave most who would question the motives, dizzy and confused.

As always, follow the money, and the questions answer themselves

6   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2016 Apr 19, 1:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

The article implies that the older and preexisting conditions people are signing up through the exchanges and the younger people are getting a better rate outside of the exchanges, so they are going that way. Now, individual insurers can sell policies to the young healthy people who are forced to buy while avoiding insuring the older sicker people. If the law allows that, it seems to me that it is fundamentally broken. We'll have to see how this plays out. The article didn't really get to the heart of the matter. Meanwhile, there are a slew of articles lately providing a positive take on the ACA.

7   tatupu70   ignore (0)   2016 Apr 19, 1:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

errc says

Be careful. Democrat fan boys will be here to call you a retard, for so succinctly wording truth to an issue whose complexities seem to leave most who would question the motives, dizzy and confused.

As always, follow the money, and the questions answer themselves

I'm probably considered one of the fanboys, and while calling curious a retard does sometimes give me some enjoyment, my eyes were wide open about the failings of Obamacare. My only point is that I'd rather have Obamacare than the old system. Clearly a system where we survey all the best systems of the world and pick what works to develop a national system is best, without a doubt.

8   curious2   ignore (0)   2016 Apr 19, 1:50pm   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

YesYNot says

there are a slew of articles lately providing a positive take

That should tell you something about commercial and government news. They are both run by the same patronage networks, and promote stories that favor those patronage networks, including especially the military-industrial complex and the medical-industrial complex. Advertising, publicity, and public relations are big industries engaged in Manufacturing Consent.

For example, regarding the other topic we've disagreed about, they all ran photos of one refugee child who drowned, but they never run photos of the thousands of Syrians killed by NATO bombing and ground militias financed by NATO and our Saudi "allies." The commercial and NATO government news tell us that the refugees are fleeing from Assad, but his family have run Syria for decades and people weren't fleeing before NATO and our Saudi "allies" decided to attack and invade; the actual refugees blame foreign fighters, including NATO and our Saudi "allies." Invade&import is a cruel but brilliant strategy for the Saudis, pumping millions of aggrieved Muslims into Europe, in exchange for the prospect of a gas pipeline and some $$$ to NATO politicians' patronage networks.

The Internet provides opportunities for people to find and share information, and it provides opportunities for trolls who like to fling feces at each other; you can see tatupu70's trollishness score for example, and it reflects his admitted "enjoyment" of trolling behavior. He is what might be called an ordinary troll: low signal to noise ratio, because he enjoys making noise and is uninterested in information. Internet fora can become a bit like the Monty Python "spam" sketch. It is a mistake to engage directly with a troll, because it's like mud wrestling with a pig: both participants get dirty, but the pig enjoys it. I've learned a lot from PatNet though, including especially from people I wouldn't usually hear from IRL.

9   ja   ignore (0)   2016 Apr 19, 2:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

YesYNot says

The article implies that the older and preexisting conditions people are signing up through the exchanges and the younger people are getting a better rate outside of the exchanges, so they are going that way. Now, individual insurers can sell policies to the young healthy people who are forced to buy while avoiding insuring the older sicker people. If the law allows that, it seems to me that it is fundamentally broken. We'll have to see how this plays out. The article didn't really get to the heart of the matter. Meanwhile, there are a slew of articles lately providing a positive take on the ACA.

Can't you charge whatever you want based on age? Why would you then need more younger people? I'm feeling dumb. I must be missing something

10   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2016 Apr 19, 2:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ironman says

What percentage of the younger crowd didn't buy policies at all but opted to pay the penalty instead because it was cheaper?

Idk. Your article didn't say. Also, idk what happens to the penalties that get paid. Does the gov keep them, or do they go into the insurance pools? What is the net cost of the ACA to the gov?

11   dublin hillz   ignore (0)   2016 Apr 19, 3:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Every high risk citizen/patient must be mailed a cyanide capsule along with an absentee ballot during election cycle.

12   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2016 Apr 19, 3:41pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

ja says

Can't you charge whatever you want based on age?

One of the points of the ACA was to make the young support the old to some degree. In that way, it is much like social security. This part was not hidden at all. Since everybody is old once and young once, they all put money in, and make it back later. The people who are already older get an unearned bonus.
The problem with young people not buying insurance, is that they won't buy it until it is so expensive they can't afford it under any circumstances. Then, you have to figure out what to do with a shit load of dead beats. You could either let them die or make someone else pay.

13   anonymous   ignore (null)   2016 Apr 19, 3:46pm   ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Why do you operate under the assumption that everyone will incur (so much) health care costs over their lifetime?

I was just talking to my sister earlier, she makes good enough money to buy health insurance. Problem is, shes a smart Capitalist. So she paid a penalty to the IRS this year.

14   curious2   ignore (0)   2016 Apr 19, 3:58pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

YesYNot says

What is the net cost of the ACA to the gov?

CBO says the individual mandate alone costs the government $30 billion/year, and the total cost is much higher. The real issue though goes beyond any single provision of a specific statute. Compare per capita spending in America and Mexico, where people have nearly the same life expectancy, and you will see that Americans spend 10x more. Preserving that 1,000% markup is the purpose of the legislative pyramid scheme, of which Obamneycare is merely the capstone taking over the rest. We have NAFTA to decimate union workers, and Obamneycare protectionism to prop up the patronage networks that enacted it. I can believe though that you believe the "news" sources you rely on, which keep repeating the official propaganda, amplifying authority rather than questioning authority. Partisans like to believe they are smart if they can recite and even paraphrase party talking points, but in reality they are useful idiots.

15   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2016 Apr 19, 4:09pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

errc, IDK if you are talking to me. Obviously, not everybody will run up the tab. A lot will. The healthier will make it to 65 before running up big costs, and medicare will pay. Some will die without cancer, heart surgery, or diabetes. Those who get the diseases in late 50s / early 60s will be bankrupt if they aren't insured. If they have the funds and time, they can go to a foreign country or forgo cancer treatment. For many people, the first sign of heart disease is a heart attack. Those will be treated at the bend over rate if they don't have insurance.

If your sister (or anyone in the position you describe) has savings, she's risking losing that. Maybe she's a low risk and the cost of health insurance is worth it to her. Even at low risk, she's offloading that risk on the rest of society unless she has an extra few hundred thousand, is willing to just go die, or find treatment in cheaper countries. Obviously, I don't know what your sister's circumstances are, so I'm basing it solely on what you stated in your post.

16   anonymous   ignore (null)   2016 Apr 19, 4:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

So you dont know why you assume that everyone will run up large health care tabs?

You mentioned people without insurance, going bankrupt if they do wind up in the unfortunate grasps of the health care web. Are insured people any less likely to go bankrupt than tgeir uninsured counterparts, in the event of a major medical event?

17   anonymous   ignore (null)   2016 Apr 19, 4:24pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

will be treated at the bend over rate if they don't have Insurance

------------

I think you have this backwards. The insured are gauranteed to pay the bend over rate, and then some. On top of their insurance costs. The uninsured can often negotiate a reasonable bill

18   anonymous   ignore (null)   2016 Apr 19, 5:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

@ironman

Do you have any data to back that up, or are you just pulling more nonsense out of your ass?

19   bob2356   ignore (1)   2016 Apr 20, 6:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says

Why do you operate under the assumption that everyone will incur (so much) health care costs over their lifetime?

That is a ridiculous statement. No one operates on the assumption that each person will spend x dollars in health care in their lifetime. Everyone on average will incur so much costs over their lifetime. Some more, some less.

I hope your smart capitalist sister has her assets overseas in a trust. Sometimes your luck runs out and it really is frequently just luck. I've known enough healthy lifestyle people, including quite a few high level athletes, getting major medical problems to realize that your child like faith in a healthy lifestyle is severely misplaced. On average you will be less likely to have a major medical problem if you pursue a healthy life style, but the key word is average. Then it comes down to luck of the draw who is the one that is on the losing side of average.

20   Tenpoundbass   ignore (11)   2016 Apr 20, 6:22am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Over 80% of the people in the company I work for that had insurance last year, is not getting it this year. Due to rate hikes.
They aren't being totally honest, they have to get out, because the people getting insurance is falling. Now the only people with insurance are the chronically sick.

Nice going Liberal assholes, you fixed it GOOD!

21   Tenpoundbass   ignore (11)   2016 Apr 20, 6:25am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says

Why do you operate under the assumption that everyone will incur (so much) health care costs over their lifetime?

Because the Liberal statistician have hijacked everyone's brain.

Ironman says

Maybe because they will... When 1/3 of the population is overweight and another 1/3 is obese, they're just a ticking timebomb.

Again, according to the Liberal that got to CIC over 2/3rds of us are fat obese people with borderline diabetes.
I don't know why he hates Liberals so much, he loves their fiction work.

22   HydroCabron   ignore (1)   2016 Apr 20, 7:15am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says

if you pursue a healthy life style, but the key word is average. Then it comes down to luck of the draw who is the one that is on the losing side of average.

"But ... but ... but I eat right! I will never get sick, because all illness is for other people, who don't eat as I do."

Sure, Jack LaLanne made 96. Jack LaLanne's brother, who was not a health-conscious person, lived to 97.

23   HydroCabron   ignore (1)   2016 Apr 20, 7:29am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

This can't be right.

Obamacare effectively ended human civilization on March 23rd, 2010.

I look out the window and it's mostly smoldering vehicles here and there, with roving violent gangs living off the land. Sometimes I hear a child cry ...

Fortunately, Immortan Joe protects me! Imperator Furiosa has left for Gas Town to trade Mother's Milk for the guzzaline.

I live; I die; I live again!

24   EBGuy   ignore (0)   2016 Apr 20, 2:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The company [UnitedHealth] warned in November that it was losing too much money on the business due to low enrollment and high service costs. From Yahoo.
Low enrollment. What a mystery, why would they have low enrollment? It's almost like they sat out the first year.

25   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2016 Apr 20, 2:17pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

[First, ending italics tag.]

tr6 says

Obamacare should compell insurers to stay in exchanges

No, we should just replace the ACA and private insurers with a nationalized system. There is absolutely no reason why anyone should be making profit off of health insurance. They aren't producing anything. They aren't innovating. They are contributing to advance of technology. They aren't mitigating risk; the people purchasing the insurance are the ones mitigating risk. And they aren't even taking risk as there is no risk once you reach a certain size.

Fuck private insurers. Why the fuck should they get a dime of profit?

26   anotheraccount   ignore (1)   2016 Apr 20, 7:53pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I don't understand why most Republicans love private insurers and hate taxes at the same time. Private insurers are a tax on healthcare. In California, small businesses can't even get private insurance directly, they have to go through a broker to whom the insurers pay 10%. Medicare does not need any of these. I know there is a lot of fraud in Medicare. We can spend some of the money going to private insurers on fixing fraud in Medicare.

27   Dan8267   ignore (3)   2016 Apr 20, 8:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

tr6 says

Private insurers are a tax on healthcare

Banks and credit card clearinghouses are taxes on commerce, yet Republicans love those things. 2% sales tax to pay for education: outlandish liberal nonsense! 2% sales tax imposed by bank to day for an executive's second mansion: free enterprise!

28   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2016 May 10, 11:45am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-09/obamacare-update-insurance-premiums-set-explode-higher-2017

Insurance Premiums Set To Explode Higher In 2017

Starting in Virginia, Anthem Inc and Carefirst BlueCross BlueShield are proposing 15.8% and 25% increases respectively. In Oregon, the increases are stunning to say the least. Providence Health Plan, currently the largest insurer for people buying coverage through the Oregon health exchange, is seeking an average increase of 29.6%. Not to be outdone, Moda Health Plan Inc, another large insurer for the state, is proposing a premium increase of 32.3% - this is after a 25% hike last year. For some context as to how out of control premium increases will be for those enrolled in Oregon, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest is asking for an increase of 14.5%, the second lowest percentage increase in the state. Insurers seeking double digit rate increases are citing higher than expected medical costs.

It's all Obama's fault!!!

29   anotheraccount   ignore (1)   2016 May 10, 11:49am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says

Starting in Virginia, Anthem Inc and Carefirst BlueCross BlueShield are proposing 15.8% and 25% increases respectively. In Oregon, the increases are stunning to say the least.

Bernie's single payer is looking better and better.

30   anonymous   ignore (null)   2016 May 10, 12:21pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

How do private health insurers operate at lower cost than public health care?

31   anonymous   ignore (null)   2016 May 10, 12:23pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Where would additional costs arise, with public health care, that we are not currently paying to private health insurance?

32   anonymous   ignore (null)   2016 May 10, 1:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Why is it so hard for you to answer the questions? You spend sooo much time on here posting nonsense, here's your chance to prove that you understand what is being discussed. So are you going to answer the question, or just cower in the corner like a frail and mindless little freedom hating lemming?

33   anonymous   ignore (null)   2016 May 10, 1:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Private health insurance costs many multiples more than public health care

Marketing
Advertising
Executives pay
Shareholders
Profits
Physical buildings in prime real estate
Inflated healthcare costs
Coding
Medical billing

34   anotheraccount   ignore (1)   2016 May 10, 1:51pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ironman says

This just shows the readers you're absolutely clueless about Medicare and Medicaid...

An appointment at Sutter can cost $700-800 for simple things. Medicare will not pay for that crap. Anthem will.

35   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2016 May 10, 2:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

That should tell you something about commercial and government news

You know what media entity makes my draw drop in it's flagrant Status Quo evangelicalism?

Vox.

36   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2016 May 10, 2:02pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says

Starting in Virginia, Anthem Inc and Carefirst BlueCross BlueShield are proposing 15.8% and 25% increases respectively.

Gee, it must be the skyrocketing labor costs. /snort

These guys are really frickin' brazen.





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions