Announcement

Collapse

Advertising Inquiries

See more
See less

Obamacare failing....?????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obamacare failing....?????

    So the blinders finally come off and the truth is hitting hard..:panic:


    When Health Republic Insurance of New Jersey announced recently that it’s $46 million in debt and shutting down, it became the 17th failed ObamaCare co-op since the Affordable Care Act launched three years ago.

    Those failures – just six of the original 23 co-ops remain – have left hundreds of thousands of people scrambling for coverage.

    Meanwhile, insurers claiming big losses are leaving some state exchanges -- including Indiana University Health Plans, whose exit is expected to result in 27,000 Indiana residents losing ObamaCare plans in 2017. And companies still operating in the federal and state exchanges are raising premiums for next year.

    Together, the developments are posing new challenges for Americans seeking affordable coverage, and show the highly touted overhaul of the country’s health care system is in some cases not yielding the savings President Obama once promised.

    As a candidate on the campaign trail in 2008, Obama once said: “If you’ve got health insurance, we’re going to help that employer save $2,500 per family per year. … Those savings are going to be passed along to the workers.”

    Nationally, though, premium hikes are expected to average 8 percent next year. Many insurance companies are seeking much more than that, for the exchange plans and those offered to employers.

    Premera in Washington state is approved to charge 19 percent more next year. Rates across California will go up an average of 13 percent. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas is asking to raise premiums a stunning 60 percent.

    Long-time critics of ObamaCare say they saw it coming.

    “That basic promise, that it’s going to make health care more affordable, it’s not making health care more affordable,” said Avik Roy, an author and Republican adviser. “It’s making health care more expensive, especially for the uninsured.”

    The problem remains a risk pool with too many sick people and not enough who are young and healthy. Also, federal backstop programs, aimed at helping companies that miscalculated how much to charge, are now expired. So insurance companies need higher premiums to cover payouts to doctors and hospitals.

    The alternative is pulling out of health exchanges, which many companies have been doing. In recent months Aetna, United Health Care and several Blue Cross and Blue Shield subsidiaries have announced they will be leaving many of the exchanges in 2017.

    “That’s going to be the future,” said Roger Stark of the Washington Policy Center in Washington State. “What we’re seeing here is the beginning of a death spiral as far as exchanges are concerned as more companies pull out.”

    In Indiana, the company pulling out of the exchange had covered 15 percent of those covered under ObamaCare. Indiana Sen. Dan Coats, a Republican, told The Washington Times this is further evidence the health care law is “collapsing before our eyes.”

    The Obama administration says its signature legislation can boast plenty of successes. Twenty-million additional people are insured, whether through the exchanges, through expanded Medicaid or young adults who are able to stay on their parents’ policies. Also, the growth in health care spending nationally has slowed.

    As for rising premiums, many Democrats including presidential nominee Hillary Clinton favor offering a government public option that would compete directly with for-profit insurance companies.

    “If a public option could bring premiums down, primarily by paying doctors and hospitals less and having lower overhead and no profit, that would lower federal government costs,” said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

    Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump opposes a public option. Trump has called for scrapping ObamaCare and starting over. He favors more competition by allowing people to buy health insurance across state lines.

  • #2
    Watch out. The delusional, irrational, and sensitive member known as Moochie will be in here soon posting bad jokes and reposting photos of a certain Olympian.

    Comment


    • #3
      According to Kaiser Family Foundation from 2009-2015 Health care premiums have increased $1,427 for an individual and $4,170 per family. No money savings to be found for the average people here.

      Comment


      • #4
        Beautiful. Ripper posted a thread about Obama at 1:41am and like clockwork Turbo3000 posted 3 minutes later. And he's still obsessed with me.

        Comment


        • #5
          The healthcare system was failing long before the Affordable Care Act and premiums rose every year anyways and would have kept rising whether the Affordable Care Act was put into place or not.

          The problem is with the cost of medical care. The reason these insurance companies are losing money is because the premiums people pay aren't enough to cover the costs charged by doctors and hospitals. Right? That's basic business. So if the healthcare companies raise premiums everyone complains about how much their monthly premium has risen.

          Broken Arm? You're looking at about a 50k hospital bill. Need to have your appendix removed? 90k. It's ridiculous. You can get the same surgery and same level of care for example in Thailand for 2k or less for that same appendix surgery.

          Comment


          • #6
            So, choose which article you want to believe. Liprippers or this one?


            Another Obamacare Success: It's Cut Premiums By 30-50%

            Another Obamacare Success: It's Cut Premiums By 30-50% | Mother Jones

            A couple of days ago I mentioned that even if Obamacare premiums increase a fair amount next year, they'll still be way below original projections. An analysis today in Health Affairs confirms this and adds more meat to the story:

            Jon Gabel and Stephen Smith of NORC at the University of Chicago conducted the most thorough analyses of how much premiums in the individual market increased between 2009 and 2013....They imply that ACA marketplace premiums for the [second-lowest-cost silver] plan in 2014 came in a remarkable 21 percent lower than average individual market premiums the year prior, or 32 percent lower when accounting for the new plans’ higher actuarial value, even without incorporating likely utilization increases in response to the additional coverage.

            ....That the ACA might have caused premiums to drop so precipitously when its marketplaces took effect may seem surprising at first — it was to us....However, the premium reductions make more sense upon deeper analysis.

            First, even though sicker people were charged higher premiums in the pre-ACA world (and some were denied coverage altogether), many still purchased insurance, but likely at significantly higher rates....Moreover, by creating large premium subsidies and imposing the individual mandate, the ACA may have caused a greater influx of relatively healthy enrollees into the individual market in 2014 and beyond.

            ....Second, the ACA creates a price-competitive and transparent market structure, where consumers can compare similar health insurance products.

            ....Third, selling costs are likely to be lower in the ACA marketplaces because of the prohibition on medical underwriting and limited variation in the policies and policy riders that can be offered.

            Competition is good. It's what caused the lower prices to begin with, as insurers lowballed their premiums in order to build market share. And it's what keeps prices low as insurers continue to compete on the relatively level playing field of Obamacare.

            But competition is tough on the companies doing the competing. Sometimes it causes them to exit a market. Sometimes individual regions can end up with no providers. It's rare, but not impossible. And of course, competition is only possible if there are enough competitors. That's why the Obama administration is opposing the merger of two big insurers—which would leave us with only three big, nationwide health insurance providers. As Adam Smith pointed out a couple of centuries ago, sellers don't like competition. They'd rather merge or collude so they can charge the highest possible prices. But competition is what's made Obamacare work, and maintaining competition is a key part of keeping costs low in the future. Anyone who believes in the free market should want more competition, not less.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by M00chie69 View Post
              The healthcare system was failing long before the Affordable Care Act and premiums rose every year anyways and would have kept rising whether the Affordable Care Act was put into place or not.

              The problem is with the cost of medical care. The reason these insurance companies are losing money is because the premiums people pay aren't enough to cover the costs charged by doctors and hospitals. Right? That's basic business. So if the healthcare companies raise premiums everyone complains about how much their monthly premium has risen.

              Broken Arm? You're looking at about a 50k hospital bill. Need to have your appendix removed? 90k. It's ridiculous. You can get the same surgery and same level of care for example in Thailand for 2k or less for that same appendix surgery.
              Treatment for a regular broken "arm" is not 50k. I do love your uneducated guess.

              Time stamp 1:14.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by M00chie69 View Post
                So, choose which article you want to believe. Liprippers or this one?


                Another Obamacare Success: It's Cut Premiums By 30-50%

                Another Obamacare Success: It's Cut Premiums By 30-50% | Mother Jones

                A couple of days ago I mentioned that even if Obamacare premiums increase a fair amount next year, they'll still be way below original projections. An analysis today in Health Affairs confirms this and adds more meat to the story:

                Jon Gabel and Stephen Smith of NORC at the University of Chicago conducted the most thorough analyses of how much premiums in the individual market increased between 2009 and 2013....They imply that ACA marketplace premiums for the [second-lowest-cost silver] plan in 2014 came in a remarkable 21 percent lower than average individual market premiums the year prior, or 32 percent lower when accounting for the new plans’ higher actuarial value, even without incorporating likely utilization increases in response to the additional coverage.

                ....That the ACA might have caused premiums to drop so precipitously when its marketplaces took effect may seem surprising at first — it was to us....However, the premium reductions make more sense upon deeper analysis.

                First, even though sicker people were charged higher premiums in the pre-ACA world (and some were denied coverage altogether), many still purchased insurance, but likely at significantly higher rates....Moreover, by creating large premium subsidies and imposing the individual mandate, the ACA may have caused a greater influx of relatively healthy enrollees into the individual market in 2014 and beyond.

                ....Second, the ACA creates a price-competitive and transparent market structure, where consumers can compare similar health insurance products.

                ....Third, selling costs are likely to be lower in the ACA marketplaces because of the prohibition on medical underwriting and limited variation in the policies and policy riders that can be offered.

                Competition is good. It's what caused the lower prices to begin with, as insurers lowballed their premiums in order to build market share. And it's what keeps prices low as insurers continue to compete on the relatively level playing field of Obamacare.

                But competition is tough on the companies doing the competing. Sometimes it causes them to exit a market. Sometimes individual regions can end up with no providers. It's rare, but not impossible. And of course, competition is only possible if there are enough competitors. That's why the Obama administration is opposing the merger of two big insurers—which would leave us with only three big, nationwide health insurance providers. As Adam Smith pointed out a couple of centuries ago, sellers don't like competition. They'd rather merge or collude so they can charge the highest possible prices. But competition is what's made Obamacare work, and maintaining competition is a key part of keeping costs low in the future. Anyone who believes in the free market should want more competition, not less.

                Basically its confirming that more and more are getting out..due to cost..therefore its going to fail.. as costs will rise if only a few are left. its a failure...:rofl:

                But competition is tough on the companies doing the competing. Sometimes it causes them to exit a market. Sometimes individual regions can end up with no providers. It's rare, but not impossible. And of course, competition is only possible if there are enough competitors. That's why the Obama administration is opposing the merger of two big insurers—which would leave us with only three big, nationwide health insurance providers. As Adam Smith pointed out a couple of centuries ago, sellers don't like competition. They'd rather merge or collude so they can charge the highest possible prices. But competition is what's made Obamacare work, and maintaining competition is a key part of keeping costs low in the future. Anyone who believes in the free market should want more competition, not less.

                Comment


                • #9
                  We were sold on the promise premiums would decrease ( https://youtu.be/66bgpRRSDD4 ) but neither I, nor anyone I know is paying less than they were before the ACA. Quite the opposite.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by chuckz28 View Post
                    We were sold on the promise premiums would decrease ( https://youtu.be/66bgpRRSDD4 ) but neither I, nor anyone I know is paying less than they were before the ACA. Quite the opposite.
                    Yep...shit went thru the roof for most working people... people who had no insurance..got vouchers to help pay for it..now that's going away for them so in reality the way I see it all he did was help insurance lobbyist make money...The people who could afford it now cant or have coverage they don't want or need... those who couldn't afford it..got it and now it will be taken away again..

                    Like me at work..as soon as the law was passed..our employer killed the heatlh coverage..simply stated they didn't have to offer it any more go get signed up for Obama care thru the program . lucky me I did 20 in the Army so I have that..although its cheap compared to civilian policies..the costs have still risen. It was suppoded to be "free" after 20 years service...LMFAO:rofl::rofl::rofl:

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It was designed to fail. Watch it burn to the ground, government will then step in argue that more government is the answer, welcome to a single payer system.

                      It was crafted by friends of Obama. The website catastrophe was caused by friends of Obama. It is a classic example of political friendships ruining semi good ideas. The health care system has been in a downward spiral. A few new laws regarding health insurance companies would have been a good step. It was a shot at a legacy. It missed the mark.
                      Last edited by Turbo3000; 09-29-16, 12:57 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Im a simple person.... I'd like to see somebody just explan why its such a bad idea in the most simplified explanation possible. Because to me I would think that Republicans would be for making the poor people pay for their own healthcare. Im not taking either side here just want a basic reason. Say maybe in 10 maybe 15 sentences..... :)
                        Last edited by FrankTheTank55; 09-29-16, 01:19 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by FrankTheTank55 View Post
                          Im a simple person.... I'd like to see somebody just explan why its such a bad idea is the most simplified explanation possible. Because to me I would think that Republicans would be for making the poor people pay for their own healthcare. Im not taking either side here just want a basic reason. Say maybe in 10 maybe 15 sentences..... :)
                          Not sure Im getting your question Frank?

                          I think the whole issue is making it affordable for everyone. What screwed a lot of poor people over is how the law changed the 40 hour work week to 30 hours...then employers cut a lot of low waged workers hours to under 30 hours..making them part time employees...now the employer don't have to pay for the coverage.. the people who had it..now dont and were forced onto the ACA and now the premium's are thru the roof and cant afford it..

                          My daughter is a prime example.... she got to the age cutoff on my policy..so she wasn't covered...had some coverage thru work..law passed...they cut her hours and hired twice the people...all part timers...no insurance paid...hours cut...no money to pay for insurance...so she went uncovered...filed taxes and was fined for not having health coverage.. people with low income get hit the hardest.. its really fucked up...with her part time employment..she don't qualify for the state medicade.. they told her go on welfare ..get food stamps and quit working..then youll be covered...

                          whats real shitty..is now shes a part time Fire fighter and then running volunteer calls to make ends meet awaiting a full time position..she only has coverage if injured on a call..

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Somehow, in most other civilized first world (and many non-first world) societies, the government seems to be doing a pretty good job of providing that most basic of rights -universal healthcare.

                            Having universal healthcare is HUGE for society - when an individual doesn't have to worry about how he or she is going to pay for the health of their family and kids, it makes them more productive and more involved and it benefits society as a whole.

                            The number of uninsured has come down dramatically under the ACA to the lowest in our history, but even 9% is a disgrace for the richest country in the world.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Scrumhalf View Post
                              Somehow, in most other civilized first world (and many non-first world) societies, the government seems to be doing a pretty good job of providing that most basic of rights -universal healthcare.

                              Having universal healthcare is HUGE for society - when an individual doesn't have to worry about how he or she is going to pay for the health of their family and kids, it makes them more productive and more involved and it benefits society as a whole.

                              The number of uninsured has come down dramatically under the ACA to the lowest in our history, but even 9% is a disgrace for the richest country in the world.
                              Actually scrum..I agree.. with most of that the problem is the tax base and waste of it. From my understanding..almost half the people in this country don't pay taxes... everyone should...it would create the money needed to cover all...That plus getting control of the fraud waste and abuse..we could do it easy.. but honestly..no matter whos in DC....it wont change..because then they wont be making money...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X