PDA

View Full Version : Aetna Exit Obamacare Exchanges




Noob
08-03-2017, 03:16 PM
Anthem, Aetna and Molina are making Exits out Obamacare Exchanges, Molina leaving two States.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/aetna-exits-obamacare-exchanges/article/2630507

Noob
08-04-2017, 02:07 PM
Hundreds of counties at risk for no Obamacare insurer in 2018

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-healthcare-insurers-analysis-idUSKBN1AD2P9

Zippyjuan
08-04-2017, 02:21 PM
"Not my fault" says Trump.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/18/trump-let-obamacare-fail-we-wont-own-it


Trump: 'We'll Just Let ObamaCare Fail, I'm Not Gonna Own It'



From link in the above post:


Republican senators failed this week to repeal and replace Obamacare, former President Barack Obama's signature healthcare reform law, creating new uncertainty over how the program providing health benefits to 20 million Americans will be funded and managed in 2018.

In response, Republican President Donald Trump on Friday again suggested that his administration would let the Obamacare program “implode.” He has weakened enforcement of the law’s requirement for individuals to buy insurance, threatened to cut off funding and sought to change plan benefits through regulations.


Many insurers have been waiting for an answer from Trump or lawmakers on whether they will continue to fund $8 billion in annual government subsidies. Without assurances, many insurers plan to raise rates an additional 20 percent by an Aug. 16 deadline for premium prices. Others say that the many unknowns will make the business too risky.

The last-minute drama has left millions of Americans questioning whether they will have medical coverage next year.

Suzanimal
08-04-2017, 02:23 PM
Interesting...

H/T Aganist Crony Capitalism


Aetna CEO: Obamacare ‘cannot be repealed, period’


(From CNBC)

Congress needs to move on from repealing the Affordable Care Act, says Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini.

“The ACA cannot be repealed, period, end of sentence,” Bertolini told CNBC’s “Closing Bell” on Thursday.

“What we should do is fix it. So either everyone gets their heads together over in the Senate and the House and does the job that the American people needs them to do, and fix what we already have, or they should move on to something else,” he said.

This is crony corporate America on full display.

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2017/08/aetna-ceo-obamacare-cannot-be-repealed-period/

dannno
08-04-2017, 02:24 PM
"Not my fault" says Trump.

Do you think it is?

angelatc
08-04-2017, 02:26 PM
"Not my fault" says Trump.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/07/18/trump-let-obamacare-fail-we-wont-own-it



From link in the above post:

You're here defending $8 BILLION in subsidies to mega-corporations who don't actually provide any actual services. This is why your bars are red.

Zippyjuan
08-04-2017, 02:29 PM
Interesting...

H/T Aganist Crony Capitalism


(From CNBC)

Congress needs to move on from repealing the Affordable Care Act, says Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini.

“The ACA cannot be repealed, period, end of sentence,” Bertolini told CNBC’s “Closing Bell” on Thursday.

“What we should do is fix it. So either everyone gets their heads together over in the Senate and the House and does the job that the American people needs them to do, and fix what we already have, or they should move on to something else,” he said.

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2017/08/aetna-ceo-obamacare-cannot-be-repealed-period/

Trump was never really about repeal- he said repeal and replace- which means modify.

dannno
08-04-2017, 02:32 PM
Trump was never really about repeal- he said repeal and replace- which means modify.

So Rand was never about repeal either then?

Zippyjuan
08-04-2017, 02:40 PM
So Rand was never about repeal either then?

Let's see what he has said and done. http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/316084-rand-paul-unveils-obamacare-replacement


Rand Paul unveils ObamaCare replacement


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) unveiled an ObamaCare replacement bill Wednesday as part of his effort to urge the GOP to speed up work on an alternative to the healthcare law.

Paul has been pushing his colleagues to have a replacement plan ready to pass simultaneously with repeal of ObamaCare, a demand that has recently been gaining support inside the party. His office noted that President Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have also reacted favorably to that idea.

“There is no excuse for waiting to craft an alternative until after we repeal Obamacare, and the Obamacare Replacement Act charts a new path forward that will insure the most people possible at the lowest price,” Paul said in a statement.


http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/03/politics/rand-paul-rare-obamacare-op-ed-repeal-and-replace/index.html


Rand Paul: Repeal and replace Obamacare or else

As Republicans are taking control of Congress, Sen. Rand Paul is warning fellow lawmakers of the possible dire consequences of killing Obamacare piecemeal.

Paul, in an op-ed published Monday, called for the total repeal and immediate replacement of the Affordable Care Act.

The Kentucky senator argues that keeping popular provisions of President Barack Obama's signature health care law, while eliminating less popular, structural pieces, would "only accentuate the bankrupting of the insurance industry."

Writing for the website Rare, Paul explained that Republicans needed to vote for a complete repeal of Obamacare, while simultaneously voting on an adequate replacement.

"As we repeal Obamacare, we would be wise to vote on its replacement at the same time," Paul wrote.

He added: "If Congress fails to vote on a replacement at the same time as repeal, the repealers risk assuming the blame for the continued unraveling of Obamacare."



http://www.wdrb.com/story/36011815/us-sen-rand-paul-says-effort-to-repeal-and-replace-affordable-care-act-not-over


U.S. Sen. Rand Paul says effort to repeal and replace Affordable Care Act not over

ELIZABETHTOWN, Ky. (WDRB) -- Kentucky U.S. Senator Rand Paul said the effort repeal and replace Obamacare is not dead, but it may have to be dismantled piece by piece, instead of all at once.

"From my point of view, I don't think it's over until we fix health care," Paul said. "That may not be in one bill, but there is going to be ongoing efforts. And one of the things that I think we might be able to have bipartisan support for -- people are talking about trying to do a bipartisan approach now -- is the health associations. I don't think there is anything inherently partisan about them."

Paul talked with reporters following a meeting Monday with small business owners in Elizabethtown. He said he wants to work with Democrats on fixes such as expanding health associations that would allow individuals and small businesses to form larger groups to negotiate lower health insurance rates.

“Because it’s just been repeal, no Democrats want to talk to us at all," Paul said. "Now, if we get beyond that, maybe they will discuss with us."

Paul talked with reporters following a meeting Monday with small business owners in Elizabethtown. He said he wants to work with Democrats on fixes such as expanding health associations that would allow individuals and small businesses to form larger groups to negotiate lower health insurance rates.



“They have been promising for months that there's things that they can do through executive action, and we're going to be really excited when it happens," Paul said. "They need to get started, because nobody is too excited about what Congress is doing right now."

dannno
08-04-2017, 02:43 PM
Let's see what he has said and done. http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/316084-rand-paul-unveils-obamacare-replacement



http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/03/politics/rand-paul-rare-obamacare-op-ed-repeal-and-replace/index.html



So would you classify what Rand wanted to do as simply modifying Obamacare?

Swordsmyth
08-04-2017, 02:46 PM
Trump was never really about repeal- he said repeal and replace- which means modify.
No it doesn't

Zippyjuan
08-04-2017, 02:47 PM
So would you classify what Rand wanted to do as simply modifying Obamacare?

He says he wants to fix things- not get rid of everything.

dannno
08-04-2017, 02:49 PM
He says he wants to fix things- not get rid of everything.

So you think that Rand would prefer to keep parts of Obamacare?

angelatc
08-04-2017, 02:51 PM
Nice deflection. You didn't answer the question, Zip. Do you think it's Trump's fault that Obamacare is failing?

Zippyjuan
08-04-2017, 03:00 PM
Nice deflection. You didn't answer the question, Zip. Do you think it's Trump's fault that Obamacare is failing?

Not really- he didn't do anything at all. (and that is not sarcasm). Congress is to blame. Obamacare does need repairs. One major factor in companies dropping out or raising rates now is the uncertainty of what things will be like in the future. More uncertainty means higher risks and they respond by either not covering at all or charging a higher risk premium.

Schifference
08-04-2017, 03:04 PM
My interpretation is that Rand has always wanted the replacement to be selling across state lines and private insurance/capitalism taking over.

Zippyjuan
08-04-2017, 03:07 PM
My interpretation is that Rand has always wanted the replacement to be selling across state lines and private insurance/capitalism taking over.

Being able to sell across state lines would definitely help. Rand is also big on "group insurance" alliances of people getting together (basically private versions of the state exchanges).

angelatc
08-04-2017, 03:58 PM
Not really- he didn't do anything at all. (and that is not sarcasm). Congress is to blame. Obamacare does need repairs. One major factor in companies dropping out or raising rates now is the uncertainty of what things will be like in the future. More uncertainty means higher risks and they respond by either not covering at all or charging a higher risk premium.

Higher risk of what, exactly?

angelatc
08-04-2017, 04:00 PM
My interpretation is that Rand has always wanted the replacement to be selling across state lines and private insurance/capitalism taking over.

Ugh. The only thing that prevents insurance companies from selling across state lines is state's rights. I hate seeing people here support that, especially after it worked so well for the banking industry.

Zippyjuan
08-04-2017, 04:05 PM
Ugh. The only thing that prevents insurance companies from selling across state lines is state's rights. I hate seeing people here support that, especially after it worked so well for the banking industry.

Wouldn't more competition be a good thing?

angelatc
08-04-2017, 05:22 PM
Wouldn't more competition be a good thing?

Is that some lame attempt at the Socratic method?

Go home and ponder the example I generously provided, and then come back and explain exactly why erasing the state lines for the banking industry created monoliths that were too big to fail while not reducing consumer costs, but it will be tots diff with health insurance.

In other words, answer your own damned question.

nikcers
08-04-2017, 08:40 PM
Ugh. The only thing that prevents insurance companies from selling across state lines is state's rights. I hate seeing people here support that, especially after it worked so well for the banking industry.
No right now the state has a monopoly on healthcare and the only way to fight against it would be forming national co-op groups. The state's rights is a copout because this isn't about states rights, this is about the american medical association and the state monopoly taking our money with government force. This isn't about a right to healthcare, this is about the states rights to your money.

angelatc
08-04-2017, 08:55 PM
No right now the state has a monopoly on healthcare and the only way to fight against it would be forming national co-op groups. The state's rights is a copout because this isn't about states rights, this is about the american medical association and the state monopoly taking our money with government force. This isn't about a right to healthcare, this is about the states rights to your money.

I think that the AMA indeed has far too much control over the markets, but that still doesn't give the federal government the right to dictate insurer standards within the individual states. Nor does it give the federal government the right to take away the rights of the states on behalf on the insurers.

I'm already resigned to the fact this is going to happen. And it will piss me off every time I have to say, "I told you so!" when costs don't go down and the number of providers shrinks.

JC Morgan/Chase? Try Kaiser-Humana! Highmark-Cigna!

It frustrates me to see people fall for the same exact shenanigans repeatedly.

Madison320
08-04-2017, 08:58 PM
Ugh. The only thing that prevents insurance companies from selling across state lines is state's rights. I hate seeing people here support that, especially after it worked so well for the banking industry.

What does selling a product across state lines have to do with the banking industry?

Madison320
08-04-2017, 09:08 PM
So you think that Rand would prefer to keep parts of Obamacare?

This is very slightly off topic, but Obamacare is really only one thing. Forcing insurance companies to insure already sick patients. That's it. Everything is noise. Misdirection. I think Rand is in favor of eliminating Obamacare but I'm not totally sure.

angelatc
08-04-2017, 09:12 PM
What does selling a product across state lines have to do with the banking industry?

There was a time when banks were regulated within the individual states. It was a pain - if you had an account at Barnett Bank in Florida, you couldn't simply take money out of a Barnett Bank in Georgia, because they were seperate entities. And forget cashing a check...

Then in the '90's, the laws changed and we began to move to a more consolidated national market, which is why you've likely never heard of Barnett Bank.

Anti Federalist
08-04-2017, 09:43 PM
There was a time when banks were regulated within the individual states. It was a pain - if you had an account at Barnett Bank in Florida, you couldn't simply take money out of a Barnett Bank in Georgia, because they were seperate entities. And forget cashing a check...

Then in the '90's, the laws changed and we began to move to a more consolidated national market, which is why you've likely never heard of Barnett Bank.

A valid point, but at the same time I can see why this is an issue.

How much do you suppose a car would cost if Ford had to comply with 50 state regulatory bodies, and had to incorporate 50 different companies to operate in each state.

Granted the best move is to get rid of the regulations altogether, but in this current environment of people wanting to be enslaved, that is not likely.

oyarde
08-04-2017, 09:48 PM
I am comforted Aetna is out . I have my life insurance through there and a savings account that actually pays some interest and I would like for them to stay in business .

Anti Federalist
08-04-2017, 09:50 PM
All a moot argument anyways.

The worthless, dickless, spineless GOP showed their true colors once again, rammed it up our asses, once again, and this whole mess will fail in another year or two, which it was designed to do.

Trump will cut a deal with the incoming wave of progressives in 2018, and you'll see government health care by 2020.


In 1999, during his short-lived 2000 Reform Party presidential bid, Trump told CNN's Larry King: "If you can’t take care of your sick in the country, forget it, it’s all over. ... I believe in universal healthcare."

And in his 2000 book "The America We Deserve," Trump made a strong pitch for universal health care. As to how the country might achieve universal coverage, Trump focused on a Canadian-style, single-payer plan.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/sep/11/reid-ribble/donald-trump-wants-replace-obamacare-single-payer-/

angelatc
08-04-2017, 10:21 PM
A valid point, but at the same time I can see why this is an issue.

How much do you suppose a car would cost if Ford had to comply with 50 state regulatory bodies, and had to incorporate 50 different companies to operate in each state.

Granted the best move is to get rid of the regulations altogether, but in this current environment of people wanting to be enslaved, that is not likely.

Point A: Nowhere does the Constitution give the Fedgov the right to regulate insurers. It gives that right to the States.

Point B: Costs are cheaper in Memphis than they are in Manhattan - agreed? The people supporting this "across state lines!" nonsense are not the people in Memphis. They the people who want to live in Manhattan but pay Memphis premium prices. This doesn't mean the prices will balance out in the middle. It means only that people in Memphis are going to see a steep increase in their prices.

Point C: When the industry is lobbying hard for something, it rarely means its a win for consumers. IMHO, this isn't just about coverage. I think it's about reserves. Insurance companies are required to maintain certain levels of cash reserves in order to guarantee they'll be able to fulfill their obligations, much like the banks of yesteryear were required to keep cash reserves to cover the deposits on their books. remember how Grandma always said don't keep all your eggs in one basket? This is a variation of that. Keeping 50 small companies is less efficient economically, but when the Illinois BCBS fails, the Michigan BCBS won't fail with it.

And here's the side note: Insurance companies used to invest premiums to pay claims - they aren't allowed to pay claims directly with premiums. That's just a pyramid scam. But because the banks have destroyed income producing investments, I have no idea how the insurance companies are maintaining their cash reserves (http://www.actuary.org/files/publications/health%20insurance%20_vm25_sept07.pdf) now. There are no fixed income investments that I can think of that can even keep up with inflation, much less the costs of us aging boomers. I feel insurance (health and otherwise) could be the next bubble to pop, and that this push to cross state lines is just an effort to prop up the system.

At the end of all of it, I haven't seen anything that makes me think that overall, this is a good idea. (Yes, they can cut administrative costs, but there's no reason to think those savings will save us money.) On the other hand, I think the Constitution is a brilliant idea, so I am going to stick with that.

nikcers
08-05-2017, 09:47 AM
I think that the AMA indeed has far too much control over the markets, but that still doesn't give the federal government the right to dictate insurer standards within the individual states. Nor does it give the federal government the right to take away the rights of the states on behalf on the insurers.

I'm already resigned to the fact this is going to happen. And it will piss me off every time I have to say, "I told you so!" when costs don't go down and the number of providers shrinks.

JC Morgan/Chase? Try Kaiser-Humana! Highmark-Cigna!

It frustrates me to see people fall for the same exact shenanigans repeatedly.
Well yes less insurance, more health care. If I am shot I need insurance If I get a cold I need healthcare. This healthcare industry is a ponzi scheme that punishes sick people in order to enrich the state and the medical industrial complex. It frustrates me when people try to take someones argument and make absurd analogies in order to make the argument mean something else. How will cutting middle men out of the people exchanging value raise prices? How will making people price conscious and shop around raise prices?

Ender
08-05-2017, 09:51 AM
Well yes less insurance, more health care. If I am shot I need insurance If I get a cold I need healthcare. This healthcare industry is a ponzi scheme that punishes sick people in order to enrich the state and the medical industrial complex. It frustrates me when people try to take someones argument and make absurd analogies in order to make the argument mean something else. How will cutting middle men out of the people exchanging value raise prices? How will making people price conscious and shop around raise prices?

The ONLY answer is: take .gov completely out of healthcare and let free markets reign.

nikcers
08-05-2017, 09:52 AM
The ONLY answer is: take .gov completely out of healthcare and let free markets reign.
What people don't understand is if you take the government out of insurance markets it becomes insurance again and not the shit show ponzi scheme that it is where the government socializes the insurance companies losses.

Ender
08-05-2017, 09:53 AM
What people don't understand is if you take the government out of insurance markets it becomes insurance again and not the $#@! show ponzi scheme that it is where the government socializes the insurance companies losses.

Agree.

angelatc
08-05-2017, 10:06 AM
Well yes less insurance, more health care. If I am shot I need insurance If I get a cold I need healthcare.

If you get a cold, you don't need to visit the doctor at all. If you get shot, you need healthcare. Having insurance just means you are having someone else pay for it, with the caveat that the other payers agreed.


. How will cutting middle men out of the people exchanging value raise prices? How will making people price conscious and shop around raise prices?

It won't, of course. The argument is always that when you need emergency services you don't have the luxury of shopping around. But I don't think most medical care is actually emergency. And there's even different levels of emergencies. I can imagine a walk-in clinic advertising $5.00 per stitch. I might go to the hospital when I gash my hand, but if I saw they charged me $2000 for 10 stitches, I'm going to go to the walk-in next time. And tell my friends as well.

Not to mention when I look at my gushing hand, I would be inclined to think "Damn - that's gonna cost me $100 with the $50 office visit and the 10 stitches."

nikcers
08-05-2017, 10:11 AM
If you get a cold, you don't need to visit the doctor at all. If you get shot, you need healthcare. Having insurance just means you are having someone else pay for it, with the caveat that the other payers agreed."
No that's how crony American health insurance monopoly one of the cogs of the failed ponzi scheme medical industrial complex fails. If i get into a car accident my insurance policy is in place with the insurance company. It has nothing to do with other people, and other people generally don't effect my costs unless I choose to live next to them, and its a risk for the insurance company, so the costs are higher. I am talking liberty, not state health care.

angelatc
08-05-2017, 10:16 AM
Well yes less insurance, more health care. If I am shot I need insurance If I get a cold I need healthcare.

If you get a cold, you don't need to visit the doctor at all. If you get shot, you need healthcare. Having insurance just means you are having someone else pay for it, with the caveat that the other payers agreed.


. How will cutting middle men out of the people exchanging value raise prices? How will making people price conscious and shop around raise prices?

It won't, of course. The argument is always that when you need emergency services you don't have the luxury of shopping around. But I don't think most medical care is actually emergency. And there's even different levels of emergencies. I can imagine a walk-in clinic advertising $5.00 per stitch. I might go to the hospital when I gash my hand, but if I saw they charged me $2000 for 10 stitches, I'm going to go to the walk-in next time. And tell my friends as well.

Not to mention when I look at my gushing hand, I would be inclined to think "Damn - that's gonna cost me $100 with the $50 office visit and the 10 stitches."

angelatc
08-05-2017, 10:26 AM
If i get into a car accident my insurance policy is in place with the insurance company. It has nothing to do with other people, and other people generally don't effect my costs unless I choose to live next to them, and its a risk for the insurance company, so the costs are higher. I am talking liberty, not state health care.

Actuaries set rates based on pools of people, and the costs of the area they live in.

nikcers
08-05-2017, 10:27 AM
Not to mention when I look at my gushing hand, I would be inclined to think "Damn - that's gonna cost me $100 with the $50 office visit and the 10 stitches."
Yeah but that just means that this is america, and if I am not inclined to think, I should be able to employ someone to think for my best interests like a lawyer or broker, not the medical industrial complex who has to cover the costs of timmys Tumor, so my asprin costs 45 dollars. I've had my car insurance broker begging me to switch companies for months because i'll save so much money. I've never had that experience with health insurance.

nikcers
08-05-2017, 10:28 AM
Actuaries set rates based on pools of people, and the costs of the area they live in.
bullshit costs go up because of government intervention

angelatc
08-05-2017, 10:30 AM
bullshit costs go up because of government intervention not people.

Costs go up for multiple reasons.

nikcers
08-05-2017, 10:32 AM
Costs go up for multiple reasons.
The government lets them choose the rates, which increase the costs. That's not how markets work, the consumer chooses the cost.

angelatc
08-05-2017, 10:38 AM
[QUOTE=nikcers;6507634]The government lets them choose the rates, which increase the costs. That's not how markets work, the consumer chooses the cost.[/QUOTEs]

I'll let somebody else take over here. I have work to do.

nikcers
08-05-2017, 10:41 AM
[QUOTE=nikcers;6507634]The government lets them choose the rates, which increase the costs. That's not how markets work, the consumer chooses the cost.[/QUOTEs]

I'll let somebody else take over here. I have work to do.
your so dishonest you can't even consider the argument that there is an artificial scarcity of product for something that everybody needs that the government creates that never gets created under capitalism? You don't have these shortages and surpluses of product without your socialism. I gather you are part of the medical industrial complex and might be drinking the cool aid? You would be worth more money in a free society.

angelatc
08-05-2017, 10:43 AM
[QUOTE=angelatc;6507637]
your so dishonest you can't even consider the argument that there is an artificial scarcity of product for something that everybody needs that the government creates that never gets created under capitalism? You don't have these shortages and surpluses of product without your socialism. I gather you are part of the medical industrial complex and might be drinking the cool aid? You would be worth more money in a free society.

Well, now you're literally imagining things.

euphemia
08-05-2017, 10:44 AM
Not really- he didn't do anything at all. (and that is not sarcasm). Congress is to blame. Obamacare does need repairs. One major factor in companies dropping out or raising rates now is the uncertainty of what things will be like in the future. More uncertainty means higher risks and they respond by either not covering at all or charging a higher risk premium.

So you think that a company, responsible for paying salaries and benefits to employees should operate at a loss because governement mandated that they provide an unsustainable product?

nikcers
08-05-2017, 10:45 AM
[QUOTE=nikcers;6507641]

Well, now you're literally imagining things.
Come on make your argument for the State's rights, the narrative that the medical industrial complex created to trump arguments of freedom.