Insurers Warn Losses From ObamaCare Are Unsustainable

[LowDown]

Insurers warn losses from ObamaCare are unsustainable.

Health insurance companies are amplifying their warnings about the financial sustainability of the ObamaCare marketplaces as they seek approval for premium increases next year.

Insurers say they are losing money on their ObamaCare plans at a rapid rate, and some have begun to talk about dropping out of the marketplaces altogether.

“Something has to give,” said Larry Levitt, an expert on the health law at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Either insurers will drop out or insurers will raise premiums.”

While analysts expect the market to stabilize once premiums rise and more young, healthy people sign up, some observers have not ruled out the possibility of a collapse of the market, known in insurance parlance as a “death spiral.”

Some companies have made good on their threats to leave markets already. United Healthcare, for example, left some states. Obama care supporters poo poo this, saying that it won't have a significant effect on the availability of health care, but United Healthcare is may only be the beginning. As other insurance companies fall there surely will be a crisis of availability.

The question will be what to do about that. The correct thing would be to remove government controls and let the market sort it out. No doubt, though, they will want to increase government control, and that will just mean more misery, more shortages, less availability. Liberals never give up on a bad idea.

Some have said that if you want to see what US government single payer health care is like then look at the VA. But this is wrong because the VA is not a single payer system. It bills Medicare and insurance, for example, and it relies heavily on physicians in training to keep costs down. This is fine, but there aren't enough physicians or nurses in training to run a full US single payer health care system. If the VA were really single payer it would cost a lot more, but you'd still have the disadvantages of the famously long wait lists, which has been ameliorated by sending vets out to private doctors. I'm not sure that option would still exist if we went to single payer.

 

[OrphanSlug]

It will only get worse, there are very few models if health insurance plan networks that are profitable on the exchanges. To make matters even worse more and more providers are dropping exchange bought plans compromising these negotiated networks.

 

[mak2]

Goodness, I miss the days before Obamacare when healthcare was inexpensive and resources were efficiently distributed to Americans based on science.

 

[Chomsky]

The system didn't work before ObamaCare.

It doesn't work well under ObamaCare.

When are we going to realize we need to skip the profiteering insurance companies, and go for single-payer/private provider?

 

[Thoreau72]

Goodness, I miss the days before Obamacare when healthcare was inexpensive and resources were efficiently distributed to Americans based on science.

I'm not sure resources were efficiently distributed to Americans based on science before Obamacare, but I get your point.

I understand the need for insurance in life, but I am convinced it is harmful to public health to have insurance companies control the relationship between patient and physician.

 

[Thoreau72]

The system didn't work before ObamaCare.

It doesn't work well under ObamaCare.

When are we going to realize we need to skip the profiteering insurance companies, and go for single-payer/private provider?

For some reason there is no "like" button for that post, but I agree completely!

 

[countryboy]

The system didn't work before ObamaCare.

It doesn't work well under ObamaCare.

When are we going to realize we need to skip the profiteering insurance companies, and go for single-payer/private provider?

What could possibly make you believe a 100% government run healthcare system would be a good thing?

 

[OrphanSlug]

The system didn't work before ObamaCare.

It doesn't work well under ObamaCare.

When are we going to realize we need to skip the profiteering insurance companies, and go for single-payer/private provider?

That might be the next intervention here, and many suggest ACA is a steppingstone to single-payer. Unsure on the private part, while it makes some sense odds are the government would take over.

It might get more crazy until something gives.

 

[countryboy]

I'm not sure resources were efficiently distributed to Americans based on science before Obamacare, but I get your point.

I understand the need for insurance in life, but I am convinced it is harmful to public health to have insurance companies control the relationship between patient and physician.

Yes, it would be much better for public health if the government controlled the relationship between patient and physician. Good grief, you people have GOT to be kidding me. :shock:

 

[Chomsky]

What could possibly make you believe a 100% government run healthcare system would be a good thing?

You're misunderstanding the term I used (single-payer/private provider).

It's a private system with the gov acting as the insurer.

We don't want a V.A. or U.K. model.

 

[Thoreau72]

Yes, it would be much better for public health if the government controlled the relationship between patient and physician. Good grief, you people have GOT to be kidding me. :shock:

Many other countries have demonstrated that such an arrangement works to the benefit of all, including the physician.

Anecdote for you: my own physician, and another with whom I socialize, both heavily resent the gross influence of the insurance companies in their respective practices. Both favor some form of universal healthcare as practiced by other countries.

We need to come out of the Dark Ages.

 

[Chomsky]

That might be the next intervention here, and many suggest ACA is a steppingstone to single-payer. Unsure on the private part, while it makes some sense odds are the government would take over.

It might get more crazy until something gives.

I really don't see why the gov would or should take it over, and I think that would be a grave mistake.

I think the 'private provider' part is required to keep competition.

43% of the country is already on single payer, and the easiest method to increase that would be a stepped MediCare or MedicAid expansion. No need to make an ObamaCare type project/disaster out of this.

 

[countryboy]

You're misunderstanding the term I used (single-payer/private provider).

It's a private system with the gov acting as the insurer.

We don't want a V.A. or U.K. model.

Again, do you honestly believe the government would act as insurer without assuming a major role in administering the care provided? Even in my wildest imagination, I cannot conceive of this. Even if such a system managed to get into place, over time the government would dig it's grimy little paws deeper and deeper until it had complete control. How could you possibly have that much faith in government? Have you not been paying attention?

 

[countryboy]

Many other countries have demonstrated that such an arrangement works to the benefit of all, including the physician.

Anecdote for you: my own physician, and another with whom I socialize, both heavily resent the gross influence of the insurance companies in their respective practices. Both favor some form of universal healthcare as practiced by other countries.

We need to come out of the Dark Ages.

Here's a bulletin for you, health care in those "other countries" ain't all that great.

 

[Thoreau72]

Here's a bulletin for you, health care in those "other countries" ain't all that great.

And a bulletin for you sir, in "this country" it ain't all that great either. Many people don't qualify for it, and I know a few like that.

Going to the emergency room in an ambulance is not great medicine.

 

[azgreg]

Here's a bulletin for you, health care in those "other countries" ain't all that great.

And a bulletin for you sir, in "this country" it ain't all that great either. Many people don't qualify for it, and I know a few like that.

Going to the emergency room in an ambulance is not great medicine.

US Health System Ranks Last Among Eleven Countries on Measures of Access, Equity, Quality, Efficiency, and Healthy Lives - The Commonwealth Fund

 

[Helix]

Insurers Warn Losses From ObamaCare Are Unsustainable

cool. go out of business, and we'll expand medicare to cover everyone as we should have done in the first place.

 

[countryboy]

And a bulletin for you sir, in "this country" it ain't all that great either. Many people don't qualify for it, and I know a few like that.

Going to the emergency room in an ambulance is not great medicine.

Government meddling has only made it worse.

 

[Chomsky]

Again, do you honestly believe the government would act as insurer without assuming a major role in administering the care provided? Even in my wildest imagination, I cannot conceive of this. Even if such a system managed to get into place, over time the government would dig it's grimy little paws deeper and deeper until it had complete control. How could you possibly have that much faith in government? Have you not been paying attention?

I understand the fears here, and yes the government would have controlling interests similar to the current insurers.

But these systems are currently working for nearly half our country now. The only reason MedicAid is not what it's fully capable of, is it's thought of as a freebie health system giveaway for the welfare crowd and is encumbered by all the animosity that often goes with that, so it gets the short-end of the stick. MediCare is working O.K., and it even has an additional hybrid insurance component for those that desire, though it seems 80% chose the full government insurer option. But both of these programs do work marginally well-enough, and could be greatly improved of course.

I think it comes down to personal preference: "Who do you want to be the financial gate-keeper of your healthcare? A profiteering corporation, or the gov"?

But beyond that, there's segments of society where there simply is no free-market profit solution, for example the elderly, disabled, or chronically sick. And even for those healthy and in the middle of life, the premiums of quality family coverage are beyond the means of many working-class middle-income families.

And finally, tying one's healthcare to employment was a bad idea from the get-go! Why should one lose their access to healthcare if they're laid-off or unable to work? Or even going back to school or starting a business, for that matter?

Also, here's the beauty with keeping the current private-provider system: Don't want to be government insured? Don't sign-up! Use fee-for-service or a private insurer, if that's turns you on.

TL;DR Yeah, the fears of government boondoggle are there, but single-payer is working & the current private system is pretty fudged too!

 

[countryboy]

US Health System Ranks Last Among Eleven Countries on Measures of Access, Equity, Quality, Efficiency, and Healthy Lives - The Commonwealth Fund

I learned long ago that organizations who compile this "data", such as the WHO, are less than honest. And their rankings are based largely on intention, rather than actual results.

 

[countryboy]

I understand the fears here, and yes the government would have controlling interests similar to the current insurers.

But these systems are currently working for nearly half our country now. The only reason MedicAid is not what it's fully capable of, is it's thought of as a freebie health system giveaway for the welfare crowd and is encumbered by all the animosity that often goes with that, so it gets the short-end of the stick. MediCare is working O.K., and it even has an additional hybrid insurance component for those that desire, though it seems 80% chose the full government insurer option. But both of these programs do work marginally well-enough, and could be greatly improved of course.

I think it comes down to personal preference: "Who do you want to be the financial gate-keeper of your healthcare? A profiteering corporation, or the gov"?

But beyond that, there's segments of society where there simply is no free-market profit solution, for example the elderly, disabled, or chronically sick. And even for those healthy and in the middle of life, the premiums of quality family coverage are beyond the means of many working-class middle-income families.

And finally, tying one's healthcare to employment was a bad idea from the get-go! Why should one lose their access to healthcare if they're laid-off or unable to work? Or even going back to school or starting a business, for that matter?

Also, here's the beauty with keeping the current private-provider system: Don't want to be government insured? Don't sign-up! Use fee-for-service or a private insurer, if that's turns you on.

TL;DR Yeah, the fears of government boondoggle are there, but single-payer is working & the current private system is pretty fudged too!

I do not want the government anywhere near my healthcare. I personally wouldn't entrust the government with one more thin dime, until they can demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt, they can be responsible stewards. Not.one.thin.dime.

 

[PeteEU]

I would like to see these insurance companies to open up their books fully for a full independent audit to prove that they actually are making a loss.

It would not be the first time that companies use accounting methods to show a loss that there is not. Amazing that companies like Starbucks in the UK kept expanding and said to its shareholders that the UK market was its fastest growing and profitable business, and yet it reported no profit to the taxman...

 

[Thoreau72]

Government meddling has only made it worse.

I cannot argue with that. But in theory it IS possible to streamline government regulation in many ways, and we can hopefully learn from past experiences. Government meddling can be controlled by strict application of the law, something they don't like to do to themselves.

And, we learn from other countries that do it successfully and design our processes accordingly.

 

[countryboy]

I cannot argue with that. But in theory it IS possible to streamline government regulation in many ways, and we can hopefully learn from past experiences. Government meddling can be controlled by strict application of the law, something they don't like to do to themselves.

And, we learn from other countries that do it successfully and design our processes accordingly.

"Success" as defined by leftist orgs such as the WHO, do not necessarily equal true success.

 

[Greenbeard]

Again, do you honestly believe the government would act as insurer without assuming a major role in administering the care provided?

Honestly, they probably wouldn't even administer the insurance.