• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Insurers Warn Losses From ObamaCare Are Unsustainable

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,353
Reaction score
21,327
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
12,050
Reaction score
5,716
Location
Indiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Goodness, I miss the days before Obamacare when healthcare was inexpensive and resources were efficiently distributed to Americans based on science.
 

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,782
Reaction score
42,992
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
24,353
Reaction score
21,327
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,782
Reaction score
42,992
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,782
Reaction score
42,992
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

Chicks dig the long ball
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
23,719
Reaction score
20,731
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

pXqjMx9.jpg
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
73,499
Reaction score
56,772
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
55,782
Reaction score
42,992
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,774
Reaction score
12,343
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
14,592
Reaction score
12,833
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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.
 
Top Bottom