President Obama has made Obamacare “republican proof”

[Vern]

By going with insurance reform and mandates instead of single payer, its easy to see President Obama has made Obamacare ‘republican proof’. With the health care industry now completely on board, republicans will simply do as their corporate masters tell them. Don’t worry cons, republicans will still pander to you that repeal is just around the corner and there will be more little known legal challenges “that will invalidate Obamcare, this time we really mean it.” From a Motley Fool article

“When Obamacare was ruled constitutional, shares of hospital stocks such as Community Health Systems (NYSE: CYH ) , Tenet Healthcare (NYSE: THC ) , and Lifepoint Hospitals (NASDAQ: LPNT ) saw a favorable boost. And the reason is straightforward: Hospitals are required to provide care even if a patient doesn't have insurance…..

Under Obmamacare, Forbes estimates that hospitals will reduce 30% of their unpaid bills.”

Yea, hospitals and insurance companies are going to like that. So cons should factor that into their beliefs that republicans will "never quit trying to repeal". I know they will never quit "pretending to try to repeal".

And its “ republican proof” from them sabotaging it. Republicans really have no problem running something into the ground to prove that gov’t shouldn’t be doing it and they know their ignorant base won’t hold them accountable. Just look at the Walter Reed scandal where health care for veterans simply wasnt a priority for the republican congress and republican president. And of course if that happened with a dem president and congress, the cons would still be screaming about it. As deplorable as it was that republicans neglected health care for veterans, it’s even worse that their base didn’t hold them accountable because now republicans are free to do it again. And if Obamacare was single payer, they would do it again. If they held health care for veterans in such disdain, where would the 99% of America be in their priorities?

So with insurance companies having to win customers, its in their best interest to work with hospitals to lower costs and improve care and improve health. There really isn’t a good way for pubs to sabotage it (or Walter Reed it as I would say)

 

[Greenbeard]

I think it's more accurate to say that success is making it Republican-proof.

Repeal is virtually impossible at this point because doing so would increase the deficit, kicks millions off of their insurance plans, have huge negative financial ramifications for most of the industry, reverse the quality gains we've been seeing, and have any number of other unpalatable side effects (from stripping community health centers of funding to undoing the new hospital pricing transparency requirements and so on).

And the reason repeal would have those negative side effects is that the law is starting to succeed at many of its core goals.

 

[ttwtt78640]

By going with insurance reform and mandates instead of single payer, its easy to see President Obama has made Obamacare ‘republican proof’. With the health care industry now completely on board, republicans will simply do as their corporate masters tell them. Don’t worry cons, republicans will still pander to you that repeal is just around the corner and there will be more little known legal challenges “that will invalidate Obamcare, this time we really mean it.” From a Motley Fool article

“When Obamacare was ruled constitutional, shares of hospital stocks such as Community Health Systems (NYSE: CYH ) , Tenet Healthcare (NYSE: THC ) , and Lifepoint Hospitals (NASDAQ: LPNT ) saw a favorable boost. And the reason is straightforward: Hospitals are required to provide care even if a patient doesn't have insurance…..

Under Obmamacare, Forbes estimates that hospitals will reduce 30% of their unpaid bills.”

Yea, hospitals and insurance companies are going to like that. So cons should factor that into their beliefs that republicans will "never quit trying to repeal". I know they will never quit "pretending to try to repeal".

And its “ republican proof” from them sabotaging it. Republicans really have no problem running something into the ground to prove that gov’t shouldn’t be doing it and they know their ignorant base won’t hold them accountable. Just look at the Walter Reed scandal where health care for veterans simply wasnt a priority for the republican congress and republican president. And of course if that happened with a dem president and congress, the cons would still be screaming about it. As deplorable as it was that republicans neglected health care for veterans, it’s even worse that their base didn’t hold them accountable because now republicans are free to do it again. And if Obamacare was single payer, they would do it again. If they held health care for veterans in such disdain, where would the 99% of America be in their priorities?

So with insurance companies having to win customers, its in their best interest to work with hospitals to lower costs and improve care and improve health. There really isn’t a good way for pubs to sabotage it (or Walter Reed it as I would say)

Think, before you drink - even Koolade. You do not have to "win" customers that must buy your product/service. Insurance companies make money based on a percentage (15% to 20%) of the difference between premiums collected and money paid out in claims. The higher the costs of medical care go then the more money they make - and yes, it is that simple. Just as a real estate agent makes more commission on selling a $200K house than on selling a $100K house an insurance company makes more profit on higher treatment/premium costs than on lower treatment/premium costs.

 

[Greenbeard]

Think, before you drink - even Koolade. You do not have to "win" customers that must buy your product/service.

Of course you do. Take the case of Maine. Small state, small market--their exchange started its first open enrollment period with only two carriers, the local giant and an insurer that didn't exist a year ago and no one had ever heard of.

Yet signups through Maine's exchange hit 158% of their projection/goal, and the dominant insurer in the state, Anthem BCBS, got absolutely crushed by the start-up.

Through February, nearly four of every five Mainers who bought plans in the marketplace chose to be insured by Maine Community Health Options, a new health insurance co-op, instead of Anthem.

Now Harvard Pilgrim will be entering the exchange at the end of this year

With more insurance carriers in the marketplace, Maine Community Health Options doesn’t expect to maintain such a dominant market share, said its CEO, Kevin Lewis.

“We’ve been counting on additional carriers entering the marketplace,” he said. “From the consumer’s point of view, there will be a wide array of choices.”

You still have to win customers--that's the nature of markets. And the number one way to do that appears (not unexpectedly) to be by offering lower premiums than competitors.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Going with insurance mandates instead of single payer didn't make Obamacare so much Republican proof as insurance industry proof.

Republicans like to leap and hoot and promise to end Obamacare, but that' just political rhetoric, no more meaningful than the crowing of the rooster in the barnyard. The insurance industry is the real fox, lying is wait to eat any chicken or rooster who threatens its power and money. The real power is not going to allow single payer to pass.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Of course you do. Take the case of Maine. Small state, small market--their exchange started its first open enrollment period with only two carriers, the local giant and an insurer that didn't exist a year ago and no one had ever heard of.

Yet signups through Maine's exchange hit 158% of their projection/goal, and the dominant insurer in the state, Anthem BCBS, got absolutely crushed by the start-up.



Now Harvard Pilgrim will be entering the exchange at the end of this year



You still have to win customers--that's the nature of markets. And the number one way to do that appears (not unexpectedly) to be by offering lower premiums than competitors.

Naturally the guaranteed profit under PPACA and the allowance for smaller companies to have 33% higher overhead is ignored in this "free market" miracle. Also note that only the poorest customers are likely to use the exchange (to get subsidies) so their main concern is likely the cost of care and not the quality of care (any care beats no care) - they tend to buy hamburger over steak as well. A Yugo and a BMW will both get you down the road but how far and how comfortably?

 

[Objective Voice]

Think, before you drink - even Koolade. You do not have to "win" customers that must buy your product/service. Insurance companies make money based on a percentage (15% to 20%) of the difference between premiums collected and money paid out in claims. The higher the costs of medical care go then the more money they make - and yes, it is that simple. Just as a real estate agent makes more commission on selling a $200K house than on selling a $100K house an insurance company makes more profit on higher treatment/premium costs than on lower treatment/premium costs.

That may be, but hospitals do see the gains from having more people who use their facilities insurance due to the overwhelming cost of uncompensated care. Folks may not like Obamacare if only because it forces people to have health insurance, but the fact remains that health care cost should go down based on the number of people insured versus the revenue hospitals would lose by treating patients who don't have insurance.

We can argue the fringe issues - # of doctors available/leaving their practices, malpractice insurance, etc., etc., but the biggest "lost leader" hospitals & health care clinics face is the uncompensated care for those patients who don't have health insurance. Obamacare will change that dynamic.

BTW, for those who would argue that employers who receive waivers not to provide health insurance to their employees is a bad thing, consider that the two of the largest expenses for small businesses are taxes and health insurance costs. Shift one of those burdens onto the employee and pay said employee a higher salary so he/she can afford the out of pocket expense of health insurance via the federal Health Insurance Exchange and you just help save a small business owner hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. That's an angle no one really thinks about.

 

[Objective Voice]

Naturally the guaranteed profit under PPACA and the allowance for smaller companies to have 33% higher overhead is ignored in this "free market" miracle. Also note that only the poorest customers are likely to use the exchange (to get subsidies) so their main concern is likely the cost of care and not the quality of care (any care beats no care) - they tend to buy hamburger over steak as well. A Yugo and a BMW will both get you down the road but how far and how comfortably?

People pay for what they can afford. So, it's no great mystery that those who are poor or are just above the poverty line will apply for Medicaid or shift to the federal HIE for their health insurance needs. No surprise there.

But if these wealthy multi-millionaire companies (and states) would increase the minimum wage (or just pay their employees a salary that meets their cost of living/basic survival needs even with entry level jobs, the entire country would be better off. You get people off welfare. You get people off Medicaid. You get people off WIC. You get people to buy their own home. You get people to start saving again. You get people to start participating in the free market system by investing in the markets.

If Republicans would stop thinking "it's all about me" instead of "let's pull all Americans up by their boot straps", then maybe this country can really start to unleash its potential and begin to move forward. But as long as they continue to preach this message of "every man for himself," the country will continue to lag and developing countries will eventually catch-up if not surpass us.

It's time the American people got smart to the deception being put forward by the Republican Party. I understand their views; it's their methods that I don't like.

 

[ttwtt78640]

That may be, but hospitals do see the gains from having more people who use their facilities insurance due to the overwhelming cost of uncompensated care. Folks may not like Obamacare if only because it forces people to have health insurance, but the fact remains that health care cost should go down based on the number of people insured versus the revenue hospitals would lose by treating patients who don't have insurance.

We can argue the fringe issues - # of doctors available/leaving their practices, malpractice insurance, etc., etc., but the biggest "lost leader" hospitals & health care clinics face is the uncompensated care for those patients who don't have health insurance. Obamacare will change that dynamic.

BTW, for those who would argue that employers who receive waivers not to provide health insurance to their employees is a bad thing, consider that the two of the largest expenses for small businesses are taxes and health insurance costs. Shift one of those burdens onto the employee and pay said employee a higher salary so he/she can afford the out of pocket expense of health insurance via the federal Health Insurance Exchange and you just help save a small business owner hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. That's an angle no one really thinks about.

Um, is that not simply robbing Peter to pay Paul? Every dollar given to the hospital via a PPACA subsidy must come from somewhere; PPACA simply shifts the costs of "free" care from those that actually do use the hospital to all that may use the hospital. Let's see if ER care price or usage drops and then decide.

 

[Objective Voice]

Of course you do. Take the case of Maine. Small state, small market--their exchange started its first open enrollment period with only two carriers, the local giant and an insurer that didn't exist a year ago and no one had ever heard of.

Yet signups through Maine's exchange hit 158% of their projection/goal, and the dominant insurer in the state, Anthem BCBS, got absolutely crushed by the start-up.



Now Harvard Pilgrim will be entering the exchange at the end of this year



You still have to win customers--that's the nature of markets. And the number one way to do that appears (not unexpectedly) to be by offering lower premiums than competitors.

You're the first person I've seen post to this forum on this subject who seems to understand the power and true effectiveness behind the "exchange" in the words "health insurance EXCHANGE". If people would only stop and thing about how the stock market "exchange" works, they'll finally come to understand the true power behind the concept of the "health insurance EXCHANGE".

 

[ttwtt78640]

People pay for what they can afford. So, it's no great mystery that those who are poor or are just above the poverty line will apply for Medicaid or shift to the federal HIE for their health insurance needs. No surprise there.

But if these wealthy multi-millionaire companies (and states) would increase the minimum wage (or just pay their employees a salary that meets their cost of living/basic survival needs even with entry level jobs, the entire country would be better off. You get people off welfare. You get people off Medicaid. You get people off WIC. You get people to buy their own home. You get people to start saving again. You get people to start participating in the free market system by investing in the markets.

If Republicans would stop thinking "it's all about me" instead of "let's pull all Americans up by their boot straps", then maybe this country can really start to unleash its potential and begin to move forward. But as long as they continue to preach this message of "every man for himself," the country will continue to lag and developing countries will eventually catch-up if not surpass us.

It's time the American people got smart to the deception being put forward by the Republican Party. I understand their views; it's their methods that I don't like.

You now fall back to the "from each according to their ability (to pay taxes), to each according to their need (for free stuff)" mantra. Have a nice day.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Maybe if the Republicans didnt perseverate on stupid **** like "Mexicans crossing the border" or Gay rights they would have won the election or not be subject to every single satirical show on T.V.?

 

[Greenbeard]

Naturally the guaranteed profit under PPACA and the allowance for smaller companies to have 33% higher overhead is ignored in this "free market" miracle. Also note that only the poorest customers are likely to use the exchange (to get subsidies) so their main concern is likely the cost of care and not the quality of care (any care beats no care) - they tend to buy hamburger over steak as well. A Yugo and a BMW will both get you down the road but how far and how comfortably?

I can't tell if you're conceding that there very much are market pressures to keep premiums down or not here.

 

[Objective Voice]

Um, is that not simply robbing Peter to pay Paul? Every dollar given to the hospital via a PPACA subsidy must come from somewhere; PPACA simply shifts the costs of "free" care from those that actually do use the hospital to all that may use the hospital. Let's see if ER care price or usage drops and then decide.

You forget, sir, that those individuals who purchase insurance via the HIE will ultimately be paying the total cost of their health insurance premiums out of their own pockets. Moreover, the cost isn't "free". The subsidy only pays a portion of the premium cost, not the entirety. Even those who are on Medicaid has to pay a co-pay in most states. So, this notion that insurance purchased through the exchange(s) is free is totally false.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I can't tell if you're conceding that there very much are market pressures to keep premiums down or not here.

What prevented this price competition from occurring before PPACA?

 

[Objective Voice]

You now fall back to the "from each according to their ability (to pay taxes), to each according to their need (for free stuff)" mantra. Have a nice day.

But isn't that the free market system in and of itself? People looking for the best bargain (value) for their money in order to maximize their purchasing power?

Don't get it twisted! If I could afford to buy a Gold/Cadillac plan I'd buy it in a heartbeat. However, I can afford the cost of health insurance through my employer (salary). If I couldn't I'd certainly go the route of the federal HIE or Medicaid (reluctantly). So, let's not try to turn the issue into something it's not. People do pay for what they can afford. Moreover, even the wealthy pay into Social Security (Medicare/Medicaid) for the low-cost benefits they provide.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You forget, sir, that those individuals who purchase insurance via the HIE will ultimately be paying the total cost of their health insurance premiums out of their own pockets. Moreover, the cost isn't "free". The subsidy only pays a portion of the premium cost, not the entirety. Even those who are on Medicaid has to pay a co-pay in most states. So, this notion that insurance purchased through the exchange(s) is free is totally false.

Reality 101. The cost for $1.00 of actual medical care is $1.15 using insurance - how does that gov't mandated overhead save money?

 

[iguanaman]

Naturally the guaranteed profit under PPACA and the allowance for smaller companies to have 33% higher overhead is ignored in this "free market" miracle. Also note that only the poorest customers are likely to use the exchange (to get subsidies) so their main concern is likely the cost of care and not the quality of care (any care beats no care) - they tend to buy hamburger over steak as well. A Yugo and a BMW will both get you down the road but how far and how comfortably?

Except that under the ACA there are standards for coverage which you hate of course.

 

[iguanaman]

Reality 101. The cost for $1.00 of actual medical care is $1.15 using insurance - how does that gov't mandated overhead save money?

Which is 10 cents less then the $1.25 or more that many insurers used to get.

 

[Objective Voice]

Reality 101. The cost for $1.00 of actual medical care is $1.15 using insurance - how does that gov't mandated overhead save money?

Thus, wouldn't it make more sense to go with a socialize health insurance system considering that by your figures it's costing the client/hospitals more? Hmmmm....?

 

[Vern]

Think, before you drink - even Koolade. You do not have to "win" customers that must buy your product/service.

that explains why I have to suffer through a million geico commercials a day. Nobody has to buy auto insurance.

Insurance companies make money based on a percentage (15% to 20%) of the difference between premiums collected and money paid out in claims. The higher the costs of medical care go then the more money they make - and yes, it is that simple.

wow, so you are in favor of single payer. have you admitted this to anyone? And 15-20% will be less than before Obamacare. But after seeing what happens to health care when republicans are in charge, it seems that 15-20% is a small price to pay to keep them out of it, ie republican proof.

Just as a real estate agent makes more commission on selling a $200K house than on selling a $100K house an insurance company makes more profit on higher treatment/premium costs than on lower treatment/premium costs.

I don't really think you have a firm grasp on how insurance works.

 

[Greenbeard]

What prevented this price competition from occurring before PPACA?

Lack of standardization, primarily. Making apples-to-apples comparisons between different insurers' products (or even a single insurer's different product lines) was difficult due to a lack of defined actuarial value tiers and lack of consistency in benefit offerings. It's difficult for buyers to deliberate signals and for sellers to receive them when the offerings are opaque and overly complex.

Moreover (putting aside the difficulty of trying to compare things that vary in myriad ways), there was no way to do a standard side-by-side price comparison (as you would do on the exchange website now) because products didn't have standardized prices in most markets. Instead, they were individually rated based on an administratively burdensome--and one might say intrusive--small mountain of paperwork on one's personal and family medical history.

That's why even people choosing to buy nongroup coverage outside of the exchanges (some of the "hidden winners" under the ACA") this year still used their exchange's plan comparison tool to compare the relative prices of insurers' offerings. Because the prices quoted on the website were actually the prices of the products, not just teasers that would then be adjusted based on individual rating factors.

For instance, see "The Satisfied Unsubsidized: Obamacare’s Hidden Winners."

Most of the people I interviewed saw no reason to buy their plans through Healthcare.gov or the state exchanges. Doing so would only add a layer of bureaucracy, though several used the window-shopping function on the exchanges to scope out the market. All those who bought off-exchange found it much easier than in the past to buy through a broker or directly from an insurer in the post-ACA market, where an insurer cannot ask for information about a buyer's medical history. And all found better coverage for the money than they could get before the ACA went into full effect.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Thus, wouldn't it make more sense to go with a socialize health insurance system considering that by your figures it's costing the client/hospitals more? Hmmmm....?

Or we could simply turn medical care insurance back into insurance; covering only the rare, unexpected and expensive events thus allowing routine health maintenance costs to not be artificially inflated.

 

[sangha]

Or we could simply turn medical care insurance back into insurance; covering only the rare, unexpected and expensive events thus allowing routine health maintenance costs to not be artificially inflated.

ACA allows that.

An individual can fulfill the individual mandate with a catastrophic plan combined with an HSA

 

[ttwtt78640]

ACA allows that.

An individual can fulfill the individual mandate with a catastrophic plan combined with an HSA

Until the ripe old age of 31.