(04-20-2016 10:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 06:50 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  "UnitedHealth, nation's largest health insurer, bolts, fears huge losses"

Quote:UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley said the company expects losses from its exchange business to total more than $1 billion for this year and last....

"We continue to remain an advocate for more stable and sustainable approaches to serving this market,"...

A recent study by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association detailed how many new customers nationwide under ObamaCare are higher-risk. It found new enrollees in individual health plans in 2014 and 2015 had higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, depression, coronary artery disease, HIV and Hepatitis C than those enrolled before ObamaCare...

The Kaiser Family Foundation, in an analysis on the prospect of United's exit, said “the effect on insurer competition could be significant in some markets – particularly in rural areas and southern states” if it is not replaced.
In the most extreme scenario, “If United were to leave the exchange market overall, 1.8 million Marketplace enrollees would be left with two insurers, and another 1.1 million would be left with one insurer as a result of the withdrawal,” the analysis said...

Insurers say they have struggled, in particular, with customers who have signed up for coverage outside regular enrollment windows and then dumped expensive claims on their books, a problem the government has said it would address.
A dozen nonprofit health insurance cooperatives created by the ACA to sell coverage on the exchanges have already folded, and the survivors all lost millions last year.
Other publicly traded insurers like Aetna have said that they have lost money on this business as well. But some companies, like Molina Healthcare, have said they have managed to turn a profit from the exchanges.
Analysts expect other insurers to also trim their exchange participation in 2017, especially if they continue to struggle with high costs.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/...tcmp=hpbt2


"Don't worry, we're from the government and we're here to help."

Compensation for Hemsley last year....66 MILLION dollars. They aren't losing money. They're making money. Tons of it. They just don't want to cover the sick. Just the well. BCBS of Texas/Illinois put 12.2 Billion into reserves then paid their top level execs 200 million plus in one year. If they're paying their execs like this while LOSING money, they're either defrauding the shareholders or the mutual holders. The mutual holders of BCBS are suing. They should be.

Barring the best solution, which is simply putting everyone on Medicare is to require any Medicare insurance company to provide Obamacare qualified insurance policies. And for every facility taking Medicare insurance to accept Obamacare plans.

The next step isn't going to be less government in healthcare, but more of it. And the GOP has no solution for healthcare other than to funnel massive dollars to non-doctor healthcare execs and to deny coverage to even more Americans.

Nominee for most ignorant post of the year

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

(04-20-2016 04:01 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Its becoming obvious that the private healthcare model is a failure.

There has never truly been a private health model.

Be nice if that was actually attempted

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

(04-21-2016 08:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, you aren't losing money if you're paying your CEO 66 million. If you are losing money, you're looting your customers, your stakeholders, or your shareholders.
The problem in health care is that there is way too much compensation and too much incentive to deny coverage.
Forcing everyone to either be 'in the system' or 'outside of the system' and combining Medicare and Obamacare would ensure that there's less discrimination against sick persons. And that institutions and insurance companies cannot create buckets to avoid caring for certain segments of the population.
Single payer is obviously the next step.

I find it simply mind-boggling that anyone can seriously believe that single-payer will solve any of the problems.

With single-payer, you don't get the health care you need, you get the health care that some unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat budgeted. And if you actually need any of the care, you get to take a number and queue up.

(04-21-2016 09:12 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 10:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 06:50 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  "UnitedHealth, nation's largest health insurer, bolts, fears huge losses"

Quote:UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley said the company expects losses from its exchange business to total more than $1 billion for this year and last....

"We continue to remain an advocate for more stable and sustainable approaches to serving this market,"...

A recent study by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association detailed how many new customers nationwide under ObamaCare are higher-risk. It found new enrollees in individual health plans in 2014 and 2015 had higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, depression, coronary artery disease, HIV and Hepatitis C than those enrolled before ObamaCare...

The Kaiser Family Foundation, in an analysis on the prospect of United's exit, said “the effect on insurer competition could be significant in some markets – particularly in rural areas and southern states” if it is not replaced.
In the most extreme scenario, “If United were to leave the exchange market overall, 1.8 million Marketplace enrollees would be left with two insurers, and another 1.1 million would be left with one insurer as a result of the withdrawal,” the analysis said...

Insurers say they have struggled, in particular, with customers who have signed up for coverage outside regular enrollment windows and then dumped expensive claims on their books, a problem the government has said it would address.
A dozen nonprofit health insurance cooperatives created by the ACA to sell coverage on the exchanges have already folded, and the survivors all lost millions last year.
Other publicly traded insurers like Aetna have said that they have lost money on this business as well. But some companies, like Molina Healthcare, have said they have managed to turn a profit from the exchanges.
Analysts expect other insurers to also trim their exchange participation in 2017, especially if they continue to struggle with high costs.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/...tcmp=hpbt2


"Don't worry, we're from the government and we're here to help."

Compensation for Hemsley last year....66 MILLION dollars. They aren't losing money. They're making money. Tons of it. They just don't want to cover the sick. Just the well. BCBS of Texas/Illinois put 12.2 Billion into reserves then paid their top level execs 200 million plus in one year. If they're paying their execs like this while LOSING money, they're either defrauding the shareholders or the mutual holders. The mutual holders of BCBS are suing. They should be.

Barring the best solution, which is simply putting everyone on Medicare is to require any Medicare insurance company to provide Obamacare qualified insurance policies. And for every facility taking Medicare insurance to accept Obamacare plans.

The next step isn't going to be less government in healthcare, but more of it. And the GOP has no solution for healthcare other than to funnel massive dollars to non-doctor healthcare execs and to deny coverage to even more Americans.

Nominee for most ignorant post of the year

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

concur....flossing with arse hair causes drain bramage

IIRC doesn't Tom have diabetes?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

(04-21-2016 09:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 08:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, you aren't losing money if you're paying your CEO 66 million. If you are losing money, you're looting your customers, your stakeholders, or your shareholders.
The problem in health care is that there is way too much compensation and too much incentive to deny coverage.
Forcing everyone to either be 'in the system' or 'outside of the system' and combining Medicare and Obamacare would ensure that there's less discrimination against sick persons. And that institutions and insurance companies cannot create buckets to avoid caring for certain segments of the population.
Single payer is obviously the next step.

I find it simply mind-boggling that anyone can seriously believe that single-payer will solve any of the problems.

With single-payer, you don't get the health care you need, you get the health care that some unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat budgeted. And if you actually need any of the care, you get to take a number and queue up.

well, they do get to continually thumptap and yap as that ticker tocks along with the worthless....so there is that residual benefit....

that is the dumbest shite on the planet as she rotates today.....

(04-21-2016 09:22 PM)maximus Wrote:  IIRC doesn't Tom have diabetes?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

I had pneumonia in december....

I don't give a shite if he has aids....

doesn't mean one fk'n thing relative to the topic......

some of yaz don't have a fk'n clue how a business should be run.....

(04-21-2016 09:29 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 09:22 PM)maximus Wrote:  IIRC doesn't Tom have diabetes?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

I had pneumonia in december....

I don't give a shite if he has aids....

doesn't mean one fk'n thing relative to the topic......

some of yaz don't have a fk'n clue how a business should be run.....

Don't quite get where you're going with this post. I was going somewhere with mine if what I said was correct

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

(04-21-2016 09:32 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 09:29 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 09:22 PM)maximus Wrote:  IIRC doesn't Tom have diabetes?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

I had pneumonia in december....

I don't give a shite if he has aids....

doesn't mean one fk'n thing relative to the topic......

some of yaz don't have a fk'n clue how a business should be run.....

Don't quite get where you're going with this post. I was going somewhere with mine if what I said was correct

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

why does 'his' matter? what does it have to do with the topic?

my bil's father was the oldest living ever in the 'sip with type 2 and my niece has that too.....so fk'n what.....

what the fk does that have do with the topic....

am I supposed to sympathize for substandard care and more puppies that get sick that is subsidized by lunacy........ummmmmkay

The problem is that for the 50 million of us with pre-existing conditions, we don't need a 'business based' model because every business based model will result in denials of care.

(04-21-2016 10:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem is that for the 50 million of us with pre-existing conditions, we don't need a 'business based' model because every business based model will result in denials of care.

I'm just going to echo Owl's continual hammering.....

http://healthmatters4.blogspot.com/2011/...model.html

but you dimwhigs can continue to pump out as much bs as you choose.....I've flushed yaz moving forward and backward....

(04-21-2016 10:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem is that for the 50 million of us with pre-existing conditions, we don't need a 'business based' model because every business based model will result in denials of care.

As will every other model.

What you don't seem to realize is that single-payer will result in even more denials of care--with no alternative. In a single-payer system, you don't get the health care that you need, you get the health care that is in the budget. In any kind of multiple-payer model, if your payer denies, you can find another payer. In single-payer, you can't do that. If we go to single-payer, I hope you enjoy Mumbai.

(04-22-2016 05:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 10:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem is that for the 50 million of us with pre-existing conditions, we don't need a 'business based' model because every business based model will result in denials of care.

As will every other model.

What you don't seem to realize is that single-payer will result in even more denials of care--with no alternative. In a single-payer system, you don't get the health care that you need, you get the health care that is in the budget. In any kind of multiple-payer model, if your payer denies, you can find another payer. In single-payer, you can't do that. If we go to single-payer, I hope you enjoy Mumbai.

The model for the single payer system is the VA Medical System. Damn, I can hardly wait.

(04-22-2016 05:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 10:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem is that for the 50 million of us with pre-existing conditions, we don't need a 'business based' model because every business based model will result in denials of care.

As will every other model.

What you don't seem to realize is that single-payer will result in even more denials of care--with no alternative. In a single-payer system, you don't get the health care that you need, you get the health care that is in the budget. In any kind of multiple-payer model, if your payer denies, you can find another payer. In single-payer, you can't do that. If we go to single-payer, I hope you enjoy Mumbai.

I've already had to use Mexico for medical care. What's the difference?

Charging me 1000 times the "I work for Shell" rate for medical care isn't a real choice.

The difference is that using our current system, I pay for just about every hospital to be supported, even if I am severely discriminated against in access to those hospitals.

What value does our insurance system provide to the system? They're just rent takers, siphoning of billions for extremely high compensation and providing no value to the system or to their customers.

(04-21-2016 10:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem is that for the 50 million of us with pre-existing conditions, we don't need a 'business based' model because every business based model will result in denials of care.

You pretend denials of care don't happen in single payer systems... That's cute..

(04-21-2016 08:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, you aren't losing money if you're paying your CEO 66 million. If you are losing money, you're looting your customers, your stakeholders, or your shareholders.

The problem in health care is that there is way too much compensation and too much incentive to deny coverage.

Forcing everyone to either be 'in the system' or 'outside of the system' and combining Medicare and Obamacare would ensure that there's less discrimination against sick persons. And that institutions and insurance companies cannot create buckets to avoid caring for certain segments of the population.

Single payer is obviously the next step.

What's funny is that conservatives made this point during the Obamacare fight. We said this will fail badly and is being set up to promote single payer..

Several years later what are we seeing?

(04-22-2016 10:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I've already had to use Mexico for medical care. What's the difference?

At least you're prepared for what you're going to be up against.

I pay an annual fee to have guaranteed admission to a hospital in another country, just in case. I'm that pessimistic about our chances.

(04-22-2016 10:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 05:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 10:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem is that for the 50 million of us with pre-existing conditions, we don't need a 'business based' model because every business based model will result in denials of care.

As will every other model.

What you don't seem to realize is that single-payer will result in even more denials of care--with no alternative. In a single-payer system, you don't get the health care that you need, you get the health care that is in the budget. In any kind of multiple-payer model, if your payer denies, you can find another payer. In single-payer, you can't do that. If we go to single-payer, I hope you enjoy Mumbai.

I've already had to use Mexico for medical care. What's the difference?

Charging me 1000 times the "I work for Shell" rate for medical care isn't a real choice.

The difference is that using our current system, I pay for just about every hospital to be supported, even if I am severely discriminated against in access to those hospitals.

What value does our insurance system provide to the system? They're just rent takers, siphoning of billions for extremely high compensation and providing no value to the system or to their customers.

to drive it down to brass tacks....boomers are aging/dying....it's a simple numbers game...

when the boomers are gone, this cuntry is really fk'd

hence, costa

(04-22-2016 10:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The difference is that using our current system, I pay for just about every hospital to be supported, even if I am severely discriminated against in access to those hospitals.

As always this is what everything boils down to for Tom... I'm not happy people don't celebrate me so I want to blow it all up.

Quote:What value does our insurance system provide to the system?

What value do auto insurance companies add? It's an *INSURANCE* company. They provide you with risk absorption. The calculate the odds that *you* will need something and poll you with similar people and charge based on what they expect to pay out.

They actually don't usually make any money on your premiums. They make their money by *investing* your premium and keeping the difference as they pay out.

When my Wife got sick I know for a fact they spent more treating her than I ever put into the system on her behalf. for that to happen, they needed someone else to pay in more than they take out.

Quote:They're just rent takers, siphoning of billions for extremely high compensation and providing no value to the system or to their customers.

So don't get insurance then.. Pay for everything out of Pocket... I mean after all Tom if they don't do *ANYTHING* just don't buy it. After all America is a free country...

Or we were anyway.

(04-22-2016 10:10 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 10:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-22-2016 05:09 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-21-2016 10:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem is that for the 50 million of us with pre-existing conditions, we don't need a 'business based' model because every business based model will result in denials of care.

As will every other model.

What you don't seem to realize is that single-payer will result in even more denials of care--with no alternative. In a single-payer system, you don't get the health care that you need, you get the health care that is in the budget. In any kind of multiple-payer model, if your payer denies, you can find another payer. In single-payer, you can't do that. If we go to single-payer, I hope you enjoy Mumbai.

I've already had to use Mexico for medical care. What's the difference?

Charging me 1000 times the "I work for Shell" rate for medical care isn't a real choice.

The difference is that using our current system, I pay for just about every hospital to be supported, even if I am severely discriminated against in access to those hospitals.

What value does our insurance system provide to the system? They're just rent takers, siphoning of billions for extremely high compensation and providing no value to the system or to their customers.

to drive it down to brass tacks....boomers are aging/dying....it's a simple numbers game...

when the boomers are gone, this cuntry is really fk'd

hence, costa

As the boomer kick off costa will come to us...