Yeah.... about that.

Quote:On Oct. 1, 2013 President Barack Obama lauded the opening of the Affordable Care Act’s new health insurance exchanges and claimed, “You’ll find more choices, more competition, and in many cases, lower prices.”

...Thus, for residents of more than one-third of all U.S. counties (36.3 percent) exchange competition is limited to an insurer monopoly or duopoly, and almost two-thirds (63 percent) of U.S. counties have three or fewer insurers offering exchange coverage.

So that's three strikes right?

Obama's comment is referring to choices with the exchanges that you didn't have before them at a specific moment in time, in 2013. He doesn't mean that year after year that more competition and choices will become available and that prices will necessarily always lower.

Here's the quote in context:

Quote:Just visit healthcare.gov, and there you can compare insurance plans, side by side, the same way you’d shop for a plane ticket on Kayak or a TV on Amazon. You enter some basic information, you’ll be presented with a list of quality, affordable plans that are available in your area, with clear descriptions of what each plan covers, and what it will cost. You’ll find more choices, more competition, and in many cases, lower prices -- most uninsured Americans will find that they can get covered for $100 or less.

And you don't have to take my word for it. Go on the website, healthcare.gov, check it out for yourself. And then show it to your family and your friends and help them get covered

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off...t-shutdown

Your linked article is talking about what is happening now that the ACA is getting older. And yes, many of the choices are going away. But there's some valid reasons for that. The industry is removing options that nobody is choosing and correcting other policies so they fit better with the law. In addition, as more and more people become insured, there will be less of a need for more options.

Quote:Carriers are becoming more knowledgeable about who they are insuring and how to navigate a more tightly regulated market. As they do, they are refining their product offerings.

Premiums for the second-lowest-cost silver plans are creeping up, seeing their biggest increase in year three. However – despite concerns about dramatic rate hikes – overall growth still holds steady with that in the employer market. Carriers also are reducing the number of plans they sell and are steering away from platinum plans altogether.

With real money left to capture in the market, there is still opportunity for carriers to enter, or to expand their current footprint. However, to do so successfully will require understanding this new landscape.

ACA Exchange Insights

(03-31-2016 04:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Obama's comment is referring to choices with the exchanges that you didn't have before them at a specific moment in time, in 2013. He doesn't mean that year after year that more competition and choices will become available and that prices will necessarily always lower.

Here's the quote in context:

Quote:Just visit healthcare.gov, and there you can compare insurance plans, side by side, the same way you’d shop for a plane ticket on Kayak or a TV on Amazon. You enter some basic information, you’ll be presented with a list of quality, affordable plans that are available in your area, with clear descriptions of what each plan covers, and what it will cost. You’ll find more choices, more competition, and in many cases, lower prices -- most uninsured Americans will find that they can get covered for $100 or less.

And you don't have to take my word for it. Go on the website, healthcare.gov, check it out for yourself. And then show it to your family and your friends and help them get covered

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off...t-shutdown

Your linked article is talking about what is happening now that the ACA is getting older. And yes, many of the choices are going away. But there's some valid reasons for that. The industry is removing options that nobody is choosing and correcting other policies so they fit better with the law. In addition, as more and more people become insured, there will be less of a need for more options.

Quote:Carriers are becoming more knowledgeable about who they are insuring and how to navigate a more tightly regulated market. As they do, they are refining their product offerings.

Premiums for the second-lowest-cost silver plans are creeping up, seeing their biggest increase in year three. However – despite concerns about dramatic rate hikes – overall growth still holds steady with that in the employer market. Carriers also are reducing the number of plans they sell and are steering away from platinum plans altogether.

With real money left to capture in the market, there is still opportunity for carriers to enter, or to expand their current footprint. However, to do so successfully will require understanding this new landscape.

ACA Exchange Insights

Yeah... that's why BCBS may be getting out of NC altogether even though they insure over 70% of the state right?

What does that have to do with your original post? And to the out of context quote that I addressed? Little to nothing.

But since you brought it up. Could this have something to do with it?

Quote:The department said it has received more than 850 complaints since Jan. 4 related to overbilling, inability to verify effective coverage, and lack of a way to pay premiums due to company system errors.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina said Jan. 11 that about 3,200 customers had the incorrect amount deducted from their checks, but said a day later that most of the issues had been resolved.

NC officials swamped with complaints about Blue Cross/Blue Shield

no. 3200 customers or 850 complaints is a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of policies. Insurance companies get complaints all the time... like literally all the time. They are in the business of making money, not friends.... and they can't make money, so they are stopping. The complaints you're talking about look like simple accounting errors... and most of them were solved in a day.

"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."

(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."

Somebody is going to need to carry a huge amount of water for this one.

A fundamental problem with Obamacare is that

Quote: ObamaCare.....makes it economically rational for consumers to wait until they are about to incur major medical expenses to get covered, and administratively created “special enrollment periods” encourage such gaming....calculates that people who signed up during one of these windows—about one of five ObamaCare beneficiaries—are 10% more expensive than people who join during normal periods and 40% more likely to drop their plan later.

Link

(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.

(04-20-2016 10:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  [b]The next step isn't going to be less government in healthcare, but more of it. [/b]

Probably the plan all along. How else can one explain this mess?

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

And the certain result is that health care will get worse, no better. The left isn't interested in improving health care, they're interested primarily in f-king over the American people.

(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.

Its the libturd way. They see something ******, and they want more of it.

Cant fend for themselves. Cant be financially responsible for themselves. Cant decide which bathroom they want to use.

Put everyone on Medicare/VA care and then the government is making decisions on who gets what care based on their bottom line and adds to bureaucracy, bloat and waste since the government tends to do everything much less efficiently than the private sector, answers to no one and can't be sued.

At least with a private insurer if you are denied care you can sue.
You can't sue the government if you are denied care.

Whoohoo VA care for everyone! Where do I sign up?

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

What do you think the benefit is in having Medicare insurance companies provide Obamacare compliant policies for those of us not on Medicare?

(04-20-2016 03:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

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

What do you think the benefit is in having Medicare insurance companies provide Obamacare compliant policies for those of us not on Medicare?

Because every insurance company wants to issue Medicare policies. Its obscenely profitable for them. That's how United Healthcare pays 66 million to its CEO a year. Its how BCBS of Texas/Illinois pays 200+ million to its top execs. They aren't losing money. They just put all of the people who file claims into one pool so they can claim they're losing money. But they won't release detailed financials on their plans so we can establish what's going on.

Don't allow them to take the profitable traunch of the business unless they serve the 'less profitable' traunch.

(04-20-2016 03:32 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Put everyone on Medicare/VA care and then the government is making decisions on who gets what care based on their bottom line and adds to bureaucracy, bloat and waste since the government tends to do everything much less efficiently than the private sector, answers to no one and can't be sued.

At least with a private insurer if you are denied care you can sue.
You can't sue the government if you are denied care.

Whoohoo VA care for everyone! Where do I sign up?

Guaranteed lifetime protection from 'all your money or your life' medical costs? Sign me up now.

When the government pays for health care, you get the care they want to give you, basically the care they put in their budget, not the care you want or need to get.

As long as you have a way to get the care you need, like with Bismarck, it can work. But otherwise no go.

(04-20-2016 03:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

And the certain result is that health care will get worse, no better. The left isn't interested in improving health care, they're interested primarily in f-king over the American people.

If you have no access to healthcare, there's no improvement. And that's the GOP plan. No access. Get sick before you turn 65, lose everything because there's no entitlement to reasonably priced healthcare. Run out of money before 65...just die.

The problem is the 66 million dollar compensation.

(04-20-2016 10:28 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Compensation for Hemsley last year....66 MILLION dollars. They aren't losing money. They're making money. Tons of it.

They never said they were losing money overall... They're simply losing money in THIS product. You don't stay in business by losing money in products unless that product brings in 'captive' customers (like a grocer that loses $1 on coke so that they can make $5 on produce). There is no 'tie' here to other business to necessitate a loss leader... and even at $66mm, that still means they would have lost 934myn on this product. Who else are you going to cut?

Quote:They just don't want to cover the sick. Just the well.

Do you HONESTLY believe this? You're not a dumb person Tom, which is why when you say things like this, you come across as someone more interested in 'winning' than truth. They are MORE than happy to cover the sick, in fact, they have no reason for people to be well. They generally make a percentage of the spending... and healthy people mean less spending... It's just stupid to price a product below what it costs to produce it. Insurance is math, not magic.

Quote:BCBS of Texas/Illinois put 12.2 Billion into reserves

And what do you think THAT means? Do you really not know or are you once again, more interested in winning than truth?

Quote: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.

So now they're only losing $800mm. Keep going!!

Once again, you don't get it. First, the mutual is by definition a separate company... and there is a formula for 'profits' within the mutual. Sure, the mutual contributes to the salaries of the executives, but even if we assign 100% of their salaries to the one (likely relatively small) entity of 'mutual healthcare', you're still only 20% of the way to solvency.

FTR, mutual health insurance companies are a VERY new thing... not because insurers didn't want it (there have been mutual P&C companies for a generation) but because of the difference between drivers of costs in healthcare vs P&C. Moreover, the lawsuit isn't about profits as you imply, but merely about competition. Something that the ACA said it would address, but obviously didn't. It's very difficult to have a 'mutual' insurance company when the government is paying/subsidizing the premiums. Who is the 'owner'? Wherever you are getting your information from is simply trying to crete the impression of impropriety

Quote: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.

I agree that this accomplishes the stated goals... and have said so repeatedly... we can debate whether or not it is best, but it certainly accomplishes the stated goals the simplest and cleanest... so the question is, why wasn't THIS Obamacare? I have my opinions, but I'm interested to see if you or ANY leftists care to respond to this. Don't tell me it had anything to do with 'the right'. They had complete control for 2 years and could have solved all of these issues they say are so important... Campaign Finance, Discrimination, ETC ETC. They didn't. They put THIS forward... Warts and all. They own it, all by themselves. Why DIDN'T they simply expand Medicare? Tax mechanism was already in place. Physician networks already existed. Supplemental insurance policies already in place... and MOST of all, all of it already under the auspices of the government... meaning while the bureaucracy might have to expand somewhat to accommodate the higher numbers, there would be no need for a DUPLICATION of it or for IRS penalties or anything else. It's a simple payroll deduction. Exempt everyone below $x... uncap the earnings base... even increase the tax for higher incomes. None of this 'penalty that is a tax, but isn't not' nonsense.... Seriously, it would have been SO much simpler? Why has the 'Cadillac tax' been delayed? I would have thought that would have been the first 'cost' included in the passage. Wouldn't a Democrat want to START by taking money from the rich first?

So why didn't they?

Quote: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.

Funny that you complain that massive dollars are being funneled to non-doctor execs (which is essentially redundant, by the way) and that coverage is being denied as a result of the ACA, but blaming Republicans for it?

I agree that is the next step if Hillary is elected... because I believe that was the goal all along. Spend trillions to promise people something they didn't have, and then have to spend trillions more to actually deliver what they promised... because to then try and take it away would be political suicide. It's a HUGE power grab by the government. A government I'd note to you is often 'not on your side'. I'm surprised that Democrats can't see beyond the next election about the risk of powerful central government.

Also, to think that just because someone is a doctor that they know how to run an insurance company is rather foolish, don't you think? Sure, some of them are qualified by virtue of an MHA/MBA etc... but all that does is remove them from the practice of medicine. A doctor who is an executive is a 'part time' employee of both at best... assuming they are actually qualified. I'd rather have a doctor practice medicine and a businessman run the business... or perhaps have an MD/MHA with a businessman 'right hand' AND another physician to cover half of their patient load. Either way, you've got a non-physician executive in there serving a vital purpose. More pertinent, there's no shortage of MBAs but there is a shortage of doctors. I see no reason to INSIST that we further drain an already shallow pool.

You don't need to be a great athlete or musician to be a great agent or manager, do you? and if you're managing the business, who is caring for your patients?

(04-20-2016 03:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-20-2016 03:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

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

And the certain result is that health care will get worse, no better. The left isn't interested in improving health care, they're interested primarily in f-king over the American people.

If you have no access to healthcare, there's no improvement. And that's the GOP plan. No access. Get sick before you turn 65, lose everything because there's no entitlement to reasonably priced healthcare. Run out of money before 65...just die.

The problem is the 66 million dollar compensation.

That hyperbolic rant is not an accurate description of what happened before Obamacare. Isolated cases, yes. General rule, no.

As for your problems with the compensation, that's nothing but your greed and envy showing through once again.