Aetna signficantly reducing Obamacare participation

[Phynaz]

Try responding to what I actually said and not what you think I said.

Your link backs my claim btw.

Learn how to write properly and people will be able to understand you.

Which link? I posted three. You probalby couldn't count that high.

 

[UNCjigga]

As I'm sure you are aware, the Republicans would like to privatize the VA. What could possibly go wrong with a private health care system? /s

It's worked wonders for privatized Federal prisons!!!

 

[Texashiker]

Because it worked so well in Canada and the UK, right? Oh, wait...

The only real answer is complete socialized medicine - government forbid private ownership of hospitals and clinics, cost controls for manufacturers, make all health providers government employees.

 

[ivwshane]

Learn how to write properly and people will be able to understand you.

Which link? I posted three. You probalby couldn't count that high.

The words, "Republican" and "started" weren't anywhere in my post.

Your first two links back up my claims.

 

[werepossum]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/04/u...es-seek-big-rate-increases-for-2016.html?_r=0

http://www.tennessean.com/story/mon...ross-requests-rate-increase-percent/12730893/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...amacare-rate-increases-so-large/#2c5282e0194b

Personally, Obamacare has helped me go from a $1,400 deductible to a $6,000 deductible, with our premiums roughly doubled. We switched from Blue Cross Blue Shield Tennessee this year because our premium increase was 67%. One year, 67%. For 2017 - 2018, they are asking for an even larger increase than the 2016 increase. Please, please don't help me no more, Uncle Sugar, I'm dying as fast as I can.

Though I'm not real happy with BCBS-T either. The rate increase approved was something like 18 - 32% if memory serves. Obviously 67% is not within that range. Hell, adding the upper and lower boundaries doesn't reach 67%. I know you guys have lost tons of money the last few years, but WTF?

 

[werepossum]

Post 1: The US is the best of the best in HIV care
Post 2: Well, the US care of HIV patients isn't that great because of immigrants

Nice flip-flop John Kerry.

Explain this to me then.
You think its immigrants that are causing poor outcomes. What is the HIV rate of all these immigrants?
Better yet, explain a surrogate value. If almost a majority of immigrants (illegal or legal) immigrants are from Mexico and Latin America, why is the HIV mortality rate the following?

Mortality rate due to HIV
Hispanic race: 2.1 per 100,000
Non-hispanic race: 2.1 per 100,000
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf


And why did you post that study from earlier? I'm still waiting on that one.

Two points here. First, your link is of deaths per standard US population. Since we don't treat the entire population fro HIV/AIDS, that's a pretty poor metric of treatment efficacy. As an example, a nation which had mandatory HIV testing and executed anyone testing positive would have near-zero mortality from AIDS, whereas a nation with a very high percentage of infected would have a high mortality even with the best treatment in the world.

Second, most AIDS patients admitted as immigrants are admitted as special class immigrants - literally refugees from a disease - not simply people who stroll in. No reason to assume they are largely Hispanic.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Again, national defense benefits all of us and relatively equally, medicine does not. How hard is that to understand? If the Chinese invade us we all suffer. OTOH you don't get the government to extort money from me at figurative gunpoint to pay for your heart surgery then you die but I'm also not made a lot poorer.

And why can't you just answer the question? If you big city progressives think it's such a great idea, why are there not public clinics filling your cities ensuring your poorer citizens have their medical needs met? Why wait for a law to be passed to force the mean, greedy ol' red state flyover yokels to participate before you do the right thing as you see it?

Because a good chunk of our tax money already goes to supporting Red States.
Drum hat please

...I'm partially kidding...

 

[Jaskalas]

Personally, Obamacare has...

What you are experiencing is healthcare on a for profit system.

Prices were kept low by denying sick people. That is no longer possible, so the true cost of insurance... aka subsiding others, is being exposed. Healthcare is a massive expense and needs to be bankrolled by our currency if we insist on continuing with it.

 

[glenn1]

Because a good chunk of our tax money already goes to supporting Red States.
Drum hat please

...I'm partially kidding...

And yet with your charity so high you can't afford (or are unwilling) to implement this great idea even for yourselves, you want to implement it for all thus obligating yourself to an even higher chunk of tax money going to Red States. My, that does sound like a quite a problem you've created for yourself. Quite a shame it's preventing you from implementing your <sarcasm> great idea </saracasm>.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

And yet with your charity so high you can't afford (or are unwilling) to implement this great idea even for yourselves, you want to implement it for all thus obligating yourself to an even higher chunk of tax money going to Red States. My, that does sound like a quite a problem you've created for yourself. Quite a shame it's preventing you from implementing your <sarcasm> great idea </saracasm>.

I live in MA, the Romney care place that started the ACA. We have pretty high insurance compliance.
You know the answer to your question is you can't have City or even State only healthcare because it would be far too easy to game. Someone rents an apartment then immediately gets expensive care and moves away after treatment.
MA wanted a State run health plan for all since Dukakis but the above scenario was its fail point. That's why it has to be national.

 

[theeedude]

Dying throes of for profit health insurance. It will get ugly before it gets better.

 

[glenn1]

I live in MA, the Romney care place that started the ACA. We have pretty high insurance compliance.
You know the answer to your question is you can't have City or even State only healthcare because it would be far too easy to game. Someone rents an apartment then immediately gets expensive care and moves away after treatment.
MA wanted a State run health plan for all since Dukakis but the above scenario was its fail point. That's why it has to be national.

Oh yes, all those poor people without insurance you care so much about are known for how much disposable income they have to do things like rent an apartment in a city/state they don't intend to live in. Fortunately it would be pretty easy for you to impose a minimum residence length requirement prior to treatment to stop exactly this type of system gaming.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Oh yes, all those poor people without insurance you care so much about are known for how much disposable income they have to do things like rent an apartment in a city/state they don't intend to live in. Fortunately it would be pretty easy for you to impose a minimum residence length requirement prior to treatment to stop exactly this type of system gaming.

Minimum residence was talked about but then you're back to either treat them or let them die in the streets.
Glenn you're a smart guy you can figure this out

 

[glenn1]

Minimum residence was talked about but then you're back to either treat them or let them die in the streets.
Glenn you're a smart guy you can figure this out

So you're picking die on streets just like me, only you're doing it for selfish financial reasons rather for moral hazard reasons like me.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

So you're picking die on streets just like me, only you're doing it for selfish financial reasons rather for moral hazard reasons like me.

Glenn you're being a sophist. You're looking to argue over something just because you want to prove yourself superior. I'm done its pointless.

 

[Paratus]

So you're picking die on streets just like me, only you're doing it for selfish financial reasons rather for moral hazard reasons like me.

Moral Hazard!

Sorry Timmy, if we treat your cancer without you paying you might not learn to be self sufficient. Better to die.

We did however contribute to a charity but it turned out they spent 97% of every dollar on themselves. Next time we'll try and research who we contribute too.
http://www.tampabay.com/topics/specials/worst-charities1.page

Anyway I'm off to my doctors appointment paid for by the VA / Medicare / Employer subsidized insurance which I payed for so no moral hazard for me having someone else contribute to my care.

 

[glenn1]

Moral Hazard!

Sorry Timmy, if we treat your cancer without you paying you might not learn to be self sufficient. Better to die.

We did however contribute to a charity but it turned out they spent 97% of every dollar on themselves. Next time we'll try and research who we contribute too.
http://www.tampabay.com/topics/specials/worst-charities1.page

Anyway I'm off to my doctors appointment paid for by the VA / Medicare / Employer subsidized insurance which I payed for so no moral hazard for me having someone else contribute to my care.

Yeah, better we should allow them to die because if you set up "free healthcare" in your own state the "wrong' kind of people might move in and not maintain residency for long enough and we can't tolerate THAT kind of moral hazard. Better to keep your money in your pockets and not offer "free" care to your citizens until those leech Red Staters get forced into universal care as well. And then you can still pay for them since don't you already complain about how Blue States pay for all the welfare for Red States anyway? I guess either way some people get to die.

 

[ivwshane]

Yeah, better we should allow them to die because if you set up "free healthcare" in your own state the "wrong' kind of people might move in and not maintain residency for long enough and we can't tolerate THAT kind of moral hazard. Better to keep your money in your pockets and not offer "free" care to your citizens until those leech Red Staters get forced into universal care as well. And then you can still pay for them since don't you already complain about how Blue States pay for all the welfare for Red States anyway? I guess either way some people get to die.

Complain? No, we simply point it out to idiots like you who complain about taxes and liberal policies.

 

[Darwin333]

Healthcare for profit is a nasty system.
Insurance providers rely on profit, and sick people do not generate profit.
Naturally, if any insurer is not making a bucket full of money, or too many sick people
show up at their door, that provider will freak.

We have to realize what is going on here.
Insurance companies are in the business of insuring, but not in the business of losing.
Paying a claim is always a loss for them.

Insurance companies and providers are just like any other business out for profit,
During the board meeting, companies expect to show a gain in profits during the next year.
To project a healthy gain in profits from their last year, year after year, Never ending profit gain.
Exactly as the Walmart's, Best Buys, or pizza shacks down the street.
Insurance companies expect profits to rise too.
If not, they must do something drastic to change that.
Which is all good and dandy if...... that business is selling pizza or electronics.
But when selling health and healthcare, and dealing with the sick?
A system reliant on profit? Not so good.

All health coverage world wide should be based on single payer and universal insurance.
For the sake of all humanity.
Profiting off the sick is not the best idea ever invented, and it weakens society as a whole.
There are plenty of products and services that make for good business.
Pizza, stereos, TV's, cars, houses, clothes, and so on.
But treating healthcare as a business, given all business strives for profit, is a train wreck in the making.
No society nor business can strive or survive relying on healthcare for their financial profits.
For the sake of society and the strength of the any nation, only their government should control healthcare.
And if government is not capable of taking on such a task, government needs to be fixed so that it can.

Government is fix-able and universal healthcare is do-able.
We just need builders and creators to set up the system, and never politicians.
Put smart people in charge, builders and thinkers, like Trump hires to make his golf courses.
And government healthcare must be totally insulated from politics, because politicians only smell the money and that amounts to nothing more than the failed healthcare for profit system we now have.

How is that any different from the healthcare providers? All those places that do your lab work or MRI or whatever are in it for profit. All of the drug companies that provide the medication we take do it for profit. The people that make bandages are in for profit. The doctors, nurses, most hospitals and even most ambulance services are in it for profit. Basically every aspect of healthcare is for profit, so why single out just the insurers with that argument?

Health insurance is not as expensive as it is because of the insurers profits. It's as expensive as it is because the underlying product, healthcare is so damn expensive. Look at the cost the government pays for Medicare and Medicaid, at the current rate of inflation in healthcare costs above normal inflation the government won't be able to afford our current Medicare and Medicaid costs in a decade or so. Since Obamacare was instituted Medicare and Medicaid costs have risen by about 9% a year while tax receipts have risen by under 2% a year and exponential growth is a bitch.

 

[werepossum]

What you are experiencing is healthcare on a for profit system.

Prices were kept low by denying sick people. That is no longer possible, so the true cost of insurance... aka subsiding others, is being exposed. Healthcare is a massive expense and needs to be bankrolled by our currency if we insist on continuing with it.

Actually my insurance until July was a not-for-profit. One of our local hospital chains is for-profit, one is not. Every nurse and doctor and health care provider business I use is for-profit. So the only way your point is valid is if you propose to federalize the entire health care industry. Personally, I am not looking forward to my health care becoming the model of efficiency that I see in my friends' VA system, whose ONLY advantage is that it is free.