One-third of US won't have a choice between Obamacare plans in 2017

NAC4EV

Golden Member
Feb 26, 2015
1,882
754
136
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/19/one-...ml?__source=msn|money|headline|story|&par=msn

It's looking like a lot of people are going to have little Obamacare choice next year.
One-third of the United States may have just a single insurer to pick from on Obamacare marketplaces in 2017, an analysis released Friday suggests.
Seven entire states are projected to have just one carrier in 2017: Alaska, Alabama, Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wyoming, according to research by the Avalere consultancy.
And more than half of the country, 55 percent, may end up having two or fewer insurers to choose from on those government-run exchanges, Avalere said.*
"And there may be some sub-region counties where no plans are available," a report by Avalere on its analysis found.
The findings reflect the effect of announcements this summer that three major insurers — Aetna (AET), UnitedHealth (UNH), and Humana (HUM) — will sharply reduce the number of areas where they will sell individual health plans in 2017 due to financial losses on those plans, as well as the failures of most Obamacare co-op insurance plans.
The analysis relates to the number of insurers in a given "rating region," not the number of plans available. A single insurer can offer multiple plans at different price points, and at different levels of coverage.
The analysis, which assumes no new plans will enter the markets losing those insurers, is sobering news for many consumers, about 11.1 million of whom are now covered by plans sold on the exchanges.
The Obama administration, when asked about 2017 Obamacare insurance premiums that are on track to be significantly higher than in past years, has repeatedly said that consumers can shop around between plans for better prices. But in areas where this is no or little competition, price shopping will be less of an option.
Pinal County, Arizona, is one place that is, as of now, not expected to have an Obamacare insurer to choose from on the federal HealthCare.gov exchange next year. The county near Phoenix, which has 400,000 residents, has seen two insurers, United Health and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona decided to exit the area
Avalere noted that in 2016, only 4 percent of rating regions — the geographic areas that insurance plans cover — had just one or fewer insurers offering plans. And only 33 percent of the country had two or fewer insurers.
"Depending on where consumers live, their choice of insurance plans may decrease for 2017," said Elizabeth Carpenter, Avalere senior vice president. "Some exchange enrollees may need to choose another insurance plan in order to maintain coverage."
Avalere President Dan Mendelson said that the decrease in competition in Obamacare plans is the result of lower-than-expected enrollment, consumers who are costing insurers a lot in health-care benefits, and "troubled" programs that were intended to reduce the risk insurers face by selling coverage on the exchanges.
"Congress and the administration can choose to stabilize these markets and re-establish competition — but only through a consensus process that brings in a brings in a broader swath of the uninsured," Mendelson said.


 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,466
10,746
136
You could start by removing the formatting.

As for the ACA, we know it's supposed to implode. Only our currency can bankroll expensive American healthcare. If our people want to continue seeing a doctor, that'll be Congress's next step.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
It won't be long before the usual idiots come in to explain how this disaster passed without a single R vote is the fault of the R's. Remember, "if you like your current plan, you can keep it!", and "you'll have choices". Lies of course. Then it will be followed by other equally dumb people saying something along the lines of "what's the gop health insurance plan?", as if that has any bearing on how stupid and messed up obummercare is.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
If it's a serious problem for them, they will tell their representatives to pass a public option.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If it's a serious problem for them, they will tell their representatives to pass a public option.

Why not just skip the government intermediate step and just have the poors break into the houses of the middle class and directly take the money they need for medical treatment? You'd save a whole bunch of federal paperwork and the aerobic activity involved would certainly be healthy for the newly "insured."
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
Why not just skip the government intermediate step and just have the poors break into the houses of the middle class and directly take the money they need for medical treatment? You'd save a whole bunch of federal paperwork and the aerobic activity involved would certainly be healthy for the newly "insured."

If GOP wants to repeal Medicare, it's welcome to try that as well.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
If GOP wants to repeal Medicare, it's welcome to try that as well.

It's already going insolvent without GOP doing anything. Do you think voters are simply going to cast ballots for an increasingly parabolic spending on it? And even if they do vote for it, how will it be paid for as increases in federal spending start to converge with GDP? Do you fancy what's going on in Venezuela right now?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/social-...ency-over-20-years-trustees-report-1466605893
http://www.wsj.com/articles/social-...ency-over-20-years-trustees-report-1466605893

budget9_1.gif
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
Every other country with Medicare for all does not have its health care cost converge with GDP. In fact, its much lower than our health care spending as percent of GDP. Now play along.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Every other country with Medicare for all does not have its health care cost converge with GDP. In fact, its much lower than our health care spending as percent of GDP. Now play along.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I posted a chart talking about Medicare/Medicaid spending and you think that's the same thing as total federal spending, of which those programs are a major part. Try it again and slower, and see if you can spot the difference between what you said and what I actually said: "as increases in federal spending start to converge with GDP."

In the end some of the entitlement programs are getting cut; that's really what matters. If you'd rather cut redistribution programs to save SS then have at it, but we're rapidly approaching the time when reality instead of the GOP is what's standing in the way of the magic dreamworld you want to create with other people's money.

Entitlement%20Spending%20Chart.jpg


health-care-spending.png
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
If you believe those projections, I have a bridge to sell you. Japan is 2-3 times more indebted than US as percent of GDP, and it's borrowing at negative interest rates.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
You could start by removing the formatting.

As for the ACA, we know it's supposed to implode. Only our currency can bankroll expensive American healthcare. If our people want to continue seeing a doctor, that'll be Congress's next step.

Well plus it was designed to implode. There is no way an insurance company could survive those guidelines. This was all designed to get Americans into a single payer government run option. So what if we have $19 trillion in national debt... medicare works buy throwing money at it... so can health insurance. People who wanted this should not bitch when we have to rent doctors from Cuba at $2000/month.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
You say"insurance issues". I say redistributionist subsidies. Toe-may-tow, toe-mah-tow. Either way good riddance.

So I guess its back to going to the ER and not paying for some people in between medicaid and making a wage that supports a family's insurance premiums.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
So I guess its back to going to the ER and not paying for some people in between medicaid and making a wage that supports a family's insurance premiums.

Oh, lots of city hospitals are going away for that very reason of uncompensated care. So that problem is taking care of itself. Either way, enjoy your shitty "free" care that you need to wait around for a couple dozen hours to get while not working and making your 'wage that doesn't support a family's insurance premiums.'
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,256
136
I'm pretty sure that Blue Cross has always been the only option in Oklahoma.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Looks like obummercare is in the death spiral that everyone who wasn't an idiot saw coming: not enough healthy signups, prices skyrocket, provider bail out. Basically, it will boil down to the govt having to step in and pay even more to help the provider cover losses and stay in the exchanges, or the exchanges dying because there are no providers. Hopefully the R's hold strong and don't let the idiots put bandaids on the gaping wound. Don't allow any "tweaks" or "fixes" to this mess, that will only prolong the damage: let it rot as is until it can be removed and something better can be put in place.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,466
10,746
136
Oh, lots of city hospitals are going away for that very reason of uncompensated care. So that problem is taking care of itself. Either way, enjoy your shitty "free" care that you need to wait around for a couple dozen hours to get while not working and making your 'wage that doesn't support a family's insurance premiums.'

You speak of medicine, doctors, and healthcare in general as if it's a choice.
"Problem takes care of itself" because no one need those things, is that it?
I don't think of hospitals failing as something that benefits us.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Looks like obummercare is in the death spiral that everyone who wasn't an idiot saw coming: not enough healthy signups, prices skyrocket, provider bail out. Basically, it will boil down to the govt having to step in and pay even more to help the provider cover losses and stay in the exchanges, or the exchanges dying because there are no providers. Hopefully the R's hold strong and don't let the idiots put bandaids on the gaping wound. Don't allow any "tweaks" or "fixes" to this mess, that will only prolong the damage: let it rot as is until it can be removed and something better can be put in place.

It is shocking right? That young and healthy people decided to not participate in plans they don't see as beneficial.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
You speak of medicine, doctors, and healthcare in general as if it's a choice.
"Problem takes care of itself" because no one need those things, is that it?
I don't think of hospitals failing as something that benefits us.

It's not a question of "benefiting" us. You can't look at this solely from the perspective of the needs of the patients who get the "free" care, that care gets provided by doctors and hospitals that don't have a choice whether to provide it and have just as much legitimate need to recover the money spent in treating uninsured patients. Providers also have needs like salaries, medical supplies, rent, utilities, etc. and they can't meet those needs they can't continue to operate. You haven't "fixed" anything by forcing healthcare providers to give away their services and supplies for free, you're just looting what you can get from them before they say "fvck it" and close their doors.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,466
10,746
136
It is shocking right? That young and healthy people decided to not participate in plans they don't see as beneficial.

Place the costs on the US government, and you'll find no one is avoiding the economy or taxes just because they're young and healthy. Their contribution is taken from them in a more efficient and subtle way than individual mandate.

You haven't "fixed" anything by forcing healthcare providers to give away their services and supplies for free, you're just looting what you can get from them before they say "fvck it" and close their doors.

And if the people decide they still want healthcare, as in not leave it as a privilege for the rich or healthy, but as a inalienable right...
The way to achieve that is to place those costs on the currency (US Debt) and not on the backs of providers.