UnitedHealth warns it may exit Obamacare plans

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I think Republicans should do nothing..<snip>

they excel at that, shouldn't be hard for them to meet that goal

 

[boomerang]

The simple solution to this issue is for Obama, by executive action, to declare that UnitedHealth cannot drop out. Easy peasy.

 

[Strk]

Makes sense; they clearly got screwed by only making $8.4 billion this year.....

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

they excel at that, shouldn't be hard for them to meet that goal

Aren't you the clever one!

 

[JSt0rm]

What's weird to me is that by any reasonable metric it has been an enormously successful policy. There may need to be changes in the future, but the idea that it is somehow a failed policy is baffling to me. If this isn't success, what is?

That doesn't mean that there aren't superior policy alternatives like single payer, but let's get real. This thing worked pretty well.

What about the metric of making money off of death and misery?

 

[smitbret]

I was unaware it was called the Pokerguy Protection and Affordable Care Act. Guess I should have looked closer.

For the country as a whole it has been very successful. Since we are talking national policy, that's what counts.

Are you that unable to comprehend the message. UHC is saying that they took a $500 million hit by being on the exchange. They would have been just as well to stay out and just donate half a BILLION. At least then they could get a tax break.

That's just one player. How much have the other groups lost?

Someone still has to pay the bill. My premium responsibility increased 300% and that was to go to an HSA plan that pays NO benefit until I meet the annual $2000 deductible. Last year my co-pays for office visits were $25 and I didn't have to cough up $70 out of pocket for a simple antibiotic. I could get back on a plan that was similar with a $2500 deductible but that would have increased my premium 500%.

So, let's do the math. If I rolled back the clock 1 year to pre-Obamacare and for the same amount that I spend now I could have provided better health care coverage for 4 other families, too. And let's not forget the half a billion dollars the UHC has "donated" to the cause.

Just because a few hundred thousand more people got coverage doesn't make it a success. Especially when you consider that a huge chunk of those are people who didn't need it at all but were forced to get it.

It's a fucking failure after just the first year and as the insurance companies drop out one by one we will be forced to a single pay system controlled by the government that likes to spend $50 for a hammer and $180 for a toilet seat.

 

[theeedude]

Are you that unable to comprehend the message. UHC is saying that they took a $500 million hit by being on the exchange. They would have been just as well to stay out and just donate half a BILLION. At least then they could get a tax break.

They get a tax break by losing $500M too. Also, countries with single payer systems spend half of what we do for better health.

 

[smitbret]

They get a tax break by losing $500M too.

Yeah, I guess by taking the loss they helped keep the under reported unemployment numbers artificially deflated. Someone had to be hired to deal with the bureaucracy and paperwork.

 

[theeedude]

Yeah, I guess by taking the loss they helped keep the under reported unemployment numbers artificially deflated. Someone had to get paid to deal with the bureaucracy and paperwork.

It's cost of doing business. If they want private health insurers to be the way Americans get their health coverage, they'll have to take losses along with the much bigger profits. Otherwise, we'll get single payer and they'll have neither.

 

[smitbret]

It's cost of doing business. If they want private health insurers to be the way Americans get their health coverage, they'll have to take losses along with the much bigger profits. Otherwise, we'll get single payer and they'll have neither.

I am pretty sure they would just prefer to get the government out of the business altogether.

Why is single player the answer?

 

[fskimospy]

Are you that unable to comprehend the message. UHC is saying that they took a $500 million hit by being on the exchange. They would have been just as well to stay out and just donate half a BILLION. At least then they could get a tax break.

That's just one player. How much have the other groups lost?

Why would the other groups have had to lose money? What evidence is that based on?

Someone still has to pay the bill. My premium responsibility increased 300% and that was to go to an HSA plan that pays NO benefit until I meet the annual $2000 deductible. Last year my co-pays for office visits were $25 and I didn't have to cough up $70 out of pocket for a simple antibiotic. I could get back on a plan that was similar with a $2500 deductible but that would have increased my premium 500%.

So, let's do the math. If I rolled back the clock 1 year to pre-Obamacare and for the same amount that I spend now I could have provided better health care coverage for 4 other families, too. And let's not forget the half a billion dollars the UHC has "donated" to the cause.

What on earth makes you think that your personal insurance situation has anything to do with the average state of health care in the US? Use your head for a minute.

Just because a few hundred thousand more people got coverage doesn't make it a success. Especially when you consider that a huge chunk of those are people who didn't need it at all but were forced to get it.

A few hundred thousand? Try 17 million. Assuming by 'a few' you meant '3', that would mean you were off by nearly 6,000% in your estimate. Whoops!

It's a fucking failure after just the first year and as the insurance companies drop out one by one we will be forced to a single pay system controlled by the government that likes to spend $50 for a hammer and $180 for a toilet seat.

I guess it's not surprising considering the other ignorant statements you made, but the $50 hammer is a myth. (I'm assuming you're referring to the common trope of the $600 hammer)

http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the-600-hammer/5271/

The military bought the hammer, Kelman explained, bundled into one bulk purchase of many different spare parts. But when the contractors allocated their engineering expenses among the individual spare parts on the list-a bookkeeping exercise that had no effect on the price the Pentagon paid overall-they simply treated every item the same. So the hammer, originally $15, picked up the same amount of research and development overhead-$420-as each of the highly technical components, recalled retired procurement official LeRoy Haugh. (Later news stories inflated the $435 figure to $600.)

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, I guess by taking the loss they helped keep the under reported unemployment numbers artificially deflated. Someone had to be hired to deal with the bureaucracy and paperwork.

Oh god, your an unemployment truther too? Please go educate yourself. The unemployment numbers are in no way 'artificially deflated'.

 

[theeedude]

I am pretty sure they would just prefer to get the government out of the business altogether.

Well, that's nice preference, but that's not a political reality, if they want to be the way Americans get health care.

Why is single player the answer?

Because it costs half the money and delivers better results in other developed countries? Don't you want to pay half and get something better?
Also, no one is complaining about the Medicaid expansion, which is the single payer part of Obamacare. Most of the complaints are about the multi-payer exchanges.

 

[smitbret]

I guess it's not surprising considering the other ignorant statements you made, but the $50 hammer is a myth. (I'm assuming you're referring to the common trope of the $600 hammer)

http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the-600-hammer/5271/

So, you want a government that can't handle normal accounting to handle your healthcare?

 

[theeedude]

You are really going to put up private health care as a model of normal accounting?
They can't even tell you how much a procedure will cost ahead of time.

 

[smitbret]

Well, that's nice preference, but that's not a political reality, if they want to be the way Americans get health care.


Because it costs half the money and delivers better results in other developed countries? Don't you want to pay half and get something better?
Also, no one is complaining about the Medicaid expansion, which is the single payer part of Obamacare. Most of the complaints are about the multi-payer exchanges.

Who are you to define political reality? My reality is just as factual as yours. I don't believe that you are anyone else should be responsible for the health care of someone else. I am not saying there is no place for charity but that should be done at the discretion of the individual or business that makes the contribution and shouldn't be mandated.

I think it is also pretty clear that the twice the price for half the quality is a pretty mythical number. R&D costs money..... lots and lots of money. Who puts the money into R&D? Well, the U.S. has been traditionally responsible for more than half of the entire world's spending. Guess what it's on the decline:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...esearch-spending-drops-while-asia-makes-gains

It's fine that these other developed countries are able to take advantage of the medical advances we are creating and when we end up on this single payer plan it's nice that you can guarantee that they are going to step up their contributions.

 

[theeedude]

Who are you to define political reality? My reality is just as factual as yours. I don't believe that you are anyone else should be responsible for the health care of someone else. I am not saying there is no place for charity but that should be done at the discretion of the individual or business that makes the contribution and shouldn't be mandated.

I am offering my opinion of what the political reality is. If health insurance companies want to gamble their whole industry on an alternative vision, that is their prerogative. But I doubt in the long term Americans will accept paying twice what developed countries pay to cover everyone, and having private insurers cherry pick not cover people who actually need care. I think Obamacare is their last chance to be part of a long term solution. They can blow it for short term profit if they want to.

 

[K1052]

Who are you to define political reality? My reality is just as factual as yours. I don't believe that you are anyone else should be responsible for the health care of someone else. I am not saying there is no place for charity but that should be done at the discretion of the individual or business that makes the contribution and shouldn't be mandated.

No, you're not pushing reality...your'e pushing your ideology.

Getting the government "out of healthcare" would entail dismantling the ACA along with Medicare/Medicaid and other sundry programs that support many millions of people. To propose such a thing is not working within the bounds of political reality. It's pure fantasy.

 

[PokerGuy]

I was unaware it was called the Pokerguy Protection and Affordable Care Act. Guess I should have looked closer.

For the country as a whole it has been very successful. Since we are talking national policy, that's what counts.

Very successful how? Have overall expenditures gone down? Has average wait time to see a doctor gone down? Ultimately "covering" more people doesn't mean anything if costs are not under control and overall care isn't better and less expensive.

 

[zinfamous]

I am on the fence on whether it will be a successful policy. It is early to determine success or failure imo.

My post was in response to senseamp and his ilk. They are already out setting the groundwork for if this fails it wont be the fault of their party that passed it.

While I don't think it's fair to call the ACA a republican policy--obviously it isn't--the mandate is very much a republican idea from the largest GOP think tank ever. It was included expressly to garner some republican support, and was honestly rather unpopular with democrats.

It is identical to Romneycare for this reason.

 

[smitbret]

You are really going to put up private health care as a model of normal accounting?
They can't even tell you how much a procedure will cost ahead of time.

I won't put them up as a model but they are certainly more reliable than almost any government entity. The difference is that there is a certain accountability for profitability in private industry. The government, on the other hand, seems to think they have a bottomless pit full of $100 bills and will throw endless amounts of cash at any perceived problem and then try to tell the tax payer it was for the greater good.

 

[Newell Steamer]

People who purchase insurance through the public exchanges are typically heavy users of their plans, draining insurers' profits, analysts say.

And no one has a problem with this?

This is a fundamental issue with insurance in this nation: profits trump the very service these companies are in the business of providing.

Also, where is the GOP's alternative? Their corporate overlords are suffering and the people who elected them need insurance.

 

[smitbret]

No, you're not pushing reality...your'e pushing your ideology.

Getting the government "out of healthcare" would entail dismantling the ACA along with Medicare/Medicaid and other sundry programs that support many millions of people. To propose such a thing is not working within the bounds of political reality. It's pure fantasy.

Please define "Political Reality".

From where I sit, that's on oxymoron. There are only political ideals.

If it were reality there would be no politics to make.

 

[nakedfrog]

I am pretty sure they would just prefer to get the government out of the business altogether.

And children would prefer to eat ice cream for dinner and stay awake until midnight.

 

[smitbret]

And no one has a problem with this?

This is a fundamental issue with insurance in this nation: profits trump the very service these companies are in the business of providing.

Also, where is the GOP's alternative? Their corporate overlords are suffering and the people who elected them need insurance.

When did UHC become a non-profit organization? They are only "responsible" to those things to which they are contractually obligated. Don't like it? Then stop asking UHC to provide the service and find someone else.