LONE Profitable ACA Insurance CO-OP Losing Millions

a reply to: reldra

So 'Blame the Republicans' is now the official Democrat fallback position. Pathetic....and tired.

It looks to me like Republicans were the only ones with enough sense to NOT invest in Obama's 'Brooklyn Bridge' sale.

NOT that they had ANY say in it, in the first place.

Health care has become big business with outrageous prices to the consumer. People's health is now just a consumer product.

It's to the point that insurance doesn't want to pay if you get sick. You can have a check up, just don't actually get sick.

Even if the ACA is ended, the pricing won't go down. It was rising before it and will continue to after.

a reply to: reldra

Since you sound like you know more about this, do you know if there anything in the ACA to control insurance premiums prices?

a reply to: reldra

None of which changes the fact the other Party could not have stopped it. The outcome is one Party's head.

I'm not a member of a Party myself by the way. Just pointing out the facts as they were. There is no way to blame anyone else for the final product.

The final ACA's text was released a day before the vote. How exactly do you think it was read and fully understood before the vote. It was not. Not to mention the public got zero input due to way it came down.

a reply to: reldra

I wish it was like the canadian or UK system, but Republicans would NEVER allow it. So, this is what was settled for and still Republicans tried to overturn it about 75 times

Why in the hell would anyone support the US government having a monopoly on anything ?

It makes no SENSE.

Especially so after see how government ran health care is ran vis a vis medicare,mediciad, and tricare.

The US government should not be in the business of providing a corporate product.

That people is FASCISM.

a reply to: reldra

You mean paid back by the other tax payers...look Im as kind as the next guy, but this is rigged 7k detuctibles are far higher than many procedures cost.

One minor detail, is that there, by some estimated, millions of people have healthcare/insurance now that didn't before. That's the one key WIN for ObamaCare and why it was pushed on us in the first place. What about them?

With some bad luck, I could have been without health insurance last year when my son broke his arm and had to have surgery. it was tens of thousands of dollars. No way could I have been able to afford it...it might have been a tipping point to some serious financial ruin. Having health insurance is a big deal. When you don't have it.

a reply to: reldra

But only for the first year or three. As time went on, the Federal contribution to that expansion was going to gradually be cut off until the states were left responsible for it on their own.

At that point, where were they supposed to come up with the money?

a reply to: reldra

Original carriers, but not original policies.

a reply to: amazing

And I seem to recall that most of us didn't want ObamaCare because we were smart enough to realize that rather than making health care affordable for more people, it was going to do the complete opposite ... and, oh look, it has.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: roaland

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: reldra

Your right! "Startup anything could fail!".

That's one HUGE reason corrupt politicians shouldn't be able to create laws or loan money to companies without some kind of plan to show how they will make money! That's what banks do, and rightfully so! Seems hard for some to realize it is wrong to piss away money that isn't rightfully or lawfully yours to piss away?

The government pisses away money in almost every possible category. They always have. Whether they are loaning it, giving it, spending on things we have no idea about.

and yet your still willing to allow them to deal with something as important as medical insurance when you admit they mismanage money all the time? wow your a braver soul then i am

Yes, the government should be involved in keeping the citizens healthy.

OK, so does that mean it can tell me how to eat and when? How much exercise I am mandated to get? Whether or not I should be allowed to procreate?

You know ... It has an interest in keeping the citizenry healthy now.

a reply to: amazing

The majority of the millions more insured are by medicaid if I'm not mistaken. I know every kid at the restaurant I manage has signed up for it because they don't want to pay a penalty. YOUNG kids, 18-25. Not likely to need medical insurance for a good 20 years, but forced to get it, and on the taxpayers dime at that. I don't blame them one bit either, they don't make enough so they qualify for something they didn't want in the first place, but when put in a situation of here take something free or I'm going to take $600 from you, what would you do?

a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah,...and have you seen some of those folks in government...not exactly the best role models to tell us citizenry how to be healthy.
Harry Reid is hardly anyone's idea of a fitness guru.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: AmericanRealist

I really wish the proposal was a single payer system like Canada and UK.

It should be put back the way it was and people can buy insurance or not. Before if you wanted insurance you got it and if you didn't want insurances or couldn't afford it then you didn't have insurance.

ARRRRRGH! Metallicus! Shame on you!!!

How many times do I have to say that when I wanted insurance I WAS OUTRIGHT REFUSED! You could not just "buy it if you wanted it," you had to qualify for it, and because I had had cancer, I did not qualify for TEN YEARS from the date of my remission!!!!!!!

Sorry, friend, but things were not rosy. And this is only one problem. Would you like to have a pre-existing condition, like a congenital heart defect like my son has, and be permanently refused???? The choice then is to be POOR and get your medical care from Medicaid, or not have any and, in the case of my son, that would be deadly.

Please stop thinking everything was peaches back "in the good 'ole days" of pre-ACA health insurance!

*sigh*

In Obama's eyes, this is not a failure. The ACA is performing just as was intended. The medical insurance system fails and the government swoops in and gives us single payer.

And EVERYTHING is Bush's fault in Obamaland.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: eisegesis
My health insurance went up 300%. It got so bad, I had to cancel, save for two months and then reinstate my policy during open enrollment. I had to pull some tricks in order to avoid this bull****...

That Obamacare penalty will be bigger than you think

Households that opt to go without health insurance in 2016 are set to get hit with an average Obamacare fine of $969.

That is 47 percent higher than the average $661 penalty per uninsured household for this year, a new analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed Wednesday.

And households without insurance that earn too much to qualify for financial aid to buy Obamacare plans will pay an even larger fine for 2016 — an average of $1,450, versus the average of $1,177 for 2015.

Uninsured households that would qualify for Obamacare subsidies to help pay for coverage face an average fine of $738 — nearly double the $389 average for this year.

Oddly, the fine is about 1 ER visit. HMM...

That's a weak argument considering I may never use the ER. Its a racket and you know it, much like car insurance. Both are paid into and offer very little incentive for maintaining a safe and healthy record. It benefits some people, mostly the rich and poor and an all encompassing solution just doesn't exist coming from Obama and his enablers. Nothing is ever written to benefit all of us at once. They couldn't sustain their profits if all of us were winners.

The ACA was written to screw those who could afford to provide decent insurance for themselves while providing coverage to anyone with a pulse. Ask yourself this question, would the government help pay and reduce costs for those with nothing in return but their sickness or would it find some way to shift costs onto the working class? It's an enigma wrapped in positive outcomes and success stories. Lift the veil and you'll realize that those who defend the ACA we're those who couldn't previously benefit from Uncle Sam or insurance in general.

Its a sliding scale of greed designed to aid in adding all people with an ailment to the system. They were previously ineligible for a reason, as they were detrimental to profits and no one knew how to incorporate the "sick" into previously constructed money making schemes. Companies stuck with those who had money and little ailments to need it back, when now they're getting any little money they can from everybody. They've found a way to service all of our needs and make up any losses in the process. What you are seeing is the continued deconstruction of an old system. Nothing happens by accident in politics.

"The health care market is not a market at all. It's a crapshoot." That's where, over 30 pages later, Time magazine's longest-ever article ended. It asked, in the course of its investigation into the industry, "Why should a trip to the emergency room for chest pains that turn out to be indigestion bring a bill that can exceed the cost of a semester of college?"

Such astronomical prices are indeed seen, according to a NIH-funded study published today in PLOS ONE: The median ER visit costs 40 percent more than what the average American pays in monthly rent. But the discrepancy in ER charges is so great, according to the study's authors, that patients have no way of knowing how much they can expect to be billed.

The average cost of a visit to the ER for over 8,000 patients across the U.S. was $2,168. But the interquartile range (IQR), which represents the difference between the 25th and 75th percentile of charges, was $1,957 -- meaning many patients were paying a lot more or a lot less than that. Of the top ten most common reasons for ER visits, treating kidney stones was most expensive, on average. But it was also the most variable. All of the charges -- which represent the total bill for adults 18 to 64 years old who, for simplicity's sake, came in with a single outpatient diagnosis -- followed similar patterns.

These numbers don't represent how much of the charges were ultimately covered by insurers. The researchers, did, however, also find that uninsured patients are typically charged the least, followed by privately insured patients, and finally by those on Medicaid, who saw the highest bills.

Link

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: AmericanRealist

I really wish the proposal was a single payer system like Canada and UK.

It should be put back the way it was and people can buy insurance or not. Before if you wanted insurance you got it and if you didn't want insurances or couldn't afford it then you didn't have insurance.

And if you had a pre existing conditions, you were just out of luck?

Or you hit your insurance cap, still got billed for additional treatment, then lost everything you had and would take bankruptcy?

My mom is one of those people with an expensive pre existing condition. Without that part of the law she would be dead within a year due to an inability to pay for insurance (or get insured in the first place).

Sounds pretty bad to me.

originally posted by: roaland
and the federal govt gets their money from taxes taken from ppl like me who can't can't afford the insurance and is not eligible for any other option so when the govt starts taking more taxes, and they will have to if they wanna keep this quagmire, then even more money will needlessly be taken from my already small paycheck. no thank you. I'll take it how it was before.

Taxes ultimately take nothing out of your paycheck. The money taken by the government doesn't vanish, it gets spent on the private sector for services the government wants. From there it gets spent by those people, and ultimately cycles through the entire economy.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Yes and no. Ultimately the ACA is a failure of Obama being a bit naive for a politician at that time. Originally he wanted single payer, but the Republicans were opposed to it, so he compromised with them and enacted what was their official plan from 1988 to 2009. Basically, the entire bill was what they were asking for because there was a perceived need to make it a bipartisan bill. The Republicans however took a different strategy and didn't attend any of the discussions on it (despite still commenting through back channels). Then when the vote came up, those who promised to vote for it changed their minds and it went along party lines.... and from there we know the rest of the story.

The ACA is almost verbatim from the Heritage Plan, which coincidentally enough is the plan John McCain ran on in 2008.

That said... blame who you want. Blame the people that came up with an unworkable plan, or blame the people who decided to enact that unworkable plan when they had a better alternative. It makes no difference really.