When will the rest of the Obamacare exchanges collapse?

Anyone in the US is no doubt aware that Obamacare has been less than a resounding success. While it does help uninsured people get coverage, if you already had insurance you probably think it sucks: Insurance costs are skyrocketing, while the quality of the insurance gets worse & worse (higher deductibles, higher co-insurance, more restrictive networks). Also, many insurance companies are pulling out of all but the most profitable markets, meaning fewer choices are available (some areas will have only one insurer offering plans next year).

More to the point here are the state run-exchanges. 23 states set up their own exchanges, with the rest using the federally-run exchange. Of those 23, 17 exchanges have gone broke (most recently New Jersey's exchange last month), leaving only 6 still operating. (Incidentally, I've found it is frustratingly difficult to find even basic information about which states' exchanges are still running. The MSM does not like to talk about this.) Articles I've found online suggest that most or all of the remaining exchanges are expected to fail. (Maine's exchange is supposedly doing OK, but then New Jersey's was also supposed to be OK, and they just went down the toilet.) So, I'm wondering what they're waiting for. Enrollment for next year starts in a week.

A big part of me is wondering if the exchanges are being told to wait until after the election, and that mid-November will see a new wave of exchange closures.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

You are right at the end of the post. They are probably being told to wait until the election is over.

Everything is political always

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It doesn't matter. It'll take two years but I'd guess HRC will put in a single payer system. It won't be any better; probably worse. But.........I wouldn't be a buyer of Health Insurance Company stock right now.

It sucks my cousin just was notified from somewhere around $750 a month to $1800. He just sighed deep and said NO. Just too much and his out of pocket was going to be $12k on top of that. Nope not going to happen.

We know we're bankrupt if husband's employer drops us, and that's even with the premiums increasing in that policy. I know the only reason we're somewhat insulated is that it is a large group, corp. policy and even then, it is getting worse in term every year, just not as bad as the Obamacare policies are.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I know I'm getting $660s taken from me from fines for not having health care the entire year. they basically force you into the system unless you make 18k or less a year.

big surprise coming for people coming tax time

well , since everyone is required to have insurance , the banker cartel and their shell insurance companies now has carte blanche to manipulate the outcome, concordantly with the collapse of independent insurers, The bailout model scenario will follow, consistent with a trillion dollar corporate welfare tax package and consolidation and "regulation" of the insurance industry into a few entrenched mega-companies that nobody can compete against.

In order to hide their debauchery and escape responsibility from the fact that you will now actually pay double in the form of an unseen corporate welfare tax and your normal individual fee. Rest assuredly the sequence instigation will occurr at the ending term of an outgoing party that had no chance of re-election anyhow.

I hope nobody minds me copying my rant from another thread here, but I've switched platforms and can't write a fresh one properly

The whole idea behind insurance is a gamble- you pay up front hoping not to be taken in the behind. IF you have medical expenses, then insurance that you already paid is supposed to take up some of the slack.

Obviously, though, they're in it for a profit. You'll NEVER get more back in insurance (as the average person, not as an individual) than you paid in. EVER.

That being said, making insurance mandatory defeats the purpose. Allow me to explain, since it turns out most people don't get this.
Before insurance, if you had a medical bill, you had to pay 100% of it- or be financially screwed. Possibly for life.
Once insurance was introduced, people who were weary of this could pay a small amount in regularly, and then if/when they were hit, they'd have a softer blow, buffered by the insurance payout. Which again, on average, is less than you've paid in.
Once more than about 65% of people had insurance though, something odd happened. Medical services starting increasing rapidly in price. The majority of their income was now coming from patient insurance companies rather than their patient pockets. Rates rose- and out of pocket cost for patients rose too, but much more slowly than out of insurance costs.
Out of that, insurance rates had to go up. And they will- forever- until that's not where the money is coming from.

Now, of course, someone (think banks?) decided to make insurance mandatory. Now we ALL have it, and insurance is "paying" 80% of everyones medical bills. Everyone is paying 20% of their own- and 80% of everyone elses- PLUS the overhead to the insurance companies.

From this, we get child birth bills that cost tens of thousands of dollars, $1200 x-ray consults, $15 addon fees to get a tylanol off the nurse.

The only way to bring down healthcare costs is to remove insurance. When people don't pay for healthcare because they can't afford it, it will have to get cheaper or go away- and it's not about to go away.

My insurance costs more than I'd like to admit- and I've not seen a doctor in three years because my plan got all screwed up with obamacare and I couldn't afford it anymore- so my share, paid monthly, goes to pay for healthcare for other people.
That money could, and should, be going into my special checking account specifically set aside for emergencies. Todays balance, $0.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

A House of 1 Card ( Insuer ) , Cannot Stand .

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

More to the point here are the state run-exchanges. 23 states set up their own exchanges, with the rest using the federally-run exchange. Of those 23, 17 exchanges have gone broke (most recently New Jersey's exchange last month), leaving only 6 still operating.

I have posted numerous times over nearly 4 years, on the unsustainability of the ACA. I worked in the healthcare system, in a job that was devastatingly impacted by the ACA, and it was clear as a bell, that there was no way it was going to work.

I warned our administrators repeatedly of what was going to happen, but no one wanted to hear what I had to say. So I was not surprised when the exchanges started dumping their contracts. I was surprised when I ran into a co-worker, last week, that I hadn't seen in over 3 years, and she said to me, "Well it looks like everything you warned them about happened, and happened exactly the way you said it would." I told her I was surprised she remembered that, she said she would never forget, because she kept reminding them of what I said, as she watched it crumble.

I remember saying what would happen.

Prices will rise and people will get less health care in return.

How can it be any other way?

Obama told us that we would see an average of $2,500 savings per year, per family.

We were told that even low income people would have to pay something.

Anyone that is surprised was sleeping through it all.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It doesn't matter. It'll take two years but I'd guess HRC will put in a single payer system. It won't be any better; probably worse. But.........I wouldn't be a buyer of Health Insurance Company stock right now.

IMO, the ACA is meant to fail to ensure we end up in a single payer system.

originally posted by: bg_socalif

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It doesn't matter. It'll take two years but I'd guess HRC will put in a single payer system. It won't be any better; probably worse. But.........I wouldn't be a buyer of Health Insurance Company stock right now.

IMO, the ACA is meant to fail to ensure we end up in a single payer system.

yep, pretty obvious, isn't it.

originally posted by: TonyS

originally posted by: bg_socalif

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

It doesn't matter. It'll take two years but I'd guess HRC will put in a single payer system. It won't be any better; probably worse. But.........I wouldn't be a buyer of Health Insurance Company stock right now.

IMO, the ACA is meant to fail to ensure we end up in a single payer system.

yep, pretty obvious, isn't it.

There is no way the ACA can be sustainable, when you have more people taking a piece of the pie then there is pie.

Imagine a 10 quart pot of stew. Now imagine there are 10 people taking 1 cup from the pot every day. Imagine the pot is refilled every day with 1/2 cup of stew. How long will it take before the pot is empty?

Unless all the people agree to only take enough stew to leave the pot at the same level, the pot will eventually go empty.

Even if you have only one person taking from the pot, if they are taking more than what is put into the pot, the pot will eventually go empty.

The only way it will be sustainable is when healthcare is removed from our system as a business. Healthcare has to be categorized as a service, not a commodity. It is the only way.

Sunday May 21, 2017

THE pivotal moment could come tomorrow...

""A routine court filing may bring about the beginning of the end of Obamacare's insurance exchanges.

On Monday the Trump administration and the House must give a status report to a federal court on an appeal of a lawsuit over insurer subsidies. While the filing seems innocuous, it is an opportunity for Trump to immediately end the insurer subsidies.

If that happens, insurers could raise prices dramatically to cover the lost subsidies or leave the Obamacare exchanges altogether.

President Donald Trump has told advisers he wants to end payments of key Obamacare subsidies, a move that could send the health law's insurance markets into a tailspin, according to several sources familiar with the conversations.

Trump told aides in an Oval Office meeting this past Tuesday, that he wants to end the payments to insurers because he doesn't gain anything by continuing them, according to a senior White House adviser. "Why the hell would we?" he asked about continuing the payments, according to the adviser.

Trump added that if Congress wants the subsidies, lawmakers would find a way to pay for them, the adviser said.


Sources:

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

www.politico.com...

-cwm