Jump to content
IGNORED

Another big insurance provider to pull out of the ACA marketplace


MorningGlory

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.14
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

First Aetna and United Health Care dropped out and now Humana is also leaving the Obamacare marketplace leaving some areas with NO coverage.  I sure hope Congress gets on the ball because the Affordable Health Care fiasco is imploding.  Having the government in charge of everyone's health care is simply NOT a good idea; the private sector does a way better job in just about everything.

http://www.vox.com/2017/2/14/14619412/obamacare-humana-exchanges?yptr=yahoo

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  34
  • Topic Count:  1,989
  • Topics Per Day:  0.49
  • Content Count:  48,687
  • Content Per Day:  11.89
  • Reputation:   30,342
  • Days Won:  226
  • Joined:  01/11/2013
  • Status:  Offline

12 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

First Aetna and United Health Care dropped out and now Humana is also leaving the Obamacare marketplace leaving some areas with NO coverage.  I sure hope Congress gets on the ball because the Affordable Health Care fiasco is imploding.  Having the government in charge of everyone's health care is simply NOT a good idea; the private sector does a way better job in just about everything.

http://www.vox.com/2017/2/14/14619412/obamacare-humana-exchanges?yptr=yahoo

Insurance companies are cautious now. United Health Care and Humana are not very reliable health insurance companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  312
  • Content Per Day:  0.12
  • Reputation:   140
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/10/2016
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/05/1998

Hadn't Aetna stated that it would likely withdraw from the ACA marketplace if its intended merger with Humana wasn't successful? 

The insurance industry hasn't been able to insure people with pre-existing conditions, which was the main thing I liked about the ACA. I'm open to different solutions to the problem, but unfortunately, the latter part of "repeal and replace" is seeming less and less likely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
3 hours ago, Tea Ess said:

Hadn't Aetna stated that it would likely withdraw from the ACA marketplace if its intended merger with Humana wasn't successful? 

The insurance industry hasn't been able to insure people with pre-existing conditions, which was the main thing I liked about the ACA. I'm open to different solutions to the problem, but unfortunately, the latter part of "repeal and replace" is seeming less and less likely. 

Well, the ACA depended upon the government holding up its end of the deal and paying the insurance companies the premium subsidies they promised.  No one is getting paid, not the insurance companies and not the doctors, which is why so many doctors left their practices to find jobs that paid something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,923
  • Content Per Day:  0.62
  • Reputation:   462
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  04/02/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/22/1953

8 hours ago, Tea Ess said:

Hadn't Aetna stated that it would likely withdraw from the ACA marketplace if its intended merger with Humana wasn't successful? 

The insurance industry hasn't been able to insure people with pre-existing conditions, which was the main thing I liked about the ACA. I'm open to different solutions to the problem, but unfortunately, the latter part of "repeal and replace" is seeming less and less likely. 

One can plead the case that people with 'pre-existing conditions' need access to healthcare - but having insurance companies provide it defies logic. It would be the same as this:

"Hello - ACME Car Insurance?  I'd like to purchase an automobile insurance policy.  My car?  It's a Ford - I just wrapped it around a tree and it's totaled.  Can you replace it for me?"

The fact that the car I want to insure is totaled is a 'pre-existing condition', right?  So why shouldn't the insurance company cover it?

Blessings,

-Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  91
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  10,596
  • Content Per Day:  3.73
  • Reputation:   2,743
  • Days Won:  25
  • Joined:  06/16/2016
  • Status:  Offline

4 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

One can plead the case that people with 'pre-existing conditions' need access to healthcare - but having insurance companies provide it defies logic. It would be the same as this:

"Hello - ACME Car Insurance?  I'd like to purchase an automobile insurance policy.  My car?  It's a Ford - I just wrapped it around a tree and it's totaled.  Can you replace it for me?"

The fact that the car I want to insure is totaled is a 'pre-existing condition', right?  So why shouldn't the insurance company cover it?

Blessings,

-Ed

Because we as a country hold human life to be more important than a car.

But if we were to continue with your analogy, if I wreck my car 3 times then my insurance is going to drop me.  Should we allow health insurance companies to do the same when someone has a chronic problem that requires repeated visits to the doctor? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  91
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  10,596
  • Content Per Day:  3.73
  • Reputation:   2,743
  • Days Won:  25
  • Joined:  06/16/2016
  • Status:  Offline

Until this country decides if healthcare is a service or a commodity, we will never solve the problems of cost.  As long as we try and walk the fence between the two there is nothing that Trump or the GOP or anyone can do to fix the problems that are facing healthcare in our country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,923
  • Content Per Day:  0.62
  • Reputation:   462
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  04/02/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/22/1953

5 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

One can plead the case that people with 'pre-existing conditions' need access to healthcare - but having insurance companies provide it defies logic. It would be the same as this:

"Hello - ACME Car Insurance?  I'd like to purchase an automobile insurance policy.  My car?  It's a Ford - I just wrapped it around a tree and it's totaled.  Can you replace it for me?"

The fact that the car I want to insure is totaled is a 'pre-existing condition', right?  So why shouldn't the insurance company cover it?

Blessings,

-Ed

 

Just now, Out of the Shadows said:

Because we as a country hold human life to be more important than a car.

But if we were to continue with your analogy, if I wreck my car 3 times then my insurance is going to drop me.  Should we allow health insurance companies to do the same when someone has a chronic problem that requires repeated visits to the doctor? 

Please go back and re-read the very first sentence in the post you quoted (I highlighted it above).  I'm not arguing the pros and cons of people with pre-existing conditions getting healthcare.

My point is that having insurance companies cover it changes the definition of what an insurance company is.  Or do words and terms no longer have meaning?

When we finally arrive at the 'single-payer' nirvana that the establishment wants, I predict it will consist of a government subsidy paid for by some kind of payroll tax (or a new excise tax).

Insurance companies, if they have any role at all, will be the gov't contracted administrators.  

So we'll get the best of both worlds - the "heart" of the IRS with the "efficiency" of insurance companies.  Enjoy!

-Blessings,

-Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  91
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  10,596
  • Content Per Day:  3.73
  • Reputation:   2,743
  • Days Won:  25
  • Joined:  06/16/2016
  • Status:  Offline

21 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

 

Please go back and re-read the very first sentence in the post you quoted (I highlighted it above).  I'm not arguing the pros and cons of people with pre-existing conditions getting healthcare.

My point is that having insurance companies cover it changes the definition of what an insurance company is.  Or do words and terms no longer have meaning?

I guess I am not sure how it changes the definition of what an insurance company is. 

But putting that aside and going back to the comparison of health insurance and auto insurance.  An auto insurer can drop you if you end up costing them too much money via tickets or wrecks or the like.  In your view, should health insurance companies be able to do the same?

And if insurance companies do not cover those with pre-existing conditions what is the answer for them?  Is the answer that they are just out of luck if they do not have the means to pay for what they need?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,923
  • Content Per Day:  0.62
  • Reputation:   462
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  04/02/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/22/1953

26 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

I guess I am not sure how it changes the definition of what an insurance company is. 

But putting that aside and going back to the comparison of health insurance and auto insurance.  An auto insurer can drop you if you end up costing them too much money via tickets or wrecks or the like.  In your view, should health insurance companies be able to do the same?

And if insurance companies do not cover those with pre-existing conditions what is the answer for them?  Is the answer that they are just out of luck if they do not have the means to pay for what they need?

Insurance is essentially a betting scheme - except they use actuarial tables and such to make 'educated' bets.  Essentially, they are 'betting' something bad won't happen to you IN THE FUTURE - but happen it might.  The risk of that event happening IN THE FUTURE is what their rates are based on. That is the way it has always been.  If you wish to argue that, tell me why life insurance costs less for a healthy 20 year old than it does for a not so healthy 60 year old.

Compelling insurance companies to provide health coverage for people with pre-existing conditions completely changes the dynamic of what an insurance company is.  The event or condition is no longer IN THE FUTURE it is now.

So your example of the auto insurer dropping a client proves the point:  Any tickets or accidents PRIOR to the insured coming on board would be 'pre-existing' conditions.  If one has many tickets, he/she could expect to pay a higher rate than one with no tickets.  And, if they continue to get tickets or have accidents, they could expect their rates to go even higher, or eventually be dropped.  

Insurance companies (unlike the government) have to make a profit.  While governments never go out of business, companies do.  So is your plan to have insurance companies keep insuring clients that end up costing them until there are so many 'negative revenue' clients that the company goes out of business?  Once the company goes out of business, then what?

While you're hung up on insurance companies, you have not commented on the other point I made.

Note - I did not argue pro or con that people with pre-existing health conditions SHOULD NOT BE DENIED HEALTH CARE.

Indeed, I proposed a way that people in that category COULD get health care.  Any comments on that?

Finally, and as an aside:  I'm interested to find out how a self-proclaimed 'libertarian' such as yourself (small government, personal freedoms) can justify the government being involved in health care AT ALL?

Blessings,

-Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...