Jump to content
IGNORED

Another big insurance provider to pull out of the ACA marketplace


MorningGlory

Recommended Posts


  • 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

14 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

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

I am not sure what other point you made outside of the "nirvana" comment.  

Quote

 

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?

 

I apologize for being slow here, but I looked back and I do not see you mention another way.  I guess I see where you implied that the government should cover all such people, is that what you are referring to?

Quote

 

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

 

Actually I have not taken a side on it at this point in time.  What I want is the country to decide if healthcare is a commodity or a service.  It cannot continue to operate as a hybrid of both, trying to do so is what is causing all the problem we have now.

If we decide that healthcare is a commodity then the government should get out of it with the exception of ensuring quality of care and safety of drugs and such.   Other than that there should be no mandates on either a person or an insurance company.  If you have a condition the company does not want to cover they should be able to drop you just like an auto or home owners insurance company does.  

If we decide that it is a service then we need to treat it no differently than we do our fire and police services or other such things.

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

1 minute ago, Out of the Shadows said:

I am not sure what other point you made outside of the "nirvana" comment.  

I apologize for being slow here, but I looked back and I do not see you mention another way.  I guess I see where you implied that the government should cover all such people, is that what you are referring to?

Actually I have not taken a side on it at this point in time.  What I want is the country to decide if healthcare is a commodity or a service.  It cannot continue to operate as a hybrid of both, trying to do so is what is causing all the problem we have now.

If we decide that healthcare is a commodity then the government should get out of it with the exception of ensuring quality of care and safety of drugs and such.   Other than that there should be no mandates on either a person or an insurance company.  If you have a condition the company does not want to cover they should be able to drop you just like an auto or home owners insurance company does.  

If we decide that it is a service then we need to treat it no differently than we do our fire and police services or other such things.

Just to recap: The 'other way' is not necessarily what I want - but what I think the Obamacare 'replace' will ultimately be.  And yes, it is the government covering all people.  It will be paid for by a tax - payroll, national sales tax, or some kind of excise tax. 

I think the insurance companies might have a role in administration of said program.  But they will essentially be government contractors.

Obamacare - as bad as it is - is a government entitlement.  As such, it shares the trait of ALL government entitlements in that it will never go away. Plus, the current political climate would not allow it.

In your example of commodity vs. service, I think 'service' will win out.

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

5 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Just to recap: The 'other way' is not necessarily what I want - but what I think the Obamacare 'replace' will ultimately be.  And yes, it is the government covering all people.  It will be paid for by a tax - payroll, national sales tax, or some kind of excise tax. 

I think the insurance companies might have a role in administration of said program.  But they will essentially be government contractors.

Obamacare - as bad as it is - is a government entitlement.  As such, it shares the trait of ALL government entitlements in that it will never go away. Plus, the current political climate would not allow it.

In your example of commodity vs. service, I think 'service' will win out.

Blessings,

-Ed

I think it is inevitable that service wins out because we as a country do not have the stomach to watch people die for lack of resources to acquire the commodity of healthcare. 

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

3 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

I think it is inevitable that service wins out because we as a country do not have the stomach to watch people die for lack of resources to acquire the commodity of healthcare. 

That's what I meant when I posted "Obamacare isn't going to go away" - especially given the current political climate.

It may seem like I'm going out on a limb when I basically say that a "new" Social Security -like program will be created to deal with health care.  But I see no other way to fund it - if the goal is to provide health care for EVERYONE (and the exorbitant costs that will be).

Single payer will be mandated - EVERYONE will have to participate and EVERYONE will have to pay. (that is perhaps everyone EXCEPT those in the establishment/ruling class - or other selected special interests or politically connected classes)

Looking past that, I've always wondered what it's going to look like.  I have my opinions, and they aren't pretty.  For instance:

What will 'access to health care' look like?  Will it be 'access' to the doctor's waiting room?  And then waiting hours to see even a low-level provider?

Will it be 'access' to a month or even years long waiting list for needed surgeries - and perhaps dying in the interim?

Whatever ultimately happens with Obamacare - it is not going to repeal the law of supply and demand.  Inevitably the demand (of people seeking healthcare) is going to skyrocket as the services become 'free.'  While the 'supply' (of doctors, nurses, aides and other providers) stays static or even decreases.

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

33 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

That's what I meant when I posted "Obamacare isn't going to go away" - especially given the current political climate.

It may seem like I'm going out on a limb when I basically say that a "new" Social Security -like program will be created to deal with health care.  But I see no other way to fund it - if the goal is to provide health care for EVERYONE (and the exorbitant costs that will be).

Single payer will be mandated - EVERYONE will have to participate and EVERYONE will have to pay. (that is perhaps everyone EXCEPT those in the establishment/ruling class - or other selected special interests or politically connected classes)

Looking past that, I've always wondered what it's going to look like.  I have my opinions, and they aren't pretty.  For instance:

What will 'access to health care' look like?  Will it be 'access' to the doctor's waiting room?  And then waiting hours to see even a low-level provider?

Will it be 'access' to a month or even years long waiting list for needed surgeries - and perhaps dying in the interim?

Whatever ultimately happens with Obamacare - it is not going to repeal the law of supply and demand.  Inevitably the demand (of people seeking healthcare) is going to skyrocket as the services become 'free.'  While the 'supply' (of doctors, nurses, aides and other providers) stays static or even decreases.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

I wonder if the fact is that there just is no good answer or solution to the problem. With an ever increasing life span and an every increasing population maybe it is inevitable that something like healthcare would reach a tipping point and that something is going to have to give.  Maybe this will be  way of thinning the herd. 

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

10 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

I wonder if the fact is that there just is no good answer or solution to the problem. With an ever increasing life span and an every increasing population maybe it is inevitable that something like healthcare would reach a tipping point and that something is going to have to give.  Maybe this will be  way of thinning the herd. 

I remember during one of the previous POTUS' town halls, when Obamacare was still being debated, that in a rare moment of honesty and clarity Obama answered a question about a constituent's 90+ year old mother.

The gist of the constituent's question of her mother's outlook was this: "Mom is 95, but she has a good quality of life and is relatively healthy for a person of that age.  If she were to need them, however, would the same procedures be available to her as would someone of a younger age."  

Like I said, that's not verbatim but it's the gist of the question.

Obama responded by hemming and hawing, but eventually he referred to "a little pill".  In other words, the mom would basically be 'put to sleep'.  (like we do with dogs and cats)

It sounds exceedingly harsh and inhumane (not to mention un-Christian) - but for once Obama was being forthright.  And I'm sure he was roundly criticized for it.

You summed it up - no good answers to the problem.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  275
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  5,208
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   1,893
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/02/2010
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said:

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. 

I think that the place that I would start would be with what is healthcare in the first place? What is necessary? What is not necessary? Are some preexisting conditions more important than others insofar as coverage goes? Is it possible to say, we don't want to have people dying in the streets or people with serious, life threatening conditions to go untreated, but some things that may improve quality of life, but that aren't necessarily life-saving, may not be able to be covered? Are we going to say every single person has to have the same insurance/healthcare or are we going to say individuals have some or most responsibility in the manner, but we will create a backstop so that you don't die with something that could've been treated? I think the conversation should start here. I think it would be possible to afford this sort of thing without breaking the bank. I also think it would be hugely politically unpopular from both sides of the aisle.

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

2 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

I think that the place that I would start would be with what is healthcare in the first place? What is necessary? What is not necessary? Are some preexisting conditions more important than others insofar as coverage goes? Is it possible to say, we don't want to have people dying in the streets or people with serious, life threatening conditions to go untreated, but some things that may improve quality of life, but that aren't necessarily life-saving, may not be able to be covered? 

I've often wondered why health insurance - rather than just being available to cover the extreme situations - has to cover what might be termed regular maintenance?  At the risk of beating the car insurance company analogy dead horse, it would be like having car insurance cover oil changes and tire rotations.

Those are considered regular maintenance - and most people pay that out of pocket.

Would it not make more sense to have insurance to pay just for the catastrophic things - thus resulting in more reasonable premiums?

18 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

Are we going to say every single person has to have the same insurance/healthcare or are we going to say individuals have some or most responsibility in the manner, 

It's classic socialism vs. free market.  The socialist mindset is always 'one size fits all'.  (except of course for the privileged ruling socialist classes). The statist/socialist establishment will NEVER promote any solution that involves individual responsibility.

32 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

but we will create a backstop so that you don't die with something that could've been treated? I think the conversation should start here. I think it would be possible to afford this sort of thing without breaking the bank. I also think it would be hugely politically unpopular from both sides of the aisle.

 I don't think the ruling class will go for that, either.  If you compare public health to public education, 'seperate but equal' was declared un-Constitutional way back in the 50s.

And yes, it will be politically unpopular.  Which results in a mish-mash that no one likes.

Blessings,

-Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  29
  • Topic Count:  593
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  55,875
  • Content Per Day:  7.55
  • Reputation:   27,625
  • Days Won:  271
  • Joined:  12/29/2003
  • Status:  Offline

13 hours 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

medicare is not a bad thing.....   it's basically a hybrid.    We have medicare and United Healthcare.   it's affordable and so far has been as good as anything we had with Xerox company insurance....   and it was one of the better ones.  We do need to keep the fraud out of it, from my perspective that's the main problem with the system.

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

29 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

I think that the place that I would start would be with what is healthcare in the first place? What is necessary? What is not necessary? Are some preexisting conditions more important than others insofar as coverage goes? Is it possible to say, we don't want to have people dying in the streets or people with serious, life threatening conditions to go untreated, but some things that may improve quality of life, but that aren't necessarily life-saving, may not be able to be covered? Are we going to say every single person has to have the same insurance/healthcare or are we going to say individuals have some or most responsibility in the manner, but we will create a backstop so that you don't die with something that could've been treated? I think the conversation should start here. I think it would be possible to afford this sort of thing without breaking the bank. I also think it would be hugely politically unpopular from both sides of the aisle.

These are great questions and if they are the place to start then we have to decide who answers them.  To take your example of "life saving" vs "quality of life" I will use an example I am familiar with.  For a Type 1 diabetic obviously insulin is without question life saving.  But then you get into the "delivery system" and it gets a bit more fuzzy.  Prior to the last 5 to 10 years the only choice was multiple daily injections.  Now they have pumps that allow a constant steady flow of insulin instead of a massive dose once a day of "long lasting" insulin as well as a way to administer insulin to cover food eaten and high blood sugar episodes without an injection.   There are also now glucose meters that constantly monitor your blood sugar and remove the need to prick a finger 6 to 8 times a day to check it.  

Some insurance companies see these as "quality of life" things as there is always the old fashioned shots that can be used.  Other companies have come to the conclusion that these devices (the pumps and CGMs) allow for better management of the disease and take away many of the high and low blood sugar episodes, which are what damage the body and cause greater problems later.  To these companies the investment now will save them the big bills later.  

So, in a system that makes things affordable, who would decide if the things above were really necessary or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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