Unraveling of the Affordable Care Act continues

United Healthcare announced this morning that unless changes were made, it would leave the exchanges in 2017. The number of people enrolling aren't enough and their risk profile continues to be worse than expected. The company expects to lose over $400 million on the exchanges in 2015 and sees more losses next year.

Replies

  • Without heavy subsidies, people are only going to go the Bronze Plan, which pays for 60% of expected costs. The insured pays 40% up to some level.
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    I'm calling for a Drone strike on this thread..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,692 Senior Member
    I'm tempted to say "good riddance". United is the worst of the majors; many PA and MD practices will not accept it.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,941 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    United Healthcare announced this morning that unless changes were made, it would leave the exchanges in 2017. The number of people enrolling aren't enough and their risk profile continues to be worse than expected. The company expects to lose over $400 million on the exchanges in 2015 and sees more losses next year.
    Just had some discussions about this with my wife tonight over supper. She sells for United and received notice last week that zero commission will be paid to agents that try to sell United on the exchanges in some states.

    United wants out because they are paying out more in medical costs than they are receiving in premiums on exchange plans. So to stop the bleeding... zero commissions for agents...which in turn leads to agents not selling their product on the exchange.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,692 Senior Member
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,941 Senior Member
    Why thank Rubio? This legislation is falling on its face without help from anyone.

    It's actually made things worse for those that have to purchase insurance in the private market off the exchange and is now beginning to affect those on the exhange....higher premiums, higher deductibles or loss of coverage due to companies exiting the exchange and the closing of co-ops.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,692 Senior Member
    Joe K. wrote: »
    Why thank Rubio? This legislation is falling on its face without help from anyone.

    It's actually made things worse for those that have to purchase insurance in the private market off the exchange and is now beginning to affect those on the exhange....higher premiums, higher deductibles or loss of coverage due to companies exiting the exchange and the closing of co-ops.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

    Read the article. Rubio's rider is what is causing many insurers to lose money.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 7,914 Senior Member
    BCBSTX is dropping my present plan. If I don't make changes they will automatically put me on a new plan. My deductible will drop by $1300, but my premium will go up by $104. While the low deductible looks good, they will make up for it in the premium. If I have year where I don't need the insurance, they still get the money I would have not had to pay on the old plan.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,941 Senior Member
    George,

    I did read it and have read similar ones days ago before you posted that one.

    What's causing the insurance companies to lose money is the influx of people they are forced to take because of the enacted legislation. Not because of Rubio.

    As Steve often said...there's no free lunch. Money has to come from somewhere and the government doesn't have enough to cover the increase in monies paid out by the insurance companies that they promised they would.

    Even if Rubio's rider wasn't part of the equation the risk corridor and reinsurance programs are set to expire in 2017. It would have played out the same anyway. Then what?



    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,941 Senior Member
    FishTX wrote: »
    BCBSTX is dropping my present plan. If I don't make changes they will automatically put me on a new plan. My deductible will drop by $1300, but my premium will go up by $104. While the low deductible looks good, they will make up for it in the premium. If I have year where I don't need the insurance, they still get the money I would have not had to pay on the old plan.
    Yes.

    http://kut.org/post/why-are-health-insurance-companies-losing-money-texas

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
  • George K wrote: »

    Eh...yes and no.

    The risk corridor was supposed to be self funding. What Rubio did was add a rider to a later appropriations bill that said that if it wasn't, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) couldn't take money from other pots.

    So yes, the unraveling would have been delayed if we had just raised more debt to support a bad plan.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,692 Senior Member
    Yes Dears.:)
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,941 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    Yes Dears.:)
    Just like at home. :D

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,311 Senior Member
    Here is the thing we have been through this so many times, there is no point in responding. At the end of the day, it will not collapse, it will still be around and more people who have never had insurance, will have it.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,941 Senior Member
    Here is the thing we have been through this so many times, there is no point in responding. At the end of the day, it will not collapse, it will still be around and more people who have never had insurance, will have it.

    How long do you think insurance companies will stay in the exchanges and keep losing money? Once they leave the exchanges, there isn't another subsidized option. If things keep going the way they are, it's going to reach the point that their will be no insurance companies in the exchanges at all. The reality is more so that health insurance providers are going to exit the obamacare exchanges as they can't make enough to survive.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,311 Senior Member
    I cannot wait till next year when you once again declare Obamacare doomed.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,174 Senior Member
    Joe K. wrote: »
    How long do you think insurance companies will stay in the exchanges and keep losing money?

    Wait a minute are you saying wealth transfer doesn't work. I am shocked that the young and healthy haven't wanted to subsidize everyone else. That is just amazing.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,941 Senior Member
    I cannot wait till next year when you once again declare Obamacare doomed.
    Are you not paying attention at all to what is going on?


    http://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2015/12/10/lone-profitable-aca-insurance-co-op-losing-millions

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-condition-gone-critical-life-113000762.html

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
  • Here is the thing we have been through this so many times, there is no point in responding. At the end of the day, it will not collapse, it will still be around and more people who have never had insurance, will have it.


    Of course, if it gets bailed out annually.

    One can say Social Security has never collapsed, but without constantly changing the rules (to the detriment of beneficiaries) and raising the tax, it would have collapsed.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,692 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Of course, if it gets bailed out annually.

    One can say Social Security has never collapsed, but without constantly changing the rules (to the detriment of beneficiaries) and raising the tax, it would have collapsed.

    How healthy would it be had the funds collected been earmarked and firewalled?
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • FishTXFishTX Super Moderator Posts: 7,914 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    How healthy would it be had the funds collected been earmarked and firewalled?
    I've read a few accounts about Congress borrowing from the funds. I think for a while, up to 1990 maybe, it was lumped in with the general budget.
    "We have to find someone who can not only fly this plane, but who didn't have fish for dinner."

    Crooow:This music would work better with women in bikinis shaking all over the place. I guess that's true of any music really.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,941 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    How healthy would it be had the funds collected been earmarked and firewalled?

    If you're talking ACA...

    Funds were/are earmarked already when the legislation was enacted.

    Problem is 1.) Claims far exceeded what the administration thought and now they don't have enough money to pay what they promised 2.) They put a 2017 expiration date on it.

    Anyone with half a brain could have figured this was going to happen. If not now in 2017 for sure.

    Lot of hoopla created that's so far only resulted in a ~3% decrease in the number of uninsured.


    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
  • swizzswizz Senior Member Posts: 2,559 Senior Member
    Joe K. wrote: »

    Lot of hoopla created that's so far only resulted in a ~3% decrease in the number of uninsured.

    If this is the case, and I believe it is... the Feds will be collecting an obscene amount of revenue this year (every year higher) in penalties from taxpayers not signing up for ACA. Ironically because most uninsured cannot afford it.
    Where will this Obamacare penalty revenue go? I'd really like to know, it will be in the billions.
    All of your Trout are belong to me.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,692 Senior Member
    I meant Social Security. Spending the Trust Fund on other things is what first created a long-term solvency problem.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,941 Senior Member
    swizz wrote: »
    If this is the case, and I believe it is... the Feds will be collecting an obscene amount of revenue this year (every year higher) in penalties from taxpayers not signing up for ACA. Ironically because most uninsured cannot afford it.
    Where will this Obamacare penalty revenue go? I'd really like to know, it will be in the billions.

    From the forbes article I posted earlier...

    In 2010, when Obamacare was passed, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the law would reduce the number of uninsured in 2014 by 19 million, relative to the number of people without health insurance in 2010. By 2016, CBO estimated that 30 million fewer people would be uninsured.

    Last week, CMS came to a different conclusion. According to their estimates, the number of uninsured fell by 12.6 million from 2010 to 2014. And 2010’s uninsurance rate was artificially higher due to the Great Recession; if you use 2008 as the baseline, the number of uninsured fell by only 6.7 million.

    In other words, all of the disruption, spending, taxation, and premium hikes in Obamacare has only reduced the percentage of U.S. residents without health insurance by 2.7 percentage points, from 13.9% to 11.1%: a remarkably small reduction, and far lower than what the law was supposed to achieve.

    And because growth in enrollment in Obamacare’s exchanges has flatlined, while premiums continue to go up, there’s little reason to believe that the ultimate reduction in the uninsured will ever reach 30 million under the law.
  • FishTX wrote: »
    I've read a few accounts about Congress borrowing from the funds. I think for a while, up to 1990 maybe, it was lumped in with the general budget.


    Yes, Congress borrows the funds and replaces it with IOU's. No effect on assets therefore no effect on surplus/deficit.
    My statement remains whether there was a lock box or not.
  • swizzswizz Senior Member Posts: 2,559 Senior Member
    Joe K. wrote: »
    From the forbes article I posted earlier...

    In 2010, when Obamacare was passed, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the law would reduce the number of uninsured in 2014 by 19 million, relative to the number of people without health insurance in 2010. By 2016, CBO estimated that 30 million fewer people would be uninsured.

    Last week, CMS came to a different conclusion. According to their estimates, the number of uninsured fell by 12.6 million from 2010 to 2014. And 2010’s uninsurance rate was artificially higher due to the Great Recession; if you use 2008 as the baseline, the number of uninsured fell by only 6.7 million.

    In other words, all of the disruption, spending, taxation, and premium hikes in Obamacare has only reduced the percentage of U.S. residents without health insurance by 2.7 percentage points, from 13.9% to 11.1%: a remarkably small reduction, and far lower than what the law was supposed to achieve.

    And because growth in enrollment in Obamacare’s exchanges has flatlined, while premiums continue to go up, there’s little reason to believe that the ultimate reduction in the uninsured will ever reach 30 million under the law.
    Yeah, I read that and don't doubt Forbes. My question is more along the lines of..... where are the billion$ in new annual penalties going? All of these uninsured taxpayers will have to pony up Obamacare fines to the Feds annually now. It is a very significant chunk of money. Who will be stuffing their pockets with the huge Fed revenues from Obamacare tax penalties? That's what me wants to know.
    All of your Trout are belong to me.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,941 Senior Member

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.