Affordable Care Act Falling Apart?

[seer]

Who didn't see this coming?

UnitedHealth, the nation's biggest health insurer, will cut its participation in public health insurance exchanges to only a handful of states next year after expanding to nearly three dozen for this year.

CEO Stephen Hemsley said Tuesday that the company expects losses from its exchange business to total more than $1 billion for this year and last. He added that the company cannot continue to broadly serve the market created by the Affordable Care Act's coverage expansion due partly to the higher risk that comes with its customers.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...04-19-09-14-34

[rogue06]

But we keep getting told how great its going

[rogue06]

Reuters has a less detailed account

Source: UnitedHealth to exit all but a handful of Obamacare exchanges in 2017: CEO

UnitedHealth Group Inc Chief Executive Officer Steven Hemsley said on Tuesday that the company would largely exit the Obamacare exchange market in 2017, following through on a warning he had given late last year that costs appeared to be unsustainable.

Hemsley, in prepared remarks made as part of the company's first-quarter earnings report, said that after a state-by-state review, it had found that the smaller overall market size and shorter term, higher risk profile suggested it could not offer plans on a sustained basis. UnitedHealth sells these individual insurance plans, created as part of President Barack Obama's national healthcare law, in 34 states this year.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

[One Bad Pig]

But we keep getting told how great its going

Insurance of all types depends on most of its purchasers not requiring regular payout on their policies in order to remain affordable. The exchanges haven't been good at attracting those types of purchasers.

[Cow Poke]

Insurance of all types depends on most of its purchasers not requiring regular payout on their policies in order to remain affordable. The exchanges haven't been good at attracting those types of purchasers.

One of the things that always baffled me was the fact that you need YOUNG people in the mix to make it work, but many of these who would otherwise have to get their own policy can be covered on their parents' policy up to age 26.

[One Bad Pig]

One of the things that always baffled me was the fact that you need YOUNG people in the mix to make it work, but many of these who would otherwise have to get their own policy can be covered on their parents' policy up to age 26.

I don't think a whole lot of forethought was spent on crafting the bill; there certainly wasn't much forethought involved in voting on it.

[Truthseeker]

I don't think a whole lot of forethought was spent on crafting the bill; there certainly wasn't much forethought involved in voting on it.

Maybe. That's not a big part of what's wrong with the USFG, though. It is basically anti-free market; it always reaches for more power and wealth.

Didn't people say that Obamacare was designed to fail. When it does, the USFG is going to say, look, we have a much better alternative. . . . You'll like it! Result: 100% socialist health care.

[Littlejoe]

Maybe. That's not a big part of what's wrong with the USFG, though. It is basically anti-free market; it always reaches for more power and wealth.

Didn't people say that Obamacare was designed to fail. When it does, the USFG is going to say, look, we have a much better alternative. . . . You'll like it! Result: 100% socialist health care.

That's a lot of people who will lose their jobs if all the insurance companies go away. You're talking in the neighborhood of 1 to 1.5 million workers if you include all the ones employed at Hospitals, Doctors and Dentist offices whose job it is to bill the insurance company. Where are you going to create jobs to replace all those?

[jordanriver]

That's a lot of people who will lose their jobs if all the insurance companies go away. You're talking in the neighborhood of 1 to 1.5 million workers if you include all the ones employed at Hospitals, Doctors and Dentist offices whose job it is to bill the insurance company. Where are you going to create jobs to replace all those?

that sounds like the Luddites' complaint, (when they didn't want to lose their obsolete jobs)

[Roy]

That's a lot of people who will lose their jobs if all the insurance companies go away. You're talking in the neighborhood of 1 to 1.5 million workers if you include all the ones employed at Hospitals, Doctors and Dentist offices whose job it is to bill the insurance company. Where are you going to create jobs to replace all those?

Maybe they could do something that is actually useful?

[Littlejoe]

that sounds like the Luddites' complaint, (when they didn't want to lose their obsolete jobs)

Maybe they could do something that is actually useful?

Most times, jobs (like the garment industry Luddites) are gradually phased out or moved. You're talking a mass dumping of over a million workers onto a market that has no room to absorb it. I think for one thing, it would be political suicide to displace that many workers at once. But It will also cause a massive money drain as most of those go on the dole until (hopefully) they find new employment. Not to mention the financial fallout as massive debt forfeitures cause banks to struggle/falter etc. Because wages have remained so stagnant, most American can't afford to make until next Tuesday financially. According to this article: "Nearly half of Americans would have trouble finding $400 to pay for an emergency."

I think it would bring about a financial chaos in the U.S.

[jordanriver]

Most times, jobs (like the garment industry Luddites) are gradually phased out or moved. You're talking a mass dumping of over a million workers onto a market that has no room to absorb it. I think for one thing, it would be political suicide to displace that many workers at once. But It will also cause a massive money drain as most of those go on the dole until (hopefully) they find new employment. Not to mention the financial fallout as massive debt forfeitures cause banks to struggle/falter etc. Because wages have remained so stagnant, most American can't afford to make until next Tuesday financially. According to this article: "Nearly half of Americans would have trouble finding $400 to pay for an emergency."

I think it would bring about a financial chaos in the U.S.

when you put your faith in the hands of private owners and "entrepreneurs" (the chaos and anarchy of money-capitalism), you have to take the bad with the good.

In America we all compete for our dinner and our roof. When you have competition, that means winners and LOSERS. Real life playing Monopoly.

When all you have to do to keep from getting eaten by the bear is outrun your fellow American, that means some Americans are gonna get eaten by the bear, instead of having a system where all the Americans cooperate and kill the bear in the first place.

there's plenty of work to be done. Cities can't fill all the potholes for example because money is required to hire laborers.

[Littlejoe]

that sounds like the Luddites' complaint, (when they didn't want to lose their obsolete jobs)

Maybe they could do something that is actually useful?

when you put your faith in the hands of private owners and "entrepreneurs" (the chaos and anarchy of money-capitalism), you have to take the bad with the good.

In America we all compete for our dinner and our roof. When you have competition, that means winners and LOSERS. Real life playing Monopoly.

When all you have to do to keep from getting eaten by the bear is outrun your fellow American, that means some Americans are gonna get eaten by the bear, instead of having a system where all the Americans cooperate and kill the bear in the first place.

there's plenty of work to be done. Cities can't fill all the potholes for example because money is required to hire laborers.

But you're proposing forcing "bad" via the government, upon a Privately owned system that is flawed but working. There's no way this would be good. All your post is doing is saying: "Oh well, we're going to destroy the economy for your best interest, but you have no one to blame but yourself". That's not a solution that's just a prediction. If you want to force a socialized healthcare system, you need to have an answer for the very real chaos that will ensue. Riots, looting etc....seriously! You're kidding your self if you don't think this will happen.

[jordanriver]

But you're proposing forcing "bad" via the government, upon a Privately owned system that is flawed but working. There's no way this would be good. All your post is doing is saying: "Oh well, we're going to destroy the economy for your best interest, but you have no one to blame but yourself". That's not a solution that's just a prediction. If you want to force a socialized healthcare system, you need to have an answer for the very real chaos that will ensue. Riots, looting etc....seriously! You're kidding your self if you don't think this will happen.

what should the '47%' ers of your link do.

[Mountain Man]

Maybe. That's not a big part of what's wrong with the USFG, though. It is basically anti-free market; it always reaches for more power and wealth.

Didn't people say that Obamacare was designed to fail. When it does, the USFG is going to say, look, we have a much better alternative. . . . You'll like it! Result: 100% socialist health care.

Yep. The Democrats were pretty open about the fact that Obamacare was meant as a stepping stone for single payer. Whether it succeeded or failed was irrelevant to then since their only goal was to get the government's foot in the door of the healthcare industry.