The Future of the ACA

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by nbs2, Apr 19, 2016.

  1. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #1
    I admit that the person who pointed me to the AP article got it from Drudge, but I'm inclined to cut the AP some slack for being the AP - although the article is written more like a commentary than I would like.

    All that being said, of insurers are facing massive losses generally, with only a few turning profits, what is the future of the ACA? As private insurers, who will generally find profit anywhere, drop out, what's next?

    Does the fed jump in, creating single payor? Does the program collapse under its own weight? Do we throw incentives to keep the privates in the market?

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-04-19-09-14-34
     
  2. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #2
    Will inevitably be scrapped in favor of a single-payer system, probably sooner rather than later.

    Until that day, every single article like this will continue to somehow serve as "proof that Obamacare is working!"
     
  3. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #3
  4. nbs2 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #4
    That's irrelevant. Unless insurers are mandated to participate in the exchanges, they have no reason to stay. They certainly aren't looking for your sympathy.

    The only people looking for sympathy are the people on the insurance that will have to look elsewhere next year, because the cost of the program convinced the company to close the product.

    The question is earnest - where does this go? I agree with Populism, that single payer is the likely end of the road. It does raise a question of how much it will cost to implement, if a company with $6.8b in profit (as you point out) couldn't make a financial go of just a portion of it. I think it's a worthwhile cost, but still something that needs to be asked.
     
  5. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #5
    Imagine how much better the ACA would have been had the Republicans tried to fix it 50+ times as opposed to try and repeal it.
     
  6. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #6
    http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/obamas-economic-recovery-in-just-9-charts/

    5th graph in, it shows costs have continued the same path and with no deviation.

    Single-payer would be a lot less costly to begin with - streamlined bureaucracy as opposed to adding to it, not having to deal...

    Or we can do the standby plan of "never get sick". That's the party of pro-life's solution to everything. Simple, no thought required, and the profiteers can still remain rich.

    The term for-profit is half-baked to begin with. They are private businesses, and in business to expect constant profit constantly is not realistic. Manipulating the system to try to make it that way can't be any better either. The title "for-profit" almost feels like a manipulative end-run so people believe the notion they must always turn a profit, while otherwise telling everyone else big double-standards, which - on top of lots of other issues, which the WND article paints Obama unfairly on (but others that Obama does have some control over, none of it is single-facet or clear-cut) - is why people are losing faith in the system.
    --- Post Merged, Apr 19, 2016 ---
    Or how much less it all would have cost...

    Never mind Obama took a Republican's own plan and made it nationwide, with a few tweaks (for which everyone said the big insurance company lobbyists were wanting...)

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ly-admits-that-obamacare-came-from-romneycare
     
  7. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #7
    Jerome Corsi? Give me a ****ing break.
     
  8. shinji macrumors 65816

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    #8
    We were supposed to have a public option in the ACA, which wouldn't have been single payer, but a government-run insurer nonetheless. Blue Dog "Democrats" and their Republican buddies killed that.

    And as much as I'd love to see single payer or a public option, rather than let that happen, I think insurance companies will just raise premiums. This article is about United who has an enormous footprint in many states, and they can afford to leave the least profitable states. Not every insurance company is in the same position, and some will want to stay as long as they can charge high premiums.
     
  9. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #9

    Correction, the republicans couldn't stop a cold when the ACA was passed. The public option was killed because democrats caved.
     
  10. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #10
    This was written in February but seems relevant here:

    The Urban Institute (pdf) last week put out a very interesting report. They looked into why United Healthcare is losing money hand over fist on the Exchanges and then examined if this was a matter of Exchange structure or a matter of United Healthcare’s strategy.

    TLDR: United Healthcare is losing money because they did not think their strategy through. Sucks to be them but this is not a systemic Exchange problem.

    United offered marketplace based coverage in 36 of the 81 study regions in 2015, but, it offered the lowest-cost silver plan in only four and was the second lowest-cost silver insurer in only another four.

    ~~

    In the 48 regions in which it participates in 2016, United offers the lowest-cost silver plan in only four and is the second-lowest-cost insurer in 11 others. Although United has entered over half of the 81 rating regions we analyze, their premiums are generally high relative to other competitors, presumably to mitigate risk and to compensate for what may be a broader-than-average provider network…. United’s premiums in particular have generally been substantially higher than their competitors, and therefore it is unlikely that they were playing a critical role in inducing the competitive behavior witnessed among the other insurers.​

    There's a longer analysis/commentary on this at my source link. Followup post "UHC and their strategy in two pictures" is here.
     
  11. nbs2 thread starter macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #11
    I am concerned that they blanked out the UHC quality rating, which may have justified a higher rate, but it brings up a valid point about how UHC has managed their market strategy.

    Assuming that this is just UHC failing in a venture, and the marketplace will survive without them, I see no reason for ACA reforms to be pushed. If this is a larger systemic issue, as asserted by the AP article, that portends larger changes will be necessary for the long term survival of the program.

    A secondary question is how does UHC recover from this. Lower cost plans are coupled with poorer coverage. That resultingly means higher OOP costs for end users, which may be preferable - although we have historically been willing to pay a little more for a high coverage HMO since the lower OOP means we can better calculate our potential expenses for the year. Still, if that's what people want, I'm sure UHC will provide it, as my understanding is that low cost-low coverage plans are usually the money-makers.
     
  12. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #12
    Actually, the AP article offers a lot of vague innuendo without substantive backup. Aetna is the only other insurer mentioned and even then only in vague generality ("...other major insurers like Aetna have questioned the viability of the exchanges.").
     
  13. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #13
    Torch it and replace it with an actual 21st century health care system instead of the profit-driven trash that it is now.

    America will continue to be a global joke as long as it has hard working citizens who have to set up a ****ing GoFundMe when they get sick just so they don't go bankrupt or die.
     
  14. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #14
    And the award for the Most Hyperbolic Post of the Year goes too...
     
  15. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #15
    You wish.

    The truth hurts, eh?
     
  16. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #16

    Imagine if they actually read it before the passed it.
     
  17. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    That's it in one, and a sure sign why the current crop of Republican Congress critters shouldn't be allowed to run a cheese shop.

    Serious legislators would have worked to rewrite the law to fix its problems. Of course, serious legislators would have passed a new immigration bill, an update infrastructure bill, and protected the United States' credit rating.
     

Share This Page