Can we now call Øbamacare a failure?

[Aho Old Guy]

Well, here comes the 1st domino:
"Knoxville the first place Obamacare could fail

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WVLT/CNN)-- With the only insurer left on the Affordable Care Act exchange in the Knoxville area set to exit the market in 2018, the city could become the first place in the nation where Obamacare fails, according to a CNN Money report.

When Humana pulls out of the exchange next year, roughly 40,000 people will be without an option for a subsidized insurance policy unless another carrier steps in.

"I'm not optimistic that one of our existing insurers would like to expand their coverage area without some changes to the regulatory system, either by Congress or the administration," said Tennessee Insurance Commissioner Julie McPeak.

According to CNN, McPeak said the carriers want more flexibility to limit their exposure to sick, costly enrollees........"
http://www.local8now.com/content/news/K ... 41673.html

You've already had numerous areas of the country going from multiple carriers to one (ex in Tenn 3/4 of the counties have only 1 carrier). Now you're going to see numerous areas going from 1 to zero carriers...

Humana: The "Martin Shkreli" of BigHealthCo providers.

McPeak said the carriers want more flexibility to limit their exposure to sick, costly enrollees........"

We got tht -- Humana has lost nearly $500 million on ObamaCare over the past few years, and 'only' made $9- to $10 billion over the same term ...

Bottom line, don't yah know?

[kalm]

Well, here comes the 1st domino:
"Knoxville the first place Obamacare could fail

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WVLT/CNN)-- With the only insurer left on the Affordable Care Act exchange in the Knoxville area set to exit the market in 2018, the city could become the first place in the nation where Obamacare fails, according to a CNN Money report.

When Humana pulls out of the exchange next year, roughly 40,000 people will be without an option for a subsidized insurance policy unless another carrier steps in.

"I'm not optimistic that one of our existing insurers would like to expand their coverage area without some changes to the regulatory system, either by Congress or the administration," said Tennessee Insurance Commissioner Julie McPeak.

According to CNN, McPeak said the carriers want more flexibility to limit their exposure to sick, costly enrollees........"
http://www.local8now.com/content/news/K ... 41673.html

You've already had numerous areas of the country going from multiple carriers to one (ex in Tenn 3/4 of the counties have only 1 carrier). Now you're going to see numerous areas going from 1 to zero carriers...

Humana: The "Martin Shkreli" of BigHealthCo providers.

McPeak said the carriers want more flexibility to limit their exposure to sick, costly enrollees........"

We got tht -- Humana has lost nearly $500 million on ObamaCare over the past few years, and 'only' made $9- to $10 billion over the same term ...

Bottom line, don't yah know?

The pining over having to cover high risk patients gets old. It's a part of your business, get over it. It would be like schools only wanting to educate high IQ students or prisons only wanting non violent criminals.

Wah.

[CID1990]

So are these responses the "new hotness"?

I seem to remember they used to resemble something like this:

"The idea of a death spiral is wrong"

Is there anything happening right now that wasn't precisely predicted?

[kalm]

So are these responses the "new hotness"?

I seem to remember they used to resemble something like this:

"The idea of a death spiral is wrong"

Is there anything happening right now that wasn't precisely predicted?

It's popularity is surprising...I'm guessing skewed by states that have embraced it.

[CID1990]

So are these responses the "new hotness"?

I seem to remember they used to resemble something like this:

"The idea of a death spiral is wrong"

Is there anything happening right now that wasn't precisely predicted?

It's popularity is surprising...I'm guessing skewed by states that have embraced it.

Oh I'm sorry

I thought we were vilifying insurance companies for behaving exactly as predicted nearly 8 years ago

[kalm]

It's popularity is surprising...I'm guessing skewed by states that have embraced it.

Oh I'm sorry

I thought we were vilifying insurance companies for behaving exactly as predicted nearly 8 years ago

If you let them...

Turns out, people like access to coverage. They don't like higher premiums. They hate extractionary corporations.

[CID1990]

Oh I'm sorry

I thought we were vilifying insurance companies for behaving exactly as predicted nearly 8 years ago

If you let them...

Turns out, people like access to coverage. They don't like higher premiums. They hate extractionary corporations.

I see

So "for profit" companies with shareholders should be told exactly how to shape their business models and what risks they should assume

And everything'll be OK

[Skjellyfetti]

You're starting to see the problem with a "for profit" healthcare industry. That's progress.

[kalm]

If you let them...

Turns out, people like access to coverage. They don't like higher premiums. They hate extractionary corporations.

I see

So "for profit" companies with shareholders should be told exactly how to shape their business models and what risks they should assume

And everything'll be OK

In general, no. When it comes to health insurance, yes. Or let them compete against a government single payer program.

[GannonFan]

Oh I'm sorry

I thought we were vilifying insurance companies for behaving exactly as predicted nearly 8 years ago

If you let them...

Turns out, people like access to coverage. They don't like higher premiums. They hate extractionary corporations.

And that's why we'll be at a single payer, government run system as soon as the Dems get control of the HofR, the Senate, and the White House at the same time, which should happen sometime in the 2020's decade. Like I said before, we'll have the English NHS system - basic, rudimentary care for all at no cost to anyone (the government will eat the cost so it will cost us, we just won't know it - odd that you used the term extractionary when that's precisely what government tends to - irony indeed), and then we'll have an exclusive private market for people with money that will be the place for all the best drugs and best procedures done by the best and the brightest in their profession. And then we'll spend at least the next 100 years debating why people with money have such better health care than everyone else.

[CID1990]

You're starting to see the problem with a "for profit" healthcare industry. That's progress.

I'm not seeing a problem at all

I've already lived in countries with state run healthcare and doctors who make only slightly more money than me

I'm just trying to figure out if I'm properly keeping up with the acceptable outrage

[Pwns]

And that's why we'll be at a single payer, government run system as soon as the Dems get control of the HofR, the Senate, and the White House at the same time, which should happen sometime in the 2020's decade. Like I said before, we'll have the English NHS system - basic, rudimentary care for all at no cost to anyone (the government will eat the cost so it will cost us, we just won't know it - odd that you used the term extractionary when that's precisely what government tends to - irony indeed), and then we'll have an exclusive private market for people with money that will be the place for all the best drugs and best procedures done by the best and the brightest in their profession. And then we'll spend at least the next 100 years debating why people with money have such better health care than everyone else.

Don't worry. I'm sure all the liberals that consider required ultrasounds for abortion an egregious government encroachment on health care will kick and scream at the idea of a government bureaucracy deciding the standard of care for everyone and whether or not you've got enough remaining life expectancy is enough to get a hip replacement or advanced immunotherapy for cancer.

It won't have a chance.

[kalm]

If you let them...

Turns out, people like access to coverage. They don't like higher premiums. They hate extractionary corporations.

And that's why we'll be at a single payer, government run system as soon as the Dems get control of the HofR, the Senate, and the White House at the same time, which should happen sometime in the 2020's decade. Like I said before, we'll have the English NHS system - basic, rudimentary care for all at no cost to anyone (the government will eat the cost so it will cost us, we just won't know it - odd that you used the term extractionary when that's precisely what government tends to - irony indeed), and then we'll have an exclusive private market for people with money that will be the place for all the best drugs and best procedures done by the best and the brightest in their profession. And then we'll spend at least the next 100 years debating why people with money have such better health care than everyone else.

Whoa there Mr. Free Market Evangelical!

You're always saying that the best ideas win out through elections. If the people elect single payer advocates they are condoning that system. Hardly extractionary in the same vein....

[GannonFan]

And that's why we'll be at a single payer, government run system as soon as the Dems get control of the HofR, the Senate, and the White House at the same time, which should happen sometime in the 2020's decade. Like I said before, we'll have the English NHS system - basic, rudimentary care for all at no cost to anyone (the government will eat the cost so it will cost us, we just won't know it - odd that you used the term extractionary when that's precisely what government tends to - irony indeed), and then we'll have an exclusive private market for people with money that will be the place for all the best drugs and best procedures done by the best and the brightest in their profession. And then we'll spend at least the next 100 years debating why people with money have such better health care than everyone else.

Whoa there Mr. Free Market Evangelical!

You're always saying that the best ideas win out through elections. If the people elect single payer advocates they are condoning that system. Hardly extractionary in the same vein....

When have I said the best ideas win out through elections? Link? I've said that what the voters want win out through elections (as opposed to your idea of some secret society like in the "Simpsons" dictating the outcomes). What the voters want is not always what's best. Heck, even deciding what is best is obviously subjective.

[kalm]

Whoa there Mr. Free Market Evangelical!

You're always saying that the best ideas win out through elections. If the people elect single payer advocates they are condoning that system. Hardly extractionary in the same vein....

When have I said the best ideas win out through elections? Link? I've said that what the voters want win out through elections (as opposed to your idea of some secret society like in the "Simpsons" dictating the outcomes). What the voters want is not always what's best. Heck, even deciding what is best is obviously subjective.

What the voters want is not always what's best?

This is highly subjective and sometimes might even be true but good lord, can you be anymore of a democracy hating, establishment fanboi ?

The best ideas argument has been one of your better angles ever since we started debating money in politics. Don't shy away from it now, sweetheart.

Here's a primer on the famous Princeton study regarding political outcomes for you.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

BTW, the Stonecutters made Steve Guttenberg a star. They are capable of anything!

[BDKJMU]

Well, here comes the 1st domino:
"Knoxville the first place Obamacare could fail

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WVLT/CNN)-- With the only insurer left on the Affordable Care Act exchange in the Knoxville area set to exit the market in 2018, the city could become the first place in the nation where Obamacare fails, according to a CNN Money report.

When Humana pulls out of the exchange next year, roughly 40,000 people will be without an option for a subsidized insurance policy unless another carrier steps in.

"I'm not optimistic that one of our existing insurers would like to expand their coverage area without some changes to the regulatory system, either by Congress or the administration," said Tennessee Insurance Commissioner Julie McPeak.

According to CNN, McPeak said the carriers want more flexibility to limit their exposure to sick, costly enrollees........"
http://www.local8now.com/content/news/K ... 41673.html

You've already had numerous areas of the country going from multiple carriers to one (ex in Tenn 3/4 of the counties have only 1 carrier). Now you're going to see numerous areas going from 1 to zero carriers...

Humana: The "Martin Shkreli" of BigHealthCo providers.

McPeak said the carriers want more flexibility to limit their exposure to sick, costly enrollees........"

We got tht -- Humana has lost nearly $500 million on ObamaCare over the past few years, and 'only' made $9- to $10 billion over the same term ...

Bottom line, don't yah know?

Humana's net income over the last 5 years less than 5.5B:
2016: 614 million
2015: 1.28B
2014: 1.15B
2013: 1.23B
2012: 1.22B
http://amigobulls.com/stocks/HUM/income ... ent/annual
Their Obamacare losses would haven rise significantly if they hadn't already pulled out of a lot of markets..

[BDKJMU]

Humana: The "Martin Shkreli" of BigHealthCo providers.

We got tht -- Humana has lost nearly $500 million on ObamaCare over the past few years, and 'only' made $9- to $10 billion over the same term ...

Bottom line, don't yah know?

The pining over having to cover high risk patients gets old. It's a part of your business, get over it. It would be like schools only wanting to educate high IQ students or prisons only wanting non violent criminals.

Wah.

Forcing companies to provide a product to customers that is guaranteed to lose $$ is dumb. It would be like forcing auto insurance companies to cover people who get in a wreck every year, or total a car once every couple of years, people who might cost 5 or 10 or more times as much to insure as the drivers with the best records, yet letting them only charge those bad drivers 3x as much as drivers with the best records.

[kalm]

The pining over having to cover high risk patients gets old. It's a part of your business, get over it. It would be like schools only wanting to educate high IQ students or prisons only wanting non violent criminals.

Wah.

Forcing companies to provide a product to customers that is guaranteed to lose $$ is dumb. It would be like forcing auto insurance companies to cover people who get in a wreck every year, or total a car once every couple of years, people who might cost 5 or 10 or more times as much to insure as the drivers with the best records, yet letting them only charge those bad drivers 3x as much as drivers with the best records.

They clearly should only insure Olympic level athletes in peak health and drop coverage at the first signs of illness.

[Skjellyfetti]

Forcing companies to provide a product to customers that is guaranteed to lose $$ is dumb. It would be like forcing auto insurance companies to cover people who get in a wreck every year, or total a car once every couple of years, people who might cost 5 or 10 or more times as much to insure as the drivers with the best records, yet letting them only charge those bad drivers 3x as much as drivers with the best records.

There's something pretty different about health insurance and car insurance.

I'll let you put on your thinking cap here.

[BDKJMU]

Forcing companies to provide a product to customers that is guaranteed to lose $$ is dumb. It would be like forcing auto insurance companies to cover people who get in a wreck every year, or total a car once every couple of years, people who might cost 5 or 10 or more times as much to insure as the drivers with the best records, yet letting them only charge those bad drivers 3x as much as drivers with the best records.

They clearly should only insure Olympic level athletes in peak health and drop coverage at the first signs of illness.

Yeah, like Olympic level athletes, the top 1% of 1% would provide enough of a customer base.

[kalm]

They clearly should only insure Olympic level athletes in peak health and drop coverage at the first signs of illness.

Yeah, like Olympic level athletes, the top 1% of 1% would provide enough of a customer base.

Well they should expand their base then...

[kalm]

Forcing companies to provide a product to customers that is guaranteed to lose $$ is dumb. It would be like forcing auto insurance companies to cover people who get in a wreck every year, or total a car once every couple of years, people who might cost 5 or 10 or more times as much to insure as the drivers with the best records, yet letting them only charge those bad drivers 3x as much as drivers with the best records.

There's something pretty different about health insurance and car insurance.

I'll let you put on your thinking cap here.

Give him a break. He's trying real hard.

[BDKJMU]

Yeah, like Olympic level athletes, the top 1% of 1% would provide enough of a customer base.

Well they should expand their base then...

They have to the majority of the population..

[BDKJMU]

Forcing companies to provide a product to customers that is guaranteed to lose $$ is dumb. It would be like forcing auto insurance companies to cover people who get in a wreck every year, or total a car once every couple of years, people who might cost 5 or 10 or more times as much to insure as the drivers with the best records, yet letting them only charge those bad drivers 3x as much as drivers with the best records.

There's something pretty different about health insurance and car insurance.

I'll let you put on your thinking cap here.

No kidding sherlock.

Doesn't change the business model for any type of insurance (or any for profit business for that matter) which is they shouldn't be forced by the govt to sell a product at a loss...

[BDKJMU]

If you let them...

Turns out, people like access to coverage. They don't like higher premiums. They hate extractionary corporations.

And that's why we'll be at a single payer, government run system as soon as the Dems get control of the HofR, the Senate, and the White House at the same time, which should happen sometime in the 2020's decade. Like I said before, we'll have the English NHS system - basic, rudimentary care for all at no cost to anyone (the government will eat the cost so it will cost us, we just won't know it - odd that you used the term extractionary when that's precisely what government tends to - irony indeed), and then we'll have an exclusive private market for people with money that will be the place for all the best drugs and best procedures done by the best and the brightest in their profession. And then we'll spend at least the next 100 years debating why people with money have such better health care than everyone else.

And I'd throw in much shorter wait times for those who will be able to afford & obtain private insurance. And liberals will spend the whole time whining about how the system isn't "fair" to make the system more fair by saying we should be like Canada, which bans private insurance for basic hospital and medical care services. (Why when affluent Canadians want the best care, they just come across the border)..