Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Nations largest Insurer dropping ObamacareFollow

#1 Dec 02 2015 at 9:42 AM Rating: Default
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/261617-unitedhealth-ceo-regrets-entering-obamacare-marketplace

Hope and change you can believe in ....lol
#2 Dec 02 2015 at 1:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Sooo, forcing health insurers to provide better health insurance cost the health insurers some of their profits? Say it ain't so!
#3 Dec 02 2015 at 3:41 PM Rating: Default
Apparently you don't realize the insurers pass this cost onto the customers. Which, incidentally, is why premiums are more than double what they were before obamacare and the deductibles are more than triple.

So basically you're ok with unusable insurance because of 5k deductibles and astronomical costs. Gotcha.
#4 Dec 02 2015 at 3:42 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
yeahitis wrote:
Apparently you don't realize the insurers pass this cost onto the customers.
And are still taking losses?

Huh
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#5 Dec 02 2015 at 3:43 PM Rating: Default
yep....that's how bad obamacare is.
#6 Dec 02 2015 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
yeahitis wrote:
yep....that's how bad obamacare is.
Yep...Romney's idea of single-payer was a better choice!
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#7 Dec 02 2015 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
yeahitis wrote:
insurers pass this cost onto the customers.


If ever there was a pinnacle of gullibility, this is it. It's just like how they pass the savings and share the wealth with everyone benevolently when they have more money, or hire more people than what they need for the sake of creating jobs for great justice, and their product or service is always better than the rest. These are sort of things you believe when the entirety of your life experience consists of staring blankly at TV adverts.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#8 Dec 02 2015 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Point of clarification: UnitedHealth is the largest insurance provider in the nation but was only the 4th or 5th largest contributor to the exchanges. Aetna, Humana, Anthem and perhaps HCSC cover more people on the exchanges (Aetna and Humana are expected to merge).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Dec 02 2015 at 5:09 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
I would prefer our healthcare system to either be single payer, or model as a risk limiting strategy capping per capita costs at some level for a fixed fee. It would fix an awful lot of the problems with the system.

The ACA fixed a lot of the hickory ******* associated with OoP maximums, but a lot of providers are still packing their policies with generally useless garbage. It also mandates 90% of premiums to claims, which is somewhat helpful for cost control.

Edited, Dec 2nd 2015 6:16pm by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#10 Dec 03 2015 at 11:00 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
"So basically you're ok with unusable insurance because of 5k deductibles and astronomical costs. Gotcha."

No. I think the government should pay for your medical needs directly using your tax dollars. It would be way cheaper and health care would no longer be limited to those with money. It would also remove a lot of greed from your culture. People get mad and crazy when they have to fight for survival in a society that doesn't really require people to fight for survival based on the available resources, it makes them cruel, it's the reason the right feels the way it does, they're just too stupid to see it so they view it as people stealing from them when it's really just not being a douche and costs essentially nothing.
#11 Dec 03 2015 at 11:55 AM Rating: Decent
Timelordwho wrote:
I would prefer our healthcare system to either be single payer, or model as a risk limiting strategy capping per capita costs at some level for a fixed fee. It would fix an awful lot of the problems with the system.

The ACA fixed a lot of the hickory ******* associated with OoP maximums, but a lot of providers are still packing their policies with generally useless garbage. It also mandates 90% of premiums to claims, which is somewhat helpful for cost control.

Edited, Dec 2nd 2015 6:16pm by Timelordwho


I would prefer healthcare that is affordable and that people can actually use. Why are you against this?
#12 Dec 03 2015 at 11:57 AM Rating: Decent
Yodabunny wrote:
"So basically you're ok with unusable insurance because of 5k deductibles and astronomical costs. Gotcha."

No. I think the government should pay for your medical needs directly using your tax dollars. It would be way cheaper and health care would no longer be limited to those with money. It would also remove a lot of greed from your culture. People get mad and crazy when they have to fight for survival in a society that doesn't really require people to fight for survival based on the available resources, it makes them cruel, it's the reason the right feels the way it does, they're just too stupid to see it so they view it as people stealing from them when it's really just not being a douche and costs essentially nothing.


We are the government you nimrod....all you're doing is saying it's ok to steal from one person to give to another because you know better.
#13 Dec 03 2015 at 12:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
youzzzuck wrote:
I would prefer healthcare that is affordable and that people can actually use. Why are you against this?

TLW doesn't sound like he's against single-payer at all.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Dec 03 2015 at 3:52 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
youzzzuck wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I would prefer our healthcare system to either be single payer, or model as a risk limiting strategy capping per capita costs at some level for a fixed fee. It would fix an awful lot of the problems with the system.

The ACA fixed a lot of the hickory ******* associated with OoP maximums, but a lot of providers are still packing their policies with generally useless garbage. It also mandates 90% of premiums to claims, which is somewhat helpful for cost control.

Edited, Dec 2nd 2015 6:16pm by Timelordwho


I would prefer healthcare that is affordable and that people can actually use. Why are you against this?

Ah, so you *are* in favor of single payer healthcare. That's what the ACA really should have been.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#15 Dec 03 2015 at 3:54 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
youzzzuck wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
"So basically you're ok with unusable insurance because of 5k deductibles and astronomical costs. Gotcha."

No. I think the government should pay for your medical needs directly using your tax dollars. It would be way cheaper and health care would no longer be limited to those with money. It would also remove a lot of greed from your culture. People get mad and crazy when they have to fight for survival in a society that doesn't really require people to fight for survival based on the available resources, it makes them cruel, it's the reason the right feels the way it does, they're just too stupid to see it so they view it as people stealing from them when it's really just not being a douche and costs essentially nothing.


We are the government you nimrod....all you're doing is saying it's ok to steal from one person to give to another because you know better.

We are the government? You're saying we are all corrupt, self-centered, self-serving, greedy, narcissistic assholes?

Actually, that would explain a lot.

Edited, Dec 3rd 2015 4:54pm by Debalic
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#16 Dec 03 2015 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
The ideal solution would be to have a risk sharing system, with minimal administrative overhead. The core component that people need is catastrophic coverage , as that's not a level of un-hedged risk that it makes sense to have, and because people are generally bad at estimating risk, preventative care. If people weren't bad at that, the preventative care would be superfluous, as that's not really an unpredictable risk.

Plans should be standardized and easy comparable ('apples to apples') to limit the confusopoly that develops around complex risk management systems. This is something that the MA exchanges (Romneycare) and Obamacare have done a decent job at.

Further risk pooling is an option, via single payer, but that relies on central planning, that can be expensive to do correctly, but it's still a net benefit if those publicly borne administration and market distortions costs are less than the private administration and market distortion costs (yes private risk management also generates market distortion, but in some fairly complex and counter-intuitive ways). The big benefit here is the general gain in opportunity cost by not forcing everyone under the state's umbrella to do their own coverage calculations, for the same reason that some states choose to handle personal taxes centrally rather than have every try to color within the lines each year. It also lets you do cost shifting onto those who can pay while also incentivizing those who can't to use the services correctly.

Things that are more or less a net drag on good heath insurance policies are the policies with hundreds of line item exemptions and subsidies; there is no reason each class of care need it's own hedge, you're unnecessarily running premiums up with them. People buy them because they like getting free x/y/z but it's not, they've just shaped the market for specific things. This is one place that I take issue with the ACA package on, as it embeds several of these into the standardized packages. But it's probably still a net benefit as you can do better comparative analysis, even if the plans are suboptimal.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#17 Dec 03 2015 at 5:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
yeahitis wrote:
insurers pass this cost onto the customers.


If ever there was a pinnacle of gullibility, this is it. It's just like how they pass the savings and share the wealth with everyone benevolently when they have more money...


Um... They did. In the form of their customers previously *not* paying double the premiums and 3x the deductibles. Market forces tend to ensure that prices are as low as they can be while still maintaining a healthy profit for the business. Too little profit and they risk bankruptcy if/when they hit a slow year. Too much, and their competitors will undercut them. You just don't see the costs you aren't paying as "sharing the wealth" when you aren't paying them. Well, until someone comes along and forces the entire industry into an inefficient and high cost model, which forces them to pass more cost onto the paying customers, that is.

Quote:
...or hire more people than what they need for the sake of creating jobs for great justice...


Why would you want them to do this? Seems counter productive. Who do you think ultimately pays for those jobs that aren't actually needed?

Quote:
...and their product or service is always better than the rest.


If it's not what you want, in a free market, you can buy your insurance from someone else. Everyone's product and service can't always be better than the rest, but the market does tend to force them to be as good as the buyers demand relative to the price paid. It's not a perfect system,but it's better than any other method at delivering the best goods and services at the lowest prices possible.


Quote:
These are sort of things you believe when the entirety of your life experience consists of staring blankly at TV adverts.


No. These are the sorts of wildly inaccurate descriptions of the process one might derive if they've drunk too much socialist kool aid. There is no such thing s a free lunch.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Dec 04 2015 at 8:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Continuing my public airing of grievances, why does employer have anything to do with healthcare policy selection. They generally aren't in the business of providing healthcare or risk management. The core issue is the tax advantage that you can get if you offer benefits, but can't get if you subsidize employee self-elections, but can get if you contract or self employ. I get why the reason they do it but it's a bad solution to fix a problem that they created to fix a legacy solution to a different problem.

Same problem with other employer benefits, it encourages inefficiencies in the system.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#19 Dec 04 2015 at 9:01 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Quote:
Why would you want them to do this? Seems counter productive.


No way! You think so? It's almost as if that's exactly what I was getting at there. Yet that is what people want to believe when they advocate an upward concentration of wealth.

Long story short, you are all suckers, and if someone isn't a savoring the bull **** from their fingers, they're a "Communist" or a "Socialist" or some other negative sounding spin word that may or may not be in any way related. It is really tiring. I cannot wait for the day the oldest generations have killed themselves off and the only Christian conservative types that remain are a handful of fringe lunatics building paranoid "freedom bunkers" for themselves to escape reality and ultimately Darwin themselves off into.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#20 Dec 05 2015 at 1:27 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
the fuck are you on about?

Less people and lower capital investiture to create the same outputs is a net benefit, even in systems where the results of those productive activities are fully shared by the public. Efficiency is not a crime. The goal of a good economic paradigm is to utilize labor wherever it would produce the greatest benefit, and after using some of the surplus to incentivise efficient resource distribution, use the rest to incentivise effective resource consumption.

Edited, Dec 5th 2015 2:33am by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#21 Dec 05 2015 at 3:01 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
His original post didn't provide a value judgment on employing more people than necessary.

His point was that some people erroneously believe that companies are prone to this, and other behaviours (e.g. upping wages due to high profits) that spread money around society, when it is stupid to believe this is the case. He does not personally express a view on whether over-employment is desirable.

Gbaji asks why anyone would want overemployment anyway, as it is bad and inefficient. Kuwoobie's second post agrees, and asserts that this is perfectly in-keeping with his original point that companies over-employing in order to spread the wealth is a ridiculous thing for people to believe in.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#22 Dec 05 2015 at 3:45 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Kavekkk Smiley: cookie
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#23 Dec 05 2015 at 5:06 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Yeah, but despite the battling of the straw-men, the original point, I guess, is that corps pass on additional costs to consumers. That is something that is generally true, but not a reason Obamacare is bad. Obamacare makes fundamental marketplace changes that introduce clarity, which is generally pro-consumer. The fact that less consumers will be tricked into badly designed plans with high premiums and low benefits is a net loss to many insurance companies, and despite the fact that people with bad policies did partially subsidize people with good policies (lowering costs for some) it is a net consumer benefit. It also removes the inefficient hospital administered subsidy of the poor by insurance policy holders, which disincentived insurance purchases, and enshrines a direct government subsidy to replace it. This expands the subscriber base of the insurance providers, so well managed insurance providers stand to benefit, while ones relying on on cash cow bad policies stand to lose greatly.

It's fairly unsurprising that an insurance provider that already has high market penetration would suffer, as they benefit less from the additional exposure provided by more customers and probably have a reasonable percentage of accounts with badly structured policies which are endangered by the reduced competitive barriers.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#24 Dec 05 2015 at 5:56 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,159 posts
Yeah, yeah, Timelord. Face it, Obama's killing the insurance industry just like he killed American steel. In a few years time they'll be stamping out insurance policies in China for two cents a clause.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#25 Dec 05 2015 at 6:55 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Thanks Obama.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#26 Dec 05 2015 at 2:34 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Quote:
, why does employer have anything to do with healthcare policy selection
The other day, three heavy hitters lost their jobs due to a lost of a number of contracts at my job. I thought about this. No one should be tied to their employer. The most hypocritical thing about all of this is that the same people who always complain about "lazy people mooching off the government" are the same people who support using tax dollars to pay for ER visits.
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 192 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (192)