Save Obamacare - The Gift the Still Keeps on Giving...Entertainment!

[maxparrish]

I'ts been awhile since Talk-Freethought has had an update on the welfare state fun making in the notorious scheme affectionately known as Obamacare. In fact, it has been so much fun that many are suggesting that its time to move on to single-payer partying, to fix and replace the Obamacare bash that is growing stale, if not sour.

Let's not be hasty, the Obamacare material for merry-making is not exhausted. An update on the festivities...

Remember the co-ops, the quasi-public option to get rid of those evil and greedy 'for profit' insurers? So much hope, so little return. Nine of the 23 state co-ops have imploded, tossing 600,000 people back onto the market (ironically, many are the same ones who initially lost their private insurance when the "you can keep your plans" disappeared).

And most of the remaining co-ops are in trouble. In fact, in 2014 22 of the 23 co-ops lost money in spite of pocketing $2.4 billion in taxpayer support.

Apparently they offered rates below costs, and therefore enrolled many times more people than "centrally planned". To the disappointment of Obamacare planners, it seems it's true that you can't sell below cost and make it up in volume - who'da thought?

And there is many fewer enrolling, also "centrally unplanned". The administration said it expects just 1.3 million new enrollees in 2016 - far below the 8 million originally "planned" for 2016.

Fixed:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...acare-co-ops-are-underwater-and-sinking-fast/

 

[ksen]

Thanks for the Forbes link but, uh, it doesn't go to a page that talks about anything you are in the OP.

 

[maxparrish]

Thanks for the Forbes link but, uh, it doesn't go to a page that talks about anything you are in the OP.

Fixed: http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...acare-co-ops-are-underwater-and-sinking-fast/

 

[Tom Sawyer]

To the disappointment of Obamacare planners, it seems it's true that you can't sell below cost and make it up in volume - who'da thought?

Which is exactly why profit shouldn't be a motive in this sort of thing. It's a cost which should be borne by society as a whole.

Hillarycare should solve all the problems you have with the system.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Are you trying to tell me that an economic policy has flaws? Inconceivable.

 

[jonatha]

From the linked article: "Most co-ops’ weak operating performance is a result of high medical claims trend and not enough scale to offset administrative costs."

The obvious solution is to increase the scale - single-payer now.....

 

[prideandfall]

I'ts been awhile since Talk-Freethought has had to endure another post where I flog the dead horse that gives me the biggest boner

fixed that for you.

 

[maxparrish]

To the disappointment of Obamacare planners, it seems it's true that you can't sell below cost and make it up in volume - who'da thought?

Which is exactly why profit shouldn't be a motive in this sort of thing. It's a cost which should be borne by society as a whole.

Hillarycare should solve all the problems you have with the system.

There is a kernel of agreement between us. I disagree in part as there is nothing wrong with profit. But who pays "as a whole" is a separate moral question. From a redistributionist and "social democrat" perspective the largest moral shortcoming of Obamacare is its unjust redistribution of costs. One would think a society-wide assurance of equal health would provide:

- Costs disproportionately borne by the upper half of the income/wealth distribution. Those better off help pay for those less better off.
- Subsidy costs are not actually borne and redistributed to the young, males, older women, and singles.
- Services and and locations equally accessible and equally charged.
- Perhaps banishment of private insurance for 'extra services' for the better off.

As it is now, Obamacare impact is highly discriminatory on the basis of employment, age, sex, and marital status. In addition, it is highly discriminatory based on geographic location.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, Obamacare sucks. The only value to it is that it seems to be a step up from what you had before. You need to keep stepping, though.

 

[ksen]

Thanks for the Forbes link but, uh, it doesn't go to a page that talks about anything you are in the OP.

Fixed: http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrill...acare-co-ops-are-underwater-and-sinking-fast/

thx :hug:

 

[maxparrish]

Oh no...more bad news.

Remember when President Obama said Obamacare was working “better than intended“? Perhaps he should pay closer attention to what the person in charge of Obamacare is really saying. DHHS Secretary Burwell announced in a conference call last week “We believe 10 million is a strong and realistic goal” for enrollment in the Obamacare exchanges in 2016.

That may sound like things are hunky-dory, but POTUS and the public need to read between the lines. Hitting the 10 million target means that the Exchanges will enroll only 900,000 more people than they did this year. Moreover, it is only half the 2016 level that the Congressional Budget Office predicted merely four months ago! Sadly, this is just the tip of the iceberg. University of Minnesota finance professor Stephen Parente has shown that by late 2016, Exchange premiums are likely to roughly double for individuals covered under the most popular Bronze plans. Consequently, the number of uninsured is expected to gradually rise beginning in 2017 as enrollment in the non-group market begins to decline.

A new Wharton School study explains in a nutshell what is happening. Except for those who are heavily subsidized, Obamacare coverage is a really bad deal for the uninsured . Consider the poorest members on the Exchange (family income equivalent to 138-175% of poverty). Even after subsidies, the net premium paid by such families to obtain a Silver plan will be nearly triple the average amount they would have spent out of pocket had they remained uninsured!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...nstrates-why-obamacare-exchanges-floundering/

 

[ksen]

From the comments:

Calling co-ops government run health insurance makes the writer sound like someone who dessn’t know much about health care policy. As for Obama’s “green energy projects” the tax payers turned a profit on those loans. But lets move past the stupid in the article (which sadly is the majority and try to look at the little bit of valid substance) and that is new insurance companies have a diffucult time where there are entrenched, deep pocketed, alternatives. That’s the case no matter if its a co-op or a full private, profit driver alternative, its one of the reasons for lack of competition in the insurance marketplace. It’s difficult to successfully expand into new markets. However again, as is typical with partisan drivel disguised as a news article this article leaves out that the WSJ, and the S&P in their reviews, is that other than 4 of them, all the rest have decent enough liquidity, and most of the struggles are related to.. trying to undercut prices (not some socialist scam) to gain market share vs larger carriers with is not some abnormal business practice in the field. This is really a non story. With a healthy helping of BS mixed in garnished with some partsian nonsense. Don’t waste your time on this article.

 

[ksen]

I agree with max that we should just make the leap to singlepayer.

 

[funinspace]

Ya, Obamacare sucks. The only value to it is that it seems to be a step up from what you had before. You need to keep stepping, though.

But I don't really like stepping on boners...

 

[maxparrish]

From the comments:

Calling co-ops government run health insurance makes the writer sound like someone who dessn’t know much about health care policy. As for Obama’s “green energy projects” the tax payers turned a profit on those loans. But lets move past the stupid in the article (which sadly is the majority and try to look at the little bit of valid substance) and that is new insurance companies have a diffucult time where there are entrenched, deep pocketed, alternatives. That’s the case no matter if its a co-op or a full private, profit driver alternative, its one of the reasons for lack of competition in the insurance marketplace. It’s difficult to successfully expand into new markets. However again, as is typical with partisan drivel disguised as a news article this article leaves out that the WSJ, and the S&P in their reviews, is that other than 4 of them, all the rest have decent enough liquidity, and most of the struggles are related to.. trying to undercut prices (not some socialist scam) to gain market share vs larger carriers with is not some abnormal business practice in the field. This is really a non story. With a healthy helping of BS mixed in garnished with some partisan nonsense. Don’t waste your time on this article.

Why would you quote such an ingloriously feeble "comment"? This challenged commentator has not even mastered basic reading, let alone the skills necessary to make a coherent argument. For example, the article did not call co-ops "government run health insurance" - just the opposite. The article clearly stated that rather than getting their "efficient and affordable government-run health insurance" ... "what they settled for was something called “co-ops”—which stands for Consumer Oriented and Operated Plans." And, the article continued, "Turns out the left will have to wait a little longer to prove the blessings of government-run health insurance."

Your quotation of dumb as dirt fuming continues with the guy's bizarre rant about the difficulty of competing against pre-existing carriers and how co-ops ought to be excused for their blunders - excuse us? Perhaps the poster forgot that Obamacare PROMISED lots of new competition, including from co-ops, in State markets to drive down prices, not lots of new excuses and failures because prices were too low. (Duh).

The only "BS" on that page is from someone who neither reads an article, nor understands, that bankruptcy is actually failure...not a feature.

 

[maxparrish]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...change-enrollment-growth-to-collapse-in-2016/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not surprised that the co-ops are failing--companies sucking at the government tit tend do to poorly.

Our local co-op has imploded, it will cease to exist at the end of the year. They were way over-paying their management team, they did a horrible job of setting up a network. The usual game of milk the government contract and then get paid to fix it--but they weren't paid to fix it.

 

[untermensche]

Thanks for the update.

By the way, the millions who didn't have health insurance before Obamacare but do now say that all is not bad.

The many who couldn't get insurance because of preexisting conditions say that all is not bad.

The emergency rooms that are seeing a little less people with no health insurance say that all is not bad.

But for-profit health insurance is one of the worst ideas in history.

It gives people an incentive to reduce medical coverage.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So the for-profit industry is commenting on the competition so that the for-profit industry can create less confidence in the co-ops, thereby making more profit. That is boring and expected. But what is annoying is when I click the link I have to watch some stupid advertisement. Stupid Internet.

 

[dismal]

Hillarycare should solve all the problems you have with the system.

The obvious solution is to increase the scale - single-payer now.....

Ya, Obamacare sucks. The only value to it is that it seems to be a step up from what you had before. You need to keep stepping, though.

I agree with max that we should just make the leap to singlepayer.

You people obviously did not get the memo.

Obamacare is here to stay!