• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Aetna pulling out of the ACA exchanges - Effect on Affordable Care Act

coloradoatheist said:
Nope. The systems are very much intertwined. Canada very much rides on the performance of the US health care system.
Click to expand...

Sure, whatever. I'd ask you to explain how these for-profit middlemen you stick in the middle of your process help out our system, but I imagine I'd just roll my eyes at the stupidity of the response and ignore it, so there's no need to bother.
 
Jolly_Penguin said:
Forget a public "option". That still keeps the insurance companies with their hands grabbing for the money. Health care should not be profit driven. It SHOULD be a net loss. How anybody expects a health care system that works and also makes a profit.... boggles the mind. It should be losing money and it should not be at all attractive for private interests to get involved.
Click to expand...

The co-ops are not profit driven. How did they work out?
 
dismal said:
Jolly_Penguin said:
Forget a public "option". That still keeps the insurance companies with their hands grabbing for the money. Health care should not be profit driven. It SHOULD be a net loss. How anybody expects a health care system that works and also makes a profit.... boggles the mind. It should be losing money and it should not be at all attractive for private interests to get involved.
Click to expand...

The co-ops are not profit driven. How did they work out?
Click to expand...

They probably lost money and folded because they didn't have an infusion of tax dollars into them to make up for the fact that this is the type of system which should be paying out more than it takes in.

Is that how they worked out?
 
Tom Sawyer said:
dismal said:
The co-ops are not profit driven. How did they work out?
Click to expand...

They probably lost money and folded because they didn't have an infusion of tax dollars into them to make up for the fact that this is the type of system which should be paying out more than it takes in.

Is that how they worked out?
Click to expand...

Except that they did have a big infusion of tax dollars.
 
dismal said:
Tom Sawyer said:
They probably lost money and folded because they didn't have an infusion of tax dollars into them to make up for the fact that this is the type of system which should be paying out more than it takes in.

Is that how they worked out?
Click to expand...

Except that they did have a big infusion of tax dollars.
Click to expand...

That's not what anyone except you is talking about. They got tax dollars to fund them but they closed because they were losing money. The point being made is that these sorts of agencies should be losing money. Obamacare made health insurance costlier and the business of offering it riskier because the companies couldn't find as many ways to avoid covering the expensive patients like they did in the past. That means that it's working the way that a health care system should be designed to work. That design involves a large loss as a result of having it.
 
Trausti said:
Canada has one of the lowest rates of MRI scanning machines per capita in the developed world, with six MRI scanners per million people, compared to 40.1 in Japan, 14.4 in Switzerland and 26.6 in the United States. Pittsburgh alone has more MRI machines than all of Canada.
Click to expand...

http://www.bcliving.ca/health/mri-scans-waiting-for-public-health-care-vs-paying-for-a-private-mri-clinic
Click to expand...

On the other hand, both Japan and Switzerland have one thing in common with Canada that the US does not: Universal Health Care.
 
So what happens to the exchanges is all the companies pull out? There are only 5 major player and they are all trying to consolidate into 3 now. The DOJ filed suit to stop the mergers but that doesn't mean anything. How can ACA mandate coverage is there is no one to provide/offer coverage?
 
Tom Sawyer said:
dismal said:
Except that they did have a big infusion of tax dollars.
Click to expand...

That's not what anyone except you is talking about. They got tax dollars to fund them but they closed because they were losing money. The point being made is that these sorts of agencies should be losing money. Obamacare made health insurance costlier and the business of offering it riskier because the companies couldn't find as many ways to avoid covering the expensive patients like they did in the past. That means that it's working the way that a health care system should be designed to work. That design involves a large loss as a result of having it.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Insuring people is what insurance companies do. They love covering stuff as long as they can charge you for it.

The reason they are losing money is not that they are covering stuff, but that they aren't charging enough. This is because they have an adverse selection problem. The people who are already sick are signing up in droves while the people who are healthy are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection
 
Trausti said:
KeepTalking said:
On the other hand, both Japan and Switzerland have one thing in common with Canada that the US does not: Universal Health Care.
Click to expand...

These are apples to oranges to prunes comparisons.  Health_care_system_in_Japan  Healthcare_in_Switzerland
Click to expand...

What was the point of bringing MRI machines in Japan, Switzerland, and Canada into the discussion of health care in the US, then? It seems Japan and Switzerland are closer to Canada in terms of their health care system, than they are to the US.
 
untermensche said:
Universal Medicare for all.

It's time for the US to join the late 20th Century.
Click to expand...

BIG 10-4!!!!!

....And, it's not like any "trails" need to be "blazed", either!!!




The PARALLELS, between.....how this fight proceeded, in Canada, and how it's happening HERE, in the U.S......are SHOCKING!!!!!​
 
dismal said:
Nonsense. Insuring people is what insurance companies do. They love covering stuff as long as they can charge you for it.
Click to expand...
this is patently and obviously false, as the real world and proved again and again and again.
they hate covering stuff but love charging you for the idea that they cover stuff, and will go out of their way to not cover as much as possible.
but, that's a largely irrelevant distraction.

The reason they are losing money is not that they are covering stuff, but that they aren't charging enough. This is because they have an adverse selection problem. The people who are already sick are signing up in droves while the people who are healthy are not.
Click to expand...
and this ultimately comes down to why health insurance shouldn't be a function of a for profit business enterprise, because health insurance being profitable is fundamentally predicated on one of three things happening:
1. sick people being fucked out of health care
2. healthy people being fucked out of money
3. laws mandating the citizenry artificially inflate the profits of a company

this is why government run health care should be mandatory: make it a tax (like social security) every citizen pays, and make it available to everyone.
i'm fine with there being additional insurance companies offering expanded services or coverage as long as the basic universal health safety net is in place.
 
dismal said:
Tom Sawyer said:
That's not what anyone except you is talking about. They got tax dollars to fund them but they closed because they were losing money. The point being made is that these sorts of agencies should be losing money. Obamacare made health insurance costlier and the business of offering it riskier because the companies couldn't find as many ways to avoid covering the expensive patients like they did in the past. That means that it's working the way that a health care system should be designed to work. That design involves a large loss as a result of having it.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Insuring people is what insurance companies do. They love covering stuff as long as they can charge you for it.

The reason they are losing money is not that they are covering stuff, but that they aren't charging enough. This is because they have an adverse selection problem. The people who are already sick are signing up in droves while the people who are healthy are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection
Click to expand...

Right. The adverse selection problem is the big issue. Those who are already sick need to be covered in full and society as a whole should pay however much that costs and those who are healthy need to contribute towards those costs. There's already a governmental system in place to take money from people across society as a whole and pay out costs related to the functioning of that society, so health care coverage fits nicely into that. If you just give money to private companies and say "OK, now go and operate in this massive financial black hole", you get situations like you had pre-Obamacare and situations like you have with Obamacare.
 
Playball40 said:
So what happens to the exchanges is all the companies pull out? There are only 5 major player and they are all trying to consolidate into 3 now. The DOJ filed suit to stop the mergers but that doesn't mean anything. How can ACA mandate coverage is there is no one to provide/offer coverage?
Click to expand...

My hope is that when HRC gets into office, she can start working on, at minimum, the public option and that congress will have no choice but to pass it because there won't be any alternative.

Ultimately, Jolly Penguin is right. We need a mandatory single-payer universal health care provider - preferably one paid for through our income taxes. But it is going to be a baby-step process in this country.
 
RavenSky said:
Playball40 said:
So what happens to the exchanges is all the companies pull out? There are only 5 major player and they are all trying to consolidate into 3 now. The DOJ filed suit to stop the mergers but that doesn't mean anything. How can ACA mandate coverage is there is no one to provide/offer coverage?
Click to expand...

My hope is that when HRC gets into office, she can start working on, at minimum, the public option and that congress will have no choice but to pass it because there won't be any alternative.

Ultimately, Jolly Penguin is right. We need a mandatory single-payer universal health care provider - preferably one paid for through our income taxes. But it is going to be a baby-step process in this country.
Click to expand...

Why income-taxes?? Why create a new wheel??

If it's Medicare For All.....we've already got a system, in-place! It's under-funded.....but, that's because there's too-much money spent/wasted, funding for-profit health-care!!

We should boost Medicare taxes.....tell the for-profits to TAKE A HIKE.....and, serve everyone.

I'm sure employers......providing health-care, for their employees.....would be FULLY ON-BOARD.....not-to-mention have PLENTY-MORE buck$, for bonuses & pay-increases!!!!




http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/transcript2.html


*

​
 

BbQgU8a.jpg

 
Trausti said:
Nice Squirrel said:
In my private plan I still have to wait to see a doctor. Months for a specialist. I have no real choice in companies since work subsidizes it and they are using a different metric I would use to purchase insurance. As far as the MRI issue, that was addressed long time ago, and the article was misleading to begin with. Number of MRI machines does not mean better care, just like owning four cars does not make me four times the better driver.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you have a right to purchase the private insurance you want? Some plans only cover in-group care (like a health system or co-op) while others let you shop around. I think the government should not interfere in what you think is best for you.
Click to expand...

I could not afford it. So purchasing it would be moot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom