• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACA marketplaces getting a bit too lucrative for insurers

Yeup, ya got nothing, another year of trump and you will be speechless.

LOL!!

If you are going to spout snark and nonsense, at least make it creative and grounded in just a little bit of logic.

You've done neither.

You are dismissed.
 
LOL!!

If you are going to spout snark and nonsense, at least make it creative and grounded in just a little bit of logic.

You've done neither.

You are dismissed.

Meaning once again neither you if trump have a plan.
Yes, waste if time watching you chase your tail....
 
Okay, Medicare-for-all it is, I guess.

Which is probably what will occur, sooner rather than later. Americans treat health care as a buisness unlike in Europe were its treated as a social program and human right. Is that the way the US will go, its anyones guess.
 
Which is probably what will occur, sooner rather than later. Americans treat health care as a buisness unlike in Europe were its treated as a social program and human right. Is that the way the US will go, its anyones guess.

Support for markets is rapidly dwindling on the left to center, and seemingly non-existent on the right. So yeah, it's hard to see how some version of Medicare-for-all doesn't happen at this point.
 
What happened had nothing to do with Trump; it had to do with the design of ACA from the beginning. Even Obama and his henchmen knew they were selling the public a polished turd. Insurance companies got brow-beat by Obama to get into the exchange but they found, that even with under the table subsidies and premium hikes/deductible raises they couldn't be profitable so they dropped out, exactly what your graph demonstrates.

Actually it had to do with the republican party.. that dismantled those things that introduced competition in the market and pushed down premiums..

Trump has continued that trend. And thus premiums have risen.
 
Support for markets is rapidly dwindling on the left to center, and seemingly non-existent on the right. So yeah, it's hard to see how some version of Medicare-for-all doesn't happen at this point.
\
And watch how this plays out.

It will be like the ACA all over again.

The democrats that will end up supporting the bill..won;t really know whats in it.. and are going to be more than a bit surprised that Medicare for all isn't the free lunch that they thought it was. They are going to have constituents in their face.. wondering why their medicare benefits are reduced.. or that they know have to pay 20% for their doctors when before their Medicaid paid 100%.. or wonder why rural hospitals are closing because they can't make it. And when they see the reduction in the number of physicians and care staff from the cost containment on salaries... wow.

So its going to be a big mess and the public is going to be pissed.. especially the older generation that just had their medicare messed with..

And the republicans will be lambasting every single one of those problems.. (of course with absolutely no plan of their own)…

And it will be a bigger mess.

Now we have been informed that in our SNF's.. and Swing Beds.. there will not be any rehab payments based on time.. but only on functional level. Which.. how that's going to work.. I have no idea... since it will be like a DRG.. with getting the patient out as fast as they can.. will be the norm. Just dumped onto another service.. like homehealth.. or bypassed altogether.. and eventually lead to higher costs later when patients don't reach functional levels they could have reached.
 
Actually it had to do with the republican party.. that dismantled those things that introduced competition in the market and pushed down premiums..

Trump has continued that trend. And thus premiums have risen.
Specifics please. WHICH things were "dismantled"? Premiums have been ballooning since day one.
 
Specifics please. WHICH things were "dismantled"? Premiums have been ballooning since day one.

here is one example:

Risk corridors were a three-year program designed to keep the individual markets stable during the early years of ACA compliance. The idea was to take money from insurers that ended up with lower-than-expected claims, and send it to insurers that ended up with higher-than-expected claims.
And if insurers with higher-than-expected claims needed to be reimbursed more than the amount contributed by insurers with lower-than-expected claims, HHS was going to make up the difference. This was clarified in the 2014 Benefit and Payment Parameters, finalized in 2013. On the flip side, if insurers had done exceedingly well, HHS would have been able to keep the excess funding. Obviously that didn’t happen.
Then in late 2014, Republican lawmakers, led by Senator Marco Rubio, added language to a must-pass budget bill (Cromnibus) that retroactively made the risk corridors program budget neutral. This was after 2014 coverage had been provided for nearly the full year, and after 2015 open enrollment was already underway, with rates long-since locked-in.
Claims were indeed higher than expected in 2014. When the dust settled, carriers with higher-than-expected claims were owed a total of $2.87 billion, while carriers with lower-than-expected claims only contributed $362 million to the program. HHS took that money – which they could no longer supplement with federal funding due to the December 2014 Comnibus Bill – and spread it around to all the insurers that were owed money, but they were only able to pay them 12.6 percent of what was owed.
The 2015 risk corridor results were similarly bleak.
Large insurers were mostly able to weather this setback. But smaller insurers, and particularly the start-up CO-OPs, were not.

Source: 10 ways the GOP sabotaged Obamacare | healthinsurance.org
Follow us: @EyeOnInsurance on Twitter | healthinsurance.org on Facebook
 
here is one example:

Risk corridors were a three-year program designed to keep the individual markets stable during the early years of ACA compliance. The idea was to take money from insurers that ended up with lower-than-expected claims, and send it to insurers that ended up with higher-than-expected claims.
And if insurers with higher-than-expected claims needed to be reimbursed more than the amount contributed by insurers with lower-than-expected claims, HHS was going to make up the difference. This was clarified in the 2014 Benefit and Payment Parameters, finalized in 2013. On the flip side, if insurers had done exceedingly well, HHS would have been able to keep the excess funding. Obviously that didn’t happen.
Then in late 2014, Republican lawmakers, led by Senator Marco Rubio, added language to a must-pass budget bill (Cromnibus) that retroactively made the risk corridors program budget neutral. This was after 2014 coverage had been provided for nearly the full year, and after 2015 open enrollment was already underway, with rates long-since locked-in.
Claims were indeed higher than expected in 2014. When the dust settled, carriers with higher-than-expected claims were owed a total of $2.87 billion, while carriers with lower-than-expected claims only contributed $362 million to the program. HHS took that money – which they could no longer supplement with federal funding due to the December 2014 Comnibus Bill – and spread it around to all the insurers that were owed money, but they were only able to pay them 12.6 percent of what was owed.
The 2015 risk corridor results were similarly bleak.
Large insurers were mostly able to weather this setback. But smaller insurers, and particularly the start-up CO-OPs, were not.

Source: 10 ways the GOP sabotaged Obamacare | healthinsurance.org
Follow us: @EyeOnInsurance on Twitter | healthinsurance.org on Facebook
LOL, so those evil Republicans tried to make it "budget neutral"? shame on them. Sorry, no sale. All I see is a system that could run as designed and an attempt to hide that fact from the public.
 
LOL, so those evil Republicans tried to make it "budget neutral"? shame on them. Sorry, no sale. All I see is a system that could run as designed and an attempt to hide that fact from the public.

You obviously don't know what it means that it was budget neutral. Yes.. shame on them for not understanding what it would do.

IF the point is to keep premiums lower.... in all likelihood.. the risk corridors WOULD NOT be budget neutral. They would be budget negative. In other words.. premiums and profits from most insurance companies would be lower.. which would mean that they would not have to give money back... because their profits were not extreme..

And any new insurance companies going into new markets.. and taking that risk and having a bad time in a new market.. would be covered from having too much loss.

But eventually the overall effect would be lower premiums. That's how economically this would work. Making it "budget neutral"..means that if there are companies that lost money.. then there MUST be companies that made a ton more profit than they should have to balance that. .

Which makes no sense if your desire is to keep premiums low.
 
You obviously don't know what it means that it was budget neutral. Yes.. shame on them for not understanding what it would do.

IF the point is to keep premiums lower.... in all likelihood.. the risk corridors WOULD NOT be budget neutral. They would be budget negative. In other words.. premiums and profits from most insurance companies would be lower.. which would mean that they would not have to give money back... because their profits were not extreme..

And any new insurance companies going into new markets.. and taking that risk and having a bad time in a new market.. would be covered from having too much loss.

But eventually the overall effect would be lower premiums. That's how economically this would work. Making it "budget neutral"..means that if there are companies that lost money.. then there MUST be companies that made a ton more profit than they should have to balance that. .

Which makes no sense if your desire is to keep premiums low.
LOL, you talk a lot of hypotheticals but the bottom line to most people is they're paying a lot more than the did before ACA. Some big name companies dropped out of markets because they were losing money. There's a map above that shows the drastic loss of coverage in many markets. That's that bottom line.
 
LOL, you talk a lot of hypotheticals but the bottom line to most people is they're paying a lot more than the did before ACA. Some big name companies dropped out of markets because they were losing money. There's a map above that shows the drastic loss of coverage in many markets. That's that bottom line.

Nope.. I am not talking about hypotheticals..

1. After the ACA, premiums that had been going up exponentially stabilized..and rate increases that were seen prior to the ACA began decreasing. Yes rates went up.. but at a much slower pace.

That was in part to things like the individual mandate.. the exchanges, the increase in the number of coops and the things like the risk corridors.. which gave an insurance company some assurance that if they got into a market.. they would not lose their shirt because initially getting into a market.. they are going to have low market share.. and that puts them at increased risk... the risk corridors mitigated that risk.


the irony here.. is that your chart.. which shows the loss of coverage in markets... is absolutely true. The problem is.. and the irony is.. you don't seem to have a clue about why their is a loss of coverage. IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE SABOTAGING OF THE ACA BY THE REPUBLICANS.


For example.. as I provided... there were risk corridors.. so an insurance company could go into a new market.. which was risky... because you don't know your pricing that much, you don't know your utilization.. because you have less market share you have more exposure to risk.. and you can't negotiate for prices from providers that well. Well the risk corridors in the ACA mitigated that risk.. so insurance companies got into those new markets. THEN the republican stopped the way those risk corridors worked.. (as provided to you)… and in fact Trump began making noises that he was not going to pay for those risk corridors...

So what happened? Well insurance companies got out of those markets because without the risk corridors in place.. they were too risk at this point (without enough market share).


AGain.. the reason that companies that previously were in markets after the aca.. now have gotten out of them.. is largely because of the republicans weakening the ACA.


That's not hypothetical.. that's fact.
 
\
And watch how this plays out.

It will be like the ACA all over again.

The democrats that will end up supporting the bill..won;t really know whats in it.. and are going to be more than a bit surprised that Medicare for all isn't the free lunch that they thought it was. They are going to have constituents in their face.. wondering why their medicare benefits are reduced.. or that they know have to pay 20% for their doctors when before their Medicaid paid 100%.. or wonder why rural hospitals are closing because they can't make it. And when they see the reduction in the number of physicians and care staff from the cost containment on salaries... wow.

So its going to be a big mess and the public is going to be pissed.. especially the older generation that just had their medicare messed with..

And the republicans will be lambasting every single one of those problems.. (of course with absolutely no plan of their own)…

And it will be a bigger mess.

Now we have been informed that in our SNF's.. and Swing Beds.. there will not be any rehab payments based on time.. but only on functional level. Which.. how that's going to work.. I have no idea... since it will be like a DRG.. with getting the patient out as fast as they can.. will be the norm. Just dumped onto another service.. like homehealth.. or bypassed altogether.. and eventually lead to higher costs later when patients don't reach functional levels they could have reached.
Umm, the Medicare for All bill covers more than Medicare does and it covers 100%
 
Umm, the Medicare for All bill covers more than Medicare does and it covers 100%

Please link to the section on how it pays for SNF's, Swing beds and Transitional care units. and the actual payment rates. Thanks.
 
The performance of Trump and the GOP on health care has been so disastrous and their focus on destroying markets so single-minded that some form of Medicare-for-all is now starting to feel inevitable, even to me.

This is good to hear coming from someone like you. I've always wanted Trump to succeed in his efforts, to make sure we get to Medicare for all as the result.
 
This is good to hear coming from someone like you. I've always wanted Trump to succeed in his efforts, to make sure we get to Medicare for all as the result.

So you want Trump or someone like Trump to be in charge of your healthcare? Please explain.
 
So you want Trump or someone like Trump to be in charge of your healthcare? Please explain.

Yes, for a little while, so that once we know what an unmitigated disaster it is, the pendulum swings the other way, all the way to M4A.
 
Yes, for a little while, so that once we know what an unmitigated disaster it is, the pendulum swings the other way, all the way to M4A.

Well.. actually if it goes to M4A..and someone like trump is in charge... its going to make M4A.. look terrible. I mean.. you think that women have to worry now about their healthcare... imagine what its going to be like when a Trump is in charge of their healthcare.. …

It just seems kind of funny that you would like to turn healthcare over to people like Trump....
 
Well.. actually if it goes to M4A..and someone like trump is in charge... its going to make M4A.. look terrible. I mean.. you think that women have to worry now about their healthcare... imagine what its going to be like when a Trump is in charge of their healthcare.. …

It just seems kind of funny that you would like to turn healthcare over to people like Trump....

I don't think it will get to M4A during Trump time
 
I don't think it will get to M4A during Trump time

Or anytime. That's another consequence of M4A. You are potentially putting healthcare in the hands of someone like Trump.. or Pence.. Ted Cruz.....
 
Back
Top Bottom