Reply
Regular Contributor

Obamacare - The UN-Affordable Care Act

If Obama care is so good - why are all the insurance companies bailing out - AND, more importantly, with premiums rising to levels beyond the ability of many if not most to pay - and deductibles so high that the coverage is essentially worthless - really a $10,000 deductible - absent a catastrophic illness, you'll never get there and after the stiff premium, can you afford deductibles that high???

 

It needs to be repealed and replaced with a market driven plan that includies subsidies for those who really need them. The failure of this Democrat driven plan rammed down the throats of all Americans is proof positive of why the government should NOT be in the health care or insurance business. Other than the DoD and parts of Homeland Security the government doesw not do much well and has politicized so much of government that an unbiased agency that is not driven by aganda and left wing ideology is rare indeed...

0 Kudos
168 Views
24
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

1. Obamacare is NOT Socialsim. 100% of all insurance on the exchanges are provided by PRIVATE companies.

 

2. The big problem with Obamacare are the State Exchanges because in many smaller states there is little or no competition.

 

3. The solution to problem number 2 above is easy. Eliminate the State Exchanges, go with one National Exchange, and promote competition across state lines.

Regular Contributor

Why is AARP so vigourous in defense of socialism and Obama and his un-affordable care act?  Aside from advancing the lies of the "so-called Progressive narrative" could it be that AARP agressively defends Obama Care BECAUSE AARP is actually IN the insurance business and has a strong financial interest in perpetuating this fiscal disaster???

 

The talking points in response to my earlier post all a continuation of the Obama Administrations biased and untrue manipulation of so-called "facts" and statistics that were used and manipulated to advance this take-overe of 1/6 of the US economy and to exercise more - moving toward unfettered control over the lives of ordinary Americans.

 

AARP is neither unbiased nor non-partisan - clearly advocates for progressive Democratic Socialism...sad, very sad...

Honored Social Butterfly

AARP defends PPACA because its best for Seniors and all Americans.

 

Since the ACA prevents the Insurance industry from screwing the American public, Republicans oppose it. The GOPer replacement is nothing but another scheme to give tax money to the wealthy by taking it from the poor and allowing the sale of worthless policies that ACA banned.

 

The figures from the CBO clearly demonstrate the inferiority of the Ryan plan for all but the wealthy.

Honored Social Butterfly

My question is, as to why no one is actually considering the only thing that could provide 100% to all Americans> A single Payer, or Universal Care.
Why are so many still saying that Universal care is "socialism"  do they actually understand those words or they simply repeating them as a label?
So, we are going back to the samo samo.

Many will not have health insurance because it is their right to do so. but apparently it is also their right to go to a Emergency Room incurring  all kinds of costs and I as a tax payer be the one that pays for it.
I guess the people that want that to happen are the ones that have no intention on paying for anything in this country and having me to pay for their problems.
Those are the real mouchers of this country. Those are the ones that have no responsibilty of their actions or accountability. But, expect me to save their behind when they get into trouble.
Well,  will agree with this Health care if they assure me that no one that doesn't have any insurance will not be able to have any kind of medical attention until they bring their wallets with them

no name
Trusted Social Butterfly

When you have all execises your treasured 'right' to opine [that's free speech by a different name], maybe you can get down to cases and agree that Life is a Right as well and may well have a superior moral imperative attached to it than blowing _ _ _ _ _ into the wind. 

 

I just scanned the post quickly.  I have to go back and read more carefully. From the scan it seemed the poster argued the founders intended to mean life was intended to be protected from the Government. Well...in my view it is the Government that should do the protecting don't you think?

I mean...with us being a country with a Government established 'by the People', who in hell else is there to do that?  Like I said I have to read it more carefully, but that was my reaction to the scan I had time for.  Something is serously out of whack here and has to be set right. 

0 Kudos
296 Views
8
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@umbarch64 wrote:

When you have all execises your treasured 'right' to opine [that's free speech by a different name], maybe you can get down to cases and agree that Life is a Right as well and may well have a superior moral imperative attached to it than blowing _ _ _ _ _ into the wind. 

 

I just scanned the post quickly.  I have to go back and read more carefully. From the scan it seemed the poster argued the founders intended to mean life was intended to be protected from the Government. Well...in my view it is the Government that should do the protecting don't you think?

I mean...with us being a country with a Government established 'by the People', who in hell else is there to do that?  Like I said I have to read it more carefully, but that was my reaction to the scan I had time for.  Something is serously out of whack here and has to be set right. 


Actually, the poster said that the Constitution's guarantee of life referred to the taking of a life (murder for example). And yes, the government should do the protecting. But the Constitution also established freedom from government as part of it's declaration of individual rights. Remember, limited government was the basis of the Constitution.

0 Kudos
233 Views
7
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

The notion of "limited Government" was embodied in the Articles of Confederation, which proved grossly inadequate to Govern our  Nation in the 18th Century. Republicans try and pretend it will somehow work in the 21st Century, but their real objective is to remove our elected Government's ability to oppose their Corporate Masters.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

The notion of "limited Government" was embodied in the Articles of Confederation, which proved grossly inadequate to Govern our  Nation in the 18th Century. Republicans try and pretend it will somehow work in the 21st Century, but their real objective is to remove our elected Government's ability to oppose their Corporate Masters.


Agreed. Our government is still limited by the specified powers outlined in the Constitution. But our founding fathers wanted a more powerful federal government. I think the word they used was "energetic." The Articles of Confederation were far too weak to help our country function properly. 

 

Limited powers just means not "all powerful," like a dictator. It does NOT mean federal government should be small, which is how I think many interpret it. When you've got 350 million people of hugely varied wealth and needs, spanning different geography/natural resources, you "need" a big centralized government to meet the needs of all Americans. 

0 Kudos
403 Views
4
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@NerdyMom wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

The notion of "limited Government" was embodied in the Articles of Confederation, which proved grossly inadequate to Govern our  Nation in the 18th Century. Republicans try and pretend it will somehow work in the 21st Century, but their real objective is to remove our elected Government's ability to oppose their Corporate Masters.


Agreed. Our government is still limited by the specified powers outlined in the Constitution. But our founding fathers wanted a more powerful federal government. I think the word they used was "energetic." The Articles of Confederation were far too weak to help our country function properly. 

 

Limited powers just means not "all powerful," like a dictator. It does NOT mean federal government should be small, which is how I think many interpret it. When you've got 350 million people of hugely varied wealth and needs, spanning different geography/natural resources, you "need" a big centralized government to meet the needs of all Americans. 


Republicans ALL signed up for the Norquest Pledge, which wants Government "small enough that you could drown it in the bathtub", and the 40% of the GOP that are Teabaggers state repeatedly they favor replacing the Federeal Government with increased powers for the States, JUST LIKE THE CONFEDERACY HAD, and for the same reasons.

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

The notion of "limited Government" was embodied in the Articles of Confederation, which proved grossly inadequate to Govern our  Nation in the 18th Century. Republicans try and pretend it will somehow work in the 21st Century, but their real objective is to remove our elected Government's ability to oppose their Corporate Masters.


Agreed. Our government is still limited by the specified powers outlined in the Constitution. But our founding fathers wanted a more powerful federal government. I think the word they used was "energetic." The Articles of Confederation were far too weak to help our country function properly. 

 

Limited powers just means not "all powerful," like a dictator. It does NOT mean federal government should be small, which is how I think many interpret it. When you've got 350 million people of hugely varied wealth and needs, spanning different geography/natural resources, you "need" a big centralized government to meet the needs of all Americans. 


Republicans ALL signed up for the Norquest Pledge, which wants Government "small enough that you could drown it in the bathtub", and the 40% of the GOP that are Teabaggers state repeatedly they favor replacing the Federeal Government with increased powers for the States, JUST LIKE THE CONFEDERACY HAD, and for the same reasons.


No, no. They want a government that stays within a budget. Just like any responsible family would do. If you make x amount of dollars, you don't spend x times 100.

Just like any responsible family, cuts are hard, but MUST be made.

 

0 Kudos
362 Views
1
Report
Trusted Social Butterfly


@fangoh45 wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

The notion of "limited Government" was embodied in the Articles of Confederation, which proved grossly inadequate to Govern our  Nation in the 18th Century. Republicans try and pretend it will somehow work in the 21st Century, but their real objective is to remove our elected Government's ability to oppose their Corporate Masters.


Agreed. Our government is still limited by the specified powers outlined in the Constitution. But our founding fathers wanted a more powerful federal government. I think the word they used was "energetic." The Articles of Confederation were far too weak to help our country function properly. 

 

Limited powers just means not "all powerful," like a dictator. It does NOT mean federal government should be small, which is how I think many interpret it. When you've got 350 million people of hugely varied wealth and needs, spanning different geography/natural resources, you "need" a big centralized government to meet the needs of all Americans. 


Republicans ALL signed up for the Norquest Pledge, which wants Government "small enough that you could drown it in the bathtub", and the 40% of the GOP that are Teabaggers state repeatedly they favor replacing the Federeal Government with increased powers for the States, JUST LIKE THE CONFEDERACY HAD, and for the same reasons.


No, no. They want a government that stays within a budget. Just like any responsible family would do. If you make x amount of dollars, you don't spend x times 100.

Just like any responsible family, cuts are hard, but MUST be made.

 


No, no, fangoh45.  Cuts are not a MUST, at least not for essentials.  There is and always has been plenty of resources to provide for those essentials.  They just must be paid for by the entirety of the society in as fair a manner as is possible for we poor humans to devise and implement fairly. 

 

Your approach will not do that.  I doubt you will ever comprehend that...and that is truly sad.  Lacking that comprehension what you continually post will remain flawed and irrelevant.

 

We are a republic established by the People for the benefit of the People and paid for by the People in the final analysis. The People elect people from their ranks that are presumeably responsible and competent to do that work.  IF they do their work honorably, correctly and properly the People's interests will be served, not those of special interests, whoever or whatever that might be. 

 

I hate to be pedantic, but somebody has to say this. 

 

If you crawl into the pig-pen, you will come out smelling like the pigs inside....you won't change what they already are.

 

 

0 Kudos
349 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:

@NerdyMom wrote:

@Olderscout66 wrote:

The notion of "limited Government" was embodied in the Articles of Confederation, which proved grossly inadequate to Govern our  Nation in the 18th Century. Republicans try and pretend it will somehow work in the 21st Century, but their real objective is to remove our elected Government's ability to oppose their Corporate Masters.


Agreed. Our government is still limited by the specified powers outlined in the Constitution. But our founding fathers wanted a more powerful federal government. I think the word they used was "energetic." The Articles of Confederation were far too weak to help our country function properly. 

 

Limited powers just means not "all powerful," like a dictator. It does NOT mean federal government should be small, which is how I think many interpret it. When you've got 350 million people of hugely varied wealth and needs, spanning different geography/natural resources, you "need" a big centralized government to meet the needs of all Americans. 


Republicans ALL signed up for the Norquest Pledge, which wants Government "small enough that you could drown it in the bathtub", and the 40% of the GOP that are Teabaggers state repeatedly they favor replacing the Federeal Government with increased powers for the States, JUST LIKE THE CONFEDERACY HAD, and for the same reasons.


Considering that the pledge is all about not increasing the federal (or if you prefer "Federeal") budget, you must think that the current budget must small enough to drown in a bath tub. Or....you were wrong. I'll let you determine which.

 

I have no idea who "Teabaggers" are but I can say that those to the right of Che Guevara would prefer to see the Constitutional approach to the separation of powers. There is no need to revive the Confederacy - the Constitution will do just fine.

 

As to "for the same reason", I can assure you that this "right of Che" guy has no interest in growing cotton if that is what you had in mind.

0 Kudos
377 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:

 

Actually, the poster said that the Constitution's guarantee of life referred to the taking of a life (murder for example). And yes, the government should do the protecting. But the Constitution also established freedom from government as part of it's declaration of individual rights. Remember, limited government was the basis of the Constitution.

 

The Constitution as stated is incorrect. and obviously interpreted in an incorrect manner. I guess we all have our own opinion as to interpreting the Constitution as is seen fit to our own causes.

 

no name
Honored Social Butterfly


@j868138h wrote:

If Obama care is so good - why are all the insurance companies bailing out - AND, more importantly, with premiums rising to levels beyond the ability of many if not most to pay - and deductibles so high that the coverage is essentially worthless - really a $10,000 deductible - absent a catastrophic illness, you'll never get there and after the stiff premium, can you afford deductibles that high???

 

It needs to be repealed and replaced with a market driven plan that includies subsidies for those who really need them. The failure of this Democrat driven plan rammed down the throats of all Americans is proof positive of why the government should NOT be in the health care or insurance business. Other than the DoD and parts of Homeland Security the government doesw not do much well and has politicized so much of government that an unbiased agency that is not driven by aganda and left wing ideology is rare indeed...


More fake news. Yes the deductables for FAMILY coverage on the bronze plans is $12,393, BUT the max oop is $13,810.

The average deductible for 2017 bronze plans marks the first time this average has crossed the $6,000 threshold. Compared to 2016’s average of $5,731, the 2017 average bronze plan deductible for individuals is 6% higher ($6,092). For families enrolled in bronze plans, the average deductible is over $12,000 in 2017.

Cost-Sharing Category2017 Avg. for Individuals2017 Avg. for Families
Deductible (Medical)$6,092$12,393
Max Out-of-Pocket Costs$6,904

$13,81

0 Kudos
320 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

There are parts of Obamacare that need to be fixed, but these are smaller parts.  Yes, the individual market where people make too much to get a subsidy is very challenging.  That's a single person making more than $48,000 a year.  They are challenged if their employer doesn't offer insurance.  

But that's no reason to repeal the whole thing.   Fix the parts that aren't working well. 

 

I worked in the health insurance business for awhile.  There are two primary ways insurance premiums go down.  Insurers drop sicker populations from coverage, or they reduce benefits.  

 

And the federal government does a LOT.   If Congress passes Trump's budget, for example, and they cut 20% of NIH's budget, that's going to significantly hurt biomedical research.  About 80% of their funds are given as grants to other entities who perform basic research.   This is the type of research that private corporations don't do because it's too long and involved, too expensive, and there's no profit in it.  However, private entities rely on the results of this basic research to develop their own products for market.   We will see delays in finding causes and cures for many diseases that ail us.  

Honored Social Butterfly


@j868138h wrote:

If Obama care is so good - why are all the insurance companies bailing out - AND, more importantly, with premiums rising to levels beyond the ability of many if not most to pay - and deductibles so high that the coverage is essentially worthless - really a $10,000 deductible - absent a catastrophic illness, you'll never get there and after the stiff premium, can you afford deductibles that high???

 

It needs to be repealed and replaced with a market driven plan that includies subsidies for those who really need them. The failure of this Democrat driven plan rammed down the throats of all Americans is proof positive of why the government should NOT be in the health care or insurance business. Other than the DoD and parts of Homeland Security the government doesw not do much well and has politicized so much of government that an unbiased agency that is not driven by aganda and left wing ideology is rare indeed...


if you dont like it, you dont have to use it. go buy that private insurance. and no, you wont be penalized. the people that do not like it need to shut it and just not use it.

 

So it begins.
Honored Social Butterfly

Question for GOPers: IF "Obamacare" is unafordable, why are there 24 MILLION Americans who HAVE insurance now than there were before Obamacare?

 

Since PPACA was enacted, the annual increase in insurance premiums is the lowest it has EVER been, and would be lower still if GOPers had not blocked the manditory coverage provision - just like the one that makes auto insurance affordable for everyone.

 

The CBO reported that PPACA would reduce federal deficits by $1.4Trillion and the scheme presented by Ryan & Co would REDUCE that savings by $1.036TRILLION to just $364Billion.

 

The Ryan Scam will also take health insurance away from between 6 million and 22 million Americans who now have health insurance.

 

But sleaziest of all is the fact the Ryan Scam will INCREASE the costs for the poor and middle class while DECREASING costs for the very wealthy - a perfect Republican scam.

 

Some companies are dropping out of the exchanges because Republicans promise to eliminate the "mandate" to get insurance and to once again allow people to waste their money on worthless policies that became illegal under PPACA. Loss of the mandate means fewer healthy young people in the pool, so the risk increases, which is EXACTLY what Ryan plotted to do.

Honored Social Butterfly

Older posted..

Question for GOPers: IF "Obamacare" is unafordable, why are there 24 MILLION Americans who HAVE insurance now than there were before Obamacare?

=====================================================

Thanks for asking.

Most that are new are on Medicaid...a program that was around well before Obamacare..and its FREE to them.

Many that are on Obamacare that are not on Medicaid are getting a good part of their Obamacare paid by taxpayers even if they could afford to pay for their insurance..the "something for nothing" crowd that the Democrats depend on for votes.

Its also a law that you must have health insurance or be fined.

0 Kudos
236 Views
6
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@KidBoy2 wrote:
Older posted..

Question for GOPers: IF "Obamacare" is unafordable, why are there 24 MILLION Americans who HAVE insurance now than there were before Obamacare?

=====================================================

Thanks for asking.

Most that are new are on Medicaid...a program that was around well before Obamacare..and its FREE to them. Nope - that's fake news. Total enroled in ACA 12.4Million, total increase in Medicaid 10.6 Million.

Many that are on Obamacare that are not on Medicaid are getting a good part of their Obamacare paid by taxpayers even if they could afford to pay for their insurance..the "something for nothing" crowd that the Democrats depend on for votes. Before they got ACA or Medicaid their medical care was paid for by people WITH insurance because (funny thing) they did not allow themselves or their kids to sicken and die, they went to the ER for their "personal care" so office visits cost $2500-$5000 instead of $150.

Its also a law that you must have health insurance or be fined.If the "fine" were meanaingful, we would not still have all those uninsured healthy young people who WILL need medical treatment when they suffer accidents or illness, but are being allowed to free-load because Republicans know that is how they can keep ACA from making MAJOR reductions in health care costs.


 

0 Kudos
317 Views
5
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Olderscout66:  Before they got ACA or Medicaid their medical care was paid for by people WITH insurance because (funny thing) they did not allow themselves or their kids to sicken and die, they went to the ER for their "personal care" so office visits cost $2500-$5000 instead of $150.

 

 

Good point, but that basic fact is forever lost on many because the thought that some people (deemed to be undeserving) might be getting a penny of their tax money overrides common sense. I thank goodness every day that I'm not consumed with such pettiness and can see the bigger picture....an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure.

0 Kudos
239 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Older posted..
Nope - that's fake news. Total enroled in ACA 12.4Million, total increase in Medicaid 10.6 Million.

Before they got ACA or Medicaid their medical care was paid for by people WITH insurance because (funny thing) they did not allow themselves or their kids to sicken and die, they went to the ER for their "personal care" so office visits cost $2500-$5000 instead of $150.

==================================================

FYI...it shows the truth not the fake news that many on the left use.

Contrary to goals, ER visits rise under Obamacare - USA Today
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/.../emergency...rise-under.../26625571/
May 4, 2015 - The aim of Obamacare was to reduce ER visits, but that hasn't happened. ... Contrary to goals, ER visits rise under Obamacare ..... Although the numbers should level off as people get care to keep their illnesses under control,

============================================

Ninety-seven percent of Obamacare’s “newly insured” are from Medicaid expansion

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/21/ninety-seven-percent-of-obamacares-newly-insured-are-from-medi...

The Obama administration has been bragging that nine million more Americans now have health insurance, thanks to Obamacare. But just like with most numbers cited to support the government takeover of health care in America, that “9 million” figure is deceptive.

We were told that 48 million Americans lacked affordable health insurance and something had to be done, but even five years after the passage of Obamacare, 33 million Americans are still uninsured.

If you dig deeper into the actual numbers and realize what really happened with those 9 million “newly insured”, there’s little reason to cheer.

The number of Americans with health insurance increased by 9.25 million in 2014, the first year that two key provisions of Obamacare took place: the subsidies for coverage purchased through the exchanges and Medicaid expansion. And according to recent research by The Heritage Foundation, out of that 9.25 million, “the vast majority of the increase was the result of 8.99 million individuals being added to the Medicaid rolls.”

In other words, over 97 percent of last year’s newly insured Americans were from Medicaid expansion.
0 Kudos
304 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Trumpcare - The No Care Unaffordable Care Act - but with all the easy access anyone could ever want...........................................................

 

I have all the Access I could ever want to buy Bill Kochs 20 Million Dollar Mansion on Cape Cod

 

It's too expensive so what good does just getting access do for anyone

 

Hey, But I Know I Could Be Speaker of the House or the President of the USA and do a Good Job - who couldn;t if all that was required was to shut down all the programs that my Poorer Citizens required and then give all the money I saved to the Rich People who pay for my Re-Election Campaigns 

 

Eazy Peezy

 


 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Honored Social Butterfly


@Olderscout66 wrote:
.If the "fine" were meanaingful, we would not still have all those uninsured healthy young people who WILL need medical treatment when they suffer accidents or illness, but are being allowed to free-load because Republicans know that is how they can keep ACA from making MAJOR reductions in health care costs.


 Republicans didn't cause them NOT to enroll but I have a question for you that I have never found an answer to concerning the ACA or even any private universal coverage plan.

 

How do we know there are enough young and healthy, or even just healthy, in the individual marketplace to balance out the premiums?

 

Seems like what we are ending up with in this individual marketplace are the people who were insured prior to the ACA - the self employed, the people who could not get it via their employers and who opted to buy it and who could get approved for it.

 

Who we added were all the people who had pre-existing conditions - they probably aren't considered healthy.

 

We added people who weren't insured via their workplace and many of them ended up on the expanded Medicaid programs - so they aren't counted in individual marketplace premium balance between sick and healthy.

 

Let's see we have some of the young and healthy still being considered a dependent on their parents policy regardless of whether or not they are actual dependents.  In fact some of them maybe married with children of their own with or without a spouse.

 

A lot of the young and healthy are in the Service so they won't be in the individual marketplace.

 

So how do we know that there are enough healthy people to balance out the sick ones in the individual marketplace to even make a difference in the premium rates?


 

0 Kudos
308 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1 wrote:

 Republicans didn't cause them NOT to enroll but I have a question for you that I have never found an answer to concerning the ACA or even any private universal coverage plan.

 

How do we know there are enough young and healthy, or even just healthy, in the individual marketplace to balance out the premiums?

 

Seems like what we are ending up with in this individual marketplace are the people who were insured prior to the ACA - the self employed, the people who could not get it via their employers and who opted to buy it and who could get approved for it.

 

Who we added were all the people who had pre-existing conditions - they probably aren't considered healthy.

 

We added people who weren't insured via their workplace and many of them ended up on the expanded Medicaid programs - so they aren't counted in individual marketplace premium balance between sick and healthy.

 

Let's see we have some of the young and healthy still being considered a dependent on their parents policy regardless of whether or not they are actual dependents.  In fact some of them maybe married with children of their own with or without a spouse.

 

A lot of the young and healthy are in the Service so they won't be in the individual marketplace.

 

So how do we know that there are enough healthy people to balance out the sick ones in the individual marketplace to even make a difference in the premium rates?





 


Insurance claims and expenses are extremely predictable over very large groups of people.  Insurers don't know "who" specifically will get sick, but they know from claims history that X% will get cancer, and X% will need statin drugs, and X% will get pregnant and have complications.  And so on.  (Medical underwriting).   When I worked for the State of Maryland managing health benefits, we had 250,000 covered lives.   That risk is much easier to predict than my mom's old employer, a self-employed home builder, who covered 16 people.    My mom's health insurance premiums swung widely year to year.  

 

So they know what America's health risks are, as a whole.   What they weren't completely sure of was who would jump into the market and when.  It was logical that sicker people would scramble for Obamacare first.   Healthier people would step up later.  But there are enough healthy people to support all the insurance products written, if we can create a stable market place where almost everyone participates in some fashion.  

 

A large insurer, like your local Blue Cross Blue Shield,  spreads the risk of its multiple product lines across one another through reinsurance.  So if they cover both employer-provided insurance "and" a product in the Obamacare market place, they can spread the risk based on historical claims data. 

 

These large premium increases under Obamacare were a probability, as the entire market changed.   Part of Obamacare was to fund "risk corridors" like they did with Bush's huge Medicare Prescription Part D expansion.   Treasury bonds would pay for unpredicable risks as more unhealthy people entered the market.   "If" needed. But I don't think Congress ever funded that part of Obamacare, and that freaked out insurers.  Part of the huge premium hikes and the market withdrawals is the fact that insurance professionals are extremely conservative fiscally.  They don't take crazy chances on stuff.  And when the regulatory atmosphere is psycho, like it has been, they get really jumpy and scared.  

 

0 Kudos
295 Views
0
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png