Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, July 16, 2017

Two organizations representing the U.S. health insurance industry just called a new provision of the Senate Republicans' health care proposal "simply unworkable in any form" and warned that it would cause major hardship, especially for middle-class people with serious medical problems. ... In a publicly posted letter to Senate leaders, the two groups focused their attention on an amendment that would undermine the Affordable Care Act's protections for people with pre-existing conditions. The amendment, crafted by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), would allow insurers to resume sales of policies that leave out key benefits, such as prescription drugs or mental health. More important, it would allow insurers to discriminate among customers based on medical status, charging higher premiums or denying policies altogether to people with existing medical problems ― from the severe, like cancer, to the relatively mild, like allergies.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The Affordable Care Act prohibited those practices, forcing insurers to sell policies with comprehensive benefits and at uniform prices to everybody, no matter their medical status. This made coverage available to people who couldn't get it before, but it also forced insurers to raise underlying insurance premiums, because it meant they had to cover medical bills they had previously been able to dodge.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Most Republicans don't give a crap, they want that tax cut, that is all that matters. If 43,000 people have to die every year because of it? Oh well.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-16 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

November 20, 2015

One of Obamacare's Biggest Supporters Finds It Unworkable, Pulls Out
www.nationalreview.com

How supporters thought this was every going to be "workable" is beyond me.....
i0.wp.com

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-07-16 12:32 PM | Reply

Most Republicans don't give a crap, they want that tax cut, that is all that matters.

Not everything ...

If 43,000 people have to die every year because of it? Oh well.

Unlike the current death machine known as Obamacare I suppose...

Running The Numbers On Mortality Rates Suggests Obamacare Could Be Killing People

Since Obamacare provisions extended insurance coverage, the death rate has substantially increased, by more than 20,000 deaths per year.
thefederalist.com

#3 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-07-16 12:36 PM | Reply

#3 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Or maybe the fact that 35% of the united states is morbidly obese and die quite a bit faster and in larger numbers than before?

#4 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-07-16 12:44 PM | Reply

#3

Deny people healthcare because you think that's what kills them?

I'm starting to be amused by your consistent boosterism of the perverse.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2017-07-16 12:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Quoting the federalist isn't going to convince anyone. You might as well be quoting a carnival fortune teller.

www.snopes.com

#6 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-16 01:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Quoting the federalist isn't going to convince anyone.

Andrea has no intentions of convincing anyone, just convincing themselves they're right.

#7 | Posted by jpw at 2017-07-16 01:33 PM | Reply

Life expectancy in the U.S.A.

www.google.com

#8 | Posted by danni at 2017-07-16 02:28 PM | Reply

"Since Obamacare provisions extended insurance coverage, the death rate has substantially increased, by more than 20,000 deaths per year."
thefederalist.com

Can you spot the bad math in their conclusions?

HInt: it doesn't take into account the general aging of the average population.

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-16 02:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

^...and it doesn't take into account the "author's" admitted conjecture and his admission that the opioid crisis begins at the same time as his so=called examination in death rates for only one year.

Pathetic swing-and-a-miss, Andrea. But what else have we come to expect...
You copied and pasted an article title you apparently didn't bother to read.

#10 | Posted by e1g1 at 2017-07-16 05:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

SO let me get this straight. It is impossible to have what we had before Obamacare insurance just doesn't work that way?

What kind of biased nonsense is this? Clearly they are wrong.

#11 | Posted by tmaster at 2017-07-16 08:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"It is impossible to have what we had before Obamacare insurance just doesn't work that way?"

Well, it didn't the last time we tried it. The decade before Obama's election saw 31% inflation, and 131% medical inflation.

"What kind of biased nonsense is this?"

Math.

And the current Senate bill, with the Cruz amendment, will make the exchanges de-facto high-risk pools. This, at a time where 75% of folks 45-54 have a pre-existing condition; 84% from 55-64. You'll end up with two types of policies: McInsurance, and Unaffordable.

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-16 08:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It is impossible to have what we had before Obamacare insurance just doesn't work that way?"

Well the fundamental problem is that 20-30 million mostly poor people will lose their health insurance if we go back to before Obamacare, because of the Medicaid Expansion trap that Obama set.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-16 08:37 PM | Reply

"So, as of 2009, we had a firm prediction of the effects to expect on U.S. adult mortality if taxpayers expanded health-care insurance coverage to more people who couldn't or wouldn't buy it."

Lol. Like they were the only ones making that prediction.

This doesn't impact mortality. It impacts mortality of the covered population, which now includes people who didn't have insurance, due to poverty and pre-existing conditions.

These deaths were just being ignored before.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-16 08:45 PM | Reply

It is impossible to have what we had before Obamacare insurance just doesn't work that way?

So you want to return to 20% annual premium increases?

You want to return to "insurance" policies that collect annual premiums then exclude things like hospitalization and cancer care?

I already know your answer, "I've got mine, ---- everyone else."

#15 | Posted by 726 at 2017-07-17 08:55 AM | Reply

Insurance isn't healthcare. Everyone has access to basic healthcare whether it is a clinic, hospital ER or a doctors office.

Insurance is how you pay for those services depending on where they were accessed.

To conflate the two is a fool's errand, everyone dies.

The Exchange was always a High Risk Pool with manditory enrollment otherwise it would not need to be subsidized.

#16 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 10:32 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Quoting the federalist isn't going to convince anyone. You might as well be quoting a carnival fortune teller.
www.snopes.com

#6 | POSTED BY HATTER5183

Andrea is a Republican. They don't care about your stinkin' facts. They invent their own!

#17 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-07-17 10:46 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Insurance isn't healthcare. Everyone has access to basic healthcare whether it is a clinic, hospital ER or a doctors office.
Insurance is how you pay for those services depending on where they were accessed.
To conflate the two is a fool's errand, everyone dies.
The Exchange was always a High Risk Pool with manditory enrollment otherwise it would not need to be subsidized.

#16 | POSTED BY PROLIX247

Good to see the Fox News talking points rolled out.

If you can't pay for it, you don't have access. If you owe the clinic money, they won't take you. You only have the emergency room. If you can't afford the meds, you don't get them. If you can't afford the operation, you don't it.

Seriously, are you sure you are from this country?

#18 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-07-17 10:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#16 - Stupid comment. Everybody does NOT have access to basic healthcare at an ER or clinic. They only have to treat the patient enough to send them on their way. Show up with a broken leg, they'll cast it, but there will be NO follow-up if the patient has no insurance or money to pay. That is NOT basic healthcare. Who pays for this most expensive of all treatment? We all do, it's one of the reasons insurance costs were rising much faster prior to Obamacare. So going back to what we had before the ACA insures that the poor will be sicker and less able to work, good job Reichwingers. Next up, the legislation taking away the necessity for ERs to treat everybody who shows up in spite of lack of insurance. I think it was Blount who tried that the last time. The GOP won't be happy until people are literally dying in the streets so that the 1% can get a massive tax cut.

#19 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2017-07-17 10:56 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

November 20, 2015

One of Obamacare's Biggest Supporters Finds It Unworkable, Pulls Out
www.nationalreview.com

How supporters thought this was every going to be "workable" is beyond me.....
i0.wp.com

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris

YOu're comparing a health plan which resulted in saved lives versus a health plan which will result in lost lives.

Hope you're not too dumb to see that, but i suspect you probably are.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-07-17 11:14 AM | Reply

They pulled out of the exchanges. They still sell Obamacare. It is a law not a product. If they sell insurance it must comply with the law.

Every insurance plan sold by every insurance company in America is Obamacare. Wher you buy it is the only thing they changed because they don't want you to be able to compare their insurance with others side by side

#21 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-17 11:50 AM | Reply

I do not believe you commenters understand what basic healthcare is.

There are many clinics which require no payment, ER's by statute have to provide basic services and many doctors work pro bono and prescriptions are distributed for free by manufacturers. Fact!

Obamacare was a Welfare Extention Program. The question is how much welfare can we afford?

#22 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 12:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Isn't it a little ironic that we are hearing from insurers on this? The provisions greatly benefit the insurers and yet they are the ones claiming it's "unworkable".

You would think they would be silent on this.

#23 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 12:27 PM | Reply

"You would think they would be silent on this.

I wouldn't.

This will turn the Exchanges into de-facto high-risk pools. You know...an actuary's nightmare.

There will be three types of health insurance if the Senate bill passes: McInsurance, Employer Insurance, and Unaffordable Insurance.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 12:31 PM | Reply

"There are many clinics which require no payment"

Meaning someone else pays, which is an unsustainable business model.

"ER's by statute have to provide basic services"

And then bill you for the most expensive type of care, to the point of your bankruptcy.

Haven't thought this all the way through, have you?

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 12:34 PM | Reply

"I do not believe you commenters understand what basic healthcare is."

It's obvious you don't Comrade.

Having a free clinic in an area does not mean everyone has access to free healthcare in that area. There was a free healthcare screening clinic once and free dental care at the mall once. It was so packed there could not even get to see every one who showed up. Drugs that are paid for by manufacturers are limited to certain kinds and are not available for just everyone all the time.

Facts.

#26 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-07-17 12:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The Exchange IS a High Risk pool subsidized by forced enrollment and taxes.

Right now there are three types of insurance, commercial group, commercial individual, and welfare (including the exchange).

Only one is collapsing.

Guess which one?

#27 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 12:39 PM | Reply

"and welfare (including the exchange)."

Horse manure. I'm on the exchange, and get no subsidy.

"Only one is collapsing. Guess which one?"

The one the Republicans purposely sabotaged.

And "collapsing" is the wrong word, when the insurers are about to announce record profits.

Rs slashed the tires, and now have the gall to complain about the traction.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 12:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Donner- nice story.

Is it personal, observational or made up?

There is nothing inherently wrong with having to wait for services. People with insurance encounter wait times for appointments also.

As far as prescriptions go, all clinics have access to basic drugs.

What is your point?

#29 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 12:50 PM | Reply

Danfotth- there is no reason for you to own a policy on the Exchange if you are not getting a subsidy.

I don't believe you.

#30 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 12:55 PM | Reply

"when the insurers are about to announce record profits."

indeed.

www.nytimes.com

"The successful managed care companies, and UnitedHealth in particular, have figured out how to prosper in almost any environment -- and to insulate themselves from issues that become a problem," said Gary Claxton, director of the health care marketplace project for the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to health care policy. "They are making a lot of money from government programs like Medicaid and Medicare -- and they are likely to keep doing so," he said, regardless of what happens in Washington.

#31 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 12:55 PM | Reply

www.modernhealthcare.com

#32 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 12:57 PM | Reply

more from my #31....

UnitedHealth, the industry bellwether, has reduced its exposure to what was its biggest problem in Obamacare: money-losing insurance that it sold in public exchanges to individuals, who often received government subsidies.

Last April, it announced that in the face of mounting losses from individual policies sold in public exchanges under Obamacare, it would radically cut its participation in those markets. It disclosed in its annual report in January that in 2017 the company "will participate in individual public exchanges in three states, a reduction from 34 states in 2016."

Yeh....Obamacare really took those nasty insurance companies to the woodshed, didn't they?

#33 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 01:01 PM | Reply

"Obamacare really took those nasty insurance companies to the woodshed, didn't they?"

No, Trumpcare did, when it told the IRS not to enforce the mandate, and then threatened to end subsidy payments.

You're in insurance, Eb. How do your actuaries react to new uncertainty? By welcoming it in silence, by raising premiums more than needed, or by exiting?

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 01:06 PM | Reply

"I do not believe you commenters understand what basic healthcare is."

LOL.

I do not believe you understand why insurance is the preferred funding instrument through which patient encounters with health care providers are reimbursed.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 01:06 PM | Reply

"and to insulate themselves from issues that become a problem,"

Translation: jacking prices up by 20%, when your costs have risen 5%-8%.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 01:07 PM | Reply

"Danfotth- there is no reason for you to own a policy on the Exchange if you are not getting a subsidy."

Sure there is.
1. He's self employed.
2. He makes a lot of money.

When did the Know-Nothings become such Know It All's?

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 01:09 PM | Reply

"Danfotth- there is no reason for you to own a policy on the Exchange if you are not getting a subsidy.
I don't believe you."

Of course there are reasons. Several, in fact.

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 01:13 PM | Reply

Name one?

Exchange plans suffer from accessabilty.

I would never buy one for me or my family it's junk insurance. No established Doctor in my area accepts them.

#39 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 01:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I simply don't believe no doctors in your area take insurance puchased on the Exchange.

What's the first three digits of your ZIP code?

Is this some kind of trick question, where you live on an Indian reservation or something?

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 01:28 PM | Reply

Obamacare was a Welfare Extention Program. The question is how much welfare can we afford?

#22 | Posted by Prolix247

Well if the millionaires and billionaires can afford to buy off all of our politicians, then they can afford to keep the country healthy.

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-07-17 01:30 PM | Reply

Speak- taxpayers pay for it. Millionaires and Billionaires underwrite it.

#42 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 01:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Snoof- I live in a High medical cost area. The Doctors here want to get paid and ACA has low reimbursments, so very few take it and they are usually newbie doctors with funny names that do.

I have had the same doctor for 30 years who treated me for cancer. Why would I want to give that up?

#43 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 01:37 PM | Reply

"ACA has low reimbursements,"

Bull. The ACA has regular reimbursements. You're confusing the ACA with Medicare.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 01:39 PM | Reply

"No, Trumpcare did, when it told the IRS not to enforce the mandate, and then threatened to end subsidy payments."

Um.....you didn't read the article, did you? It's about how Obamacare, not Trumpcare, has stimulated unprecedented profits for health insurance companies and how they've managed to avoid the part of Obamacare they didn't really want.

#45 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 01:39 PM | Reply

"How do your actuaries react to new uncertainty?"

uncertainty they can't surround, actuarily? they run.

#46 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 01:41 PM | Reply

"Name one?"

If either one of us loses income---say I get sick during tax season, or my wife's charity goes belly up---we CAN get a subsidy. If we're not on the exchange, we can't.

Need more?

#47 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 01:41 PM | Reply

"uncertainty they can't surround, actuarily? they run."

My point exactly.

That, or jack up a 5-8% increase by 20%.

Record profits, here we come!!!

#48 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 01:43 PM | Reply

Speak- taxpayers pay for it. Millionaires and Billionaires underwrite it.

#42 | Posted by Prolix247

Semantics.

There are people who have benefited greatly from the american system over the past 40 years. Now that the country is struggling to pay for medical care, they are the people who should pay for it.

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-07-17 01:44 PM | Reply

"It's about how Obamacare, not Trumpcare, has stimulated unprecedented profits for health insurance companies"

And reality has proven Trumpcare is responsible for the NEW record profits, as well as uncertainty in the markets.

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 01:44 PM | Reply

"Snoof- I live in a High medical cost area."

I do too, it's called the USA.

"The Doctors here want to get paid and ACA has low reimbursments."

Are you a Medicaid Expansion patient? So you're poor then. That's Obama's fault too?

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 01:45 PM | Reply

"It's about how Obamacare, not Trumpcare, has stimulated unprecedented profits for health insurance companies"

Golly, who could have predicted that adding 20 million customers to a for-profit system would bring new profits?

Usually businesses expand and bring in more customers because they're trying to go out of business, right Eberly?

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 01:47 PM | Reply

Danforth- You have no clue what you are saying.

All insurance is based on the Medicare Reimbursment rate.

ACA uses a lower percentage.

Now, what was the reason you bought a plan on the Exchange while not getting a subsidy?

#53 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 01:53 PM | Reply

"And reality has proven Trumpcare is responsible for the NEW record profits,"

How has Trumpcare done that?

#54 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 01:55 PM | Reply

"Golly, who could have predicted that adding 20 million customers to a for-profit system would bring new profits?"

me.

sycophants like yourself were convinced health insurance companies were going to have their profits "capped".

#55 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 01:56 PM | Reply

"All insurance is based on the Medicare Reimbursment rate."

Absolute nonsense.

"ACA uses a lower percentage."

Than Medicare? Can you taste the stupid when you post stuff that dumb?

"Now, what was the reason you bought a plan on the Exchange while not getting a subsidy?"

The same reason I posted upthread. #47 if your reading skills are suffering.

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 01:57 PM | Reply

"I have had the same doctor for 30 years who treated me for cancer.
#43 | POSTED BY PROLIX247"

Finally, it all makes sense.

I'm glad you survived cancer. It's a shame that the treatment required removal of most of your brain.

#57 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-07-17 01:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"How has Trumpcare done that?"

By threatening uncertainty. Insurers can point to the threat to end subsidies, all the way to the bank.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 01:59 PM | Reply

Danforth- under both events you mention you would create a Qualifying Event which allows enrollment into the exchanges. So your reason is not valid.

Now if you are too sick to work and enroll in the exchange it is a defacto High Risk Pool.

You're simply lost.

#59 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 02:01 PM | Reply

#57- yeah and I still know more about this than most here.

Scary right?

#60 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 02:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

58

threatening uncertainty is making insurance companies profitable in 2017?

LOL....

I'm not talking about Trumpcare and I'm certainly not defending it.

I merely recapping the reality of what Obamacare has done for insurance companies since 2010.

#61 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 02:02 PM | Reply

"under both events you mention you would create a Qualifying Event "

NO, if I was covered under a different policy, and then got too ill to work, that would NOT be a "qualifying event". Which is why I bought in the open enrollment period. Are you really this dumb, or are you feigning ignorance?

"You're simply lost."

My irony meter just pegged.

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:04 PM | Reply

A flawed premise of most right-wingers who argue against the ACA (and those who support the unviable 'Trumpcare') is that prior to Obama's presidency and the initiation of the ACA everything was working fine and well for the sick and uninsured in America. It wasn't. It was a financial disaster costing taxpayers tens of billions of dollars per year. Love it or hate, no one who knows about insurance questions the fact that the ACA overall is saving the taxpayers tons of money compared to the void that existed beforehand.

#63 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-07-17 02:05 PM | Reply

"sycophants like yourself were convinced health insurance companies were going to have their profits "capped".

LOL, no I wasn't.

You're literally just making stuff up now, and you seem angry.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 02:05 PM | Reply

"threatening uncertainty is making insurance companies profitable in 2017?"

Threatening uncertainty is allowing insurers to jack up rates more than their costs have risen...so yes, absolutely.

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:05 PM | Reply

Danforth- all insurance pays above Medicare Reimbursement. ACA pays a lower amount of that percentage.

Don't stoop to lying to make your point like you always do.

#66 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 02:06 PM | Reply

"Danforth- all insurance pays above Medicare Reimbursement. ACA pays a lower amount of that percentage."

That was NOT your initial claim.

Are the goalposts heavy when you have to move them that far, that fast?

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:08 PM | Reply

"I still know more about this than most here."

Dunning and Kruger are geniuses.

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:09 PM | Reply

"LOL, no I wasn't."

Yes, you were. All leftists here.....ALL of them were convinced that profits would be "capped". I knew what that really meant dealing with %s but not with real dollars.

I said at the time insurance companies would do very very well with obamacare. Their stock prices at the time told me that, combined with what many in the leadership, including Howard Dean, said what Obamacare would do for the companies.

Now....don't go swinging your purse at me. I'm not attacking Obamacare and I'm not defending Trumpcare. In fact, I see no value in Trumpcare. It doesn't do anything except generate more uninsured.

#69 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 02:09 PM | Reply

"Threatening uncertainty is allowing insurers to jack up rates more than their costs have risen...so yes, absolutely."

Okay....but you have no actual data on that yet, obviously. IOW, you are forecasting what you believe will be realized in 2017. I'm not disagreeing with you on that.

#70 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 02:12 PM | Reply

Danforth- a Qualfying Event allows you to enroll in any product on the Exchange. It is a Special Enrollment period.

Since you and your spouse are together if either one of you qualifies for Special Enrollment it affects both of you since income is determined by "Total Household Income."

Your clueless to how this works.

#71 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 02:14 PM | Reply

"#57- yeah and I still know more about this than most here.
Scary right?
#60 | POSTED BY PROLIX247"

No, you don't. You think emergency rooms must provide "basic care," when in fact EMTALA requires them to provide emergency, life-saving care. Basic care, such as preventive care, is not required.

Plus, even if an emergency room saves an uninsured person's life, it can then bill the the uninsured person for the care, even if they can't afford it. (In other words, force them into bankruptcy.) So, bottom line, you don't know ----.

#72 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-07-17 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#67- That's funny coming from a guy that has absolutely no knowledge of what he is posting.

You brought a basketball to a tennis match.

#73 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 02:17 PM | Reply

"Okay....but you have no actual data on that yet, obviously."

Our info shows costs rising about 5%-8%, with most of it on the lower end. Luckily, we don't have to price for uncertainty, but rates for others are jacking up at multiples of that number. The solitary reason is uncertainty, because of risk corridor killing, erasing the IRS mandate, and the threat to end subsidies.

If the gov't makes good in its threat to stop paying subsidies, insurers could be on the hook for ~$8 million/month. Actuaries accounted for that possibility in their 20% (or so) average jacks. Once the threat didn't pan out, insurers laughed all the way to the bank.

"you are forecasting what you believe will be realized in 2017"

Yes, based on the spread between the numbers I've seen, and the increases I've seen.
"many industry observers believe 2017 will be ‘the best rate environment we've seen in years,'" John Gorman, a consultant for Medicare Advantage insurers and a former CMS official, told Modern Healthcare on February 19.
www.healthinsurance.org

#74 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:22 PM | Reply

"Since you and your spouse are together if either one of you qualifies for Special Enrollment it affects both of you since income is determined by "Total Household Income.""

I never said anything to the contrary.

"Your(sic) clueless to how this works."

Gee, my first health committee was over 30 years ago, and in 2011, I was elected a Trustee of a Health Plan.

What bona fides do YOU bring to the table?

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:24 PM | Reply

"If the gov't makes good in its threat to stop paying subsidies, insurers could be on the hook for ~$8 million/month"

doesn't that go on the policyholder...not the carrier?

#76 | Posted by eberly at 2017-07-17 02:30 PM | Reply

"doesn't that go on the policyholder"

No, the carrier. They still have the contractual payout requirements, just not the subsidy.

#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:34 PM | Reply

"if either one of you qualifies for Special Enrollment it affects both of you since income is determined by "Total Household Income.""

Special Enrollment has nothing to do with household income. That phrase refers to a life incident which qualifies you to enroll outside the normal enrollment period.

For example, my Union health insurance was based on rolling quarters. Because of that, my coverage ended in March, so that year, I enrolled as of April. I was allowed Special Enrollment due to the Life Incident, not due to any household income.

Any other issues on which you'd like to display your ignorance?

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:46 PM | Reply

Monte- preventative care is not basic care. Also if an indigent person shows-up at the ER they get Emergency Medicaid so the facility gets paid.

It's the service providers who bill.

#79 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 02:48 PM | Reply

" if an indigent person shows-up at the ER they get Emergency Medicaid "

And if a non-indigent person shows up, the ER bills them to the point of bankruptcy.

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:51 PM | Reply

Danforth- the subsidy was the reason you stated for enrolling in the Exchange. That is based on total household income.

Did you also know Union Plans are regulated under Taft-Hartley and use different rules?

Mr. Trustee.

#81 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 02:52 PM | Reply

No- they get Medicaid.

#82 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 02:53 PM | Reply

" the subsidy was the reason you stated for enrolling in the Exchange. "

No, the possibility of a subsidy, should either one of us lose our ability to make income.

I guess reading isn't your strong suit. Comprehension either.

"Mr. Trustee."

I must've missed where you explained your background on the subject. Have you any at all?

#83 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:55 PM | Reply

"No- they get Medicaid."

A non-indigent person who shows up at the ER gets Medicaid?!?

Are you really that stupid, or are you just trolling?

#84 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 02:55 PM | Reply

So clueless.

I'm done, you add nothing but smoke to hide in.

#85 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2017-07-17 03:08 PM | Reply

"you add nothing but smoke"

So...no bona fides.

And tired of being shown up as stupid, I guess.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 03:14 PM | Reply

No- they get Medicaid.

#82 | POSTED BY PROLIX247

Not with Trumpcare they won't.

#87 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-07-17 03:35 PM | Reply

#86 Dan, there's no limit to how much Prolicks, THamster, Snooper and other RWNJs here and IRL will go to be proven stupid. After all they will lap up every word that Dog Murderer's Dumber Sister Sarah Huckleberry Sander vomits up to the WH press pool.

They have a simple agenda: Poor people should not have health care, period.

#88 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-07-17 03:40 PM | Reply

They have a simple agenda: Poor people should not have health care, period.

#88 | Posted by Reagan58

It's even simpler than that - if liberals want it, then it's evil, no matter what.

This is the fox news effect. Morons arguing against their own best interests to help make the very rich even richer.

#89 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-07-17 04:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So clueless.
I'm done, you add nothing but smoke to hide in.
#85 | POSTED BY PROLIX247

^
It was nice of him to bow out with a self-retorting retort.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 04:31 PM | Reply

"LOL, no I wasn't."
Yes, you were. All leftists here.....ALL of them were convinced that profits would be "capped"."

You mean how medical losses would be required to be at least 80%, is that what you're trying to turn into your gotcha?

Not the same as a cap on profits.

Especially since in most sectors and for most plans the MLR already exceeded 80% when that was written. All that did was make the small individual markets less profitable. It certainly did not "cap profits" from the point of view of Wall Street.

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 04:38 PM | Reply

"No, the carrier. They still have the contractual payout requirements, just not the subsidy."

And this is how Trump can cause our "too big to fail" health care system* to fail. By not making payments.

Eberly, which major insurance company do you think will go out of business first, if Trump and the GOP go down that path? Is there one that serves mostly blue states?

*Not an actual system, but I digress.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 04:48 PM | Reply

----------Since Obamacare provisions extended insurance coverage, the death rate has substantially increased, by more than 20,000 deaths per year.
----------thefederalist.com
----------
----------#3 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS AT 2017-07-16 12:36 PM

Why bother adding a source when its the federalist? Do you even know a single legitimate source?

#93 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-07-17 05:39 PM | Reply

Why bother adding a source when its the federalist? Do you even know a single legitimate source?

#93 | POSTED BY INDIANAJONES

The Federalist is a fine source. It's not a WND/Newsmax clone.

#94 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-17 05:42 PM | Reply

It's WND with a Thesaurus.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 05:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The Federalist is a fine source."

Then how did the analysis miss both--

a) the aging population, and
b) the fact the additions were, in general, most in need of care?

#96 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 05:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

IOW, how can anyone analyze a pool where 75% of the new enrollees are either aged or poor (or both), and then pretend the numbers should be compared with the prior numbers, without any adjustment for the vastly raised median and average ages?

Analysis like that doesn't even pass the smell test. Their conclusion alone should've set off alarm bells: more care leads to greater mortality?!? In what bizarro world?

#97 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 05:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's like saying the death rate in our household went waaay up shortly after grandpa moved in and died.

---- whoever thinks of publishing this tripe as news, and Mackris for peddling it here. You are cancer.

#98 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 09:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The Federalist is a fine source."
Then how did the analysis miss both--
a) the aging population, and
b) the fact the additions were, in general, most in need of care?

#96 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2017-07-17 05:48 PM

It seems like they amortized their analysis to me - check out what's in bold:

The Centers for Disease Control collects U.S. mortality statistics and publishes them in a database called WONDER. The database is indeed a statistical wonder, allowing researchers to slice and dice U.S. mortality data into segments by age, gender, location, year, cause of morbidity, and many additional criteria.

With WONDER, it is a short exercise to attempt to confirm Wilper's predictions. Examining U.S. adult mortality in the decade prior to Obamacare's insurance expansion (2004-2013), the all-cause mean death rate for ages 15 to 64 is 310.4 people per 100,000. The rate is fairly steady over the decade, with a low of 306.8, a high of 313.5, and a standard deviation of 2.2. If extending taxpayer-sponsored insurance to 15 million people since 2013 has resulted in 21,000 fewer annual deaths, then the mean death rate should decrease from 310.4 to approximately 300.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-07-17 11:30 PM | Reply

"It seems like they amortized their analysis to me"

You're missing the salient factors.

1. The new group was much more an outcome of adverse selection than the prior overall pool.
2. Since new enrollees skewed more older vs. younger, the average age would end up older in the new group as well.

Apples, and (older & sicker) oranges.

#100 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-17 11:40 PM | Reply

No.

"Specifically, using Wilper's 40 percent mortality risk reduction with 15 million newly insured people means that approximately 21,000 fewer adult Americans should die in 2015 relative to the pre-Obamacare status quo."

This is a flawed premise, in multiple ways. Most of these people didn't get private insurance, they got insurance through the Medicaid expansion.

The reliance on the 40% risk reduction from some other study is very problematic. Risk reduction over what period of time is not accounted for, nor is it explained if the risk reduction is compared to those with no insurance, or public insurance, or what. So if it's a lifetime 40% risk reduction, you'd expect to see maybe 1-2% during the 1-2 years Obamacare has altered the insurance profile of the study population.

This whole thing is -------- that Mackris is certainly smart enough to see through, but sadly JeffJ, I am beginning to think you do not posses sufficient mental acuity to even know what questions to ask to expose the frauds you're constantly being exposed to.

Here, though, one thing that really stands out is if you have read any scientific papers, this author doesn't include any of the following: Citations, P values, confidence intervals, and error bars.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-17 11:46 PM | Reply

Just where in the constitution does it say that I as a tax payer am required to pay for YOUR health care? I pay for all my own premiums and deductibles. I have yet to have even one "free stuff" user to give me a valid reason. Anyone?

#102 | Posted by euclid606 at 2017-07-18 11:18 AM | Reply

"Just where in the constitution does it say that I as a tax payer am required to pay for YOUR health care? "

Probably near the part where it says I have to pay for YOUR Child Tax Credit.

#103 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-18 11:23 AM | Reply

"I have yet to have even one "free stuff" user to give me a valid reason. "

Simple question:

Do you agree with Ronald Reagan, when he announced we do not turn people away from the ER, or do you disagree, and believe we should turn away the indigent from the ER?

#104 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-07-18 11:30 AM | Reply

"where in the constitution does it say that I as a tax payer am required to pay for YOUR health care?"

Another fake Plastic pro-lifer.

You will find it in same place where it requires me to pay for your Defense.

There seems to always be plenty of money to take lives but never enough to save them.

#105 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-07-18 12:07 PM | Reply

JeffJ you need your nose rubbed in this more. It's the only way you'll learn. Why don't you want to learn?

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-07-18 12:12 PM | Reply

#102

Just where in the constitution does it say that I as a tax payer am required to pay for YOUR health care?

No where, but given the choice of subsidizing my health care to the tune of 10k a year or not subsidizing my health care so I can't work and instead cost 130k a year in Medicaid and disability which would you prefer?

#107 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-07-18 01:11 PM | Reply

Just where in the constitution does it say that I as a tax payer am required to pay for YOUR health care? I pay for all my own premiums and deductibles. I have yet to have even one "free stuff" user to give me a valid reason. Anyone?
#102 | Posted by euclid606 Section 8

imgur.com

1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

#108 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-07-18 01:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#108

Apparently that part didn't fit into his pocket Constitution.

#109 | Posted by Corky at 2017-07-18 01:33 PM | Reply

You are making invalid conclusions. Correlation is not causation. There is nothing in those statistics to say that even one extra death occured BECAUSE OF OBAMACARE.

There were a myriad of other things that happened in this country in the same time period that are more directly attributable to the death rate

1) reduced safety regulations in the workplace
2) An aging population
3) The change in the estimate of life expectancy presented here stems from the fact that its prediction a year earlier was based on what looked to be -- but turned out not to be -- a trend toward increasing improvements in mortality rates across the country. The change reported in this new study results from tempering that earlier projection. However, life expectancies are still expected to rise across the board, just at a slower rate than was predicted in 2015.
4) Measures of health insurance coverage and spending (the fraction of uninsured and risk-adjusted Medicare spending per enrollee) were not significantly associated with life expectancy for individuals in the bottom income quartile.
5) While some of the Affordable Care Act's provisions first launched in 2010, the majority of its more substantial provisions (such as the individual mandate) didn't take effect until 2014, which is a year that the SOA study's dataset didn't even include in its entirety.

#110 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-07-18 02:17 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort