solution to the U.S. health care crisis.

[David1967]

There's only 1 solution. Hold the GOP accountable for their lobbying

I partially agree. Both parties must be held accountable always. Lack of scrutiny will lead to corruption no matter the party label.

and putting corporations ahead of their voters.

I agree 100%. Take the prospect of profit to politicians out of the mix.

The crooked American healthcare system has been inflated beyond anything else comparable. It's all profit-minded.

I agree. No argument from me here at all.

And the fact they had 6 years to come up with a replacement.

What I would like to see happen ,is both parties come together and just fix the things that are wrong with the ACA. It has its good elements, but doesn't work in states like mine (Oklahoma) where our state govt. chose not to take part therefore making it unaffordable to the people of my state unless you are at the extreme lowest income, which ironically were already eligible for aid.

It's not my problem that the people who believed the swamp media didn't realize they were being conned. Russia and the GOP media essentially worked together to push out maximum propaganda.
It would make Goebbels jealous.

You lost me here, but hey, I think this is the most that I have agreed with you on anything yet.

 

[Underhill]

Good points.
Trying to implement either a socialized or single payer system against the political influence and economic clout wielded by the industry will be problematic.

Something we could look into is the hybrid Bismarck system used in Japan and much of Western Europe. This retains the insurance companies, but under heavy regulation and control, making them, essentially, non-profit companies.

This might partially placate the insurance industry -- at least it wouldn't be entirely eliminated.
On the other hand, the system would retain this unnecessary third party, increasing both direct payments to the insurers plus the costs and bureaucracy needed to regulate them.

I think single payer is doable. The insurance industry is so hated by the voters that the political capital could outweigh the financial benefits in the eyes of many politicians.

 

[Nous]

Allowing them absurd profits doesn't make any more jobs.

Are health insurance companies allowed "absurd profits"? (When does profit become "absurd"?)

Many health insurance companies have pulled out of the exchanges because they were reportedly losing huge amounts of money.

 

[esmith]

Good points.
Trying to implement either a socialized or single payer system against the political influence and economic clout wielded by the industry will be problematic.

Something we could look into is the hybrid Bismarck system used in Japan and much of Western Europe. This retains the insurance companies, but under heavy regulation and control, making them, essentially, non-profit companies.

This might partially placate the insurance industry -- at least it wouldn't be entirely eliminated.
On the other hand, the system would retain this unnecessary third party, increasing both direct payments to the insurers plus the costs and bureaucracy needed to regulate them.

and therein lies one of the major problems......bureaucracy

 

[Sha'irullah]

1981

Hahaha, nobody needed any health care back then. Rock n Roll and drugs was more than enough to suffice for healthcare.

 

[Sapiens]

The medical insurance industry produces no useful products, does no useful work, it is, in its entirety parasitic on the nation. They can go away and no one will suffer since their people will have to bend their efforts to productive pursuits.

 

[Politesse]

Are health insurance companies allowed "absurd profits"? (When does profit become "absurd"?)

Many health insurance companies have pulled out of the exchanges because they were reportedly losing huge amounts of money.

Well, I'm not going to cry big tears for someone who tried to exploit others and failed. If these companies were actually contributing something to the world, I'd feel differently. But all they do is insert themselves between patients and care, leech-like and amoral in their discretion. Why would I want them to succeed?

 

[Valjean]

Are health insurance companies allowed "absurd profits"? (When does profit become "absurd"?)

Many health insurance companies have pulled out of the exchanges because they were reportedly losing huge amounts of money.

This problem was anticipated.
The ACA changed the way policies were priced and sold. Insurers were unsure of what demographics would be purchasing policies, and in what numbers. Under the new directives they had to insure everyone, regardless of medical history, and could not vary rates to compensate. Rate variations for sex were eliminated and variations for age and smoking history were also restricted.

All these were known factors in predicting future medical expenses, but now insurers were barred from using them. Moreover, they were not allowed more than 20% profits. In this new landscape pricing policies became largely guesswork, making the insurance industry a very risky gamble.

To counter this risk, the ACA included three stabilization programs, one of which was risk corridors.
Risk corridors included loss reimbursement for unexpectedly high claim rates. Without this safety net insurers would have to either withdraw from the market or raise premium rates exorbitantly, but, with this assurance of help if things went South, they signed on.

In 2014 the Republicans, led by Marco Rubio, introduced legislation that effectively hobbled the risk corridor program. The insurers, predictably, either withdrew from the market or significantly raised their premiums.
This is exactly what the Republicans wanted. Insurers raised their rates and the Republicans pointed to this as confirmation that Obamacare was an unsustainable money pit. They did not mention the fact that they'd engineered this; that they'd deliberately sabotaged the system.

"When they passed Obamacare, they put a bailout fund in Obamacare," Rubio said while addressing frontrunner Donald Trump on Feb. 25, 2016. "All these lobbyists you keep talking about, they put a bailout fund in the law that would allow public money to be used, taxpayer money, to bail out companies when they lost money. We led the effort and wiped out that bailout fund." -- Marco Rubio.

This is why the insurance rates in certain markets have skyrocketed -- not because of defects in the ACA, but because of the Republicans.

This was widely reported in the progressive press. Progressives all know this.
However, most Democrats, and almost all Republicans, do not. It was not widely reported, if at all, in the mainstream, right-wing press: (CBS, Fox, PBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, ABC, &c).
Yet another Republican coup.

 

[Underhill]

Are health insurance companies allowed "absurd profits"? (When does profit become "absurd"?)

Many health insurance companies have pulled out of the exchanges because they were reportedly losing huge amounts of money.

They've pulled out in 37 rural counties across the country. Rural counties are more expensive to operate in. But keep in mind, there are roughly 3100 counties across the country. So the entire problem is overblown.

They are losing small amounts of money in those few rural counties.

 

[Underhill]

This problem was anticipated.
The ACA changed the way policies were priced and sold. Insurers were unsure of what demographics would be purchasing policies, and in what numbers. Under the new directives they had to insure everyone, regardless of medical history, and could not vary rates to compensate. Rate variations for sex were eliminated and variations for age and smoking history were also restricted.

All these were known factors in predicting future medical expenses, but now insurers were barred from using them. Moreover, they were not allowed more than 20% profits. In this new landscape pricing policies became largely guesswork, making the insurance industry a very risky gamble.

To counter this risk, the ACA included three stabilization programs, one of which was risk corridors.
Risk corridors included loss reimbursement for unexpectedly high claim rates. Without this safety net insurers would have to either withdraw from the market or raise premium rates exorbitantly, but, with this assurance of help if things went South, they signed on.

In 2014 the Republicans, led by Marco Rubio, introduced legislation that effectively hobbled the risk corridor program. The insurers, predictably, either withdrew from the market or significantly raised their premiums.
This is exactly what the Republicans wanted. Insurers raised their rates and the Republicans pointed to this as confirmation that Obamacare was an unsustainable money pit. They did not mention the fact that they'd engineered this; that they'd deliberately sabotaged the system.



This is why the insurance rates in certain markets have skyrocketed -- not because of defects in the ACA, but because of the Republicans.

This was widely reported in the progressive press. Progressives all know this.
However, most Democrats, and almost all Republicans, do not. It was not widely reported, if at all, in the mainstream, right-wing press: (CBS, Fox, PBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, ABC, &c).
Yet another Republican coup.

The problem with this, is that 20% figure, which is not new. Overall, their profits can only be 20% of the premium cost. It's been that way for decades (I was told about this in my insurance law classes in the early 90's).

20% is pretty huge when you look at most companies. The average grocery chain doesn't enjoy profits anywhere near that. But even if it is perfectly reasonable, going to a single payer system takes 20% off the top. Add in the vast reduction in paperwork that could be realized and that number could easily be doubled.

 

[Nous]

Well, I'm not going to cry big tears for someone who tried to exploit others and failed. If these companies were actually contributing something to the world, I'd feel differently. But all they do is insert themselves between patients and care, leech-like and amoral in their discretion. Why would I want them to succeed?

For some people, health insurance has been a life-saver, and turned out to be much less expensive that paying for the medical care that they got.

 

[Nous]

This problem was anticipated.
The ACA changed the way policies were priced and sold. Insurers were unsure of what demographics would be purchasing policies, and in what numbers. Under the new directives they had to insure everyone, regardless of medical history, and could not vary rates to compensate. Rate variations for sex were eliminated and variations for age and smoking history were also restricted.

All these were known factors in predicting future medical expenses, but now insurers were barred from using them. Moreover, they were not allowed more than 20% profits. In this new landscape pricing policies became largely guesswork, making the insurance industry a very risky gamble.

To counter this risk, the ACA included three stabilization programs, one of which was risk corridors.
Risk corridors included loss reimbursement for unexpectedly high claim rates. Without this safety net insurers would have to either withdraw from the market or raise premium rates exorbitantly, but, with this assurance of help if things went South, they signed on.

In 2014 the Republicans, led by Marco Rubio, introduced legislation that effectively hobbled the risk corridor program. The insurers, predictably, either withdrew from the market or significantly raised their premiums.
This is exactly what the Republicans wanted. Insurers raised their rates and the Republicans pointed to this as confirmation that Obamacare was an unsustainable money pit. They did not mention the fact that they'd engineered this; that they'd deliberately sabotaged the system.

All true (as far as I know). But the ACA was written to be sabotaged in various ways. The same effect of destroying insurance companies' ability to provide affordable insurance was also guaranteed by Section 1402, which requires insurance companies to provide out-of-pocket expenses for low-income people on the promise of being reimbursed by an appropriations by Congress, something that Congress has never done (after the first two years, at least). The ACA seems to have been written to contain the seeds of its own self-destruction.

 

[metis]

The ACA seems to have been written to contain the seeds of its own self-destruction.

The irony is that it was largely based on a plan put forth by the conservative Heritage Foundation and pretty much modeled after Romneycare.

Reminds me of the standard Washington joke that a camel is really a horse built by a congressional committee.

 

[Nous]

The irony is that it was largely based on a plan put forth by the conservative Heritage Foundation and pretty much modeled after Romneycare.

Reminds me of the standard Washington joke that a camel is really a horse built by a congressional committee.

Yes, it was Romneycare before it was Obamacare. However, Romneycare was explicitly funded from the beginning, doesn't have anything such as Section 1402.

 

[Sapiens]

So, do you want everyone to pay the monthly premiums for Medicare Part B or just give them Medicare Part A. What are you going to do about those that have been and are paying "Medicare" taxes. You going to refund all of their payments or just say tough titty. Medicare is not free.

Probably best to provide everyone with free Medicare Part A and let them buy Part B with a ramp up to make Part B an entitlement over time, working from poorest to richest over some years.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think single payer is doable. The insurance industry is so hated by the voters that the political capital could outweigh the financial benefits in the eyes of many politicians.

Good luck with that. I predict that you'd have better success trying to throw a pork chop past the mouth of a voracious coyote.

Have you noticed how much of America is hated by its average citizens? If not, look at these threads to see. They hate its politicians, They hate its government. They disrespect its media and public education. The left and right mostly hate one another.

And there is no relief in sight - no cavalry. Voting in a ballot box is an empty gesture. American citizens don't matter in their own country and have no say.

I recommend taking care of yourself, not relying on the teat of a government that is contemptuous of you.

 

[Politesse]

For some people, health insurance has been a life-saver, and turned out to be much less expensive that paying for the medical care that they got.

I am not suggesting that we should leave people without healthcare. I am suggesting that our system of delivering care is perverse and profit-centric rather than patient centric.

 

[Underhill]

Good luck with that. I predict that you'd have better success trying to throw a pork chop past the mouth of a voracious coyote.

Have you noticed how much of America is hated by its average citizens? If not, look at these threads to see. They hate its politicians, They hate its government. They disrespect its media and public education. The left and right mostly hate one another.

And there is no relief in sight - no cavalry. Voting in a ballot box is an empty gesture. American citizens don't matter in their own country and have no say.

I recommend taking care of yourself, not relying on the teat of a government that is contemptuous of you.

Such a cheerful disposition.

Hope for the best and plan for the worst is always a laudable goal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Such a cheerful disposition.

Hope for the best and plan for the worst is always a laudable goal.

Actually, I am a very happy person.

But I do confess to a pessimistic view of America. And I seldom write about what I hope for, but will now since you raised the issue of hope. America is my motherland, a country I once treasured and admired, and nothing could make me happier that to be wrong about her and see her pick herself up and get back on track. That is what I would hope for.

But that is not what I see, which is what I do write about. In my opinion, as you may already know, America isn't going to get healthier. Things will continue to deteriorate for the average American.

This is a thread about solutions to one of America's many problems - the inaccessibility of affordable health care to ten of millions of American citizens, and the threat that illness creates to financial well-being in addition to physical well-being. I say that there will be no American solution. America will fail those people. Perhaps that's unthinkable to you. It is to many.

But what if it's correct? Is there value in recognizing it? Would it be useful to know even if painful?

 

[Underhill]

Actually, I am a very happy person.

But I do confess to a pessimistic view of America. And I seldom write about what I hope for, but will now since you raised the issue of hope. America is my motherland, a country I once treasured and admired, and nothing could make me happier that to be wrong about her and see her pick herself up and get back on track. That is what I would hope for.

But that is not what I see, which is what I do write about. In my opinion, as you may already know, America isn't going to get healthier. Things will continue to deteriorate for the average American.

This is a thread about solutions to one of America's many problems - the inaccessibility of affordable health care to ten of millions of American citizens, and the threat that illness creates to financial well-being in addition to physical well-being. I say that there will be no American solution. America will fail those people. Perhaps that's unthinkable to you. It is to many.

But what if it's correct? Is there value in recognizing it? Would it be useful to know even if painful?

Perhaps, but there is also a danger involved in approaching it as inevitable. You may be right, but it is not preordained as such. There is hope.