Blue Shield Of California instituting furloughs due to ObamaCare costs (Freedom: to buy, calculation)

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You're finally right about something: I'm not totally ignorant. In fact, I'm not even slightly ignorant.

You say this, yet you continue to prattle on about how ACA prevented skyrocketing healthcare cost (it didn't), and then you defend your point by posting a nearly 2 year old article before the effects of ACA were even fully known (they are now as evidenced by the exit of 3 of the largest providers from the exchanges).

To me that reeks of ignorance, willful ignorance.

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Read the articles recently linked. Here's another:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/op...reat.html?_r=0
It's an opinion piece, but one that identifies the maneuvering behind the scenes in the industry pull-outs.

still, you could say that Obamacare is not profitable for hospitals because usually those who avail are more sickly and pay less

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

You say this, yet you continue to prattle on about how ACA prevented skyrocketing healthcare cost (it didn't), and then you defend your point by posting a nearly 2 year old article before the effects of ACA were even fully known (they are now as evidenced by the exit of 3 of the largest providers from the exchanges).

To me that reeks of ignorance, willful ignorance.

Repeating your mantra that the rate of growth hasn't been slowed doesn't make it true. I didn't say the ACA prevented skyrocketing healthcare cost. Those are your words. I said: healthcare costs have been skyrocketing since long before Obama became POTUS and championed the ACA - which Act has slowed the rate of increasing costs. And it has. Why not quit this dishonesty you post constantly by juggling and substituting words?

Regardless if the article I linked is 18 months past published, the figures cover a period of years accurately supporting what I wrote. If they have worsened recently it doesn't change the fact that the rate slowed. And is still slower than pre-ACA.

From Jan. 2016:

The once-torrid growth rate of health care costs has slowed markedly, at least for now, and should maintain a more languid pace into the New Year and beyond. But why? The answer ranges far beyond the ebbing of general price escalation for other things, such as apartment rentals and new cars.
Of course, medical bill inflation still is rising faster than the broader consumer price index, which remains well south of a 2 percent annual pace. In November, according the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, consumers' health care inflation was up 2.9 percent. That's far down from the 5 percent expansion in 2007.
The picture is the same for overall health costs. Above what consumers shell out, the government -- through Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare -- and employer plans also chip in to pay medical bills. The PwC Health Research Institute found that this combined spending rose 6.8 percent in 2015 and expects it to climb at a slightly slower clip of 6.5 percent in 2016. That's a far cry from 2007's 11.9 percent.

How much will your health care costs rise in 2016? - CBS News

There's a cure for the frustration that comes from being corrected over and over: stop posting unsupportable crap.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

still, you could say that Obamacare is not profitable for hospitals because usually those who avail are more sickly and pay less

Pretty sure I never said anything about ACA being "profitable" for anyone. I said: it has slowed the rate of healthcare costs - for now.

Get it?

[Tulemutt]

More, from June 21, 2016, Fortune Magazine:

U.S. Will Spend $2.6 Trillion Less on Health Care Than Previously Estimated

There’s several reasons driving the savings.


The United States will save about $2.6 trillion on health care expenses over a five-year period compared to initial projections made right after the passage of the Affordable Care Act.


While health spending spiked briefly in 2014, evidence shows that it has once again slowed down and will help save Americans trillions between 2014 and 2019, according to a new study by the Urban Institute and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.


Spending declines will happen across both private health insurance as well as Medicare and Medicaid. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services actuaries predicted that total Medicare spending between 2014 and 2019 would be $455 billion lower than the ACA baseline forecast. Projected Medicaid spending over the same time period is expected to be $1.05 billion lower than previous ACA estimates, while private insurance spending projections declined by $664 billion.


The average annual growth rate from 2010 to 2013 was about 3.6% compared to the 5.4% that had been projected in 2010.


The slower health care spending also means that the ACA is expected to cost the U.S. government much less than previously estimated. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2010, after the passage of the ACA, that the gross cost of all ACA coverage provisions from 2014 to 2019 would cost $938 billion. That forecast has now dropped to $686 billion in the 2015 forecast, a reduction of 26.9%.

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Pretty sure I never said anything about ACA being "profitable" for anyone. I said: it has slowed the rate of healthcare costs - for now.

Get it?

ok, but what happens when the providers decide not participate?

[marcopolo666]

Originally Posted by cb73

It needs to completely fail so they can institute Medicare-for-all, which was the point in the first place.

Anyone who read the bill day one could see that there was no possible way this would financially work.

You read all 900+ pages? Or are you just relying on some "pundit's" opinion?

Your comment makes me think that you didn't read it, and are just against it because some other people are against it. There is nothing in the bill that sets costs (although PROFITS are limited). The companies must provide certain services in their plans, and they can set whatever price they want for their plans. If they are losing money, THEY screwed up. (And frankly, I am not crying over a multi-hundred BILLION dollar industry losing a little for a change.)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by marcopolo666

(And frankly, I am not crying over a multi-hundred BILLION dollar industry losing a little for a change.)

Well that's confirmation: you are a big meanie

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

Even Kaiser is losing money now..staffs suspect its due to Obamacare

Looks as if they were doing all right in 2014.

"Blue Shield of California led the country with $107 million in profit on Obamacare policies sold to individuals. Kaiser Permanente was second with $66 million, and Anthem Blue Cross ranked seventh nationally with a $9-million surplus in the Covered California exchange." California's 3 largest health insurers among few to show Obamacare profit in 2014 - LA Times

Kaiser Permanente 'absolutely' committed to ACA marketplaces: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/arti...NEWS/160819922

[payutenyodagimas]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Looks as if they were doing all right in 2014.

"Blue Shield of California led the country with $107 million in profit on Obamacare policies sold to individuals. Kaiser Permanente was second with $66 million, and Anthem Blue Cross ranked seventh nationally with a $9-million surplus in the Covered California exchange." California's 3 largest health insurers among few to show Obamacare profit in 2014 - LA Times

Kaiser Permanente 'absolutely' committed to ACA marketplaces: http://www.modernhealthcare.com/arti...NEWS/160819922

I was referring to its hospital system..not the insurance division