Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I personally am glad the ACA exists, even in its imperfect form. I'm glad to see friends who couldn't buy insurance at any price because of pre-existing conditions now have some peace of mind.
I do wish the law had less nebulous language and fewer loopholes to exploit. Insurance companies are as always doing their own thang, subjectively interpreting and perverting the intent of the law in order to gauge every dollar from consumers.
Change - even good change - is always painful.
Excellent post!! I couldn't afford insurance w/o it since my spouse passed away. I don't use it much, but glad to know it's there in case. NONE of us can predict our future health, an accident, etc.
People who must buy individual insurance (think self employed and lower wage workers without company plans) are once again being treated like second rate citizens and offered very substandard policies. It is true that with the enactment of the ACA, many more people who were shut out previously are now in the pool.
What does that tell you? When our costs were the highest in the world before ACA, when insurance companies were allowed to cherry pick only healthy people from the individual market. Now that they can't weed them out, our costs are going through the roof. Dare I say, the problem may not be only
with "insuring everyone", but with OUR HEALTH CARE COSTS.
You've got two choices.
1.Don't cover the sick
2. Develop a plan to bring down costs.
And an honesty check here. How would you vote if you lost your company insurance tomorrow?
People who must buy individual insurance (think self employed and lower wage workers without company plans) are once again being treated like second rate citizens and offered very substandard policies. It is true that with the enactment of the ACA, many more people who were shut out previously are now in the pool.
What does that tell you? When our costs were the highest in the world before ACA, when insurance companies were allowed to cherry pick only healthy people from the individual market. Now that they can't weed them out, our costs are going through the roof. Dare I say, the problem may not be only
with "insuring everyone", but with OUR HEALTH CARE COSTS.
You've got two choices.
1.Don't cover the sick
2. Develop a plan to bring down costs.
And an honesty check here. How would you vote if you lost your company insurance tomorrow?
They don't have to buy those "substandard" plans. Those plans you are describing are being offered at a very steep discount, thus the limitations. They can take the discount or pay full freight for a more expansive network. Keep in mind, the actual COVERAGE is the same, they are just buying a bigger network of doctors to choose from.
There is a plan to bring down costs, it's called high deductible health plans, and it's working....people just don't want to have to pay out of pocket for that trip to the ER for their sinus infection though...
"UnitedHealth stressed that it "remains a strong supporter of sustainable efforts to ensure access to affordable, quality care for all Americans."
But, well, business is business. The company's concerned that it might not see the same $1.6 billion in profit that it pocketed in the third quarter.
Supporters of healthcare reform will view UnitedHealth's warning as further proof that for-profit companies shouldn't be making money off the sick. Critics will see evidence of Obamacare's failed promise of fixing a broken healthcare system.
They're both right. The bigger issue, however, is what we're going to do about it."
They don't have to buy those "substandard" plans. Those plans you are describing are being offered at a very steep discount, thus the limitations. They can take the discount or pay full freight for a more expansive network. Keep in mind, the actual COVERAGE is the same, they are just buying a bigger network of doctors to choose from.
There is a plan to bring down costs, it's called high deductible health plans, and it's working....people just don't want to have to pay out of pocket for that trip to the ER for their sinus infection though...
The trend for individual plans is for smaller networks to help contain costs. The high deductible also acts as a deterent for young people to purchase insurance: why pay a high monthly premium and still have to shell out another 3K before getting anything paid for when you can just pay the paltry penalty? This has skewed the demographics of the individual purchasing market to older and sicker driving up the cost. The individual market is on its way towards a death spiral in rates. The ACA does not work in reality, so what will the next step be?
If insurers say they can't/won't provide individual plans, will single payer option be started for this demographic of the population?
Okay, I absolutely believe you when you say this is how this is how it's designed to work......but, the cynic in me still thinks that if more than X people get sick, and it costs a lot more than Y dollars, then insurance companies will simply increase the Z dollars they collect so they can still maximize their profits. And they will collect those dollars from anyone and everyone, even those who have never utilize services...
Well, you're partially right. If there is an upward trend of more people getting sick or more expensive treatments being applied, premiums will go up to maintain the model. If it is a spike or outlier that returns to normal, the insurance company lays the unexpected additional cost off on their insurance company. Yup - insurance companies have policies with other insurance companies, too. (AIG is the one most people think of in the secondary insurance market.) Just like a bookie will lay off a percentage of his bets on other bookies.
The last sentence in your post (quoted above) is exactly what the ACA is based on, and exactly why it is failing. They expected young, healthy people to get in and pay premiums but not use the product because they are young and healthy. Well, young healthy people aren't signing up, so they are not paying premiums. Ergo, the only ones who are in the program are the less healthy older people and people with (expensive) pre-existing conditions. It is designed to fail, and it is failing - just faster than anyone thought. (Except for Zeke Emanuel - he had the timing right.)
OK read that article. How about this one where they estimate EPS to be down for 2015 by about 5% but next years initial guidance is up about 15% for 2016.
Come on --if its hurting that much where are you getting the large EPS jump from.
People may not like the ACA but what kind of double talk is this.
This was my thought. Are they really losing money? Or are they still trying to maintain the same level of payouts to shareholders? I wonder, if they reduce shareholder dividends, would their bottom line still be profitable?
In response to UHC's announcement, Aetna and Anthem are telegraphing more confidence:
Quote:
Aetna, Anthem reassure investors on forecasts, exchanges
By Tom Murphy, Associated Press
Nov. 20, 2015
Two of the nation's three largest health insurers are trying to ease investor and customer concerns a day after their biggest competitor questioned its future on the Affordable Care Act's public insurance exchanges.
Aetna Inc. and the Blue Cross-Blue Shield carrier Anthem Inc each reaffirmed on Friday their 2015 earnings forecasts.
They also said their commercial business has developed as expected through October.
That includes insurance sold on the exchanges, a key component in the ACA's push to expand insurance coverage.
Their announcements came a day after UnitedHealth Group Inc. cut its 2015 forecast due to losses piling up from coverage sold on the exchanges, which let people buy insurance with help from income-based tax credits. The insurer said it was scaling back its marketing for coverage that starts in 2016, and it will decide next year whether to stay in the exchange business in 2017.
Leaders of UnitedHealth had said just last month that they expected the exchanges to mature into a strong growth market. Since then, the insurer says financial hits from that business have come into clearer focus.
Aetna said last month that the exchanges remain a good market, even though enrollment fell 11% to about 814,000 people in the third quarter. The insurer said Friday that it still expects 2015 operating earnings of $7.45 to $7.55 per share.
In a statement, Joseph Swedish, president and CEO of Anthem, said, "As a leader during this time of unprecedented transformation in health care, Anthem remains committed to enhancing access to high quality, affordable health care for all of our members inside and outside of the insurance exchanges and continuing our dialogue with policymakers and regulators regarding how we can improve the stability of the individual market.
Since the launch of the insurance exchanges, Anthem has offered more than 1,000 new insurance product choices in 14 states across the country — more than any other health care insurer."
Anthem, which recently reaffirmed its forecast, said again on Friday that it expects adjusted earnings ranging between $10.10 and $10.20 per share.
Analysts forecast, on average, 2015 earnings of $7.55 per share for Aetna and $10.20 per share for Anthem.
In response to the news about UnitedHealth's announcement, Long Beach, Calif.-based Molina Healthcare Inc., which also participates in the Wisconsin insurance exchange, issued the following statement Friday: "We provide annual guidance and we do not update unless there is a material change. As it relates to the exchanges, we are doing fine. The exchanges is a small part of our overall business (6.5%) and has been profitable for us. Our strategy is to focus more on providing continuity of care for patients transitioning from Medicaid to the marketplace. We are using our Medicaid network so that members can stay with their health plans and keep their doctors even as they transition from Medicaid to the exchanges. We are excited to be able to continue serving members through the exchanges as we've done in previous years."
This was my thought. Are they really losing money? Or are they still trying to maintain the same level of payouts to shareholders? I wonder, if they reduce shareholder dividends, would their bottom line still be profitable?
Could be. OTOH UHC has a miserable, rotten, horrible reputation in the healthcare world. Perhaps many potential customers wanted no part of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
