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.
And the GOP controlled Congress will do zilch about it, as they really don't care about those who are most hurt by these increases.
Also, as someone noted, it's amazing how some have been living under a rock for the past 20 years. Rates were increasing rapidly before Obamacare was even a word.
For profit, publicly- traded insurers have been contracting through mergers and acquisition for more than 25 years. The current Big 5 ( United, Anthem, Humana, Aetna and Cigna) intend to become the Big 3 via mergers/ acquisistions. Take a look at the corporate histories of the Big 5 to grasp historical mergers/acquisitions.
The DoJ is suing the parties of the intended mergers because proceeding will reduce competition. Witching weeks of these suits, they all decided to withdraw from Obamacare exchanges. Coincidence? I think not.
I have no doubt the next administration will approve these mergers and require the parties to divest some of their lines/ markets. On one hand, the insurers intend to eliminate redundancies ( shed jobs) and invest more in technology substitution ( shed more jobs) and use their post merger muscle to negotiate reduced reimbursements to healthcare providers. On the other hand, the trail of mergers/ acquisistions has resulted in huge premium increases and withdrawals from Individual Plan Markets in unprofitable regions of some states.
These for profit, publicly- traded healthcare insurers have one primary objective, increase shareholder value. They have been able to deliver record ROI to their shareholders, despite their participation in the exchanges.
For profit, publicly- traded insurers have been contracting through mergers and acquisition for more than 25 years. The current Big 5 ( United, Anthem, Humana, Aetna and Cigna) intend to become the Big 3 via mergers/ acquisistions. Take a look at the corporate histories of the Big 5 to grasp historical mergers/acquisitions.
The DoJ is suing the parties of the intended mergers because proceeding will reduce competition. Witching weeks of these suits, they all decided to withdraw from Obamacare exchanges. Coincidence? I think not.
I have no doubt the next administration will approve these mergers and require the parties to divest some of their lines/ markets. On one hand, the insurers intend to eliminate redundancies ( shed jobs) and invest more in technology substitution ( shed more jobs) and use their post merger muscle to negotiate reduced reimbursements to healthcare providers. On the other hand, the trail of mergers/ acquisistions has resulted in huge premium increases and withdrawals from Individual Plan Markets in unprofitable regions of some states.
These for profit, publicly- traded healthcare insurers have one primary objective, increase shareholder value. They have been able to deliver record ROI to their shareholders, despite their participation in the exchanges.
Yes. This is spot on.
How do we solve THIS problem?
Which is exactly what needs to be addressed if we ever have any hope of solving the healthcare problem correctly.
I seem to remember something about BC/BS having, at one time, been a non profit. The for profit companies couldn't compete and then lobbied. Well, surprise surprise the crooked politicians stepped in and forced BC/BS to change to a for profit company.
Let's also remember that plans are pulling out of many states, in some cases drastically reducing choice. My wife's plan went up this year and we were just notified they're exiting the system. We can't afford to continue given next years hike and even if we could it'd be a waste given the coverage available/cost.
Reduced competition in any market typically leads to higher costs, regardless of product.
I am sorry to hear about your plight.
As I understand it, 84% of those who buy their insurance from an exchange will not feel the pinch of increases because subsidies/ credits are tied to rates. Sounds like you might not qualify for a subsidy/ credit. Only reason to buy insurance off an exchange is to get a subsidy/ credit. If you don't qualify, you may have more opportunities, off the exchange.
Before the ACA, some states found themselves in similar positions, a lack of competition amongst healthcare insurers. In some instances, states subsidized insurance companies to remain. Other states made insurers' ability to write more lucrative large group plans and auto insurance contingent upon remaining in the Individual Plan Market. Some states did nothing and premiums reflected the lack of competition.
If you end up deciding to be uninsured, make sure your auto insurance covers medical claims even if you and / or your wife are responsible for the accident.
Reduced competition in any market typically leads to higher costs, regardless of product.
I am sorry to hear about your plight.
As I understand it, 84% of those who buy their insurance from an exchange will not feel the pinch of increases because subsidies/ credits are tied to rates. Sounds like you might not qualify for a subsidy/ credit. Only reason to buy insurance off an exchange is to get a subsidy/ credit. If you don't qualify, you may have more opportunities, off the exchange.
Before the ACA, some states found themselves in similar positions, a lack of competition amongst healthcare insurers. In some instances, states subsidized insurance companies to remain. Other states made insurers' ability to write more lucrative large group plans and auto insurance contingent upon remaining in the Individual Plan Market. Some states did nothing and premiums reflected the lack of competition.
If you end up deciding to be uninsured, make sure your auto insurance covers medical claims even if you and / or your wife are responsible for the accident.
For some the decision has been removed from the equation.
And the GOP controlled Congress will do zilch about it, as they really don't care about those who are most hurt by these increases.
Also, as someone noted, it's amazing how some have been living under a rock for the past 20 years. Rates were increasing rapidly before Obamacare was even a word.
Average of 100% between 2000-2010.
If one reads Hillary's healthcare testimony before Congress in the 90's, one would swear she was talking about right now, reduced competition due to mergers/ acquisistions and unregulated cost of healthcare with an emphasis on prescription medications.
For profit, publicly- traded insurers have been contracting through mergers and acquisition for more than 25 years. The current Big 5 ( United, Anthem, Humana, Aetna and Cigna) intend to become the Big 3 via mergers/ acquisistions. Take a look at the corporate histories of the Big 5 to grasp historical mergers/acquisitions.
The DoJ is suing the parties of the intended mergers because proceeding will reduce competition. Witching weeks of these suits, they all decided to withdraw from Obamacare exchanges. Coincidence? I think not.
I have no doubt the next administration will approve these mergers and require the parties to divest some of their lines/ markets. On one hand, the insurers intend to eliminate redundancies ( shed jobs) and invest more in technology substitution ( shed more jobs) and use their post merger muscle to negotiate reduced reimbursements to healthcare providers. On the other hand, the trail of mergers/ acquisistions has resulted in huge premium increases and withdrawals from Individual Plan Markets in unprofitable regions of some states.
These for profit, publicly- traded healthcare insurers have one primary objective, increase shareholder value. They have been able to deliver record ROI to their shareholders, despite their participation in the exchanges.
The lack of enforcing Anti-trust across the board. Bank mergers, media outlet mergers, cable mergers etc.
Obamacare is not going away. It is far bigger and more a part of our health care delivery system than the few million on the exchanges as Clinton commented in the second debate. There will be changes made. The one I predict is the introduction of low cost, low benefit (but high profit) plans to attract younger people into the system. Ideally, there would be a public plan - a kind of early Medicare buy in - for those over 50, but that might be a stretch with the Republicans in the House.
Actually it is and will continue to collapse upon itself. The demographic story tells this rather clearly.
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.
