If the government takes complete control of healthcare, then maybe they can get at the root of the actual problem - the insane cost of healthcare itself. Aetna doesn’t set the cost of all the tests and procedures that make medical care so expensive in the first place. I wonder if many of the people railing against the insurance companies (not necessarily you) have ever seen a hospital bill. The insurance companies don’t generate these bills, to the best of my knowledge.
Insurance companies might not generate the bills, but they’re still responsible for them. The cost of anything is what the market will bear. And what the bills actually say may or may not even be what the insurance company pays.
I get it, it’s just that if the government takes over healthcare, then those astronomical fees will not go to some insurance company, but right from the pocket of the US taxpayer. As a taxpayer, would you rather a (hypothetical - it’s been 30 years since I saw the 9 charge on a bill) Tylenol cost .05 or $15? Shouldn’t there be some sort of limit of how much can be charged in the first place?
I feel that just blindly trusting the healthcare industry to charge whatever they want to is what causes the incredible cost of healthcare, not the insurance companies. Insurance companies can negotiate some of the charges on the bill down, they have for me. Not refusing to pay and leaving me holding the bag, but refusing to pay and inducing the healthcare system to charge less (actually just drop some items from the bill altogether).
The tail is wagging the dog.
I know that, in Alabama, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama will be the only carrier offering plans in most, if not all, of the state.
What’s different is, sick people aren’t widgets. Making profits on the state of out citizens’ health is obscene. Expecting people to “negotiate” their best price for health care as they’re being wheeled in for emergency heart surgery is idiotic and pitiless. It’s a shitty model for a health care system – unless you’re an insurance company and a a monopoly to boot, looking to maximize profits.
Duke of Rat is right, it’s the cost of health care that isn’t being addressed. Chronos is also right, because health insurance companies absolutely do dictate what they must be paid in order to cover health care products/services, and you better believe profit is the reason why. I’d rather have the government setting health care standards and negotiating for best prices for what is customary and reasonable care on the basis of what makes the most sense in the interests of the tax payers, than health insurance and pharmaceutical companies deciding what’s profitable enough. We do it now with Medicare, and no reason that model can’t be moved into a general national health care system.
I’m no economist, but Econ 101 teaches that some public interests are inelastic and don’t lend themselves well to a capitalist, for-profit system. Health care is such a one. The sooner we get profits out of health care and move to a single payer national health care system, the better.
Looks like they just threw a tantrum.
Or as the article concluded “Now, the company appears to be taking its ball and going home.”
No, sick people aren’t widgets, but so what? Do you think that the government should force insurance companies to continue a line of business in which they’re losing money? Even the most expansive view of the Commerce Clause doesn’t require that.
Corporations (including insurance companies) exist to make profits. Shocking, I know. :rolleyes:
If insurance companies raise their rates to stay in business, then they are Big Heartless Corporations. If they can’t turn a profit and go broke, there’s one less option available.
But they could leave their rates as-is and still turn a profit if the bills presented to them by the healthcare industry weren’t so astronomical to start with.
It works with widgets, too. If your widget costs twice as much as your customer can afford to pay, what could be better than the government stepping up and saying send us your bills, we have a whole list of taxpayers we can tap to pay you.
Nope. I think they should be eliminated as the primary source of health care coverage. Funny; you don’t see any of them asking for that.
There are many models around the world that work just fine without insurance companies being the primary players in providing health care for their people. You don’t seem able to wrap your head around that.
Health insurance companies can always offer their product for profit and a price that people are willing to pay, and I have no issues with that as an option. It’s done in many countries that offer single payer, allowing those who subscribe to “jump the line” or cover extra services if they wish. But the right of basic health care is guaranteed to all by way of government-run health care. Makes a lot more sense to me than how we do it.
Canada does it well. So do France, Spain, Germany, Australia, the UK, Iceland, The Netherlands, Sweden and New Zealand. There are problems, no question. But ask any citizen of those nations if they would trade their access to health care for ours, even in exchange for a reduced tax rate. I’ve never met one yet.
Of course I can wrap my head around it (thanks for the unnecessary jab in Great Debates), but I don’t agree with your post.
ISTM that that’s completely indeterminate as to whether the proper business decision would have been to stay and they’re now leaving as a “tantrum”, or whether the sound business decision was to leave and they offered to stay as a bribe. (This is all disregarding the possibility that the merger may have had an actual business impact on the decision.)
Well that answers that question. Pinal County isn’t a rural backwater either; it’s part of the Phoenix metro area.
Here’s the NYT on the subject: Think Your Obamacare Plan Will Be Like Employer Coverage? Think Again
One point the article missed is that it’s not just a matter of which plans enrollees are choosing but which enrollees are choosing which plans. The real problem is not that “enrollees” like narrow-network plans - if that were the case, then all to the good. The issue seems to be that low cost enrollees tend to prefer the narrow-network plans, while higher cost enrollees gravitate to the wide network plans, which is why the former tend to be making money and the latter tend to be losing it. And this means that the segment of the market that wants better plans, and the segment that serves them, is getting squeezed.
It makes it challenging for people to dance on Obamacare’s grave when it keeps on going, no matter how much the Trump Administration tries to sabotage it.
I admire optimism but I’m afraid here it’s unfounded. The latest Trump move against Obamacare removes a major motive for insurers to insure the unhealthy. Expect insurers to head for the exits in droves.
If I understand the article, insurers are even being denied reimbursements already due for past costs. How is this even remotely legal?(*) Perhaps someone should start a GD thread to learn how “conservatives” view sabotage through executive actions like this. [Is the following excerpt too long for copyright compliance? How about if I accompany it with advertisement: Read the Washington Post, one of the best American newspapers fighting strongly against the unfolding tragedy of Trumpism.]
(* - The article implies that Trumpists are using the confusion caused by two conflicting court rulings as an excuse for sabotage.)
Whatever the original faults of ACA might have been, the Republicans are responsible for 100% of problems with ACA going forward. Too bad the American public is too poorly informed to even understand this.
Not THAT challenging; they just need to jitterbug, instead of waltz…
It’s my understanding, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the money for this program that the Trump team is now not collecting, isn’t even tax dollars-- it’s money that the insurers pool themselves. Aside from petty sabotage, is there any fiscal reason the admin could give to justify ending this? Again, looking for something that doesn’t involved the word “Obama.”
I might just stand there barefoot and let my toes fondle the dirt.
It still sickens me that the quality of our healthcare comes down to whether a bunch of old rich guys can make more money out of our misery or not.