So it is just a coincidence that Covered CA policies’ holders cannot find doctors, but the same exact insurance companies’ clients that are outside of Obamacare can?
Terr, narrow networks are a function of health insurance. They are not a product of, nor were they caused by, the Affordable Care Act.
I agree that the problems which these folks are confronting are unfortunate, but that’s just it: They are problems of health insurance that these individuals will inevitably solve.
Also, for all the cry over narrow networks, it should be pointed out that conservatives have been proponents of these exact kinds of policies as mechanisms to drive down premiums for years. Now that some of these plans are in ACA exchanges, though, they must be inherently bad. :smack:
I know. So it is just a coincidence then that Obamacare networks are much narrower than the same insurance companies’ outside-Obamacare networks, right?
Here is an interesting take on the ACA - the investing class seems to be bullish on it succeeding.
An investment firm, Motif Investments, has created two mutual funds. One of firms expected to benefit if the ACA succeeds, the other if it fails.
What they mean is that no matter what happens, access to insurance wil increase, and that will mean more revenue for insurance companies. This is true whether ACA stays in place, or is repealed and replaced, or even if it’s merely gutted. there is no scenario in which insurance companies do not win.
In other news, supporters of ACA owe critics another apology. Medicare Advantage cuts are actually real, and once again, they called us liars during the election campaign for pointing it out:
From the news story:
**Insurers say they will be forced to pass on higher costs to seniors or cut benefits if their rates are reduced, and some plans may drop out altogether. The impact could vary significantly around the country.
The industry says the cuts come as Medicare Advantage reductions programmed under the health care law are ramping up. The law sought to compensate for prior years in which the plans were overpaid. But it also includes a new tax on insurers, so industry officials fear the combined impact will be much higher.**
That was some ingenious lie supporters of ACA told. “We’re not cutting benefits. We’re cutting payments to providers, and THEY are then cutting benefits. But see, we’re not cutting benefits.”
I’m pretty much against the idea of being forced to buy something that is outrageously expensive. Great for insurance companies. Perhaps a good time to invest in health care.
As an investor, I’m staying away. Too much uncertainty and as the article posted by jasg says, the big money is already invested in success, which means success is already priced in.
Republicans gain one Democratic vote for repeal in the Senate: Manchin.
REpublicans would need 67 votes to override a Presidential veto. They’d have to either win 13 seats or get a few more Democratic votes. Very, very difficult, but not impossible.
The adaher curse strikes again:
Joe Manchin Does Not Support Full Repeal Of Obamacare
Is there anything that doesn’t turn to shit when **adaher **touches it?
Hey, he said what he said. Not my fault he flip-flopped.
It is interesting though that he pulled the classic Blue Dog bait and switch: he told a home audience he’d repeal Obamacare, then called the Huffington Post and said the opposite. Despite the internet, these old guys still think they can say one thing back home and another thing in DC.
In any case, he’s still a vote to delay the individual mandate and reduce the employer mandate to full time employees only. That’s useful.
Until he’s not.
If it depends on his fear level, then a strong performance in the 2014 elections for the GOP would bring him in line. Besides, the guy is pretty close to a Republican as it is. Shouldn’t be hard to flip him if the GOP takes the majority.
Man, the adaher delusion train is just fun to watch.
No, the ACA is not going to get repealed under Obama. Not realistic, not going to happen.
I will go one better.
It will not get repealed, even if the Republicans take the Whitehouse in 2016.
Tweaked, yes. Improved, yes. Repealed, NO.
(If anything, under a Republican administration, the insurers and big pharma will get an even better deal out of health care reform)
From your own link:
Your own link contradicts it’s own headline and lead-in. I’m not surprised that you’re wrong yet again.
Jasg, that’s why I asked the question: if Republicans “repeal” Obamacare but replace it with something that has a lot of what Obamacare had(such as their alternative plan), then do you call that a victory?
Adaher, Republicans will never repeal Obamacare, nor will they ever do anything at all with their “replacement” plan. Seriously, the GOP has no desire to ever address health care reform, and their “replacement” bullshit exists entirely in a hypothetical universe purely as a mechanism to criticize the ACA. Any alternative approach from the GOP should be called out for the joke that it is, given that no conservative politician in this country would ever enact any of those policies.
Nice try though.
Also, since Terr has apparently resorted to ACA-judgement-by-anecdote, here’s a story about a man whose life was literally saved by the ACA.
Have fun running against that.
Do you? Why?
If you consider it a victory if all you’ve fundamentally changed is to take Obama’s name off it, are you telling us that’s what is really important to you?