Aetna pulling out of the ACA exchanges - Effect on Affordable Care Act

[Jolly_Penguin]

Canada has one of the lowest rates of MRI scanning machines per capita in the developed world, with six MRI scanners per million people, compared to 40.1 in Japan, 14.4 in Switzerland and 26.6 in the United States. Pittsburgh alone has more MRI machines than all of Canada.

http://www.bcliving.ca/health/mri-scans-waiting-for-public-health-care-vs-paying-for-a-private-mri-clinic

I am Canadian and I have had an MRI. I did not find the wait bad at all. It took me about two weeks to get in and have it done. It wasn't an emergency.

- - - Updated - - -

Forget a public "option". That still keeps the insurance companies with their hands grabbing for the money. Health care should not be profit driven. It SHOULD be a net loss. How anybody expects a health care system that works and also makes a profit.... boggles the mind. It should be losing money and it should not be at all attractive for private interests to get involved.

Because we don't know what we would miss without it being there. It's always easy to saw let's make people equal. Were the people in the middle ages better off heallth care wise because they all had the same amount of health care?

I'm sorry, what? How does what you wrote here address what you are quoting? Am I missing something?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Show

How does this itself not give people heart attacks?

 

[laughing dog]

The ACA was structured with the help of lobbyists from the insurance industry. Next time there is an overall, these lobbyists/firms will have zero credibility.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They are not losing money.

Enjoy your separate version of reality. In the other the rest of us inhabit insurers and co-ops are exiting markets because they are losing money.

The co-op that exited the market here wasn't because of too many claims, but because their overhead was too high and they couldn't get their act together. Both the co-op and the state exchange look to me like people trying to feed at the government trough, figuring it doesn't really matter how good a job they do. Oops, this time it did. The exchange fucked up so badly they simply got the boot rather than the usual pay-to-fix-the-problem-you-caused. Not to mention the lawsuits--including one wrongful death one that I'm aware of. (Fucked up the insurance, cancer treatment didn't happen, the patient died.)

 

[RavenSky]

My hope is that when HRC gets into office, she can start working on, at minimum, the public option and that congress will have no choice but to pass it because there won't be any alternative.

Ultimately, Jolly Penguin is right. We need a mandatory single-payer universal health care provider - preferably one paid for through our income taxes. But it is going to be a baby-step process in this country.

Why income-taxes?? Why create a new wheel??

Your Medicare tax deduction on your payroll is still a tax on your income No new wheel invented.

 

[untermensche]

Why income-taxes?? Why create a new wheel??

Your Medicare tax deduction on your payroll is still a tax on your income No new wheel invented.

Except it is only a tax on some kinds of income.

Income from investments is not income used to pay for Medicare.

Medicare should be tied to every kind of income and highly progressive.

The people at the top should be doing their patriotic duty and taking the pressure off those below.

"We are all in this together" in action as opposed to in empty rhetoric.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Where the tax is comes from is less important than the fact we have the resources to cover everyone.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ok, so this article says exactly what I was thinking.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...-retreat-from-obamacare-is-more-than-it-seems

Unless the exchanges get a rapid infusion of healthier customers who pay substantial premiums without using much care, insurers are going to keep pulling out of the areas where they are losing money. Or at the very least, they will demand benefits from the government to make it worth their while to stay.

No surprise there.

 

[Toni]

Unless the exchanges get a rapid infusion of healthier customers who pay substantial premiums without using much care, insurers are going to keep pulling out of the areas where they are losing money. Or at the very least, they will demand benefits from the government to make it worth their while to stay.

No surprise there.

My kids are young adults. One moved recently from insurance on the exchange--which he purchased because it was slightly better and slightly cheaper than the insurance provided by his former employer. He dropped the ACA because his new employer provided better, cheaper coverage. Part of this might be because he moved from a small city to a large city and the choices are much greater-for insurance, for providers. Where he lived before, it was pretty much a single, very mediocre practice. Which isn't an expensive practice, btw. There just isn't much competition. And the local employers are used to being able to treat employees like crap.

That's the thing: as the economy improves and more young, healthy adults move into full employment with full benefits, including decent health insurance. The ones who are 'left' are ones who are less likely to be healthy young adults because healthy young adults who have the mobility to relocate if necessary.

I am more and more convinced that it needs to be illegal for any insurance company to restrict by price structure--or any other means where its clients receive medical care. And that it should be illegal for medical providers to charge one price for test or procedure or visit to a patient with one kind of insurance and a different price for a patient with another insurance --or no insurance. Prices can and do vary by practice based upon methods and practices as well as geography. One practice might charge $A for an MRI and another might charge $2A for the same MRI. The first practice seems like a better deal, right? But it all depends on what is included in that charge, who reads the MRI and their skill level, what information they glean and provide, what quality measures are in place, etc. And what charges are separate, etc.

 

[untermensche]

....as the economy improves....

It all depends on how you define "economy".

For some Americans the economy is doing great. Their investments in China are making money, the workers at home are becoming more and more desperate and accepting less.

An economy where some gain great wealth while the vast majority suffer and struggle and slowly sink is not an economy worth saving.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No surprise there.

I am more and more convinced that it needs to be illegal for any insurance company to restrict by price structure--or any other means where its clients receive medical care. And that it should be illegal for medical providers to charge one price for test or procedure or visit to a patient with one kind of insurance and a different price for a patient with another insurance --or no insurance. Prices can and do vary by practice based upon methods and practices as well as geography. One practice might charge $A for an MRI and another might charge $2A for the same MRI. The first practice seems like a better deal, right? But it all depends on what is included in that charge, who reads the MRI and their skill level, what information they glean and provide, what quality measures are in place, etc. And what charges are separate, etc.

For sure it's a gigantic mess.

Recently in our area - Pittsburgh PA - there was a news segment where the investigative reporter called around to different providers asking how much they charged for a given procedure. Even if he called the same place at different times he got different prices, and by thousands of dollars.

I can understand a price reduction over a stated cost if a person has been paying premiums because it should cost less in that case. That's common sense. But the bottom line is that providers want it to be confusing because it's easier for them to cheat people, which they do.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm curious to know what the differences are between the states that are profitable and those that aren't, but I haven't seen any coverage that goes into that.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

I'm curious to know what the differences are between the states that are profitable and those that aren't, but I haven't seen any coverage that goes into that.

Aetna is pulling out of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.

You know, the 'small government' states (except for maybe IL and PA).

States with stricter insurance regulations (CA, NY, OR, WA and MA) don't seem to have this Aexit problem...

aa

 

[Horatio Parker]

I'm curious to know what the differences are between the states that are profitable and those that aren't, but I haven't seen any coverage that goes into that.

Aetna is pulling out of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.

You know, the 'small government' states (except for maybe IL and PA).

States with stricter insurance regulations (CA, NY, OR, WA and MA) don't seem to have this Aexit problem...

aa

Thanks aa.

So, to take a guess, states with more regulation require less overhead to make the payments merry-go-round go?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'm curious to know what the differences are between the states that are profitable and those that aren't, but I haven't seen any coverage that goes into that.

Aetna is pulling out of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.

You know, the 'small government' states (except for maybe IL and PA).

States with stricter insurance regulations (CA, NY, OR, WA and MA) don't seem to have this Aexit problem...

aa

Are any of these "non-profit" states? That is states that require direct medical care organizations be non-profit.

 

[Playball40]

I'm curious to know what the differences are between the states that are profitable and those that aren't, but I haven't seen any coverage that goes into that.

Aetna is pulling out of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.

You know, the 'small government' states (except for maybe IL and PA).
States with stricter insurance regulations (CA, NY, OR, WA and MA) don't seem to have this Aexit problem...

aa

Interesting how many of those states also did NOT expand the Medicaid program. Plus two of the state are HIGH retirement states (Arizona and Florida) so not surprised more older people on plans.

 

[Playball40]

Aetna is pulling out of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.

You know, the 'small government' states (except for maybe IL and PA).

States with stricter insurance regulations (CA, NY, OR, WA and MA) don't seem to have this Aexit problem...

aa

Are any of these "non-profit" states? That is states that require direct medical care organizations be non-profit.

Florida (home of Rick Scott who founded HCA) is definitely NOT.

 

[blastula]

They did threaten to Obamacarexit if the merger was denied.

Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So they are just playing politics.

 

[dismal]

I'm curious to know what the differences are between the states that are profitable and those that aren't, but I haven't seen any coverage that goes into that.

Aetna is pulling out of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.

You know, the 'small government' states (except for maybe IL and PA).

States with stricter insurance regulations (CA, NY, OR, WA and MA) don't seem to have this Aexit problem...

aa

I'm not sure what you are attempting to claim here. It would seem silly to argue that they chose the states they would do business in based on the size of the government.

Assuming they stayed in the states where they were the most profitable, your position would seem to be that the states with stricter regulation result in more profitable markets for insurers?

What exactly do CA, NY, OR, WA and MA do to help the big insurers make money that the other states don't?