[FoRK] The Most Important Article You'll Read Today About The Democratic Party.
Gregory Alan Bolcer
greg at bolcer.org
Thu May 4 13:47:25 PDT 2017
Well since a lot of the exchanges no longer have any vendors, there's no
profit, so they've all exited. Some exchanges also only have one vendor
so there's no competitive price structures. Deductibles on some plans
are more than the plan is worth, so those plans are upside down even
with government subsidies which only qualify for the poorest of the poor.
They like quoting that uninsured dropped, but responsible insurees are
paying for those less responsible, so deductibles ran rampant as well as
premiums. The goal was to cover uninsured, not reduce health costs.
The second part turned out to be complete fabrication. You can't cite
one metric without the other--the other being a completely unfair wealth
redistribution on the most poor and vulnerable.
So thank you very much. My prediction that they would need to fix it
was spot on. My prediction they will need to fix this also is spot on,
though they've kicked the can down the road 10-15 years.
So what they've done is instead of amortizing unneeded services and
insurance across all the participants., now insurers can debundle
coverage items and you are not forced to pay for services you will never
need or want. It's the first step to returning to a market-driven system.
California, particularly Southern California, is on the front line of
uninsured, rising costs, innovation, hospital closings, medicare fraud,
and half a dozen other issues. The best thing this bill does is erase
the artificial restrictions of purchasing health insurance across state
lines and eliminating the purchase mandate. Those alone makes it an
Little bit of history from Sept. 2016.
On 11/25/2015 5:45 AM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
> Is an exchange a for-profit? What's the financial structure?
> On Nov 25, 2015 5:00 AM, "Gregory Alan Bolcer" <greg at bolcer.org> wrote:
>> Well there's an easy litmus test. If the exchanges or Medicaid have to be
>> bailed out then the unintended consequences of the law have been actualized
>> in the marketplace and it will have converted from a cost-savings law
>> (which personally I never thought it was) into an entitlement that requires
>> constant taxpayer feeding. There's your test.
>> There's been 12 that have closed so far. Many of them after receiving
>> bailouts. 21 of 23 lost money in 2014. 13 of 23 failed to meet enrollment
>> projections even with the medicare expansion driving enrollment numbers.
>> The ones that didn't make money brought in fewer dollars in premiums that
>> was needed to pay medical claims, sometimes by multiples. So with half of
>> the exchanges spending 130%+ on costs versus revenues even with higher
>> rates and higher deductibles, it doesn't look good.
>> With the collapse of these exchanges failing under their own weight,
>> consumers now have *less* choices which is in fact opposite of what the law
>> intendend--it was intended to bring competition and consumer choice to the
>> There you go, no racism involved.
>> On 11/24/2015 5:53 PM, Bill Kearney wrote:
>>> my reading is that it's really opposition to Obama.
>>> Thus circling back to my 'coded racism' comment.
>>> I'm certainly no fan, but it certainly makes it easier to play spot the
>>> bigots when "obamacare" gets trotted out without any actual facts behind
>>> the criticism.
>>> Maybe someone can tell me how the government intends (or could) solve
>>>> the problem of folks who don't want to work.
>>> Somehow the words "better parenting" come to mind. No easy challenge at
>>> FoRK mailing list
>> greg at bolcer.org, http://bolcer.org, c: +1.714.928.5476
>> FoRK mailing list
> FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK