Can Trump have one News Conference without Slamming and Insulting the Democrats?

[The Derp]

Medicare processes not ONE SINGLE CLAIM... thanks to George W Bush's 2003 Medicare Moderization Act!
I've worked with Medicare MACs for dozens of years. I know Medicare and the health insurance industry better then almost anyone on this board!

So you didn't actually prove anything the opposite of what I was saying. Medicare contracts out to the private insurers to administer, right? So those costs are in Medicare's administrative line item, are they not? I gave you the link to HHS' budget. That budget shows Admin expenses (i.e. contracts with insurers for Medicare Advantage plans, etc.) are still below 2%. So the cost inefficiencies seem to be coming from the private sector side, are they not? Also, when processing Medicare claims, what exactly is the expense that is so burdensome for insurance companies? Why not just have Medicare swallow up the administrators, remove their profit motive, and reduce costs? So you either need to figure out if private insurers who contract with Medicare process claims with little-to-no overhead, or if they don't process claims with little-to-no overhead. If what you're saying is true, then Medicare would be spending far more on administrative costs as it has private companies doing that administration.

So I don't see how you made an argument against single payer, or even an argument for private insurance.

Also, since you claim to have worked in this field (that's debatable and I generally don't accept anecdotes) maybe you can explain the difference between a private contractor administering Medicare claims and a private contractor administering their own claims? Do both have the same administrative costs? Are the Medicare Advantage plans subject to administrative cost caps or any kind of 80/20 rule? Are these questions you can answer? Basically, I want to know if insurance companies that process Medicare claims do so under different guidelines and procedures than they do for their own claims. And if so, what is the difference? Because from where I sit, looking at the HHS budget for Medicare, it would seem that Medicare contracts out at very low rates and gets big bang for its buck. So is there a different standard that insurers have to abide by when processing a Medicare claim vs. one of their own?

 

[healthmyths]

So "Derp"... please tell me you are READING and not just scanning for the highlights of what I wrote!
The Facts are all Medicare's 45+million beneficiaries are serviced by over 600 mostly for profit companies and Medicare processes not ONE single Claim!
I know this very well as I've worked with Medicare for nearly 20 years. Been to Baltimore discussed security issues.
So please do not try to discuss health care finance or Medicare unless you have more salient facts then what I've presented.
Again... just to repeat...
Medicare pays no claims!
The 16 different MACs and the 600+ advantage plans PAY and process all the claims!

 

[kwc57]

I am at the point where I can't stand hearing his bullshit...

"We are going to get Millions and Millions back to work" <<< Loves to exaggerated


BTW: the democrats will never vote on Trumpcare who only helps the high income..He loves to divide the country and distract from what he is really doing..




View attachment 132480



Trump blasts 'obstruction' by Democrats on fixing healthcare

God he's pathetic...

Trump sure is doing a great job uniting. Not.

I can not believe that we have to listen to his hate for 4 years... He is mentally ill

We did it for eight. You'll live.

 

[healthmyths]

Medicare processes not ONE SINGLE CLAIM... thanks to George W Bush's 2003 Medicare Moderization Act!
I've worked with Medicare MACs for dozens of years. I know Medicare and the health insurance industry better then almost anyone on this board!

So you didn't actually prove anything the opposite of what I was saying. Medicare contracts out to the private insurers to administer, right? So those costs are in Medicare's administrative line item, are they not? I gave you the link to HHS' budget. That budget shows Admin expenses (i.e. contracts with insurers for Medicare Advantage plans, etc.) are still below 2%. So the cost inefficiencies seem to be coming from the private sector side, are they not? Also, when processing Medicare claims, what exactly is the expense that is so burdensome for insurance companies? Why not just have Medicare swallow up the administrators, remove their profit motive, and reduce costs? So you either need to figure out if private insurers who contract with Medicare process claims with little-to-no overhead, or if they don't process claims with little-to-no overhead. If what you're saying is true, then Medicare would be spending far more on administrative costs as it has private companies doing that administration.

So I don't see how you made an argument against single payer, or even an argument for private insurance.

DERP... you still don't understand do you!
Have you ever processed a 270 eligibility inquiry EDI document? Or understood much less what it takes?
Medicare doesn't! The MACs and advantage plans almost all making profits do that!
Plus you make the point that this would justify "single payer"?
GEEZ again where do you think the money to administer a "single payer" would come from?
TAXES?
Guess what are you familiar with the simple fact know as EMTALA? Or for example what portion of Medicare is paid by Employers?

All these MACs/advantage plans PAY Federal employee taxes which includes Medicare!
So when you take away the over 1 million employees in the health insurance/MACs/advantage plan and make them all government workers... where would the
money come to pay these people?
Again... your simple mind still doesn't grasp the complexity of health care finances...much of which can be attributed to the 1996 HIPAA legislation by the way!
You have no idea what that did to administrative costs all again borne by these companies, providers and suppliers!
You are really just so naive!

 

[The Derp]

The Facts are all Medicare's 45+million beneficiaries are serviced by over 600 mostly for profit companies and Medicare processes not ONE single Claim!

The facts also show that Medicare's administrative costs are less than 2% of its total outlays, which would mean that the contracting it does with private companies are subject to strict rules and standards. So if we want to further reduce costs, then we should do away with the private contracting since the profit motive for private insurers is baked into the administrative costs. We could probably get Medicare down to below 1% overhead if we did that.

So these private companies that process Medicare claims...are they only processing Medicare claims? Or are they also processing non-Medicare claims and applying a different standard for those. In nothing you've posted have you actually made the case that Medicare is inefficient. In fact, you've made the case it is more efficient than private health insurance since only 1% of Medicare's total outlays goes to administrative expenses. We both see the budget here. You can't dispute that.

I know this very well as I've worked with Medicare for nearly 20 years. Been to Baltimore discussed security issues.
So please do not try to discuss health care finance or Medicare unless you have more salient facts then what I've presented.
Again... just to repeat...
Medicare pays no claims!
The 16 different MACs and the 600+ advantage plans PAY and process all the claims!

See, I'm not going to take your word for it. If you are relying on your unverifiable personal experience, then I think you've reached the limit of what you know about this subject. I find it interesting you have to qualify your posts like this...as if it would be so unbelievable if you didn't say you had this experience. You should be able to make an argument without having to qualify that argument. It's the same reason why I don't believe Conservatives when they claim to be; victims of Obamacare, veterans, married to a (insert minority group here) person, small businessmen, and now people who claim to have worked in health care, who end up knowing so little about it. So getting back to the debate...it doesn't seem to me that you've laid out a case for private health insurance at all as an alternative to single payer. In fact, you've proven my point for me that when run by the government, there is more cost-efficiency. You say Medicare isn't efficient, yet Medicare's administrative costs are 1% of its total outlays, whereas administrative costs are 17% of Aetna's. You say Medicare contracts out with private companies to do the administration...well, they must be ridiculously cost-effective since Medicare's administrative expenses are 1% of its total outlays. So that means Medicare doesn't leave much room for private companies to jack administrative costs, does it?

 

[healthmyths]

Medicare processes not ONE SINGLE CLAIM... thanks to George W Bush's 2003 Medicare Moderization Act!
I've worked with Medicare MACs for dozens of years. I know Medicare and the health insurance industry better then almost anyone on this board!

So you didn't actually prove anything the opposite of what I was saying. Medicare contracts out to the private insurers to administer, right? So those costs are in Medicare's administrative line item, are they not? I gave you the link to HHS' budget. That budget shows Admin expenses (i.e. contracts with insurers for Medicare Advantage plans, etc.) are still below 2%. So the cost inefficiencies seem to be coming from the private sector side, are they not? Also, when processing Medicare claims, what exactly is the expense that is so burdensome for insurance companies? Why not just have Medicare swallow up the administrators, remove their profit motive, and reduce costs? So you either need to figure out if private insurers who contract with Medicare process claims with little-to-no overhead, or if they don't process claims with little-to-no overhead. If what you're saying is true, then Medicare would be spending far more on administrative costs as it has private companies doing that administration.

So I don't see how you made an argument against single payer, or even an argument for private insurance.

Also, since you claim to have worked in this field (that's debatable and I generally don't accept anecdotes) maybe you can explain the difference between a private contractor administering Medicare claims and a private contractor administering their own claims? Do both have the same administrative costs? Are the Medicare Advantage plans subject to administrative cost caps or any kind of 80/20 rule? Are these questions you can answer? Basically, I want to know if insurance companies that process Medicare claims do so under different guidelines and procedures than they do for their own claims. And if so, what is the difference? Because from where I sit, looking at the HHS budget for Medicare, it would seem that Medicare contracts out at very low rates and gets big bang for its buck. So is there a different standard that insurers have to abide by when processing a Medicare claim vs. one of their own?

So using your convoluted logic...
Where would you cut in this financial sheet?
So you'd cut where? to get a 90/10 ratio?
If you did as you suggested be better in administration? So you cut 10% of general/ administrative leaving 7%?
That means you'd add to health care costs less then 2% (10% of $9,765 equals $975m) added to $41,712 billon means 74%...
To get the 90/10 ratio means that you raise costs to $51,804 billion... where does the other $10 billion come from?
OH yea using your logic... General and administrative are now 1%!
Brilliant!
Derp... follow the next reply carefully and you can find where nearly $200 billion a year can be reduced from the $3 trillion a year in health expenditures!

 

[healthmyths]

Derp and many uninformed people are totally unaware of this:

 

[healthmyths]

Medicare processes not ONE SINGLE CLAIM... thanks to George W Bush's 2003 Medicare Moderization Act!
I've worked with Medicare MACs for dozens of years. I know Medicare and the health insurance industry better then almost anyone on this board!

So you didn't actually prove anything the opposite of what I was saying. Medicare contracts out to the private insurers to administer, right? So those costs are in Medicare's administrative line item, are they not? I gave you the link to HHS' budget. That budget shows Admin expenses (i.e. contracts with insurers for Medicare Advantage plans, etc.) are still below 2%. So the cost inefficiencies seem to be coming from the private sector side, are they not? Also, when processing Medicare claims, what exactly is the expense that is so burdensome for insurance companies? Why not just have Medicare swallow up the administrators, remove their profit motive, and reduce costs? So you either need to figure out if private insurers who contract with Medicare process claims with little-to-no overhead, or if they don't process claims with little-to-no overhead. If what you're saying is true, then Medicare would be spending far more on administrative costs as it has private companies doing that administration.

So I don't see how you made an argument against single payer, or even an argument for private insurance.

Also, since you claim to have worked in this field (that's debatable and I generally don't accept anecdotes) maybe you can explain the difference between a private contractor administering Medicare claims and a private contractor administering their own claims? Do both have the same administrative costs? Are the Medicare Advantage plans subject to administrative cost caps or any kind of 80/20 rule? Are these questions you can answer? Basically, I want to know if insurance companies that process Medicare claims do so under different guidelines and procedures than they do for their own claims. And if so, what is the difference? Because from where I sit, looking at the HHS budget for Medicare, it would seem that Medicare contracts out at very low rates and gets big bang for its buck. So is there a different standard that insurers have to abide by when processing a Medicare claim vs. one of their own?

Medicare Advantage plans nor any commercial plans never had a 80/20 rule BEFORE Obamacare's stupid 85/15 rule!
Now Medicare Advantage plans send a bill every month for my Medicare care to Medicare for $800.
Out of that $800/mo, my Advantage plan does the following:
Pays my social security part B premium which most Medicare beneficiaries have the SS check reduced by the $104/month payment.
Pays all the co-pays. I pay nothing to my doctor.
Pays all my drugs as I'm diabetic. I pay nothing.
Pays all my hospital stay I had in 2015 of $40,000 of which I paid $200.
All of that from the $800/month each they collect from approximately 73,000 beneficiaries and they have to make a profit by the way.
If they don't the state of Florida will not allow them to sell in Florida.

So that's the major reason MA are superior in my expert opinion having been working within Medicare for over 20 years!

 

[sartre play]

Back on topic, don't know the answer, yet once some one is elected it becomes there job to work for all Americans. yes they want to support there party's agenda, the focus of there job is to unite not to create bigger rifts.

 

[The Derp]

Have you ever processed a 270 eligibility inquiry EDI document? Or understood much less what it takes?

I doubt you've processed those claims either. And you're completely ignoring my overall point which is that Medicare's administrative costs are 1% of its total outlays vs. 17% for Aetna. So the contracting being done with private firms to process Medicare claims must not leave much, if any, room for a private insurer to jack rates like they do for claims outside of Medicare. So all you're doing is making a case against the profit motive for health insurance, and I don't think you even realize you're doing that.

Plus you make the point that this would justify "single payer"?
GEEZ again where do you think the money to administer a "single payer" would come from?

From payroll taxes. What you people do is count the premium twice. You are counting the payroll tax premiums and you're also counting the premium paid to an insurance company. But if there was a single payer system, you wouldn't be paying premiums to an insurance company anymore. You wouldn't be paying co-pays. You wouldn't be paying co-insurance. You wouldn't be paying for drugs. The question is; would the average worker be paying less for healthcare with a payroll tax for single payer, or less in premiums, co-pays, co-insurance, deductibles, etc.? I think the answer is fairly obvious; workers would pay less with a payroll tax. Right now, it costs $17K to provide a worker with health insurance. The worker pays $5K of that, and the business pays $12K. Right now, Medicare's tax, all-in is 2.9% total. And that 2.9% provides coverage to the elderly and disabled, typically the sickest and in need of the most health care, of whom there are ~64,000,000 on the program. And the program can pay full benefits until the Mid-2020's. For a worker to pay the same for single payer that they currently pay for private insurance, the payroll tax would have to be 10.5%. Now, eliminate the private insurance administration, overhead, etc. and that payroll tax rate drops and drops and drops. Sanders' single payer proposal put that rate at 6.2%. For a worker to pay the $5K they pay right now under Sanders' proposal would mean that worker would have to make about $80K. The average income in this country is $53K. So more people will save more in a single-payer, payroll-tax funded system than any form of private system.

All these MACs/advantage plans PAY Federal employee taxes which includes Medicare!
So when you take away the over 1 million employees in the health insurance/MACs/advantage plan and make them all government workers... where would the
money come to pay these people?

So you're arguing that we should maintain what is clearly not a cost-effective system for the sake of keeping 1,000,000 people employed? Are you sure that's the position you want to have? Feels like a backdoor bailout to me.

BTW - Obama created that many jobs in about 8 months last year alone. So it's not like those people won't find work elsewhere. The billing skills are pretty transferable. For instance, if there was an infrastructure renewal to go along with the single-payer legislation, those admins who worked for insurance companies could work for the contractors who are rebuilding infrastructure. All construction projects have back offices that need admins, coders, billers, payers, etc. Those skills seem pretty transferable.

 

[The Derp]

Medicare Advantage plans nor any commercial plans never had a 80/20 rule BEFORE Obamacare's stupid 85/15 rule!

So I'm confused on your position; do you think a private insurance company should have to spend any part of your premium on your health care? How does mandating a private company spend at least 85% of your premium on health care harm you? If you say that means you pay higher premiums, why? Because the insurer is trying to maintain its profit margin. So it's not even about your health care, it's about the profits for the insurance company. So you are arguing for a system that puts administrative profits above patient health. Not sure you even realize you're doing that.

 

[healthmyths]

Medicare Advantage plans nor any commercial plans never had a 80/20 rule BEFORE Obamacare's stupid 85/15 rule!

So I'm confused on your position; do you think a private insurance company should have to spend any part of your premium on your health care? How does mandating a private company spend at least 85% of your premium on health care harm you? If you say that means you pay higher premiums, why? Because the insurer is trying to maintain its profit margin. So it's not even about your health care, it's about the profits for the insurance company. So you are arguing for a system that puts administrative profits above patient health. Not sure you even realize you're doing that.

So you are in total favor of NO profits right?
You are also forgetting a major player in the health insurance industry called states' insurance regulators.
You want to sell insurance in a state you have to
1) Prove you have the reserves to pay future claims.
2) Get the premiums you are going to charge approved.
Now how do you go about building reserves to meet the future claims?
From charging more today then the expenses you have to pay out today.
And that is the rub with Medicare/single payer etc...
They have NO need for reserves. They pay claims out of current revenue.
So who pays in the future when ( there are as there are NOW) more OLDER people who are NOT paying in to SS/Medicare but are TAKING OUT?
That's why the simplistic mentality of hatred by people like you of profit is so idiotic.
Profits are what build reserves against future losses.
Do you honestly think Apple has paid out every dollar after expenses to those evil stockholders?
So to with health insurance companies that HAVE to make a profit to maintain reserves for future claims AS REQUIRED BY STATES' LAWS!
Thus the reason for "profits" above total premiums/general expenses. Something I guess you don't still understand.
This is why Aetna,et.al. are pulling out of Obamacare. They can't show profits and if they can't show profits they can't build claim reserves and if they can't build
claim reserves... STATES won't let them sell!
But of course people like you have NO idea of the complexity that health care financial compositions!
That's why I offered this page regarding "defensive medicine". The insurance companies don't care! They simple raise the premiums.
BUT you and millions of us should care that doctors are so fearful of lawsuits they do defensive medicine as the study I provided shows.
Yet I'm sure you don't comprehend that if this ONE simple Tort legislation such as was put in place in 1946 when Congress said doctors working for the government
can't be sued, if something similar to that was put into place for non-government health care providers... I guarantee two things would happen:
1) Health claims would reduce ...i.e. that $1 trillion in wasted defensive medicine would decline!
2) They decline... insurance companies claim expenses decline and when the insurance companies go before insurance regulators asking for higher premiums
and the regulators look at the declining claims expenses... they reject the premium increases!

But that would have never happened under the lawyer Obama or 42% of Congress lawyers.
Maybe under Trump a person who understands LAWYERS very well, Tort reform will be in place and lower the $1 trillion spent on defensive medicine!

 

[Michael68]

Can we have one day the media doesn't slam and insult Trump?

 

[The Derp]

So you are in total favor of NO profits right?

I'm in favor of not having for-profit private insurance at all. The insurance industry only makes money by withholding reimbursements. So your care is restricted by those gatekeepers who make their decisions not from a patient health perspective, but a corporate profit perspective. As we've learned, an insurance company cannot be profitable and provide universal coverage. So we are at a crossroads. We have to decide if we want to maintain a profit motive tied to the administration, and all the admin costs that come from that...or we abolish them completely by having a singular payer for claims, where there is no profit motive. The profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursements is the profit motive that is wholly extraneous to health care. If we are looking to save costs, that's where we will save.

You are also forgetting a major player in the health insurance industry called states' insurance regulators.

Again, wouldn't even be an issue in a single-payer system. So there's some regulations you can get rid of! All this effort to justify a profit motive tied to administration? Seems like a waste.

Now how do you go about building reserves to meet the future claims?

Well, considering Medicare can pay full benefits now through the mid 20's at a 2.9% all-in payroll tax, upping that to 6% or 7% would most likely fill the reserves, plus all the money patients save no longer having to pay premiums, co-pays, co-insurance, deductibles, drug costs, etc.

And that is the rub with Medicare/single payer etc...
They have NO need for reserves. They pay claims out of current revenue.
So who pays in the future when ( there are as there are NOW) more OLDER people who are NOT paying in to SS/Medicare but are TAKING OUT?

That's assuming the payroll tax stays at 2.9% which is not what I or any single payer advocate is proposing. So this question is easily addressed by the premium rate. There's also no rule that says the payroll tax has to be at that level. It can be adjusted. I think the best course would be to raise the Medicare Tax as the Boomers enter retirement, and as they die off, lower the payroll tax because there aren't going to be as many Gen Xers as Boomers using Medicare when it's their turn. These are not very complex problems you're raising, you know...

Do you honestly think Apple has paid out every dollar after expenses to those evil stockholders?

We aren't talking about Apple or consumer products, we are talking about health insurance. With Apple, you get a tangible, physical product you can hold in your hand. With health insurance, you get nothing. In fact, the primary function of health insurance isn't even a function you are a part of! It's between your insurer and the provider. You aren't in that equation. It doesn't affect you. It doesn't affect your care. It doesn't affect the quality of care your doctor provides. All it affects is your access to care. Health insurance is anti-free market because you as a patient do not have free choice to go and see whatever doctor you want unless you pay exorbitant costs. So private health insurance doesn't give you more options, it gives you fewer options.

As for Tort reform...Conservatives think this is a magic bullet. But here's the problem, both Texas and Florida passed strict tort reform laws and in both cases health care costs grew faster than in states that didn't do tort reform. So I'm not sure what limiting damages to patients solves. If a doctor mistakenly sterilized you when all you were looking for was to get a pap smear, then do you think capping your damages is reasonable? What if it was your child that happened to? Now try to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Would you be satisfied with a low 6-figure payout if your doctor cut out the wrong organ, or mistakenly did a mastectomy?

 

[The Derp]

This is why Aetna,et.al. are pulling out of Obamacare. They can't show profits and if they can't show profits they can't build claim reserves and if they can't build claim reserves... STATES won't let them sell!

First of all, NO! Aetna is not pulling out of Obamacare because of profit concerns. Aetna pulled out of Obamacare because it was making good on its threat for the government refusing their proposed merger with Humana. I'm surprised you didn't know this, being as in tune to the health care industry as you claim. It was pretty big news. How'd you miss it?

From CNN Money, 1/24/17:
Judge: Aetna lied about quitting Obamacare
A federal judge has ruled that Aetna wasn't being truthful when the health insurer said last summer that its decision to pull out of most Obamacare exchanges was strictly a business decision triggered by mounting losses.

U.S. District Judge John Bates concluded this week that Aetna's real motivation for dropping Obamacare coverage in several states was "specifically to evade judicial scrutiny" over its merger with Humana.​

So since Aetna *knowingly and deliberately* lied about their reasons for leaving the Exchanges, why would they -or any insurer- be telling the truth about anything else? I don't feel like that's an unfair question.

 

[The Derp]

This is why Aetna,et.al. are pulling out of Obamacare.

And furthermore, why are you taking what the insurance companies say as gospel? They lie. Aetna themselves lied and were caught by a federal judge for using the same misleading argument you're using here; that they left the exchanges because it's not profitable. So already, you are conceding the point that this isn't about health care, but rather profits for insurance companies. And since we both know and understand insurance companies do nothing when it comes to your actual care, wouldn't that mean the have high costs in order to be profitable? Why do they have to be profitable? Why do they even need to exist? If they cannot provide universal coverage and be profitable, then they're not really serving the needs of patients, are they? So then why even have them at all?

You all have to stop using the debunked bullshit that these companies are leaving the exchanges because of the ACA. Clearly, that's not the case. Aetna was the first, and probably not the last insurer to make that false claim. They dropped out of the exchanges because they weren't allowed to merge with Humana. And they spread deliberately false information about their reasons for leaving the exchanges. The question is; why are you still defending them? Why are you throwing them a pity party? They are liars. They are parasites. They do nothing for us. So let's purge ourselves of them since all they're doing is wasting our money.

 

[The Derp]

So you are in total favor of NO profits right?

I do not see how a profit motive tied to the administration of reimbursements to providers does anything to improve or enhance how health care is delivered to patients.

 

[healthmyths]

This is why Aetna,et.al. are pulling out of Obamacare.

And furthermore, why are you taking what the insurance companies say as gospel? They lie. Aetna themselves lied and were caught by a federal judge for using the same misleading argument you're using here; that they left the exchanges because it's not profitable. So already, you are conceding the point that this isn't about health care, but rather profits for insurance companies. And since we both know and understand insurance companies do nothing when it comes to your actual care, wouldn't that mean the have high costs in order to be profitable? Why do they have to be profitable? Why do they even need to exist? If they cannot provide universal coverage and be profitable, then they're not really serving the needs of patients, are they? So then why even have them at all?

You all have to stop using the debunked bullshit that these companies are leaving the exchanges because of the ACA. Clearly, that's not the case. Aetna was the first, and probably not the last insurer to make that false claim. They dropped out of the exchanges because they weren't allowed to merge with Humana. And they spread deliberately false information about their reasons for leaving the exchanges. The question is; why are you still defending them? Why are you throwing them a pity party? They are liars. They are parasites. They do nothing for us. So let's purge ourselves of them since all they're doing is wasting our money.

Probably because truly economic ignorami like you have NO idea what it means to run a for profit company.
First of all Aetna can not lie about their profits. It's a felony punishable by imprisonment as they are a public company and there are extreme penalties for lying to the SEC!
The fundamental reason for "insurance" is best answered in your personal life. Why do you have car insurance?
Why not just wait till you have an accident then pay it out of your own pocket?
Insurance fundamentally is asking another entity to pay off on a future event! That's it!
Your doctor doesn't want to count on you to pay his bill! He'd rather bill your insurance company!
I know, I know this is pure basics that you should have learned in say at least high school!
NOW the insurance company will pay off because the state regulators that allow them to sell have audited and seen they have the reserves.
If Aetna and their considerably smarter accounting people then you or me are telling them... we can't continue to pay ACA claims in the future with the dwindling number
of participants and the participants we have being considerably more expensive!
That's why they are pulling out! They can't make a profit. If they can't make a profit they can't build reserves. No reserves means they can't sell in that state!
That's it but you I'm sure don't understand!

 

[healthmyths]

In Alabama, for instance, Blue Cross Blue Shield is the only insurer participating in the exchange in 2017,
and it’s spending $1.20 for every $1 it collects in premiums—an unsustainable ratio, as insurance writer and analyst Louise Norris points out.
Why So Many Insurers Are Leaving Obamacare

 

[ptbw forever]

Your ignorance is getting boring. People and companies are already fleeing California due to the astronomical costs, taxes, and fees. Ignorant about life expectancy and infant mortality as well.

Completely untrue. No one is fleeing California. In fact, CA leads the nation in job and business creation since 2012 (when they raised their taxes):

It is a right-wing myth that people are fleeing California, just like it's a right-wing myth that cutting taxes increases revenue, just like it's a right-wing myth that raising the minimum wage kills jobs, just like it's a right-wing myth that once debt reaches 90% of GDP the economy "falls off a cliff".

Conservatives love their myths, fantasies, and alternative facts, to be sure.

Maybe next time stop using outdated right-wing rhetoric. It wasn't even accurate back before 2012, and it's not accurate today.

Texas is nothing but an oil field and lots of desert.

The fact that Texas can even compete with California proves that Republicans are more right than you are.