Obamacare Success: Inexorably Crushing the Life out of the Insurance business

[CrusaderFrank]

Obamacare is succeeding as planned, not in lowering cost, but in crushing the private insurance business so that one day the Federal government will be the bankrupt insurer of last resort.

Obama recently issued guidelines that mandate costly coverage, the carriers have to pass the cost on to the buyers, so the companies are dropping spouses from the plan.

Why your boss is dumping your wife - MarketWatch

Companies have a new solution to rising health-insurance costs: Break up their employees’ marriages.

What a deal!

 

[Oddball]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's the pot of gold at the end of the government run healthcare rainbow

"As more than 30,000 dental experts descend on McCormick Place for their winter meeting this week, a new report issues a stark warning: The Chicago area's dental safety net — the oral care it provides to underserved patients — "is in the midst of collapse."

From 2006 to 2011, more than a quarter of the region's low-cost dental clinics were shut, according to a 30-page white paper released Thursday by the Chicago Dental Society."

Report: Chicago's dental safety net in danger - chicagotribune.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_xwnVLC-YQ

It's good to surrender your health care choices to the government. Who know what's best, you or Obama?

 

[Katzndogz]

It was always about putting insurance companies out of business. The end game is government run universal health care. Which the government may then limit as it wishes.

Money runs low for health insurance in state high-risk pools - The Washington Post

 

[longknife]

Why not? It's all the fault of these horrible, greedy, blood-sucking insurance companies that so many cannot receive help when disaster strikes!!!!!

Let's get rid of them all!!!

 

[dblack]

The insurance industry isn't going to suffer from PPACA, quite the opposite. It sets them up as permanent middle-men in nearly every health care transaction. You really can't do better than mandated customers.

 

[Underhill]

The insurance industry isn't going to suffer from PPACA, quite the opposite. It sets them up as permanent middle-men in nearly every health care transaction. You really can't do better than mandated customers.

I agree. It's my biggest gripe with Obama care.

The funniest part of this whole health care debate is the history. Obamacare is a republican plan in virtually every way. It's almost an exact copy of the plan republicans came up with in the 90's...including the mandate.

And at the same time republicans are complaining about it being a liberal conspiracy, democrats are bitching because it isn't what they wanted.

 

[Dante]

One of the things really striking for Americans is that under LAMal, you now say the insurance companies can't make a profit on basic coverage. What's the thinking there?

The idea is very simple: If it is a social insurance, and everybody is obliged to be a member of a health insurance system, you can't ask them to pay so that the shareholders get a better revenue. It is a little the same, if I can compare with SBB, our railway system. We are very attached to the railway system; Switzerland is a country of railway. ... I think that the people wouldn't [have] agreed to privatize the railways [as] it is done now in Great Britain. To think that they can [make] a profit on the railway system, it [would] be against equality in this matter.

Naturally, you can question that, ... but till now we were able to afford a good railway system, to improve it and to have a high quality in transportation. ... We want also high quality for everybody in the health system, and after that you can earn more money than your neighbor. ... School, health care, railway system, aging, to have a good place for nursing homes for old people, retired people, we think that we must have equality of that -- not quite complete equality, it is impossible, but to have a great sense of solidarity among the people.

....................

... When you said to the insurance companies, "No more profit on the basic health plan," what did they say?

They accept it; they have no choice. And [all these] companies are [heirs] of former social companies. For instance, the Groupe Mutuel ... was built on this idea: no profit; everything must be given to the people who are members of it. So there is a tradition of social attitude in these systems.

I am not systematically against the idea of having profits in the health insurance system, but if we introduce it, it is more with the idea to balance the power in the health insurance system, because now there is a lack of balance of power.

... One of the problems we have in America is that many people -- it's a huge number of people -- go bankrupt because of medical bills; some studies say 700,000 people a year. How many people in Switzerland go bankrupt because of medical bills?

Nobody. Doesn't happen. It would be a huge scandal if it happens.

Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[dblack]

The insurance industry isn't going to suffer from PPACA, quite the opposite. It sets them up as permanent middle-men in nearly every health care transaction. You really can't do better than mandated customers.

I agree. It's my biggest gripe with Obama care.

The funniest part of this whole health care debate is the history. Obamacare is a republican plan in virtually every way. It's almost an exact copy of the plan republicans came up with in the 90's...including the mandate.

I wish it was funny. We voted them out and get the same damn thing from the democrats. Are the neo-cons still running things? Seriously, why do we even bother with elections?

 

[Dante]

The insurance industry isn't going to suffer from PPACA, quite the opposite. It sets them up as permanent middle-men in nearly every health care transaction. You really can't do better than mandated customers.

I agree. It's my biggest gripe with Obama care.

The funniest part of this whole health care debate is the history. Obamacare is a republican plan in virtually every way. It's almost an exact copy of the plan republicans came up with in the 90's...including the mandate.

I wish it was funny. We voted them out and get the same damn thing from the democrats. Are the neo-cons still running things? Seriously, why do we even bother with elections?

Why do we bother posting here when all we get are the same replies?

 

[dblack]

Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS[/url]

Good read. An unabashed corporatist!

The government pays it?

Yes, through subsidies. Or the very rich, who say, "We don't care to have an insurance; we can afford to pay the real costs of our treatments." But we decided [everyone must have insurance], and I supported that as a member of the parliament. Today I am not sure that it was a very [good idea], because [since] then, there was a huge increase in the expenses of the health insurance.

But medicine costs more all the time anyway. Why --

I accept that, ... but with such a huge scale, the growth probably is partially due to the fact that we decided it is compulsory, because when it is compulsory, people change their attitude. They say, "If it is compulsory, at least I want to get back my money, and so I expend more." ...

So you're saying, when the insurance became mandatory for everyone, more people went to the doctor more?

Yes. ... But it is over. Nobody will propose to go back and to have a voluntary system. I think it will be impossible to go back. ...

 

[Oddball]

The insurance industry isn't going to suffer from PPACA, quite the opposite. It sets them up as permanent middle-men in nearly every health care transaction. You really can't do better than mandated customers.

So the politicians who tipped their hands in the video I posted are lying about their true intents?

The aim is to overwhelm the insurance industry to the point that even issuing medical insurance is a money loser, so they will either quit issuing policies for medical insurance or go out of business altogether.

 

[dblack]

The insurance industry isn't going to suffer from PPACA, quite the opposite. It sets them up as permanent middle-men in nearly every health care transaction. You really can't do better than mandated customers.

So the politicians who tipped their hands in the video I posted are lying about their true intents?

The aim is to overwhelm the insurance industry to the point that even issuing medical insurance is a money loser, so they will either quit issuing policies for medical insurance or go out of business altogether.

Maybe. Mostly they're just doing what politicians do - telling their base what they want to hear. Of course, once elected they're all about the backroom deals that give them more power, and their friends in industry more profit.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Insurance companies will not be "crushed". And, except for katzenjerk's doctor, neither will physicians. As we are already seeing, insurance companies will no longer be able to control the care we get. ever mind the running around like a headless chicken, neither will government.

If'n y'all ever get around to actually reading anything factual about ACA, you'll learn that. Meanwhile, why don't you keep repeating the same crap over and over.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

oddball

...
The aim is to overwhelm the insurance industry to the point that even issuing medical insurance is a money loser, so they will either quit issuing policies for medical insurance or go out of business altogether.

I have to give you credit for coming up with some really original bullshit.

 

[Dante]

You reduce the prices. And then what does this big Swiss pharmaceutical industry say?

Two things. First of all, they accepted generics, ... and they also accepted to reduce the prices of the original drugs, which were more expensive in Switzerland. ... What they want is that we pay much more for the new drugs with a great value added, and we accept that. For cancer [drugs], perhaps we pay a little too much, in my opinion; we can still have a discussion about that. But we are very open for new drugs with huge therapeutic advantage. ... We try to support innovation and not to support profits in [and of themselves]. ...

... We have big drug companies in America, and they say, "Americans should pay high prices because that's the price of innovation." ... Do you buy that argument? Is it legitimate?

Partially. But if you look at the expenses of a great pharmaceutical company, ... they pay between about 10 to 15 percent of their expenses for research, but they use 30 to 40 percent of their incomes for marketing and promotion. ... It is not completely wrong that they spend so much, but it is not correct to say that there is a direct connection between the price of drugs and the cost of research. It could be more between the cost of marketing and the cost of the drugs.

One of the things really striking for Americans is that under LAMal, you now say the insurance companies can't make a profit on basic coverage. What's the thinking there?

The idea is very simple: If it is a social insurance, and everybody is obliged to be a member of a health insurance system, you can't ask them to pay so that the shareholders get a better revenue. It is a little the same, if I can compare with SBB, our railway system. We are very attached to the railway system; Switzerland is a country of railway. ... I think that the people wouldn't [have] agreed to privatize the railways [as] it is done now in Great Britain. To think that they can [make] a profit on the railway system, it [would] be against equality in this matter.

Naturally, you can question that, ... but till now we were able to afford a good railway system, to improve it and to have a high quality in transportation. ... We want also high quality for everybody in the health system, and after that you can earn more money than your neighbor. ... School, health care, railway system, aging, to have a good place for nursing homes for old people, retired people, we think that we must have equality of that -- not quite complete equality, it is impossible, but to have a great sense of solidarity among the people.

Interviews - Pascal Couchepin | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Oddball]

oddball

...
The aim is to overwhelm the insurance industry to the point that even issuing medical insurance is a money loser, so they will either quit issuing policies for medical insurance or go out of business altogether.

I have to give you credit for coming up with some really original bullshit.

I'm only taking the words of the commies that wormy little douchebnags like you support at face value, comrade.

 

[lynn63]

Obamacare is not going to put the insurance companies out of business. For people with pre-existing conditions will be charged a higher premium as well as smokers and eventually people that are obese so the insurance companies will still maintain their high profits. The top 5 big insurance companies already are eager to be a part of the exchange program.

Keep in mind that when this country lost over 8.6 million jobs, the insurance companies lost a big pool of healthy people that were once employed so Obamacare is one way to get them back.

This whole thing anyway will ultimately screw every tax payer in the U.S. by mandated coverage, increasing premiums, and higher out of pocket expenses and they will increase taxes because our government will whine that its costing too much when in reality they won't be spending very much on healthcare.

 

[konradv]

The insurance industry isn't going to suffer from PPACA, quite the opposite. It sets them up as permanent middle-men in nearly every health care transaction. You really can't do better than mandated customers.

I agree. It's my biggest gripe with Obama care.

The funniest part of this whole health care debate is the history. Obamacare is a republican plan in virtually every way. It's almost an exact copy of the plan republicans came up with in the 90's...including the mandate.

I wish it was funny. We voted them out and get the same damn thing from the democrats. Are the neo-cons still running things? Seriously, why do we even bother with elections?

You get what you pay for.