http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/17/aetna...ommentary.html
It seems what every body said would happen is now happening.
Rush Limbaugh has stated for the past years that Obama Care was designed to fail, so the Government could then step in and say.... "That's it. The Federal Government will now institute a single payer plan subsidized by the American Tax Payer".
If you have a job, that means you will be paying for insurance for those that do not.
I am in two plans, I still carry my health insurance through my business just like I did for years. But I am also in Plan B Medicare, which is considered my Primary Carrier.
Even though we are not in Obamacare at my business, our rates have skyrocketed in the past 5 years because of it. But in order to keep our highly skilled employees, we HAVE to offer a full insurance package.
It is kind of a catch 22. We have to offer a full insurance package to keep men that we have invested in heavily through the years, but due to Omaacare, we have to pay more because our Insurance Carrier says..... "Tough Shit".
Oh, by the way. For all of you who are not yet 65, but want to keep working after you turn 65, you will be shocked as to how much more the Government makes you pay for your Medicare if you make a good living.
At this time, I am paying $389 a month for plan B because of my income. Congress snuck that little gem in a few years back.
It seems they get you coming, and they get you going.
- Jackie S
- 08-17-2016, 03:51 PM
- gary5912
- 08-17-2016, 05:02 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/17/aetna...ommentary.htmlyou are a Vietnam vet why don't you use your VA rights I'm still working and have Ins. at work, both of my older brothers we're vets and that's where they go for their health care plus prove you suffer from PTSD makes it easier on you
It seems what every body said would happen is now happening.
Rush Limbaugh has stated for the past years that Obama Care was designed to fail, so the Government could then step in and say.... "That's it. The Federal Government will now institute a single payer plan subsidized by the American Tax Payer".
If you have a job, that means you will be paying for insurance for those that do not.
I am in two plans, I still carry my health insurance through my business just like I did for years. But I am also in Plan B Medicare, which is considered my Primary Carrier.
Even though we are not in Obamacare at my business, our rates have skyrocketed in the past 5 years because of it. But in order to keep our highly skilled employees, we HAVE to offer a full insurance package.
It is kind of a catch 22. We have to offer a full insurance package to keep men that we have invested in heavily through the years, but due to Omaacare, we have to pay more because our Insurance Carrier says..... "Tough Shit".
Oh, by the way. For all of you who are not yet 65, but want to keep working after you turn 65, you will be shocked as to how much more the Government makes you pay for your Medicare if you make a good living.
At this time, I am paying $389 a month for plan B because of my income. Congress snuck that little gem in a few years back.
It seems they get you coming, and they get you going. Originally Posted by Jackie S
- LexusLover
- 08-17-2016, 05:27 PM
I believe Aetna is one of several who are bailing this cycle. Some are going on a state-by-state basis.
- Mr MojoRisin
- 08-17-2016, 05:29 PM
I heard through the grapevine Blue Cross might do the same. Obamacare is nothing but a fly by night operation. It won't stand the test of time.
Jim
Jim
- LexusLover
- 08-17-2016, 06:11 PM
- bambino
- 08-17-2016, 06:26 PM
Once the employer mandate kicks in, it's over. If Hillary is elected, single payer.
- Jackie S
- 08-17-2016, 06:53 PM
you are a Vietnam vet why don't you use your VA rights I'm still working and have Ins. at work, both of my older brothers we're vets and that's where they go for their health care plus prove you suffer from PTSD makes it easier on you Originally Posted by gary5912I am fortunate in that I own a business and can afford private insurance and the additional cost of Medicare.
With all due respect, the VA would be my very last choice in health care.
The only thing I ever requested from the VA was in 1978, my late wife and I got a VA loan for our first house. And that wasn't such a great deal. I still had to pay 9.5 percent on my mortgage. That was about the going rate back then. All they did was guarantee it.
- Luke_Wyatt
- 08-17-2016, 06:58 PM
Obamacare is a disaster
- Jackie S
- 08-17-2016, 07:12 PM
Obamacare is a disaster Originally Posted by Luke_WyattI thing Limbaugh is right. President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the entire Liberal/Progressive/Socialist//Democrat Establishment never intended for Obama Care to succeed. Their real plan is Single Payer, (i.e., The Federal Government), on the backs of the Taxpayer.
- bambino
- 08-17-2016, 07:20 PM
I thing Limbaugh is right. President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the entire Liberal/Progressive/Socialist//Democrat Establishment never intended for Obama Care to succeed. Their real plan is Single Payer, (i.e., The Federal Government), on the backs of the Taxpayer. Originally Posted by Jackie SOf course. That's why Obama is campaigning so hard for Clinton. She will carry out the plan.
- Mr MojoRisin
- 08-17-2016, 09:11 PM
Of course. That's why Obama is campaigning so hard for Clinton. She will carry out the plan. Originally Posted by bambinoThat's pretty obvious. It's actually a "Bait and Switch" operation. They get as many people to sign up with the pitch of low rates and accepting preexisting conditions. Once they get as many people all fucked up in the head over this junk they start raising the rates and some companies bailout. Eventually so many companies will jump off the Obamacare band wagon they'll initiate single payer Gov't Health Insurance. Of course it's not that simple, but that's what it is in a nutshell.
Jim
- Jackie S
- 08-17-2016, 10:22 PM
That's pretty obvious. It's actually a "Bait and Switch" operation. They get as many people to sign up with the pitch of low rates and accepting preexisting conditions. Once they get as many people all fucked up in the head over this junk they start raising the rates and some companies bailout. Eventually so many companies will jump off the Obamacare band wagon they'll initiate single payer Gov't Health Insurance. Of course it's not that simple, but that's what it is in a nutshell.In the end, it's all part of their grand scheme of "redistribution of wealth", which simply means taking from those that earn it and giving it to those who don't.
Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin
- The_Waco_Kid
- 08-17-2016, 10:50 PM
- lustylad
- 08-18-2016, 01:09 AM
The Aetna Mugging
As ObamaCare implodes, Democrats blame insurers.
Aug. 17, 2016 7:07 p.m. ET
Democrats claimed for years that ObamaCare is working splendidly, though anybody acquainted with reality could see the entitlement is dysfunctional. Now as the law breaks down in an election year, they’ve decided to blame private insurers for their own failures.
Their target this week is Aetna, which has announced it is withdrawing two-thirds of its ObamaCare coverage, pulling out of 536 of 778 counties where it does business. The third-largest U.S. insurer has lost about $430 million on the exchanges since 2014, and this carnage is typical. More than 40 other companies are also fleeing ObamaCare.
The mass exodus will leave consumers consigned to the exchanges with surging premiums and fewer options, but don’t mention these victims to Democrats. They’re trying to change the subject by claiming Aetna is retaliating because the Justice Department is trying to block Aetna’s $37 billion acquisition of Humana.
The 2010 ObamaCare law makes it nearly impossible for non-mega insurers to operate, and a tide of regulations has encouraged consolidation. Aetna says the Humana tie-up will create economies of scale that could sustain the money-losing exchange policies.
But Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is now emoting on Facebook that “The health of the American people should not be used as bargaining chips to force the government to bend to one giant company’s will.” This week the Administration also released a July 5 letter from Aetna in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Democrats claim the document shows CEO Mark Bertolini conditioning Aetna’s ObamaCare cooperation on merger approval.
This is some gall. Aetna was answering a June 28 “civil investigative demand,” in which Justice’s antitrust division specifically asked how blocking the merger would “affect Aetna’s business strategy and operations, including Aetna’s participation of the public exchanges related to the Affordable Care Act.”
Soliciting sensitive internal information that Aetna is legally compelled to provide—and then making it public to sandbag the company—is the behavior of political plumbers, not allegedly impartial technocrats. If police tried this, it’d be entrapment.
Mr. Bertolini had merely replied that the legal costs of an antitrust suit would strain Aetna’s performance. The insurer would have “no choice but to take actions to steward its financial health” and “face market realities,” such as reducing unprofitable business. Public companies have a responsibility to shareholders, and the wonder is that any insurer is still part of the exchanges.
ObamaCare’s troubles aren’t the result of any business decision. The entire industry is caught in the law’s structural undertow. Despite subsidies, overall enrollment is flat, there’s too much monthly churn, and the exchanges aren’t attracting enough healthy people to make the economics work.
Blame the law’s architects, not Mr. Bertolini, who must wonder what happened to the political goodwill he has tried to bank over the years. Aetna was inclined to accept the exchanges as loss leaders to support ObamaCare’s mission of universal coverage. The company led ObamaCare’s industry pep squad in 2009 and 2010.
The calculation then was that subsidies would open a new market, and consumers would be mandated to buy their products. But in the final frenzy to pass the law, Democrats decided that insurers made too much money and they imposed price controls on profit margins. Now insurers are accused of declining to throw away more money.
The ObamaCare implosion means that about a quarter of U.S. counties will have only one or two plans, and in some zero. Areas in Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas seem to be hardest hit, though the extent of the damage is still emerging.
Democrats figure they have insurers over a barrel because a Hillary Clinton Presidency is coming. She’s running on higher subsidies for beneficiaries, a taxpayer bailout for the industry, and a “public option” akin to Medicare for the middle class. In health care the solution to a problem caused by government is always more government, which will create new problems and beget more government.
Republicans have no obligation to participate. They had no hand in creating this mess and they’ve been mocked by Democrats and the media for years for warning about ObamaCare’s flaws and trying to repeal and replace the law. Assuming the GOP holds at least the House, they should insist that any “fixes”—which are fast becoming inevitable—create a rational health-care market. Democrats deserve to be held accountable for the collapse of their ideas.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aetn...ing-1471475229
As ObamaCare implodes, Democrats blame insurers.
Aug. 17, 2016 7:07 p.m. ET
Democrats claimed for years that ObamaCare is working splendidly, though anybody acquainted with reality could see the entitlement is dysfunctional. Now as the law breaks down in an election year, they’ve decided to blame private insurers for their own failures.
Their target this week is Aetna, which has announced it is withdrawing two-thirds of its ObamaCare coverage, pulling out of 536 of 778 counties where it does business. The third-largest U.S. insurer has lost about $430 million on the exchanges since 2014, and this carnage is typical. More than 40 other companies are also fleeing ObamaCare.
The mass exodus will leave consumers consigned to the exchanges with surging premiums and fewer options, but don’t mention these victims to Democrats. They’re trying to change the subject by claiming Aetna is retaliating because the Justice Department is trying to block Aetna’s $37 billion acquisition of Humana.
The 2010 ObamaCare law makes it nearly impossible for non-mega insurers to operate, and a tide of regulations has encouraged consolidation. Aetna says the Humana tie-up will create economies of scale that could sustain the money-losing exchange policies.
But Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is now emoting on Facebook that “The health of the American people should not be used as bargaining chips to force the government to bend to one giant company’s will.” This week the Administration also released a July 5 letter from Aetna in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Democrats claim the document shows CEO Mark Bertolini conditioning Aetna’s ObamaCare cooperation on merger approval.
This is some gall. Aetna was answering a June 28 “civil investigative demand,” in which Justice’s antitrust division specifically asked how blocking the merger would “affect Aetna’s business strategy and operations, including Aetna’s participation of the public exchanges related to the Affordable Care Act.”
Soliciting sensitive internal information that Aetna is legally compelled to provide—and then making it public to sandbag the company—is the behavior of political plumbers, not allegedly impartial technocrats. If police tried this, it’d be entrapment.
Mr. Bertolini had merely replied that the legal costs of an antitrust suit would strain Aetna’s performance. The insurer would have “no choice but to take actions to steward its financial health” and “face market realities,” such as reducing unprofitable business. Public companies have a responsibility to shareholders, and the wonder is that any insurer is still part of the exchanges.
ObamaCare’s troubles aren’t the result of any business decision. The entire industry is caught in the law’s structural undertow. Despite subsidies, overall enrollment is flat, there’s too much monthly churn, and the exchanges aren’t attracting enough healthy people to make the economics work.
Blame the law’s architects, not Mr. Bertolini, who must wonder what happened to the political goodwill he has tried to bank over the years. Aetna was inclined to accept the exchanges as loss leaders to support ObamaCare’s mission of universal coverage. The company led ObamaCare’s industry pep squad in 2009 and 2010.
The calculation then was that subsidies would open a new market, and consumers would be mandated to buy their products. But in the final frenzy to pass the law, Democrats decided that insurers made too much money and they imposed price controls on profit margins. Now insurers are accused of declining to throw away more money.
The ObamaCare implosion means that about a quarter of U.S. counties will have only one or two plans, and in some zero. Areas in Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas seem to be hardest hit, though the extent of the damage is still emerging.
Democrats figure they have insurers over a barrel because a Hillary Clinton Presidency is coming. She’s running on higher subsidies for beneficiaries, a taxpayer bailout for the industry, and a “public option” akin to Medicare for the middle class. In health care the solution to a problem caused by government is always more government, which will create new problems and beget more government.
Republicans have no obligation to participate. They had no hand in creating this mess and they’ve been mocked by Democrats and the media for years for warning about ObamaCare’s flaws and trying to repeal and replace the law. Assuming the GOP holds at least the House, they should insist that any “fixes”—which are fast becoming inevitable—create a rational health-care market. Democrats deserve to be held accountable for the collapse of their ideas.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aetn...ing-1471475229
- LexusLover
- 08-18-2016, 06:10 AM
The Obaminable Administration (which included HillaryNoMore) was subsidizing the premiums of the insureds and losses of the insurers to keep the disaster afloat until Obaminable left office ..... just like he's ignored ISIS until he leaves office ....
... when he walked away from the unfinished "community project" in Chicago for which he was elected everyone should have known what was going to happen if he became President ....
Does anyone see a "shovel ready" project that was finished that benefits the U.S. voters and taxpayers as a collective body ... as opposed to a handful of his loyal donors?
That's HillaryNoMore in four more years. They don't give a shit about you!
... when he walked away from the unfinished "community project" in Chicago for which he was elected everyone should have known what was going to happen if he became President ....
Does anyone see a "shovel ready" project that was finished that benefits the U.S. voters and taxpayers as a collective body ... as opposed to a handful of his loyal donors?
That's HillaryNoMore in four more years. They don't give a shit about you!