Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Alan,
According to a 2000 report by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), approximately 50 million workers and their dependents receive benefits through self-insured group health plans sponsored by their employers. This represents 33% of the 150 million total participants in private employment-based plans nationwide.
If it was 33% back in 2000, it is well over 50% now. In any event, if you mandate that group insurers offer individual policies whatever business they still have left in a traditional group will be converted to this style of business where they become the benefits administrator rather than the insurance company to avoid having to cover the individuals.
I do agree with you about the ACA and healthcare costs. The problem is pharmaceutical companies, hospital holding companies and Doctor's groups won't allow the costs to be cut. I have never met a doctor who doesn't think her or she is entitled to at least a 10% raise every year regardless of market conditions. I always think of Rand Paul when he said, "Doctors are entitled to a good living." If a hardcore tea partier who gets most of his fees from government programs thinks he is entitled to a good living, you can bet the rest of them do.
Maybe Trump will be more successful in getting them to cut costs, but I have my doubts. Pharmaceutical stocks are up because they expect there to be less pressure on their pricing under Trump than there would have been under Clinton.
I have also said many times the problem with the ACA is that the numbers simply don’t work. The way the ACA tried to make the numbers work were sky high deductibles, sky high out of pocket costs and incredibly narrow networks. I know another way they were cheating/cooking the books that has not been widely reported yet, but I was saving it for after the election. If we take Trump at his word and he is going to offer something terrific to replace the ACA, I don’t see how he makes the numbers work unless you adopt a patient not profit first system like the rest of the first world.
I know the one plan that is making its rounds on the news sites right now is the Mitch MooConnell Paul Ryan plan to simply defund the ACA subsidies due to the insurance companies, and replace them with nothing. That way they would still have a zombie Obamacare system to tout as their perpetual whipping boy, but get to avoid the responsibility of creating a functioning system themselves. I see this as more likely than thinking Republicans are suddenly going to get tough on lobbyists.
Originally posted by: malibber2
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroyIIQuoteRequiring all health insurers to offer individual plans spreads the risk instead of allowing them cherry pick the most profitable customers. Obamacare is imploding because many companies that offered individual plans are retreating from that market and focusing on their lucrative group plans. The vast majority of Americans are insured under a group plan. They are insured without regard to pre-existing conditions. Contrary to what you claim most companies do not underwrite their own insurance.
Originally posted by: malibber2
Now that I understand it, how is making insurance companies that sell group insurance policies sell to individuals any different than Obamacare?
It is true that under my suggestion, Group Health insurance rates would rise IF YOU DID NOTHING ELSE TO CONTAIN HEALTHCARE COSTS. That's the real problem with the ACA. Even though it was called 'Affordable' it did virtually nothing to cut costs. It subsidized some citizens to make it more affordable for them...but as you have pointed out many times...it's only affordable if you don't get sick. If we were really smart, we could cut costs of healthcare in half without a change in standards of care. Then these policies might be affordable for everyone. I have about a dozen ways to do that if you're interested.
Alan,
According to a 2000 report by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), approximately 50 million workers and their dependents receive benefits through self-insured group health plans sponsored by their employers. This represents 33% of the 150 million total participants in private employment-based plans nationwide.
If it was 33% back in 2000, it is well over 50% now. In any event, if you mandate that group insurers offer individual policies whatever business they still have left in a traditional group will be converted to this style of business where they become the benefits administrator rather than the insurance company to avoid having to cover the individuals.
I do agree with you about the ACA and healthcare costs. The problem is pharmaceutical companies, hospital holding companies and Doctor's groups won't allow the costs to be cut. I have never met a doctor who doesn't think her or she is entitled to at least a 10% raise every year regardless of market conditions. I always think of Rand Paul when he said, "Doctors are entitled to a good living." If a hardcore tea partier who gets most of his fees from government programs thinks he is entitled to a good living, you can bet the rest of them do.
Maybe Trump will be more successful in getting them to cut costs, but I have my doubts. Pharmaceutical stocks are up because they expect there to be less pressure on their pricing under Trump than there would have been under Clinton.
I have also said many times the problem with the ACA is that the numbers simply don’t work. The way the ACA tried to make the numbers work were sky high deductibles, sky high out of pocket costs and incredibly narrow networks. I know another way they were cheating/cooking the books that has not been widely reported yet, but I was saving it for after the election. If we take Trump at his word and he is going to offer something terrific to replace the ACA, I don’t see how he makes the numbers work unless you adopt a patient not profit first system like the rest of the first world.
I know the one plan that is making its rounds on the news sites right now is the Mitch MooConnell Paul Ryan plan to simply defund the ACA subsidies due to the insurance companies, and replace them with nothing. That way they would still have a zombie Obamacare system to tout as their perpetual whipping boy, but get to avoid the responsibility of creating a functioning system themselves. I see this as more likely than thinking Republicans are suddenly going to get tough on lobbyists.
Ben Carson did say the right thing about this the other day. Namely, there would be no repeal until there is a replacement, but I wouldn’t put my money on Trump listening to him over all the Republicans in congress.
