According to an analysis done for The Upshot by the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform, 17 percent of Americans eligible for an Affordable Care Act plan may have only one insurer to choose next year. The analysis shows that there are five entire states currently set to have one insurer, although our map also includes two more states because the plans for more carriers are not final. By comparison, only 2 percent of eligible customers last year had only one choice.
The conspiracy theory that Obamacare was intentionally designed to wreck the system to make single-payer inevitable looks less and less far-fetched every day.
In response Gov. Mark Dayton highlighted gains in enrolling more Minnesotans in health insurance plans since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. He also acknowledged the BCBSM departure reflects the instability in the market for individual and family coverage.
In other words, as people have been squeezed out of the private plans they originally chose, they are dribbling in to MNSure’s more expensive plans with higher deductibles and more-constricted networks.
He thinks has been told to think it’s a win.
“This creates a serious and unintended challenge for the individual market: the Minnesotans who seek coverage there tend to have greater, more expensive health care needs than the general population,” said Dayton. “Blue Cross Blue Shield’s decision to leave the individual market is symptomatic of conditions in the national health insurance marketplace.
University of Minnesota health economist Roger Feldman called the Blues’ departure a major blow to Minnesota’s already troubled individual market.
“What this says about the individual market is that it is very unstable and it has been disrupted by a number of events and we still don’t know whether it will recover or not from those disruptions,” said Feldman.
Apparently we have to cripple healthcare before we can save it.
Normally, I am very sympathetic to anyone who is affected by the treachery and deceit of ObamaCare. The only ones who escape by shoulder to cry on are union types who supported ObamaCare when it was first being hatched. Since most unions are Democratic strongholds, the nurses union all supported ObamaCare. To put it in old west terms – they now know what it is like to be shot with their own gun.
nurses are wonderful people – but the nurses union is as hard left as the SEIU. The union jumped up and down and did cartwheels for Obama, and Obamacare, eight years ago.
Now, as the “Affordable Care Act” makes healthcare I’ll truly unaffordable for millions – exactly as predicted – the union is trying to insulate itself and its members from the policies that the union supported, worked for, and donated its members ‘money to.
This is the evidence that people don’t want single payer healthcare. Allina is simply asking nurses to share the wealth. As one nurse noted, it would be like a 15% pay cut.
Allina has said that transitioning nurses to a different plan would be equitable.
As I see it, if this much of a fight is going to be put up over sharing the wealth in a state like Minnesota, how would it play in the rest of the country? The only part that I don’t really understand is why people keep voting for liberal, share the wealth type policies when they clearly don’t want to themselves.
My theory: they want the part of “single payer healthcare” that makes them feel good about doing big things with other peoples’ money.
They don’t want any actual change in their own life.
My health insurance company requires me to take an annual health assessment and participate in a well-being program, to get a discount on my co-pay. They are at the forefront of trendiness, of course, and Sitting Is The New Smoking, so getting me up and moving is all the rage. Some thoughts:
We can’t all be rail-splitters. Some jobs require patient, focused, concentrated examination of documents. That’s an activity not well-suited to bouncing on an exercise ball.
Labor-saving devices were invented precisely to avoid having to move, lift, bend or exert physical force over inanimate objects. How far down must civilization devolve to suit the Phy Ed fanatics? Is it enough if I make my wife scrub our clothes by hand in a tub or must she also carry the water in a bucket from Lake Como while I forage for dandelion greens in the park across the street?
Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, is fond of saying “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people who claim it’s a crisis start acting like it’s a crisis.” That’s a handy way to poke fun at global warming alarmists flying private jets to exclusive conferences. But I can go one better:
“I’ll believe Sitting is the new Smoking when Democrats tax it to fund a stadium.”
Look for people with sedentary jobs to get hit with fees via Obamacare.
One of the keys to achieving a healthier citizenry is providing everyone with affordable (meaning subsidized) health insurance. Naturally, since the government is paying for most of it, the government needs the data supporting the billings. So all your medical records belong to the government. But it’s okay, the data is totally secure, just like the personnel records at the Department of Homeland Security.
In all things, we must reinforce failure and reward incompentence.
“We did not believe it would form this slowly, be this porous, or become this severe,” he added.
Translated: “porous” means “the Obamacare net caught only sick people because the healthy ones were allowed to wriggle out through various Executive Orders.”
Further translated: “Obama lied to us; he promised we could base premiums on a mix of young healthy people with old sick ones, then he threw us under the bus by letting the young healthy people out to save his re-election.”
Still further translated: “I believed Obama. I was an idiot.”
Yep. Republicans knew it six years ago. Glad we could clear that up.
Being right is fun.
Being right after a good chunk of our economy and healthcare system has been botched like a Salvadoran tummy-tuck? Not so fun.
By every rational measure, Obamacare is a complete failure – a fraternity-rush-week of terrible assumptions and economic ignorance that have turned a sixth of this nation’s economy into a hapless dumpster fire.
The architects of Obamacare are deeply distrustful of the role of for-profit companies in the health-care business because, in their nearly pristine ignorance, they falsely believe profits to be net deductions from the sum of the public good rather than measures of the creation of real social value. So they created incentives to set up co-ops, nonprofit enterprises that would administer Obamacare plans in particular states and jurisdictions. It was obvious from the beginning that if Obamacare’s perverse incentives created insurance pools that were older and sicker rather than younger and healthier, these co-ops wouldn’t be economically viable: You need lots of young, healthy insurance subscribers to offset the costs associated with your older, sicker subscribers. Many of us — myself included — assumed that the federal government under President Obama would simply write these co-ops huge checks to keep them afloat. We were half right: The government is writing them huge checks, but they are failing anyway, so fundamental is their economic unsustainability. Half of the co-ops have gone belly-up already, including large, prominent, splendidly subsidized ones in Kentucky, New York, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Hundreds of thousands of customers have lost their coverage as a result. Hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money has been poured into these enterprises, to no avail. Almost all of Obamacare’s basic promises have failed, it is an economic shambles, and it is a political mess .
Obamacare’s partisans were confronted with the economic facts long before the law was even passed, and their answer was: “Never mind the economics, we’re the good guys, and you want poor people to die.” Democrats argued that Republicans literally wanted to kill poor people, that their plan was for the poor to “die quickly.” This is a habitual mode of discourse among progressives: Reality doesn’t matter; only the purity of Democrats’ motives matters. Obamacare is what it is: Another damned five-year plan based on wishful thinking and very little else.
Obama-care is the federal program, but Minnesota Democrats rushed to set up our own parallel Minnesota Care system so every Minnesota family could easily find affordable health insurance. But insurance companies are dropping out of Minnesota Care to avoid administrative hassles and taxes to reduce overhead, and that makes their plans even more affordable than the Minnesota Care plans.
The Democrats’ proposed solution? No, not decrease administrative hassle or lower taxes to make Minnesota Care competitive. Certainly not. No, the proposed solution is to impose administrative hassles and taxes on insurance companies who are NOT participating in Minnesota Care, so that everybody is equally hassled and taxed. The name of the guy proposing that – Jim Schowalter – may sound familiar. That’s because he was Mark Dayton’s Commissioner of Budget who oversaw setting up the Minnesota Care system at a cost of half-a-billion dollars, now he’s the chief lobbyist for the insurance companies in the system.
I say there’s something fishy about this story. It’s all about people losing their plan and paying more for it. But if you like your plan, you can keep your plan and every family saves $2,500 – we know this because The Light-bringer told us so. There’s something not right about this new story.
Walker’s proposal would repeal all of ObamaCare, dismantling its federal healthcare exchanges and eliminating the tax credits now provided for people to buy health insurance policies. It would replace them with a system that doles out federal dollars based on an individual’s age, instead of income.
For example, a person between the ages of 18 and 34 would receive $1,200, while a person between the ages of 50 to 64 would receive $3,000. The tax credits would only go to people without employer-sponsored coverage.
Unlike ObamaCare, his plan would also allow groups, such as small businesses or farmers, to band together to negotiate lower rates and allow all individuals to purchase coverage across state lines.
Yesterday, the House moved past the crabbling over the Speaker post, and moved on to substantive policy.
The House passed a bill repealing one of Obamacare’s most toxic provisions – the definition of 30 hours a week as “full time”, which has put (literally) countless people out of work:
Republicans set the showdown as an initial test of how many Democrats would be willing to defect against a lame-duck president and after the GOP relentlessly attacked Obamacare in November’s election campaigns, riding those attacks to big gains.
The legislation would repeal the provision that defines the 30-hour-per-week work threshold that determines when businesses have to face the health insurance coverage mandate. Critics say it scraps the traditional 40-hour workweek and takes pay out of Americans’ pockets because some employers are cutting hours to below 30 a week to get around the law.
Obama will override the veto – and if everyone votes as they did today, the veto will stand. And every single Democrat that votes to override will be on record opposing the will of the 2014 majority of voters.
And the first big wedge point of the 2016 will be put in place.
Then, it’ll become a battle to increase the attention span of the American voter – on the left and the right…
Sometime after the insurer PreferredOne submitted its proposed rates for the first year of the MNsure exchange, state regulators asked the company to consider lowering the numbers.
Ultimately, the insurer responded with “a total rate decrease of 37 percent”, according to a July 2013 letter from an outside actuary to the company. Those final rates were the lowest in the Twin Cities – and across the country, in many cases – and helped PreferredOne to grab nearly 60 percent of the MNsure business.
Now, those subscribers face an average premium increase of 63 percent if they stay with PreferredOne — a yo-yo scenario that health policy experts say points to the challenge in setting prices under the federal health law. The big swing also suggests that the low prices were out of step with the reality of the business.
“This was the first year of a new market, so no one knew what they were bidding on,” , said Gary Claxton, a vice president with the California-based Kaiser Family Foundation. “That means it was hard to create the rates, and it was hard to review them.”
Here’s the deal: as Representative Zerwas pointed out on a morning radio show today, Preferred One is keenly aware that the MNSure board – a political board, composed (per statute) of absolutely no people from the healthcare or health insurance industries – can decide who does and doesn’t get to participate in the exchange.
Which gives them a lot of power when, for example, they tell a company like Preferred One to kick the tires on an unsustainable rate structure.
The Star Tribune runs an astonishingly even-handed report on politicians’ finger-pointing over Ebola funding.
The conclusion: they’re equally to blame. Which isn’t true, but is a far cry from Star Tribune’s reflex to blame Republicans.
The article points out CDC funding in 2010 was $6.8 billion, 2011 was $6.9 billion and then President Obama proposed to reduce it to $6.6. Yes, the President slashed $300,000 out of CDC funding. And Congress went along. So they’re all to blame.
What the article does not address is HOW the CDC pisses away that $6.6 billion. And that’s totally under the control of Democrats.