The Salt Life
Banned
Humana has been a hot mess for awhile now.
Humana pulling out of Obamacare in 2018
- Thread starter B.K.
- Start date
- Status
Just wait, they are coming up with thoughts and plans to replace it with something special. It will be amazing and will be much much better, will be the best you have ever seen. Just wait...
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
Here's hoping the GOP and Trump catch major shit for this from the public. Even if this has little to do with them directly, they're the ones in complete control of the wheel right now.
I know I know. It won't happen. Let me dream.
I know I know. It won't happen. Let me dream.
This is the reason. It's why that asshole who leads Aetna threatened to pull out of the marketplace (despite making money). It was because the government didn't allow large insurance carriers to consolidate from 5 to 3.
Empyrean Heaven
Member
Considering the ACA likely won't exist at all next year, this was expected.
DirgeExtinction
Member
Isn't this one of the reasons Bernie is a strong advocate for universal healthcare?
oneils
Member
Apparently they lost $200million on these exchanges. At least, according to an article linked above.
They did pull out of profitable ACA markets to try to push the merger through though.
oneils
Member
Humana? Or Aetna? Can't seem to read that article anymore. Looks like the merger is dead. I find this all so confusing. Much simpler to have a single payer system.
The ACA already allows for this. States and insurers just aren't interested in doing it.
soul creator
Member
You might get some pushback for your phrasing ("we shouldn't act like Bernie is the only person for universal healthcare, single-payer isn't the only answer, we can get something like Switzerland!"), but sure, this is one of the main reasons why people support a fully federal funded expansion of Medicare to cover everyone, rather than depending on the whims of private insurance companies and their profit motives.
Marky Mark
Member
TheLaughingStock
Member
While not defending the whole for-profit healthcare system, they'd have to be crazy to stay in. There's no certainty in the ACA's future; it might be fully repealed, partially repealed, left alone (lol), replaced partially, or left to die a long slow death over a period of months or, even more likely, years. The GOP ran on dismantling it on Day One; it's still here, in worse shape and in wildly different forms in the various states. Thanks to Marco Rubio's hobbling of insurance "risk corridors" in 2015, and that initial Trump EO directing agencies to stop looking for ways to improve the ACA system, they can't even count on getting paid for what they do now, let alone trying to judge the profit/loss risks a year into the future. Insurance and uncertainty don't mix.
So let's bring in that UHC or Medicare For All or whatever you want to call it
Obama and his supporters already defended the current model so no worries.
I'm pleased that Obama and apologists paid the price for passing anything over fixing the problem which was the point of reform. Hopefully they'll learn to settle for better. This law exhausted Obama's political capital, gave the GOP ammunition to take back power, is still unpopular, probably will be repealed, and doesn't put the US where it needs to be ASAP relative to the best health care systems in the world. And for what? To build up something lobbyists like? For profits like? What about building a system for people who can't afford care and the folks who are dying?
Obamacare is more or less fully in effect and it's not very good. Next time I hope the Democrats go about things the right way. Otherwise they'll get what they deserve and waste their time. Lobbyists and current power players played the Obama coalition. You can't build on a broken foundation and get away unscathed. You better be willing to pay a heavy price.
DirgeExtinction
Member
I was thinking about the debate between Bernie and Cruz, hence the question. But yeah, in general a federally funded healthcare system would be best.
Clockwork
Member
Humana was losing money in the ACA exchanges. Fortunately their business is diversified enough (group, medicare, tricare/military) that they had the means to make up those losses up to this point. In the end they are still a business and have both their bottom line to look after as well as shareholder value.
The problem is that when you tell an insurance company that they have to cover everyone (think sick people) but the general public (think healthy people) doesn't hold up their bargain by enrolling in insurance and instead take the tax penalty shit like this is bound to happen.
According to who?
The problem is that when you tell an insurance company that they have to cover everyone (think sick people) but the general public (think healthy people) doesn't hold up their bargain by enrolling in insurance and instead take the tax penalty shit like this is bound to happen.
According to who?
Wowfunhappy
Member
Yeah, especially combined with the individual mandate that fines people who don't have health insurance. How does that work if nobody is selling health insurance on the marketplace?
The Salt Life
Banned
TPA's in the industry that deal with them.
I wonder if people like you have really short term memory or something. They couldn't "settle for better" because they simply did not have the votes for it and it isn't like they can debate it for much longer due to elections which would diminish their control. Not every Democrat is a liberal, this is exactly why nothing better could get passed.
As far as this news go, there are some fundamental flaws to ACA, but all of the flaws we are seeing has solutions to it that can't and couldn't get through due to GOP blocking of legislature.
No, the problem is they aren't mandated to stay on the exchanges and another problem is no public option to shuffle more of the "sick people" onto the government so they don't have to worry about it as much. They are still a profitable company, unless it endangered their company, there is no reason they should be allowed to leave the exchanges.
encephalon
Member
This is just another example of the already crumbling ACA that they need to "repair."
JHoNNy1OoO
Member
Screw the snakes. Medicare for all.
soul creator
Member
While this was obviously true in the short term around that time, it's funny that some people don't draw the connection between the bolded and why some people nowadays want to have "purity" on certain issues, rather than just blindly supporting people who have a D on their name. If the best thing we can get passed with the "left-wing" party in power is the ACA because "not every D is a liberal", then that kind of shows the limitations of that strategy.
And of course, a lot of those D's ended up losing out anyway (and didn't even try and defend the good in the ACA), so maybe if they did support and implement something simpler and stronger that actually solved the problem, they would be better off (hard to get worse than where Democrats are now!). But who knows.
Again, within the specific limited context of that vote, and that being the only thing available at the time, I certainly would've voted for something like the ACA since even with all its terrible flaws, it was still better than the status quo. But how long can the Democrats' "we have to always pre-compromise, we can't do anything better!" be used as a campaign strategy? That's basically been the mindset for like 30 years now, and the country has slid further right on numerous issues, and has helped provide an environment for the cartoonish evil we see now. At what point will Democrats be able to offer a bold, challenging vision for something (one which actually challenges power), rather than just "we're not as bad as Republicans, also, let's offer tax credits and convoluted means-tested programs to solve all of society's problems, sorry we can't do much more than that". It's like constantly taking medicine for symptoms rather actually curing a disease. It certainly is better than the alternative, but you're still gonna be sick until the root problem is solved.
But I guess to get anything better, that would take a massive, motivated grassroots campaign, and actually being willing to share power with a hungry, "purist" activist base, which doesn't seem to be something the DNC is interested in going by recent history...
I am on the side that wants a more liberal Democratic party, but we must realize the facts as of right now. We can not win just by beating them in the Presidential races and in order to win local and state races in red states, the party must allow members in those states to be moderate Democrats. It is better than having straight Republicans in their seat because it is hard to believe moderate Republicans exist when they fall into party lines so easily and willingly relative to Democrats. It is much better to have a moderate/conservative Dem than a moderate Repub, as at least they can be talked to.
The only way we can change this is by sweeping all of those areas and pushing through voter friendly laws as soon as possible. Make is where people don't have to register to vote, it should be automatic, deal with gerrymandering, deal with Voter ID laws. Then focus on the other issues when they have secured an even playing field in voting.
DontBeThatGuy
Member
That's far too fair, far too humane. It cannot stand.
Lord Frieza
Member
Are you sure on this? I have my insurance through Obamacare and have Blue Cross Blue Shield.
- Status