Aetna to exit nearly 7 in 10 Obamacare plans

[Independent voter]

Well if Hillary gets in, she might be able to shore Obamacare up a bit. Even if she gets elected which she probably will, the House and Senate will be full of Republicans.

[Berengil]

Well if Hillary gets in, she might be able to shore Obamacare up a bit. Even if she gets elected which she probably will, the House and Senate will be full of Republicans.

Odds are looking like the senate will flip democratic. GOP will probly keep the House, but with a smaller majority, I think.

[I Push Buttons]

That's the heart of the problem, right there. A medical education costs too dmn much. The barrier to success in med school should be whether you can pass, not if you can pay.

Maybe have doctors in the US military train people ( in something like an apprenticeship) if that person then agrees to work in an under-served (medically speaking) area of the country. Something like a US civilian Medical Corps.

No the heart of the problem is insurance companies exist to make money, not to help people.

Single payer is the only solution to this problem.

[alexw]

Where are you getting this? Current polls show the senate being 51-49 GOP if the election were today. Clinton can follow Obama and do nothing for 4 years or she can govern from the middle, ignoring the tea party and Sanders supporters. She can't accomplish anything without Congress, so she can lead and bring people together or have her executive orders smacked down.

- - - Updated - - -




Can we require fitness exams and tax people if they lead unhealthy lives? People love to support or bash the VA, but every veteran was at one point a fit, healthy individual free of any genetic disorders or handicaps. The average American isn't running 2 miles in under 16 minutes and under 20% body fat (nor are average people in most western nations).

You can't have the "it's my body, I'll do what I want" mentality and expect the government to have a remotely feasible single payer system. Especially as medical care advances and every new "lifestyle" becomes normal instead of being treated like the mental disorder it is. We don't need people retiring at 65 and being hooked up to life support drawing benefits and utilizing limited resources until they're 120. You're not that important to society or humanity.

This is incorrect. It would be 51-49 Dem if the election would be held today.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...rump-downhill/

And Obama was trying to lead from the middle. He didn't know however that the republicans got together before he was even inaugurated and decided that they would refuse to work with him in any way shape or form. Its why republicans got the party of no moniker. Hell they are still doing it. The republicans won't bring up any bill that would need democrat votes to pass, only bills that can pass solely with republican support get voted on. Of course that means no compromise with democrats....

[I Push Buttons]

Where are you getting this? Current polls show the senate being 51-49 GOP if the election were today. Clinton can follow Obama and do nothing for 4 years or she can govern from the middle, ignoring the tea party and Sanders supporters. She can't accomplish anything without Congress, so she can lead and bring people together or have her executive orders smacked down.

- - - Updated - - -




Can we require fitness exams and tax people if they lead unhealthy lives? People love to support or bash the VA, but every veteran was at one point a fit, healthy individual free of any genetic disorders or handicaps. The average American isn't running 2 miles in under 16 minutes and under 20% body fat (nor are average people in most western nations).

You can't have the "it's my body, I'll do what I want" mentality and expect the government to have a remotely feasible single payer system. Especially as medical care advances and every new "lifestyle" becomes normal instead of being treated like the mental disorder it is. We don't need people retiring at 65 and being hooked up to life support drawing benefits and utilizing limited resources until they're 120. You're not that important to society or humanity.

1. Sure I don't care if we tax unhealthy lifestyles, we basically already do and its ever growing (tobacco products, soft drinks in some states, etc).

2. As to the bold portion of what you said, THAT ALREADY HAPPENS, even without a single payer system.

The US spends upwards of $3 trillion on medical stuff every year... Half of that is already the government in the form of medicaid and medicare... Most of it is medicare and the elderly. Once again this is WITH NO SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM AT ALL.

Literally all that single payer would change from the current system... Is take the 200 million+ people who are insured (or are uninsured) by private companies that exist for no other reason than to make a profit and instead insure them with the government, which simply has to break even (if even that, we clearly have no problem running deficits).

[Kellhound]

I know that feds don't license doctors. But under the commerce clause of the Constitution, anything that affects interstate commerce is subject to Congressional regulation.

Like, you know, people having to maybe drive across a state line to find a doctor nearby that will take their Medicare.

So, if doc won't take Medicare, he's no longer a doctor.

"But but but if I do I won't be able to afford a summer home"

error 404

/carecup not found

That doesnt fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause generally.

- - - Updated - - -

This is incorrect. It would be 51-49 Dem if the election would be held today.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...rump-downhill/

And Obama was trying to lead from the middle. He didn't know however that the republicans got together before he was even inaugurated and decided that they would refuse to work with him in any way shape or form. Its why republicans got the party of no moniker. Hell they are still doing it. The republicans won't bring up any bill that would need democrat votes to pass, only bills that can pass solely with republican support get voted on. Of course that means no compromise with democrats....

The best hope is a split Dem-GOP control between the Presidency and the Senate.

[Orlong]

Every one of those fire fighters should have their own houses burned down.

Why? If they put the fire out then nobody would pay their fire subscription fee because they would know they would still put out the fire if they didnt pay.

[Adam Jensen]

Why? If they put the fire out then nobody would pay their fire subscription fee because they would know they would still put out the fire if they didnt pay.

Because emergency services shouldn't be subscription paid. It's a stupid fucking model. Fire services should be tax funded and provided to everyone in their jurisdiction regardless of their monetary contribution.

[Orlong]

The whole system needs too be destroyed and rebuilt.

Why is Tylenol 12 dollars for a pill when it is 13 cents at a store? Just one example of...

1. Greedy Hospitals
2. Greedy Doctors/nurses/ect
3. Greedy Medical Schools
4. Greedy Medical Equipment manufacturers.
5. Greedy Pharmaceutical companies.
6. Greedy Insurance Companies

In the end, the citizens take the hit. Too top it off you have law firms that sue when doctors do things wrong raising even more overhead.

In the end though it all boils down too fucking greed.

They arent greedy. They arent non profit organizations. Tylenol cost 12 bucks in a hospital because they need to recoup the costs that they never get from the cheapasses who refuse to buy insurance and go to the emergency room every time they get the sniffles and then never pay

[Masark]

But why?

Because that's how our division of powers got set up way back and trying to change those (i.e. a 7+50 constitutional amendment) would be extremely messy.

The feds exercise limited de facto control over the provincial healthcare systems via the time honoured method of "if you do as we say, we'll give you money" and thus are able to set certain minimum standards that provinces must follow or end up having to pay their own way.

A growing number of doctors are refusing to see Medicare patients, and I know of no one that is happy with Medicare that has it.

You've probably got just a slight bias in your sample then.

[Orlong]

medicare runs just fine for how many years now.

only problem is this baby boomers bump.

they need to just expand medicare, make medicare able to set prices on drugs and services...whammo. the next logical step to single payor

- - - Updated - - -

oh and you think Aetna is not doing this because they just got sued by the GOvt in their merger plans...you are insane.

if they dont participate in all govt programs they should not have access to any of them.

no ACA well then kiss your wonderful medicare plans goodbye.

Medicare does NOT work just fine. Many people on Medicare pay for additional supplemental insurance because Medicare doesnt cover a lot of things. In addition many doctors no longer accept medicare patients because the government lowballs them on their services. New medicare patients are having a lot of trouble finding doctors to accept them

http://www.oregonlive.com/finance/in...ctors_rej.html

C.J. Reynolds is grateful for the care she's received at Oregon Health & Science University. But any time she's referred outside the system, the 69-year-old Portlander crosses her fingers.

"I've had a heck of a time if I go outside OHSU looking for any kind of specialist, finding a doctor who will take standard Medicare, and that's a real problem," Reynolds said.

Things might only get worse for millions of patients nationwide who, like Reynolds, rely on original Medicare rather than buying a Medicare Advantage plan.

Three large doctors' practices employing more than 80 primary-care providers in the Portland area recently have decided to stop taking new Medicare-eligible patients unless they've enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. The clinics join others that have already stopped taking Medicare-only patients.

That leaves seniors relying on traditional Medicare, even those with Medigap supplement plans, with a more challenging search when seeking care. Some fear it could discourage them from seeking care they need.
Administrators at three of these clinics say the decision was made mostly because Medicare reimbursement rates haven't kept up with the increasing cost of providing care.

Proski said Medicare Advantage plans pay for care at a 15 to 25 percent higher rate than basic Medicare. Where a commercial plan might pay $100 for an office visit, Medicare pays $50 to $60, he said.

"It's the office visit that's our life blood that they reimburse pretty low on," Proski said. "It hasn't gone down. It's just that it's not keeping up with our costs."

[I Push Buttons]

Medicare does NOT work just fine. Many people on Medicare pay for additional supplemental insurance because Medicare doesnt cover a lot of things. In addition many doctors no longer accept medicare patients because the government lowballs them on their services. New medicare patients are having a lot of trouble finding doctors to accept them

http://www.oregonlive.com/finance/in...ctors_rej.html

Yeah and if we have single payer, aka "medicare for all" that literally can't happen...

The government will be their ONLY customer... So when the government "lowballs" them... They can either take it or....... Cease to exist as a business.

[Endus]

They arent greedy. They arent non profit organizations.

It's always pretty telling when you contradict your own claims, right in the next sentence.

"Profit margins" are set by greed, fundamentally. In a relatively free market system, prices will be as high as they can expect enough people to pay. Production cost of the good or service only matters for determining when it price reductions render it unprofitable; they do NOT determine price. If they can charge $60,000 for a pill, because it cures cancer, for-profit health care says they should charge $60,000, even if that puts it out of the reach of 99% of those who could benefit from it. Even if said pill costs them $0.30 to produce, even rolling in R&D costs for the sake of argument. And patent laws and such prevent anyone else from reverse-engineering the formula and selling it themselves.

In short, for-profit health care has a face, and that face is Martin Shkreli. If you think that dude's a smarmy greedy asshole, you should have issues with the entire idea of for-profit health care.

[Ghostmcghosty]

I know people here are all gung ho for govt controlled everything. That is fine and whatever.


However, I think the biggest issue is that our population is so unhealthy. Unless we start pushing preventative care, rather than waiting until someone has diabetes and needs an amputation, any system we set up will cost us way too much. I personally would not want to give 90% of my pay to the healthcare tax and still have a politician tell me that it's not enough and they are dipping into my social security to pay for dumb fucks who refuse to be healthy.

This is the closest we have to a socialized healthcare system and it is beginning to crumble due to costs being too high. We need to view this as a test to fix issues in your health/healthcare before we even consider making a socialized system. Otherwise, we will just be throwing money into a whole.

[sarahtasher]

Someone brought out preventive care. Excellent point.

Who spent millions lobbying to pretend that tobacco is not harmful ?

And BTW, healthcare is not something that can be ''profitable'' (in the sense of making a profit providing actually needed care). You won't make cash providing long term care to the typical people needing a lot of it, also known as 'elderly people''. (Fortunately, as most people have grand parents and/or the Republicans realizing even with confusion that the elderly can vote, not even internet tough guys are advocating putting bullets in their heads ''to save muh money from moochers'')

You are also completely deluding yourself if you think that ''an hard worker'' can pay by himself medical bills for anything serious. Unless you are a well paid professional (100k, let's say) it's doubtful that someone can pay the actual costs of a heart surgery or a chemotherapy without bankrupting himself.

[Endus]

I know people here are all gung ho for govt controlled everything. That is fine and whatever.


However, I think the biggest issue is that our population is so unhealthy. Unless we start pushing preventative care, rather than waiting until someone has diabetes and needs an amputation, any system we set up will cost us way too much. I personally would not want to give 90% of my pay to the healthcare tax and still have a politician tell me that it's not enough and they are dipping into my social security to pay for dumb fucks who refuse to be healthy.

This is the closest we have to a socialized healthcare system and it is beginning to crumble due to costs being too high. We need to view this as a test to fix issues in your health/healthcare before we even consider making a socialized system. Otherwise, we will just be throwing money into a whole.

You know what the best way to establish preventative care as a concept is?

Don't put barriers between people and going to see their doctor. The costs associated with that, in the USA, are why people let things go until they're urgent. If the trip to the GP costs you nothing, you've got no reason NOT to go, other than potentially wasting your own time.

Sure, you get the occasional hypochondriac who'll waste the doctor's time and the taxpayer's money, but the savings on everyone else for catching stuff early more than offsets that, both in terms of effectiveness and cost.

[Kellhound]

Because that's how our division of powers got set up way back and trying to change those (i.e. a 7+50 constitutional amendment) would be extremely messy.

The feds exercise limited de facto control over the provincial healthcare systems via the time honoured method of "if you do as we say, we'll give you money" and thus are able to set certain minimum standards that provinces must follow or end up having to pay their own way.



You've probably got just a slight bias in your sample then.

So, the poll found older adults are generally happier than young adults with healthcare and that free healthcare is better liked than paid for healthcare. It also says even the happiest people are less than twice as happy as people with no insurance at all. (Also, veterans/military are well under represented and Medicare is well over represented in the poll.)

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah and if we have single payer, aka "medicare for all" that literally can't happen...

The government will be their ONLY customer... So when the government "lowballs" them... They can either take it or....... Cease to exist as a business.

Which will cut down on the number of doctors, which is already an issue.

[Ghostmcghosty]

You know what the best way to establish preventative care as a concept is?

Don't put barriers between people and going to see their doctor. The costs associated with that, in the USA, are why people let things go until they're urgent. If the trip to the GP costs you nothing, you've got no reason NOT to go, other than potentially wasting your own time.

Sure, you get the occasional hypochondriac who'll waste the doctor's time and the taxpayer's money, but the savings on everyone else for catching stuff early more than offsets that, both in terms of effectiveness and cost.

Someone brought out preventive care. Excellent point.

Who spent millions lobbying to pretend that tobacco is not harmful ?

And BTW, healthcare is not something that can be ''profitable'' (in the sense of making a profit providing actually needed care). You won't make cash providing long term care to the typical people needing a lot of it, also known as 'elderly people''. (Fortunately, as most people have grand parents and/or the Republicans realizing even with confusion that the elderly can vote, not even internet tough guys are advocating putting bullets in their heads ''to save muh money from moochers'')

You are also completely deluding yourself if you think that ''an hard worker'' can pay by himself medical bills for anything serious. Unless you are a well paid professional (100k, let's say) it's doubtful that someone can pay the actual costs of a heart surgery or a chemotherapy without bankrupting himself.

I'm not making any kind of political point.

I am just pointing out that the United States is ridiculously unhealthy when compared to other nations. No matter what system of healthcare we adopt, it will cripple the fuck out of us if people refuse to live healthy and treat illnesses before they require a 100K surgery or expensive meds.

Whether we stay private.
Whether we go single whatever

It will pretty much break us if we don't become more healthy and proactive.

Rather than even worry about single payer systems or whatever, I think we should probably address the stupid high costs of even becoming a doctor in this country, as well as the stupidly unhealthy habits we all have. Add those two things together and no system of healthcare will work for us.

[I Push Buttons]

Which will cut down on the number of doctors, which is already an issue.

Which has everything to do with the cost and effort required to become a doctor today and nothing to do with salaries, which almost certainly won't decrease, and at most will simply increase at a slower rate under single payer (if even that happens).

[Kellhound]

Which has everything to do with the cost and effort required to become a doctor today and nothing to do with salaries, which almost certainly won't decrease, and at most will simply increase at a slower rate under single payer (if even that happens).

Medicare pays about 60% what regular insurance does. If the money coming in goes down, the money going out has to go down as well.