Aetna to exit nearly 7 in 10 Obamacare plans

[Caolela]

So it is failing then? Got ya. Just because something takes a long time to fail, doesn't mean it still isn't a failure.

[I am putting money into it still, and I will never see it again because that money will be gone when I retire]

You should stop listening to the corporate spin and lies from those who want to get their hands on S.S. to exploit for private profits on Wall St.

Learn a few facts:

Social Security can never go bankrupt. Nearly all (97 percent) of its income comes from the contributions of workers and employers, or interest on these contributions. Hence as long as there are workers in America, Social Security will have income. Even if Congress were to take no action, Social Security could pay 100% of promised benefits for the next two decades, and more than three-quarters of benefits after that. Around 2033 there will be a modest funding gap requiring modest increases in revenues to guarantee everyone 100% of promised benefits.

...and other FAQs you should understand: http://www.socialsecurityworks.org/faq/

[Xisa]

Anyone who defends Insurance, of ANY kind, has no idea how it works.

It's literally the exact same thing as defending a Casino.

[I Push Buttons]

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.

And?

Current Medicare costs are in no way an indicator of the costs of single payer... The biggest example of why this is the case is because Medicare (in its current form) has to incur those reductions to even exists... I don't know if you are aware, but virtually everyone on medicare ACTUALLY NEEDS TO USE IT... It is not like insurance, covering X large pool of people and paying out for treatment of Y small pool of people when they need it... Literally every single person on medicare is an old or disabled person in need of medical care...

Under a single payer system there would be no need for that reduction... As it would be the same as any other insurance, large pool of everyone paying in, small pool of people being treated taking out. Only without the added overhead of needing to be profitable and paying dividends to shareholders...

In fact it would seem highly improbable for anything at all to change under single payer short of private insurance companies ceasing to exist... Oh and everyone in the country actually being insured.

[RaoBurning]

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.

Local anecdote: my uncle had to lose a foot before my state accepted him into our poor-people insurance plan. The months long blood infection the year before wasn't enough. The hospital accidentally shutting down his kidneys wasn't enough (bad reaction to an antibiotic, IIRC). Nope. Actual amputation was their threshold. If he had insurance before he wouldn't have let the infection in his toe linger long enough to spread to the rest of his foot. Would have saved money, time (his an mine since I'm now his de facto valet for all appointments since he can't drive now), and, you know; a limb.

And I could get this damned decade old numb spot on my leg checked out finally.

[Ahovv]

Yeah, you might get cost-effective and functional health care for your entire population, for once. Without a serious illness/injury threatening to bankrupt the average citizen.

The absolute horror.

Please don't tell me you support Obamacare as even a remotely viable comparison to single-payer.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Preventive care is actually a net increase in healthcare cost due to people living longer. It's ok to support the notion of helping people live longer, but to claim it will save money is quite disingenuous.

[Kellhound]

And?

Current Medicare costs are in no way an indicator of the costs of single payer... The biggest example of why this is the case is because Medicare (in its current form) has to incur those reductions to even exists... I don't know if you are aware, but virtually everyone on medicare ACTUALLY NEEDS TO USE IT... It is not like insurance, covering X large pool of people and paying out for treatment of Y small pool of people when they need it... Literally every single person on medicare is an old or disabled person in need of medical care...

Under a single payer system there would be no need for that reduction... As it would be the same as any other insurance, large pool of everyone paying in, small pool of people being treated taking out. Only without the added overhead of needing to be profitable and paying dividends to shareholders...

In fact it would seem highly improbable for anything at all to change under single payer short of private insurance companies ceasing to exist... Oh and everyone in the country actually being insured.

Medicare IS a pool of people. Look at your pay stub, see the deduction for Medicare????

[I Push Buttons]

Medicare IS a pool of people. Look at your pay stub, see the deduction for Medicare????

1.45%...

While healthcare spending is nigh 1/5th of the entire GDP of the country...

Yeah, you're right.... Totally comparable to a normal insurance risk pool.

[Kellhound]

1.45%...

While healthcare spending is nigh 1/5th of the entire GDP of the country...

Yeah, you're right.... Totally comparable to a normal insurance risk pool.

2.9% in total actually, plus there are the premiums that some people pay, other taxes, and such. Medicare spending is 15% of the US budget and 20% of all healthcare spending (even though it only covers 17% of the population and it only covers an average of ~50% of all costs).

[Caolela]

Local anecdote: my uncle had to lose a foot before my state accepted him into our poor-people insurance plan. The months long blood infection the year before wasn't enough. The hospital accidentally shutting down his kidneys wasn't enough (bad reaction to an antibiotic, IIRC). Nope. Actual amputation was their threshold. If he had insurance before he wouldn't have let the infection in his toe linger long enough to spread to the rest of his foot. Would have saved money, time (his an mine since I'm now his de facto valet for all appointments since he can't drive now), and, you know; a limb.

Bad situation, but you're in a pretty hardcore right-wing state, that AFAIK did not accept the Medicaid funding option from the Fed when it could and should have. So you got your "poor-people insurance plan" instead.

How did you think that was going to work out...in your favor somehow?

[Tulune]

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.

I think this may be the only time I agree with you. One thing though, don't shame hypochondriacs, it's not our fault that we have the disorder, and not all hypos seek out doctors for every little ailment.

[announced]

you guys should really copy Canada's healthcare plan. richer Canadians pay more for it, average wealth Canadians pay much less for it, and if u are poor then you dont pay anything. there are no bills unless u need things like glasses/contacts or dental work covered.

[Barnabas]

you guys should really copy Canada's healthcare plan. richer Canadians pay more for it, average wealth Canadians pay much less for it, and if u are poor then you dont pay anything. there are no bills unless u need things like glasses/contacts or dental work covered.

That's what we have now.

[Kyriani]

I never understood why dental as seen as "optional" and not covered as part of basic health care. You need your teeth to eat properly. An untreated tooth infection can friggin kill you if it reaches your brain. Dental health is just as important as the rest of your body imo. So why does it get separated most of the time?

[RaoBurning]

Bad situation, but you're in a pretty hardcore right-wing state, that AFAIK did not accept the Medicaid funding option from the Fed when it could and should have. So you got your "poor-people insurance plan" instead.

How did you think that was going to work out...in your favor somehow?

We did, actually. Maybe not right away, but we did. Caused a bit of a shitstorm in the legislature, apparently. Either way, technically being able to get something doesn't necessarily stop the paperwork from being a cluster.

Anecdote again: I applied for AHCCCS (our poor people thing). I hadn't had a job in a while, partly thanks to taking care of my uncle, partly due to leaving my last job due to a medical issue of my own. I was turned down for not adequately proving my income was zero. Since I wasn't working I didn't have any pay stubs handy and it wasn't tax time yet, so no W2s.

So, everything went about as poorly as I expected from a patchwork system of bandaid fixes; which is to say, poorly.

[Gsara]

Single payer cant come fast enough, the sooner we stop letting insurance companies run our healthcare system the better.

[I Push Buttons]

I never understood why dental as seen as "optional" and not covered as part of basic health care. You need your teeth to eat properly. An untreated tooth infection can friggin kill you if it reaches your brain. Dental health is just as important as the rest of your body imo. So why does it get separated most of the time?

I would think a whole host of reasons... Different schools, different licensing, different fields entirely basically. I don't think any of them really paint it as "optional" though... They want you to buy it, but it is an option on lower end plans like catastrophic coverage plans with high deductibles.

And I would assume it is like that because the medical coverage could basically be essential for your survival while the dental coverage is not. You can live with tooth problems, cavities, etc., you can even live with no teeth... You can't live with heart failure, kidney failure, etc... The one exception you mention being infections, and even that can be treated in a hospital (albeit usually with no regard for appearance, saving the tooth, etc.).

[Deleted]

What do you think?

It's interesting how some people often forget the wisdom of the older generations.

Back in the days my uncle would have just commented like this:

«There's no such thing as a free lunch.»

Hope things will turn out for the best however.

[Barnabas]

I never understood why dental as seen as "optional" and not covered as part of basic health care. You need your teeth to eat properly. An untreated tooth infection can friggin kill you if it reaches your brain. Dental health is just as important as the rest of your body imo. So why does it get separated most of the time?

Because it's cheaper for government to pull them and give you dentures instead than to maintain your teeth forever.

[Endus]

It's interesting how some people often forget the wisdom of the older generations.

Back in the days my uncle would have just commented like this:

«There's no such thing as a free lunch.»

Hope things will turn out for the best however.

Your uncle probably would've realized that it's generally cheaper to buy goods and services in bulk, rather than piecemeal.

Nobody actually thinks universal healthcare is "free". We pay for it through taxes, like we do for police protection and the legal codes that protect us. Or the road systems that allow us to travel across the country. And so forth.

[Jibjub]

SNIP http://www.socialsecurityworks.org/faq/

LOL ... you linked me to the official SS page? Do you really think that page will put "this is going bankrupt in 50 years" in their FAQ?

Of course it can "never go bankrupt" if they continually "require modest increases in revenue" (this means raising taxes) ... and "moderate" is subjective. The tax used to be 1% and now its over 6%. "If congress takes no action" ... also means raising the tax. And "the next two decades" is not a lot of time... this was a pretty damning paragraph you quoted and you think this was a positive "everything is going to be fine" message????

Plus, the US birthrate is at an all time low (very terrible for the country). Which means we will continue to have way more old people leaving the workforce (gobbling up SS) and WAY fewer young people entering the workforce. SS only works with a healthy birthrate (growing population)--which we haven't had in a while. The only reason this is working for now (and by working, I mean no one seems to care about how terrible news this is) and our economy hasn't collapsed yet is because illegal immigration. And guess who doesn't pay into SS?

Do you even understand how SS works? It's basically the government saying "Hey, you suck at saving for your own retirement ... let us hold onto that money for you (and earn all the interest you could be) ... don't worry if we dip into it for other things..."