Aetna to exit nearly 7 in 10 Obamacare plans

[Deleted]

The federal government pays social security out of current revenues. So it will always pay it out.

small text: always is to be intended as long as you have the budget to pay for it.

[tankbug]

All working as intended.

Crash healthcare, make the common idiots beg for single payer, aka .gov healthcare. = full blown socialism/control incoming. '

I HATE Globalists/Leftists.

Hate is what you people do best. Combine it with greed, fear-mongering, racism, slavery and you've got yourself a good ol Conservative Cunt Cocktail.

[judgementofantonidas]

Bullshit!
My HMO went away and they tried to foist some idiocy of an "EPO" on me.
I paid $32/month for that HMO which covered 100% of everything in-network.
EPO costs me $165/month...initially, (priced is getting jacked up next year big), for "select" coverage" on shit I don't need, and add the cost of a deductible ($5500), well, needless to say, the penalty/fine...whatever the fuck they want to call it, for not having insurance was far cheaper.

How does what you just said conflict with my statement that insurance rates did NOT go down under enforced obamacare?

[Kujako]

I am sorry but do the letters on those signs look photoshopped?

This was the rallying cry of the tea party at the time. Here's my personal favorite.

[Caolela]

Your getting hung up on semantics. Of course it won't "run out" (as long as there are people working and paying taxes, which will likely go way up because the number of people working will start to decrease) ... but I won't be getting 100% returns. And, depending on your age, you probably won't be either.

First you said that S.S. won't be there when you retire - 0%. Now saying you won't get 100% of it. It's not "semantics", it's fact - the fix for the funding gap is very simple as I pointed out: incomes over $117,000 have to pay payroll tax on income over that amount which they don't now. It's not a problem for awhile yet so most likely, politicians will put it off until they have to act. Nothing new there.

Either way, it is much better to have your X% of payroll tax in the S.S. fund than it being gambled away on the Wall St. roulette tables (with a crash occurring every decade or so), while being charged fees and percentages for that "service". Ask people whose 401k's were decimated in '08 while the gamblers were made whole.

[petej0]

small text: always is to be intended as long as you have the budget to pay for it.

There is always budget to pay for it. Unless the government takes in $0 in revenue.

- - - Updated - - -

This was the rallying cry of the tea party at the time. Here's my personal favorite.

No, the rally cry of the Tea Party was enough with taxes and big government. This is the rally cry of ignorant old folks who are bitter and think they are having benefits they paid into being taken away or reduced.

[Tinykong]

There is always budget to pay for it. Unless the government takes in $0 in revenue.

Sure, we can do some intragovernmental lending to pay SS.

[Orlong]

Yes, the right wingers just want poor people to die without health care. The hyperbole is strong here.

We dont want them to die. We just want them to be responsible and pay for their own stuff. Im tired of paying for everyone else, and nobody ever pays for mine

[Draco-Onis]

I think this is pretty much settled now that we know this is payback for the justice department putting a hold on their mega merger. Aetna is trying to blackmail the US government into approving their new mega monopoly.

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/cons...merger-n633456

[Tinykong]

We dont want them to die. We just want them to be responsible and pay for their own stuff. Im tired of paying for everyone else, and nobody ever pays for mine

How does someone pay for several hundred thousand dollars of medical care, exactly?

You're paying for everyone else even in an insurance based system.

[Captain N]

We dont want them to die. We just want them to be responsible and pay for their own stuff. Im tired of paying for everyone else, and nobody ever pays for mine

You're a Union Government Employee -- Both the American Taxpayer and your Union Brothers and Sisters are assisting in paying for you.

[Tijuana]

Your whole premise is shot to hell as soon as you tried to spin it as 12-13% average return on investment, because that's not what the facts are nor what anyone has said.

I posted from SSW that investing in interest-bearing U.S. treasury bonds raises 13% of S.S.'s total revenue, quite a different thing from 'average return on investment'.

Lousy try at peddling more lies and obfuscation though.

- - - Updated - - -



You obviously have no clue what "the facts is..." [sic]. S.S. will not run out of money as has been shown, but you can keep with your Orwellian version spouted by Fox and CNN.

You seem to be having a reading comprehension problem. I never said treasury notes paid 12-13%, as that would obviously make them a great investment. The very simple point that you missed, is that "losing all your money" in the stock market never happens, and when we have had the biggest declines in the market historically, it would have only taken 10 years of 12-13% gains (any solid mutual fund) to off set a 40% loss and be ahead of the person who put their money in a "safe" investment like treasury notes.

But yeah, call me a liar and all that because that shows intelligence. If you are not smart enough to follow the argument, just call the person a liar. Seems legit.

[petej0]

Sure, we can do some intragovernmental lending to pay SS.

Thats the way it works. If the government has surplus SS revenue for 2016, it doesnt put it into a bank account. That surplus is spent with the rest of revenues as part of the operational budget and the IntraGovernmental holdings for SS get a Credit charge. If there is no surplus in 2017, the IntraGovernmental holdings receive a debit charge for that year and the difference is paid out from the received revenues.

How does someone pay for several hundred thousand dollars of medical care, exactly?

You're paying for everyone else even in an insurance based system.

Yeah insurance is basically a socialized system that you have to pay into to benefit from.

[Tinykong]

Thats the way it works. If the government has surplus SS revenue for 2016, it doesnt put it into a bank account. That surplus is spent with the rest of revenues as part of the operational budget and the IntraGovernmental holdings for SS get a Credit charge. If there is no surplus in 2017, the IntraGovernmental holdings receive a debit charge for that year and the difference is paid out from the received revenues.

Call me cynical, but I don't believe there will be enough money to pay for it all in 40 years.

[Vash The Stampede]

How does someone pay for several hundred thousand dollars of medical care, exactly?

You don't. You become homeless and jobless.

You're paying for everyone else even in an insurance based system.

Don't throw facts at him, you might cause a trigger.

[petej0]

Call me cynical, but I don't believe there will be enough money to pay for it all in 40 years.

If you are saying there wont be enough money, then you are basically saying that the Federal Government will stop paying Social Security to people. It isnt a matter if the money will run out. The "fund" may run dry, but it is still obligated to pay the beneficiaries. We have paid into the system, so we are entitled to our benefits, thats how it works. The problem isnt that we wont get paid, the problem is as SS "fund" dries up, more and more of the Operating Budget will be allocated to pay SS benefits instead of being used to pay for other things.

[Thetruth1400]

What do you think?

I think it's a clear "No Shit" moment here. The insurance companies are only in it to make money. When there are more people in their system actually using it, they're not going to be seeing profit and they're going to head for the hills to avoid paying as much as possible.

Had a similar experience myself after talking to my mom. She had broken her ankle and had to have it cast. Her insurance, which is Aetna, paid for everything, but tried to argue over the cast. The doctor decided due to the location of her break, all they needed to do was a hard plastic cast instead of plaster. The insurance tried to claim she owed almost $3,000 for the cast and visit to the doctors as they don't cover that type of cast. She argued it and they dropped it.

After that, the doctors put her in physical therapy. Her doctor told her that she was going to be in physical therapy for a month, three times a week, so 12 visits. After that month was up, he ordered another month as he wasn't happy with her range of motion and swelling. The insurance refused, saying someone can only have 20 physical therapy visits a year, because that's all they cover. That meant she could only do 8 visits, or twice a week. After that time was up, the doctor still wanted her to go for another two weeks, but she couldn't because her insurance wouldn't pay for it.

Likewise, during her physical therapy, she got a letter from Aetna claiming that she was okay to go to physical therapy, but here is a list of things they don't cover. In that list were electric stimulation, therapeutic manipulation, and ice packs. Yes, ice packs. I'm not sure how many of you out there have had physical therapy, but manipulation and ice packs are almost core to physical therapy. Therapists need to manipulate your injured limbs to make sure they are mobile enough to get back to a day to day functioning level. Also, ice is almost always used to help prevent swelling. Her insurance though, straight up said "Nah, we're not going to pay for that."

At the end of the day, her insurance basically paid for her to go inside the physical therapy building, but once inside, anything they actually did to help with her physical therapy was no longer covered.

When all is said and done, her insurance should be better. She gets insurance through the state via retirement, and pays nearly $1,250 a month for it. It was good insurance until Obamacare came into existence. I told her it's time to start shopping around, because Aetna has clearly gone down hill. Obamacare needs to go, and we either need to go to a single payer, government controlled system, or we need a 100% open market that forces insurance companies to compete, not just go the way of entertainment with their Oligopolies.

[Zelorra]

What do you think?

I think you should save the billions of dollars you put in bombs, fighters, submarines and other shit while trying to be the world police and heal your people.

[petej0]

I think you should save the billions of dollars you put in bombs, fighters, submarines and other shit while trying to be the world police and heal your people.

But...who will be the world police? Some of these other countries dont spend a lot on defense because they know the US will be there to flex the muscle.

[Tinykong]

If you are saying there wont be enough money, then you are basically saying that the Federal Government will stop paying Social Security to people. It isnt a matter if the money will run out. The "fund" may run dry, but it is still obligated to pay the beneficiaries. We have paid into the system, so we are entitled to our benefits, thats how it works. The problem isnt that we wont get paid, the problem is as SS "fund" dries up, more and more of the Operating Budget will be allocated to pay SS benefits instead of being used to pay for other things.

I won't be surprised to see SS phased out for this very reason, and some cut off date applied and everyone after that date gets nothing, and everyone between those dates gets some prorated payments.