Ping Scheller - Let's chat Obama | Page 7 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Ping Scheller - Let's chat Obama

Wait, I though that the big bad insurance companies were super bad and as such America needs a forced healthcare system. Is it possible that it was all a hoax to jam the ACA through? Say it ain't so!!!

Health Care Law Recasts Insurers as Obama Allies



Quote:

WASHINGTON — As Americans shop in the health insurance marketplace for a second year, President Obama is depending more than ever on the insurance companies that five years ago he accused of padding profits and canceling coverage for the sick.

Those same insurers have long viewed government as an unreliable business partner that imposed taxes, fees and countless regulations and had the power to cut payment rates and cap profit margins.

But since the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010, the relationship between the Obama administration and insurers has evolved into a powerful, mutually beneficial partnership that has been a boon to the nation’s largest private health plans and led to a profitable surge in their Medicaid enrollment.

The insurers in turn have provided crucial support to Mr. Obama in court battles over the health care law, including a case now before the Supreme Court challenging the federal subsidies paid to insurance companies on behalf of low- and moderate-income consumers. Last fall, a unit of one of the nation’s largest insurers, UnitedHealth Group, helped the administration repair the HealthCare.gov website after it crashed in the opening days of enrollment.

“Insurers and the government have developed a symbiotic relationship, nurtured by tens of billions of dollars that flow from the federal Treasury to insurers each year,” said Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

So much so, in fact, that insurers may soon be on a collision course with the Republican majority in the new Congress. Insurers, often aligned with Republicans in the past, have built their business plans around the law and will strenuously resist Republican efforts to dismantle it. Since Mr. Obama signed the law, share prices for four of the major insurance companies — Aetna, Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealth — have more than doubled, while the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has increased about 70 percent.

“These companies all look at government programs as growth markets,” said Michael J. Tuffin, a former executive vice president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the main lobby for the industry. “There will be nearly $2 trillion of subsidized coverage through insurance exchanges and Medicaid over the next 10 years. These are pragmatic companies. They will follow the customer.”

The relationship is expected only to deepen as the two sides grow more intertwined.

Consumers are already hearing the same messages from insurance companies and the government urging them to sign up for health plans during the three-month enrollment period. Federal law requires most Americans to have coverage, insurers provide it, and the government subsidizes it.

“We are in this together,” Kevin J. Counihan, the chief executive of the federal insurance marketplace, told insurers at a recent conference in Washington. “You have been our partners,” and for that, he said, “we are very grateful.”

Despite Mr. Obama’s denunciations of insurers in 2009, it became inevitable that they would have a central role in expanding coverage under the Affordable Care Act later that year when Congress ruled out a government-run health plan — the “public option.” But friction between insurers and the Obama administration continued into 2013 as the industry bristled at stringent rules imposed on carriers in the name of consumer protection.

A turning point came last fall, after the chaotic debut of HealthCare.gov, when insurers waived enrollment deadlines and helped the White House fix the dysfunctional website.

Now insurers say government business is growing much faster than the market for commercial employer-sponsored coverage. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 170 million people will have coverage through Medicare, Medicaid and the insurance exchanges by 2023, an increase of about 50 percent from 2013. By contrast, the number of people with employer-based coverage is expected to rise just 2 percent, to 159 million.

In addition, the Affordable Care Act has engendered growth in the role of private insurers in Medicaid. The law expanded eligibility for Medicaid, and most of the new beneficiaries receive care from private health plans under contracts awarded by state Medicaid agencies. As a result, Medicaid enrollment is up more than eight million, or 15 percent, in the last year.

In a survey of 10 insurance companies, Joshua R. Raskin, an analyst at Barclays, reported that their revenues from the Medicare Advantage program were up about 10 percent this year. UnitedHealth Group’s Medicaid enrollment surged by nearly one million people, or 24 percent, in the last year, said Stephen J. Hemsley, the chief executive. At another large insurer, WellPoint, the expansion of Medicaid “is proving highly profitable,” Christine Arnold, a managing director of Cowen and Company, wrote in a recent report.

WellPoint is a case study in how companies have adapted to the law.

In 2010, as Democrats attacked the insurance industry for what they said were its high prices and discriminatory practices, no company was more of a target than WellPoint, which had sought rate increases of up to 39 percent in California. But WellPoint, which operates Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in a number of states, is now prospering.

WellPoint announced recently that it had gained 751,000 subscribers through the health insurance exchanges and 699,000 new members through Medicaid. Since the end of 2013, WellPoint’s Medicaid enrollment has increased by 16 percent, to a total of five million.

“Our government business is growing along multiple fronts” and accounted for about 45 percent of the company’s consolidated operating revenues, said Joseph R. Swedish, the chief executive of WellPoint.

Aetna, in reporting its third-quarter results, said many people thought 2014 would “spell the death of our industry.” But, the company said, it is having “a very good year,” thanks in part to “excellent performance in our government business, which now represents more than 40 percent of our health premiums.”

Insurers and the administration still have many disagreements, but open conflicts are rare.

“With all the politics of the Affordable Care Act, people don’t realize how much the industry has benefited, and will continue to benefit, from the law,” said Jay Angoff, the Obama administration’s top insurance regulator from 2010 through 2012.

One insurer, Humana, derives about 65 percent of its revenue from its Medicare Advantage plans. Enrollment in these plans climbed 17.5 percent, to 2.9 million, in the year that ended Sept. 30, the company said.

At UnitedHealth Group, Medicaid and Medicare Advantage together are expected to provide more than $60 billion in revenue, or slightly less than half of the company’s total, this year. United expects to participate in insurance exchanges in 23 states next year, up from four this year.

“The government, as a benefit sponsor, has been increasingly relying on private sector programs,” United said in a document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. “We expect this trend to continue.”

In another sign of the close relationship, the administration has recruited experts from the industry to provide operational expertise. Eight months after the unit of UnitedHealth Group, called Optum, helped repair HealthCare.gov, the administration hired a top Optum executive, Andrew M. Slavitt, as the No. 2 official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The administration waived conflict-of-interest rules so Mr. Slavitt could participate in decisions affecting UnitedHealth and Optum.

Now, as millions of Americans shop for insurance, federal officials are eager to collaborate with an industry they once demonized.

“The relationship between the marketplace and insurers is really critical to a successful program,” said Ben Walker, director of open enrollment for the federal exchange. “Without that, we don’t have any coverage.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us...to-allies.html
 
I thought big bad insurers were big and bad and that's why ACA is so critical to the good old US of A?

Well Schneller, here's another beaut on the lies of Obamacare

Insurers 'will strenuously resist Republican efforts to dismantle' Obamacare



Quote:

Remember how much President Obama and the Democrats portrayed Obamacare as a broadside to the special interests, especially the health insurers?

Nancy Pelosi said of the insurance companies, "They are the villains in this." Obama pitched the bill as an improvement on a system that "works well for the insurance industry, but it doesn't always work well for you."

This sort of talk happened because the White House figured out this was a way to sell the bill to the public. The Washington Post reported at the time:

"The message is no accident, as the president's chief pollster made clear in a rare public speech last month. Joel Benenson told the Economic Club of Canada that extensive polling revealed to the White House what many there had guessed: People hate insurance companies."

As is typical of Obamacare, the language used to pitch the law has not proven true in fact.

"ince the Affordable Care Act was enacted in 2010, the relationship between the Obama administration and insurers has evolved into a powerful, mutually beneficial partnership," writes Robert Pear at the New York Times, "that has been a boon to the nation’s largest private health plans and led to a profitable surge in their Medicaid enrollment."

The Times article is well-reported and thorough. Here's a good nugget:

"In 2010, as Democrats attacked the insurance industry for what they said were its high prices and discriminatory practices, no company was more of a target than WellPoint, which had sought rate increases of up to 39 percent in California. But WellPoint, which operates Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans in a number of states, is now prospering."

This dovetails with what I've been seeing for years. It was the health industry that has pushed states to expand Medicaid and build Obamacare exchanges — a loss for taxpayers. And here's an example that shows how the gains made by Obama and the insurers is a loss for patients: Obamacare's regulations create a moat around the existing insurers and protect them from competition.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/in...rticle/2556282
 
When was the last time you paid for your healthcare Mike? All of it. Be an example, go private, show us all how we should live in a socialist filthy pinko communist lefty hippy haven.
 
I think republicans are in the pocket of private healthcare insurance companies. That or they are so hell-bent ideologically opposed and politically polarized that they would criticize and vote down any attempt by a democratic president to implement a socially responsible program on the back of a progressive income tax, regardless if it would be beneficial or not.

I ask you again Mike, if republican style low taxes government is the road to riches, why are republican governed states among the poorest and least educated in the USA? It's a lie that poorer people buy into that lower taxes is beneficial to them when in fact they would benefit the most from government services and programs that are funded by taxes (which are paid to a lesser degree by their lower income demographic group).

It's like many of the Ford supporters in Toronto that voted for both brothers who consistently voted against funding or increasing funding for sevices and programs that would have benefitted them. Seems like they can't see past the promise of low taxes.
 
When was the last time you paid for your healthcare Mike? All of it. Be an example, go private, show us all how we should live in a socialist filthy pinko communist lefty hippy haven.
This Mike has.

I lived in Indonesia for 3.5 years without any health coverage.

I paid for every health service I needed, and it was cheap, efficient, and more advanced than what I was offered in Canada at the time.
 
This Mike has.

I lived in Indonesia for 3.5 years without any health coverage.

I paid for every health service I needed, and it was cheap, efficient, and more advanced than what I was offered in Canada at the time.

But it's just blind luck that you did not develop a medical condition that didn't exceed your ability to pay for. Blind luck.
 
Seems otherworldly and at best massively counter intuitive surely not repeatable in the western hemisphere.
 
But it's just blind luck that you did not develop a medical condition that didn't exceed your ability to pay for. Blind luck.

May be, but there is a reason why many people here return to South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, India, etc, if they have something they want looked at immediately: much shorter or no wait times, and much more affordable than American medicine.
 
Seems otherworldly and at best massively counter intuitive surely not repeatable in the western hemisphere.

Is it because organ transplant supply is limitless there?
 
May be, but there is a reason why many people here return to South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, India, etc, if they have something they want looked at immediately: much shorter or no wait times, and much more affordable than American medicine.

For minor stuff. But develop cancer are require a legitimate organ transplant, your income is going to have to be very healthy to afford that. How about if you were born with a mental or physical disability that prevented you from getting a great paying job?

It's like planning to win a lottery in order to pay for your retirement. Blind luck.
 
For minor stuff. But develop cancer are require a legitimate organ transplant, your income is going to have to be very healthy to afford that. How about if you were born with a mental or physical disability that prevented you from getting a great paying job?

It's like planning to win a lottery in order to pay for your retirement. Blind luck.

That may be true, and yes, the poor get the short end of the stick when health care is 100% private.

JC100 asked if Mike had gone 100% private without health insurance, and I answered his question with a positive.

I am not entirely pleased with Canada's system, as the wait times are way too long, and even with minor issues I've seen many doctors who seemed more interested in getting my health card number so they can bill OHIP rather than actually solve any problem.

Saying that, I do appreciate what we have compared to the Americans. I have met many Yanks who pay more than I pay in income tax for their health insurance, and my income is not very low, so paying what I pay which not only covers health insurance plus all of the other government nonsense is a deal in comparison to the Yanks... however, there are better models than the Yankee one out there.
 
The standard of care you get in socialised healthcare countries seems pretty good to me, this is my third such country. Wait times are a side product of a successful system unfortunately and that's one reason why people take to medical tourism to get treated faster, but not necessarily any better.

Look where life expectancy ratings are on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy (check Indonesia out :) )
 
That may be true, and yes, the poor get the short end of the stick when health care is 100% private.

JC100 asked if Mike had gone 100% private without health insurance, and I answered his question with a positive.

I am not entirely pleased with Canada's system, as the wait times are way too long, and even with minor issues I've seen many doctors who seemed more interested in getting my health card number so they can bill OHIP rather than actually solve any problem.

Saying that, I do appreciate what we have compared to the Americans. I have met many Yanks who pay more than I pay in income tax for their health insurance, and my income is not very low, so paying what I pay which not only covers health insurance plus all of the other government nonsense is a deal in comparison to the Yanks... however, there are better models than the Yankee one out there.

I agree. Also not happy with wait times.
 
Republicans have done sooo much better for the USA (Sarcasm) We all forget that in 2008 (at the end of the second term of Bush) that country was in really bad shape. Stock market was below 7, unemployment was at over 10% if i recall correctly. republicans are the most dirty, sold out pigs in this continent.
 
I am not entirely pleased with Canada's system, as the wait times are way too long, and even with minor issues I've seen many doctors who seemed more interested in getting my health card number so they can bill OHIP rather than actually solve any problem.

I hate to state the obvious, but the normally approved health care as we know it is not designed to solve your problem (barring accidental acute care). It's designed to get you hooked, usually on prescription drugs, or services and keep you there. The best doctor is the one you are able to stay away from. Only you can control that ....

The health care system we have is a good service and great deal fo Ontario's residents, but it doesn't encourage people to get their house and body in order so to speak ... everyone rather goes to their family doctor or ER and takes a pill or two a day. The way it goes right now, the system at some point will go bankrupt ... At current pace, the health care costs will eat 80% of Ontario's annual budget by 2030!!!!! Be prepared to pay soon a lot more ...
 
The standard of care you get in socialised healthcare countries seems pretty good to me, this is my third such country. Wait times are a side product of a successful system unfortunately and that's one reason why people take to medical tourism to get treated faster, but not necessarily any better.

Look where life expectancy ratings are on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy (check Indonesia out :) )
The thing about private service is there are different levels of service depending on what you want to spend.

In Indonesian terms I was rich, so I went to the best clinic with in house lab and pharmacy.

Any sort of minor ailment at that clinic, usually 30 minutes to an hour for consultation, samples, lab work, diagnosis, and assigned treatment. $100 or two later and you're on your way.
 
The thing about private service is there are different levels of service depending on what you want to spend.

In Indonesian terms I was rich, so I went to the best clinic with in house lab and pharmacy.

Any sort of minor ailment at that clinic, usually 30 minutes to an hour for consultation, samples, lab work, diagnosis, and assigned treatment. $100 or two later and you're on your way.

Life is usually pretty easy when you're rich. It's the rich that are happy with private health care. Only problem is, most folks aren't rich.

As I've said before, I can't understand the thinking of the poor/disadvantaged in their support of a style of governance that fails to consider them.
 
I think republicans are in the pocket of private healthcare insurance companies. That or they are so hell-bent ideologically opposed and politically polarized that they would criticize and vote down any attempt by a democratic president to implement a socially responsible program on the back of a progressive income tax, regardless if it would be beneficial or not.

Forget the Pubs, have you been in any way watching what you're beloved Obama continues to do to the once great US of A????

I ask you again Mike, if republican style low taxes government is the road to riches, why are republican governed states among the poorest and least educated in the USA? It's a lie that poorer people buy into that lower taxes is beneficial to them when in fact they would benefit the most from government services and programs that are funded by taxes (which are paid to a lesser degree by their lower income demographic group).

Let's have Forbes chime in on your fallacy:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhen...-the-10-poorest-u-s-states-really-republican/


Or how about marketwatch:

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capito...overnors-boast-highest-economic-growth-rates/


"The Facts of Life are Conservative". Just because you Libs think it's okay to take money from the rich and give it to the poor it doesn't mean it's sustainable forever.
 
^^not that I want to debate politics with you because I'd rather talk to the wall but do you think good old Bush was better? He dug a nice hole before leaving office and was one of the biggest fuckin idiots to ever grace politics. Just curious on your opinion of him since you seem to think Obama made the usa what it is today.
 

Back
Top Bottom