Aetna fully exits Obamacare exchanges with pull-out in two states

[Erick the Read]

Source: Reuters

Wed May 10, 2017 | 6:49pm EDT
By Deena Beasley

Health insurer Aetna Inc (AET.N) said on Wednesday it will exit the 2018 Obamacare individual insurance market in Delaware and Nebraska - the two remaining states where it offered the plans.

Aetna had already said it would exit the individual commercial market in Virginia and Iowa, after pulling out of several other states last year.

Aetna has now "completely exited the exchanges," the company said in an emailed statement.

Insurers Humana Inc (HUM.N) and UnitedHealth Group Inc (UNH.N) have also pulled out of most of the government subsidized individual health insurance market.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-aetna-obamacare-idUSKBN1862XK?il=0

---

The sharks have begun their feeding-frenzy. Or, more accurately, their greeding-frenzy.

[Matthew28]

1. Greed is truly the most screwed up about humanity

It is truly sad.

[Snackshack]

30. Yes it is.

It will be the reason our species eventually goes extinct. Greed is destroying the biosphere that we and everything else on this planet need in order to live.

I used to think the line in The Matrix where agent Smith says that "Humans on this planet are a cancer" was a pretty harsh line but I could not agree more. Cancer is an insidious organism that ensures it extinction because it ravages and kills its host...which is exactly what we are doing for nothing more than an increased quarterly profit margin.

[CONN]

2. Time for single payer health care

(ie expanded medicare for all)

[still_one]

16. Isn't going to happen unless Democrats regain control

[Freethinker65]

3. They need to help the GOP get something passed in their favor ASAP

Threats to withdraw subsidies by Trump and uncertainty are having the desired effect. Say goodbye to affordable comprehensive health insurance. Just as the republicans planned.

[dbackjon]

4. Just make any physician, hospital, etc that takes any government money

Ineligible to take Aetna, Humana, United, etc.

[MichMan]

7. I have Aetna through my employer

Why would you want to refuse me care just because my employer has contracted with Aetna? Very mean spirited towards people just because you want to penalize their insurance carrier

[dbackjon]

11. Your company would switch really fast

Once the execs figured out they couldn't see anyone.



And then Aetna would cave.


But you have your coverage, so don't worry about anyone else, right?

[okieinpain]

58. and there you have the dilemma n/t.

[bluestarone]

5. I think

this is the plan of these assholes that if we can't do it with congress then well have all the insurance co. drop out!! and self destruct the Obama care plan

[Hortensis]

63. Umhm. Congress IS pushing companies to leave by adopting

policies that cut their potential profits.

[Thor_MN]

6. Just how fucking greedy do you have to be to turn away a guaranteed profit?

It's not "we can't be profitable in this market", it's "we can't can't extract the profits we want to."

[NobodyHere]

8. Where did you see they were making a profit from exchanges?

The articles states they were taking a loss.

[Thor_MN]

12. Because the whole thing is set up to guarantee a profit for the insurance comanies.

It's designed to prevent them from generating an excessive profit, a certain percentage of the money collected has to be spent on benefits.

They claim losses, on dubious grounds, for shielding other profits. Losing money in the healthcare insurance market would be like a casino losing money. We haven't had any "natural disasters" like a tornado/hurricane outbreak could sink a home insurance company.

[NobodyHere]

14. Do you have any links?

[Thor_MN]

17. No, I'm able to read.

If you want to argue, prove that Aetna actually suffered a real loss.

[NobodyHere]

21. According to the article

Aetna projected around $225 million in losses from its exchange plan businesses this year following a loss of $700 million for 2014 through 2016.

[Thor_MN]

27. Then they are either creative at accounting or inept at insurance.

[former9thward]

31. Then we need need your insurance company to show them how it is done.

Oh wait ....

[Thor_MN]

45. Where's your proof they lost money?

Oh wait...

When insurance companies are able to take 20 cents of every dollar and do whatever the hell they want with it, that's a pretty good gig. Hell, casinos thrive on paying out much more than 80%.

[former9thward]

49. Why are insurnance companies pulling out of the state exchanges?

Because they don't want that "pretty good gig"?

[Thor_MN]

55. Should be pretty obvious to a smart guy like you that I am not an insurance company

Or you could have, I don't know, read what I said.

Some people...

[progree]

15. Who told you this?

[cstanleytech]

33. Aetna got caught lying once already about losing money on the exchanges

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/24/investing/aetna-obamacare-humana-merger/

[Hortensis]

64. Nobody there, they were guaranteed the right to take

20% off the top of all premium dollars paid, their profits what would be left after their administrative costs were met. In addition, for the first years, because this market was new territory with good data to base business decisions on, the ACA also contracted to meet unexpectedly high costs/low profits with subsidies to the companies.

Other rules were designed to help companies be profitable and successful in these federal and state healthcare markets.

The Republicans in congress have been doing their best, before this election and after, to drive companies out by lowering profits and increasing headaches and uncertainty (business doesn't like uncertainty, and it's huge right now.

[progree]

70. Nope the 20% is not a guarantee, rather it is a MAXIMUM margin they are allowed.

Not a minimum, and not a guarantee. If their costs exceed their revenues, they are SOL.

Please see #13.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1771538

[progree]

13. There is no guaranteed profit in the ACA - that's one of the biggest myths out there

Last edited Sun May 14, 2017, 06:10 PM - Edit history (3)

It's often confused with the 80/20 rule in the ACA -- some people think it means they are guaranteed 20% profits. It is nothing of the sort

The 80/20 Rule generally requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% of the money they take in from premiums on health care costs and quality improvement activities. The other 20% can go to administrative, overhead, and marketing costs.

The 80/20 rule is sometimes known as Medical Loss Ratio, or MLR. If an insurance company uses 80 cents out of every premium dollar to pay for your medical claims and activities that improve the quality of care, the company has a Medical Loss Ratio of 80%.

Insurance companies selling to large groups (usually more than 50 employees) must spend at least 85% of premiums on care and quality improvement.

If your insurance company doesn’t meet these requirements, you’ll get a rebate on part of the premium that you paid.

More: https://www.healthcare.gov/health-care-law-protections/rate-review/

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes several provisions that change the way private health insurance is regulated in an effort to provide better value to consumers and increase transparency. One such provision – the Medical Loss Ratio (or MLR) requirement – limits the portion of premium dollars health insurers may spend on administration, marketing, and profits. Under health care reform, health insurers must publicly report the portion of premium dollars spent on health care and quality improvement and other activities in each state they operate. Insurers failing to meet the applicable MLR standard must pay rebates to consumers beginning in 2012.

More: http://kff.org/health-reform/fact-sheet/explaining-health-care-reform-medical-loss-ratio-mlr/

The 20% is a MAXIMUM amount they can use for activities other than paying benefits and quality improvment activities. It is NOT a minimum, and it is NOT a guarantee.

[Hoyt]

34. It's the unknown risk, whether government is going to pay subsidies and funds for

taking on sick people vs. healthy with no mandate. GOPers have killed ACA.

[metalbot]

56. There are definitely not guarantees of profit on the exchanges

In fact, the opposite is more likely to be true, because people who are more sick are more likely to opt to shop on the exchanges rather than not worrying about health insurance. That skews the demographics relative to a large group system where insurance is at least partially provided by employers.

[Thor_MN]

57. They are allowed to do whatever they want with 20 cents of each dollar collected.

They must spend 80% on benefits.

Note that casinos have payouts more like 90%. If you can't make a profit while extracting twice what casinos do...

[progree]

59. Doesn't help much if the insurance co is losing money in the ACA exchanges --

Last edited Thu May 11, 2017, 08:46 PM - Edit history (2)

They are allowed to do whatever they want with 20 cents of each dollar collected.
They must spend 80% on benefits.

Note that casinos have payouts more like 90%. If you can't make a profit while extracting twice what casinos do...

So if a company has revenues of $800 million on the ACA exchanges and pays out $900 million in benefit claims, what good does it do if they get to "do whatever they want" with 20%*800 million = $160 million -- $160 million that isn't there?

Somehow, you have the notion that the 20% is some guaranteed minimum margin. It is not. It is a MAXIMUM that they can spend on non-benefits like administration, overhead, and profits, if any. A MAXIMUM, *NOT* a minimum. And not a guarantee of anything. Please read and study #13.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1771538

[metalbot]

62. Yes, but casinos can manage the odds

The health insurance companies can't.

Here's roughly what happens on the exchanges:

1. Exchanges are more biased towards sicker patients, because there were many sick people who were uninsurable before the exchanges, and others who simply couldn't afford it without subsidies. This is a very different risk pool from people who work at a large company who in many cases have years of continuous coverage and known expenses.

2. The logical way for insurance companies to make money on these exchanges that are biased with more sick patients is to charge more money. However, as they charge more money, some more health patients will drop their insurance, further skewing the balance of patients towards the sick and more expensive. So the plan then charges more, and more healthy people drop, and the pool gets sicker. Rinse and repeat.

3. The subsidies aren't unlimited, so healthy poor would be the first to drop from the exchanges.


To be fair, if insurance was legitimately mandatory, then given enough time, the exchanges would work, because we'd effectively have universal healthcare and we'd balance out the cost of the sick. But if that's our approach, we should probably just have real universal healthcare.

[Adrahil]

60. Insurers are not getting the proper risk subsidies.

Congress is withholding the risk corridor payments, meaning that high risk patients can only be covered by premiums with standard premium subsidies.

This is one I can't blame on the insurance companies.

[tbbnf]

9. Thank little Marco

Rubio who sponsored a bill that pulled the subsidies to the Insurance companies that was supposed to be for bridging the gap between when new people signed up and to the point where there where going to be a wide enough variety and quantity of insured people to make the system work i.e. enough 'healthy' people to offset the really sick. I think it was supposed to last 3-4 years. That happened last summer and soon after is when a number of insurance companies began to bail out of the plans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-marco-rubio-is-quietly-killing-obamacare/2015/12/14/c706849a-a275-11e5-b53d-972e2751f433_story.html?utm_term=.a5bbf052ef9e

[CountAllVotes]

10. Welcome to the Democratic Underground tbbnf

and thanks for sharing this link!

[tbbnf]

18. Why was the Lamestream media not all over it and Thanks CountAllTheVotes

Why the mainstream media was not all over this bill is surprising. Especially since Obamacare is really the conservative Heritage Foundation solution that the corporate media usually supports...Shows you how far right or wrong we have gone......

[CountAllVotes]

22. Precedent setting

Perhaps more will follow.

With the way things are now, nothing will change right away.

If they want out, they can leave.

Good riddance is what I say.

For those insured by them under Obamacare, they'll have to switch to another plan it seems.

Sounds like a hassle but could be for the best as if they don't want your business you won't get very good service I'd suspect.

This is the case with many of these plans out there and yes, that includes Medicare.

[Hortensis]

65. Exactly to both posts, Tbbnf. Welcome to DU.

[Honeycombe8]

36. But ... the subsidies to the ins. cos. was not in the ACA.

Obama ADDED that (by EO?) when ins. cos. started experiencing losses from there being so many claims vs healthy people.

It was always intended to be a temporary fix, or so Obama thought. He thought it was a beginning growing pain that would iron itself out in time. But it got worse.

I think Obama may have extended it. But as I recall, it was never to be permanent.

[progree]

41. The premium subsidies and the cost sharing subsidies have always been there

and in the law from the very beginning.

What the Republicans sabotaged was the "risk corridors" thing where the federal government helped out insurance companies that were losing money on the exchanges.

Please see post 9 in this thread: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1771531

[Honeycombe8]

48. That's what I'm referring to. The subsidies TO THE INS. COS. to compensate for their losses.

Not the premium subsidies.

Which is what this thread is about...and the thread calls them "subsidies," which confusing (but that's what they are, really). Anyway, they were not in the ACA and were added by Obama after the start of the policies, w/o a vote by Congress, to compensate ins. cos. for the unforeseen losses. They were always intended to be temporary, to help until the ACA got settled and well underway.

The problem is that once the plan got underway, the losses didn't decrease; they increased. This was unforeseen and part of the tweaking that needs to be done (if we were to tweak).

[Hortensis]

66. No, they were written in from the beginning. The amounts

and need for were adjusted as experience in the markets provided the necessary information.

Remember, the ACA was structured with input from not just Democrats, but the medical provider, pharmaceutical, insurance, and medical device industries, and also Republicans, who inserted over 200 amendments. It was designed to ensure it would work for everyone from the beginning.

The Republicans acted in bad faith, but all the others worked together in good faith to create a system that would work for them.

And it very much included promised protection against unexpected losses in the early years due to actuaries and others having inadequate data to work with.

[Honeycombe8]

67. Nope. This was something Obama did in 2014. Here's the authority. I remember it well.

I get my insurance on the individual market, so I have followed Obamacare very closely, since I'm immediately and directly affected by many of the laws and changes.

The Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.

The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall's congressional elections.

5/14/2014, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-insurance-bailout-20140521-story.html

I remember Obama doing this, and recall him grappling with the losses of the ins. cos. before he decided what to do about it, if anything. Anti-Obamacare people called this a bailout. To Obama, this was supposed to be temporary to help ins. cos. as the Obamacare system (the individual market) got established. The ins. cos. had guessed at initial premiums, since they had no data to go by. Then it turned out that a lot more claims were being turned in that had been assumed.

Obama decided on the subsidies/bailout, to keep ins. cos. from withdrawing before the plan even got established.

[Hortensis]

68. I remember that. But it was an expansion or

implementation of the basic idea, it being understood from before the roll-out that insurance companies might not have the data needed to reliably set prices.

I also remember the eager howling from opponents about welfare for insurance companies. It may be that it was not formally written in full form into the initial law in order to give less ammunition.

[Honeycombe8]

69. Possibly. OR it had to be implemented (it wasn't automatic, or understood to apply in this way).

New regulations had to be passed to USE the law in this way. I remember the outcry from Republicans, seeing Obama speak on TV about it, and me being relieved, since it would directly affect ME (I bought an individual policy thru the Exchange).

There are several "bailout" programs for the ins. cos. This particular one was NEW, not automatic, and new regs had to be passed for this particular program to apply in this way.

It was temporary. They thought that things would get ironed out after several years of Obamacare's individual market. But things got worse, actually.

What happened was this, I think.

Year 1: Ins. cos. priced plans higher than 2013, but no one knew exactly what kind of claims would be turned in. No data. At year's end, it's apparent that millions of very sick people flooded the individual market, more than had been anticipated. (Since they had been uninsured, no one knew they were that sick.)

United Health care did not enter OBAMACARE in year 1, sitting out a year to see how things shaped up.

There is talk of insurers leaving the program after the 1st year. Enter Obama: He comes up with a reimbursement plan of sorts to aid the ins. cos. temporarily, while the program gets off the ground.

Year 2: Premiums are raised a lot. That, with bailouts, hopefully will ensure insurers staying with the plan. BUT ironically, because of the much higher premiums, HEALTHY PEOPLE START DROPPING OUT. It's not worth it to them to pay those rates, since they are HEALTHY and won't use the policies much. More people join the exchanges....and they are SICK. Thus, at year's end, there are even MORE sick people than before, and fewer HEALTHY people.

This in turn requires the ins. cos. to raise their rates even MORE for year 3, thus ensuring that even MORE healthy people will drop out. It's a Catch-22.

Year 3: Premiums are again raised a LOT. This repeats the situation from the prior year: more sick people enroll, while fewer healthy people participate because of the high premiums.

(There are several programs to pay ins. cos. for losses...one for high risk pool people, one for exchanges individual market, one for group/union policies, and a program where ins. cos. must share their profits & losses with the other ins. cos.....things like that. Some parts were in the regs in the beginning, one was added or revised to implement it in 2014.)

This health care stuff is complicated! Who knew???

[Hortensis]

71. Lol. Sounds likely. They waited to see if it would be needed,

expecting it would but knowing it would be twisted, and when they did, he did.

Did you read that Obama's White House was famous among journalists for having no important leaks over their 8 years and no significant investigations or indictments? A viciously aggressive Republican Party was never able to pin anything on them. We had a president whose handshake was his word, not an attempt to dislocate a shoulder.

Oh, well.

[Honeycombe8]

72. No, I didn't. I am searing that into my brain, so I can remind my Republican family....

if an Obama insult spurts out of their mouths.

They already tried to give me that crap about the U N (or NATO?) planning on sending in troops to kill Americans in the streets (I kid you not...they said that), round up the rest of 'em. I told them the ONLY government or organization that I knew of that was speaking of rounding up people was Trump sending in the National Guard to round up illegal immigrants.

[subterranean]

19. At this point, I can't really blame them for pulling out.

The Republicans have created so much uncertainty about the future of the ACA, it's difficult for insurance companies to accurately price their plans. Will the exchanges still exist next year? Will the subsidies be eliminated? Will the mandate be repealed? Who the hell knows? I won't be surprised if more companies announce they're pulling out.

[Blue Idaho]

20. Easy enough - boycott Aetna...

No reason to do any business with them.

[mwooldri]

24. Hard to do if you're on an employer plan.

If you work for a large enough employer who self-insures and offers a "choice" then it's easy enough at enrollment time to choose another option. It's also easy if you're a provider - just don't be on the Aetna panel. But if you work for a large employer who offers only Aetna and you have no other real choice for coverage, then you're stuck with Aetna. You can't go to the exchanges (well you could... if there are any insurers left but you'd get no subsidy since you have employer plan, plus the subsidy would be done away with, and then would you get the tax credit under AHCA?)...

Boycotting a specific health insurance company isn't easy.

[Blue Idaho]

42. True - but Aetna is not just a health insurance company

They also offer at least life insurance as well. They, or their subsidiaries, may also compete in other fields as well. I could be wrong, but there still may be a way to express at least consumer disapproval of their corporate decisions.

[Honeycombe8]

37. Aetna's expensive, from what I saw on the exchange. No way I could afford Aetna. nt

[customerserviceguy]

23. This was the problem with the ACA from the beginning

It was not about providing health care, it was about appeasing the greedy-ass insurance companies to grant flawed coverage to people in lieu of actually preventing and treating adverse health conditions.

Even a President Hillary Clinton would have extreme difficulty getting enough support, even with a marginally Democratically-controlled Congress to fix this thing. It's all a matter of whether we hit the brick wall at 60 MPH or at 200 MPH.

[Bengus81]

25. So...the ACA,24 million people and subsidy checks go away for Companies like Aetna/BCBS/Humana....

And THEN they'll be happy and just tripping over themselves to do business with everyone?? Who the FUCK are they going to do business with?? Guess they can get back to the usual business of denying claims on 24M less people just for starters.

Those ASSHATS are NOT going to lower their prices that they've been getting for the last couple of years,I don't care what Drumph pitches to the moron crowd that just isn't going to happen.

[Honeycombe8]

38. I think that once a co. gets a taste of a big premium, it's not going back in time...

to smaller premiums. Or much smaller.

[Jimbo101]

26. No Surprise-"Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger" 8.17.16

Which they did.

Huffington Post

[Blue Idaho]

43. This

[turbinetree]

28. FUCK YOU AETNA, I mean really................... FUCK YOU

Your CEO makes over:


http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/aetna-makes-ceo-mark-bertolini-highest-paid-health-insurance-ceo-at-27-9m


And if your boss was in a country that provided health care like a single payer this would not be happening.

SO Again FUCK YOU AETNA.............. YOU ARE A FUCKING DEATH PANEL

[Honeycombe8]

39. It's not just Aetna. It's most ins. cos. have pulled out of various states.

United HealthCare, Aetna, Cigna, Humana.

They really did get hit with massive claims from very sick people, some of whom were getting care for free. You know how it is, when you don't have to pay for something. You tend to use it more. Not that they weren't really sick.

I'm guessing many had pricey, chronic conditions like diabetes, which is common in the U.S. now. Kids get it, too, now. Used to not be that way.

[Bengus81]

50. They are also getting FAT checks from individuals + subsidies that NEVER have a claim....

Case in point ME. I've been with BCBS before there was an ACA. My premium was just under $300 per month. NOW just five years later they get almost $850.00 (ACA + me) for what is just about the exact same policy.

How many claims have I had before ACA and after?? ZERO. So if Trumps folly passes BCBS will expect me (now retired) to pony up right at $600 per month if Trumps policy has a subsidy of 250 per month in it--good luck with that.

And of course that will just be for starters. Once again it will be like the Wild West with them jacking rates every time you open the mail.

[Honeycombe8]

52. But you see, your premium is not just for you....

It's for those who turn in high claims, as well. The money goes into a pot, out of which the ins. co. pays all claims. The younger people pay fairly low premiums, so someone else has to take up the slack, for those younger ones who have more claims than their premiums cover. And there are a lot more of those than you.

I, too, had a policy on the individual market pre-2014. In 2013 it was about $400/month. My premium is now $950/MO. (but I get a subsidy, or I couldn't buy any of them at all). The policy I have now is WORSE than I had in 2013. The network of drs. is so small as to be almost nonexistent. I couldn't find one in 2016 to take it. I haven't tried this year. I've sort of given up. (IMO, the ins. cos. are gaming the system; they provide you with coverages for different things, but not the doctors to treat you for them. Bazinga. Ins. co. wins....no claims.)

I have turned in ONE claim since 2014: One $175 bill for urgent care for a dog bite.

So the ins. cos. have gotten all that money from me/the gov for 3 1/2 years. But it went into the pot to pay for all claims, which for some are substantial. My premium is so high because of my age and not because of my claims history or health status.

If I lose that subsidy, I won't be able to buy a regular policy next year. I doubt ins. cos. will cut those exorbitant premiums, now that they've gotten a taste for them. I MIGHT be able to buy a short term policy for some coverage, or I might be able to buy a catastrophic policy just for protection against a serious injury or illness. I'll just have to see what happens.

[Bengus81]

53. My point was this non stop BS that everyone had pre-existing conditions blah,blah.....

Yeah I know about the "pot",they use the same crap to JACK homeowners insurance when you have a hailstorm 50 miles from your home,and the same with auto.

My point is I think there are a HELL of alot more healthy people using the ACA than they ever want anyone to know. But...when people can't afford insurance AGAIN think how many there will be--and all will be denied insurance.

[Honeycombe8]

54. I see. Maybe. All I know is...

that I am the only person I know who can be said to be truly healthy. Most I know have all sorts of conditions and go to the dr. regularly. Cataract surgery, diabetes, high blood pressure, back surgery, heart attack, heart trouble, bypass heart surgery, obesity, bad knee, shoulder surgery, carpal tunnel syndrome surgery, ganglion cyst removal, psoriasis, lymphoma cancer, lupus. Those are all conditions or treatments in the last few years of people I know.

I have mild osteoarthritis. I don't take medication for it. I take no medications. No high blood pressure or high cholesterol. Normal weight. I do get sinusitis once in a blue moon, but a dr isn't required for that. I get a cold every now and then. I got a 24 hr stomach virus earlier this year, but a dr isn't needed for that.

I am having trouble with a lump on my wrist. But I don't have a dr. to go to. I guess I could try calling around to see if I can find one who will take my insurance, but I'm in the middle of some life changes, so don't really have time to do that. I just hope I can get on Medicare before I get cancer. Almost everyone gets cancer sooner or later these days, it seems.

I do believe that the ins cos have been inundated with high claims. This is easily verified, since it's in their financial statements and reports. Americans are generally unhealthy, and those that have been w/o insurance for years are going to have medical conditions as a result. It also makes sense that if an ins. co. is making money selling insurance in a state, it would continue to do so.

[Trial_By_Fire]

29. Ok, if there is no one offering 'insurance' then...

...those states must go on Medicare...

Maybe that is what the plan for the ACA was all along????

[former9thward]

32. No the states don't have to do anything.

[Trial_By_Fire]

35. You missed my point...

If no one is providing 'health insurance' is a particular state, then
the people of those states would be rolled into Medicare.

Of course, I am assuming the Dems would do that if they were in control.

It would be a great thing - no insurance offering, then the USA places them on Medicare and
making Medicare for All a reality.

[progree]

40. No they wouldn't

[font color = blue]>>If no one is providing 'health insurance' is a particular state, then the people of those states would be rolled into Medicare. <<[/font]

Before the ACA, people who were uninsured and over a certain income limit (set by the state) just stayed uninsured. Why do you think suddenly they would all be allowed to join Medicare (or Medicaid)?

Medicare, BTW is for people over 65, and for the disabled of any age.

Medicaid is for the poor (some states set the threshold of eligibility at like 50% of the poverty level -- it varies by state).

Even in Medicaid expansion states under the ACA, the threshold is 138% of the poverty level -- households earning more than that are "too rich" to qualify

[PoliticAverse]

46. In Obama's original plan, there was a "pulbic option" available to everyone. n/t

[fleabiscuit]

44. But her emails!

Elections really do have consequences don’t they.

“…A report from S&P last month found that the financial situation was stabilizing for insurers on the marketplaces, absent drastic changes to the law from Washington.

Still, many insurers are contemplating premium hikes or dropping out of the marketplaces next year, pointing in part to uncertainty from the Trump administration. (emphasis mine)

Insurers are worried the administration will stop enforcing the mandate for people to get insurance, and that it will cancel key ObamaCare payments that President Trump has threatened to withhold as a bargaining chip with Democrats.”

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/332828-aetna-pulls-out-of-last-obamacare-markets

Interesting (to me) blog…
http://acasignups.net

[nikibatts]

47. Enter Buffet with a new insurance company with stock sharing by employees and the people covered.

[Jane Austin]

51. Good.

How about a public option for those states?

[workinclasszero]

61. Single payer!

Fuck Aetna! Destroy the assholes!