Posted on 02/06/2016 5:26:08 AM PST by Kaslin
When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, was enacted, Americans were promised a healthcare system in which insurance companies would be held accountable and patients would have access to affordable care. Six years later, however, the reality has proven to be quite different-a plan that was supposed to mend our nation's fractured healthcare system has driven up healthcare costs, decreased market competition, and ultimately harmed patients.
Last week, UnitedHealth--the nation's largest health insurer--announced that it expects to lose more than $500 million through plans they offered under the ACA in 2016. Just yesterday, Anthem came out with disappointing fourth quarter earnings as well, citing Obamacare plans. Despite an increase in enrollment, in November 2015 UnitedHealth officials were in talks of pulling out of the ACA exchanges in 2017, citing losses of over $425 million. As a result, UnitedHealth and other large insurers are narrowing networks and raising premiums to cut costs, gaining profits for themselves while hurting consumers.
Sadly, this is just one example of how Obamacare's burdensome regulations have resulted in disastrous consequences. Insurers, who are reporting millions in losses from their ACA plans, are merging to spread fixed costs over larger pools of patients. Between the mergers and the numerous state co-op failures (12 out of the 23 established under the ACA have shut down), competition in the health insurance marketplace has plummeted and costs for insurance continues to rise. In 2015, the average deductible for single coverage for the most common ACA plan (a silver plan) was $2,927 and $6,010 to cover a family. This year, premiums are projected to increase further and insurance companies are not making things easier on patients.
Consumers might see health insurance companies extending "proactive measures" to make up for their financial losses from the ACA exchanges, but these proactive strategies for insurers mean the reverse for patients and consumers. Simply put, insurance companies are narrowing their networks and increasing costs to discourage consumers to sign up for their plans. The intent of Obamacare was to hold insurance companies accountable, but it's done the opposite by allowing insurers to take advantage of this unworkable legislation and increase their profits at the expense of affordable care for patients.
With 42.3 million and 37.5 million members, respectively, UnitedHealth and Anthem's lowered earnings forecast pose a threat to the availability of affordable health plans. As Humana and Cigna, two other mega insurers, plan to release their earnings in early February, consumers should be prepared to start once again shopping around for their health insurance. On top of high out of pocket costs, increasing deductibles, and narrower networks, the ACA has handcuffed patients and has made health insurance simply unaffordable for American families.
Obamacare promised to make insurance affordable for all Americans, but instead the government intervention encouraged insurers to offer poor quality plans and allowed them to impose even higher costs on patients. Patients today are even more vulnerable than they were before. With the 2016 election in full swing, it's time to start thinking about how to repair the damage the insurance industry and misguided policies of the ACA have inflicted on consumers and ensure the health and wellbeing of American citizens in the future.
Working as intended.
OOPS:
“ patients would have access to affordable”, high quality “care”.
There...fixed it....every dumble uses the term “high quality” in their obeisance to zerocare. ibid other instances.
[spit]
The bill is doing exactly what the dumbles want it to do: ruin the system so they can offer single payer as the way out....feel the bern yet?[I do...its like yesterday’s mexican food] he is already touting it.
just get rid of it root and branch...no we do not have to have a plan to replace it.
The intent of Obamacare was to hold insurance companies accountable, but it's done the opposite by allowing insurers to take advantage of this unworkable legislation and increase their profits at the expense of affordable care for patients.
Seems the author does not know which way he is going with this article.
First he indicates that ACA is a failure for the insurance companies then later he says that insurance companies are using ACA to rape consumers.
Personally I don't see why insurance companies would be getting out of the ObamaCare exchanges if they were making a killing from the law.
Sure insurance companies are going to raise prices and cut money losing products to maintain profits and reduce cost when they are bleeding red ink.
Why suggest that they doing something immoral when they are raising prices when they are losing money and who else are they going to raise prices on other than patients? Patients are the customers.
The law drives what the insurance companies do. Attack those that pushed the ACA monster through congress not those that must now try to make a profit under it.
I guess attacking insurance companies is genetically programed in to those that write opinion pieces.
Seems the author does not know which way he is going with this article.
First he indicates that ACA is a failure for the insurance companies then later he says that insurance companies are using ACA to rape consumers.
It’s bad now, Trump will take it further left.
Cruz has been consistent in his opposition to the ACA, he has not flip flopped on it, and has never held the leftist position on it.
Trump is not shy about what he plans to do about US healthcare.
Doctors, Hospitals, insurers, IT vendors, State Health Departments are all accountable, but not to the patients.
They are accountable to the CMS bureaucratic rules. Take IT, for example. IT is a rapidly changing field. CMS takes many years to develop its bureaucratic rules. These rules are developed by people with peripheral knowledge of client-server debacle in the early 90s and use that as their starting point in telling IT how it must develop new Healthcare systems.
Or take Doctors and Hospitals. CMS bureaucracy is not prepared to handle something “new” like Ebola or Zika. And the bureaucracy has a very antiquated view of Cancer.
Until the patient controls the healthcare money, the patient will not be the customer that others cater to.
“government intervention encouraged insurers to offer poor quality plans and allowed them to impose even higher costs “
Ah, yes. The utopia of socialism.
Doctors, Hospitals, insurers, IT vendors, State Health Departments are all accountable, but not to the patients.
They are accountable to the CMS bureaucratic rules. Take IT, for example. IT is a rapidly changing field. CMS takes many years to develop its bureaucratic rules. These rules are developed by people with peripheral knowledge of client-server debacle in the early 90s and use that as their starting point in telling IT how it must develop new Healthcare systems.
Or take Doctors and Hospitals. CMS bureaucracy is not prepared to handle something “new” like Ebola or Zika. And the bureaucracy has a very antiquated view of Cancer.
Until the patient controls the healthcare money, the patient will not be the customer that others cater to.
I believe as more and more people are removed from the tax base (between the high unemployment and McJobs), opposition to government healthcare will decrease; individuals no longer see themselves as paying for it, and just assume someone else will. The ghetto welfare mentality has spread widely throughout the population (hence Obama’s two election victories), and phrases like “personal responsibility” and “smaller government” are painted as radical for a population increasingly dependent on government for everyday matters.
That’s funny; I read it as saying all the business practices they can implement this year, including higher rates and deductibles, are not expected to keep them from losing megabucks and likely to drop out altogether next year. I thought the tone regarding insurance companies was rather neutral, considering they , or so it has been reported, signed on with Obama to push the legislation through.
——gaining profits for themselves while hurting consumers——
Bottom line..... Ken is antibusiness, socialist or communist
How did he get to write for TownHall?
Off with his head!
IIRC, insurance companies were big supporters of ObamaCare because they thought they would bring in millions of involuntary customers through whom they could make money (as companies are designed to operate); what they apparently didn’t anticipate was just how unprofitable these new customers would be. While some people are opting out, others (with pre-existing conditions or at high risk) are more than happy to have their bills paid by “someone else”...
And you are 
Exactly
Hey, he said it twice.
I am a real live businessman, unlike most here who are chained to salaried jobs
Businesses are for profits, not for consumers
"patients would have access to unaffordable", high quality "care".
Yup.
Well neutral in a way or schizophrenic (of two minds).
I see it as the insurance companies are invited by the Democrats help write this thing and get it through or we write it and get it through without you.
One way you can influence the outcome the other you don't which way would you choose. Considering the makeup of congress and the executive at that time they didn't have much of a choice.
Of course there was AARP who was a true believer and one of the few that seems to be quite happy with the outcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.