I'm not sure that was warranted. If you recall, the insurance companies originally fought against Obamacare. They argued that the business model wouldn't work under Obamacare. Several changes were made to appease the insurance companies. The democrats argued to the insurance companies that they wouldn't be hurt because they would get so much more revenue since EVERYBODY HAD to purchase the minimum plans. Dems convinced the insurance companies that as long as they were part of the exchanges, the pool of customers would be much larger.
As I understand it, the insurance companies were woo'd by the prospect of having higher premium revenues to offset the multitude of losses. It hasn't panned out however. Only those that NEED insurance will be seeking this entitlement. Those are the high risk folks that will be subsidized by the government. Indeed, the biggest insurance companies did help with the final designs of Obamacare. They struck a deal with the devil and most are now regretting it. The rest are hoping for the best. They are all now committed. The rates are high because the promises were bogus and haven't panned out. They now either have to make money or go out of business. The latter was more closely aligned with what Obama hoped.
Re insurance company regret: I just want to add to the discussion that the regret may only be a tinge of worry at this point. Some insurer stocks (Humana (HUM), Wellpoint (WLP), United Health (UNH), Aetna (AET), and Cigna (CI) are pretty close to their all-time highs.
“As I understand it, the insurance companies were woo’d by the prospect of having higher premium revenues to offset the multitude of losses. It hasn’t panned out however. Only those that NEED insurance will be seeking this entitlement.
(and)
Those are the high risk folks that will be subsidized by the government.
(and)
Indeed, the biggest insurance companies did help with the final designs of Obamacare.
(and)
They are all now committed.
(and)
The rates are high because the promises were bogus and haven’t panned out. “
Wow, do have any understanding of this, math or otherwise. When a policy has to have everything such as maternity for all, and people have to be accepted with pre-existing issues, do you have any conceptual idea what this does to the costs spread over the pool? I guess you believe that premiums - overseen by 50 separate agencies, i.e., per set and examined state - are set arbitrarily just to see how much profit can be made.
Govt. is not subsidizing any high risk, where do you come up with that. They subsidize low income. And consider this basic economic fact - You will get more of anything you subsidize. The US will be poorer overall, since it is again subsidizing failure and poverty.
Yes, the insurance co.’s are committed to following the laws of 50 different states and hoping to stay in business. And my conjecture at the start of this thread is proven, supposed conservatives will be glad to join in the class warfare when it suits them and gives them some meagar short-term govt. cheese to eat. You will soon be wailing for single-payer along with the idiots at HuffPo.