[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Health/Medical
See other Health/Medical Articles

Title: Taxpayers on the Hook as Obamacare Exchanges Near the Edge of Collapse
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://cnsnews.com/commentary/phil- ... e-exchanges-near-edge-collapse
Published: Aug 13, 2016
Author: Phil Kerpen
Post Date: 2016-08-13 09:35:51 by Justified
Keywords: None
Views: 8853
Comments: 96

The health insurance exchanges that are the beating heart of Obamacare are on the edge of collapse, with premiums rising sharply for ever narrower provider networks, non-profit health co-ops shuttering their doors, and even the biggest insurance companies heading for the exits amid mounting losses. Even the liberal Capitol Hill newspaper is warning of a possible “Obamacare meltdown” this fall.

Three states – Alaska, Alabama, and Wyoming – are already down to just a single insurance company, as are large parts of several other states, totaling at least 664 counties.

UnitedHealth is pulling out completely, Humana is pulling out of 88 percent of counties it was in, and last weak Aetna strongly suggested it will be exiting, too, unless it gets bribed to stay with a huge, annual infusion of direct corporate bailout payments from taxpayers.

Dealing with the wreckage will be at the top of the agenda for the new president and Congress next year, and their options will be limited – especially if, as appears likely, we will continue to have divided government. Most Democrats would prefer moving toward a totally government-run system while Republicans continue to favor repeal.

The most likely outcome, then, is the muddled middle, keeping gravely ill Obamacare on life support, with the major policy fight being over the extent to which taxpayers should be forced to provide billions in direct corporate bailout cash infusions.

Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini was pretty blatant in a recent interview with Zachary Tracer of Bloomberg.

Here’s the key part:

“Rather than transferring money among insurers, the law should be changed to subsidize insurers with government funds, Bertolini said. ‘It needs to be a non-zero sum pool in order to fix it,’ Bertolini said. Right now, insurers ‘that are less worse off pay for those that are worse off.’”

In other words: everybody is losing money, so taxpayers need to pick up the tab.

The Obama administration is already playing fast and loose with the law to shovel as many bailout bucks to insurers as they can – on top of Obamacare’s huge subsidies to lower income consumers and a penalty tax on people who don’t buy in. They shortchanged taxpayers by $3.5 billion that, contrary to law, they sent to insurance companies instead. And their legal posture in a $5 billion lawsuit to contravene a funding restriction expressly enacted by Congress to prevent a bailout via the so-called risk corridor program amount to a promise that they will somehow get them paid in the future.

Democrats will likely support legalizing these payments and authorizing even larger direct corporate bailouts on an ongoing basis as a way to keep insurance companies in the Obamacare exchanges and avoid admitting failure.

Republicans will likely be attacked as saboteurs for resisting bailout payments, but that misses the point. Direct corporate welfare to bribe companies to participate in a poorly designed program is throwing good money after bad, masking rather than fixing problems while the cost to taxpayers climbs into the stratosphere.

We won’t be able to get to a real solution until we acknowledge that Obamacare is too rigidly structured and regulated to offer products people actually want, and needs to be reformed or replaced with genuine, functioning markets that give us a much wider variety of plans with different benefit packages, provider networks, and payment structures.

Before that can happen, Obamacare supporters need to be held accountable for the law’s manifest failures – not permitted to paper them over with billions more of our tax dollars.

Phil Kerpen is head of American Commitment and a leading free-market policy analyst and advocate in Washington. Kerpen was the principal policy and legislative strategist at Americans for Prosperity for over five years. He previously worked at the Free Enterprise Fund, the Club for Growth, and the Cato Institute. Kerpen is also a nationally syndicated columnist, chairman of the Internet Freedom Coalition, and author of the 2011 book "Democracy Denied."

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.

#2. To: Justified (#0)

The better answer: SINCE the private sector cannot do it, nationalize it and have single payer.

That's where we will go. Clinton has always supported that, and Trump thinks it was a good idea in Canada.

I expect that Trump will push for deregulation, which could help some, but which won't really address it.

My view: there is no reason for, and no room for, any middleman insurance company profit in health care. Insurance companies provide nothing of value. They simply impose a premium on the cost of health care.

The answer is single payer health insurance, without profit, paid for out of taxes. This takes the burden off of employers completely. Health insurance should not be tied to a job. It's a fundamental human need, and should be part of the tableau of basic rights, like Social Security and universal public education.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-13   11:44:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

"The better answer: SINCE the private sector cannot do it, nationalize it and have single payer."

Yeah! And we can call it ... Hillarycare! And who better to implement that once-rejected solution? Hillary!

It was rejected because it was worse than what we had. Now the Democrats (and you) think it will be accepted because it's better than what we have now.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-08-13   19:14:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: misterwhite (#4)

Now the Democrats (and you) think it will be accepted because it's better than what we have now.

I think we will have universal, government-paid health insurance, because it is necessary in the civilized world, and our people suffer too much for the lack of it.

How we get there is a transient matter to me. That we need tog et there, and will, is what I care about.

I think that Republicans who continue to resist it are simply digging their own political grave. It's like those who continue to resist the concept of Social Security. Luddites always lose in the end, always. Social Security is necessary, for reasons that are manifest to everybody. Some cranky fringe of Republicans STILL argue about it, 80 years on. Nobody listens to them anymore, nobody cares. They lost, and they're not going to ever turn over that decision. Just like the slavers and segregationists lost, never to rise again.

Health care is a place where the fight is still going on. Obamacare was not well-conceived, but the key markers - that universal insurance will exist, that it will be government organized, that the government has the power to do it, and that the people will re-elect the politicians who advance it - have all been established.

Trump is not promising to roll it all back, but to make it work. As is Hillary. Republican Luddites are still stuck trying to STOP it, and Social Security. They've always been wrong, and they will be defeated in the end.

That we will have universal, government-funded health insurance is a given, because it is a necessity. A substantial minority, continue to argue otherwise, but they are doomed to lose that fight, just as those who would argue against letting gays be have lost that fight.

The real question is what it will look like. Once the philosophical and economic point is accepted that we will have federally supervised universal health insurance, the question shifts to how to do it.

Republicans would like to derail it, but they've already failed. It's here, and it will stay. It is Obama's great victory and legacy that he was able to set that marker in the ground and hold onto it against all tides and opposition.

It certainly can be a whole lot better than Obamacare, which doesn't work. Universal health care works, because every other civilized nation has it. The Republicans think that by making a wreck of Obamacare they will succeed in repealing the philosophy of universal health insurance.

They're wrong. It's here to stay because we need it. How we structure it will be influenced by whether Trump wins or Hillary. Either way, when the next President leaves office, universal health insurance will be more and more and more of a reality.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-14   7:47:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5) (Edited)

I assume you are one of those "health care is a right" people.

If I assume correctly, here are a couple of questions I ask every time I encounter one of you folks:

If health care is a "right", where is it spelled out in the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights? And please do not respond with "emanations" and "penumbrae" - i.e. where the (non-existent) right to abortions were found.

I mean specifically. The Founders were clear - they were able to spell out exactly what they meant without equivocation. Free press meant FREE PRESS. Free speech meant FREE SPEECH. The right to unwarranted searches and seizures meant EXACTLY THAT.

Please note the aforementioned rights (and all the others in the B of R) were addressing the individual. I have a RIGHT to free speech - YOU do not have to provide it to me. I have a RIGHT to operate a free press - YOU do not have to provide it to me (or to buy my paper, for that matter.) I have a right not to be searched without a warrant or have my property seized. NO ONE has to provide that for me.

So if "health care" is a right - who provides it for me? I cannot provide my own health care (beyond taking meds or applying band-aids, that is.)

Do you "health care is a right" folks propose having government slaves provide it? Are all doctors, nurses, and other HC workers now to be on the government payroll? If so, do you really think people will spend the hundreds to thousands of dollars to become doctors - when all they're going get is a government job?

I realize that ship has sailed - and no one in modern day AmeriKKa cares much about the constitution anymore - as long as we can get our freebees.

So let's provide "free" healthcare along with the free government cheese. We can eat the cheese while we die in waiting lines or in offices waiting for the one doctor who has to treat 100 thousand patients.

Rufus T Firefly  posted on  2016-08-14   8:15:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 6.

#8. To: Rufus T Firefly (#6)

If health care is a "right", where is it spelled out in the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights? And please do not respond with "emanations" and "penumbrae" - i.e. where the (non-existent) right to abortions were found.

Health care is a necessity. It is a right by necessity, like air.

It isn't spelled out in the Bill of Rights and isn't in the Constitution, as written, and the Founders would never have agreed to government-paid health insurance. They were busy bleeding and putting leeches on sick people and shortening their lives by what amounted to witchcraft as medicine.

It doesn't matter to me that it's not in the Constitution. Social Security isn't in the Constitution. Neither is universal public education. Neither is the industrial revolution or germ theory or sewer systems or food standards or the gasoline engine or paved concrete roadways or the steam engine.

None of that is in there.

The country that the Constitution was written in was a rural wilderness with a couple million people in it, not an industrialized continent of 320 million.

The founders DID leave slavery in there, and we had to actually in effect suspend the Constitution in all but name to get rid of that. So the Constitution already had in it some fatal flaws.

Faced with the necessities and realities of the modern world, we have two choices: we can work with our old Constitution, sticking to its general structure, more or less, and periodically revising our understanding of the words through court cases and politics, and more rarely by rewriting the words through amendments. This preserves a sense of continuity of institutions, and allows for a long legal tradition and historical sense to grow. It links us to the past, with its warts, but allows the seams to be opened to allow the necessities of the present to be addressed. That's what we actually DO.

Or we could do with some conservatives want, which is to turn the language of the Constitution into an iron straight jacket, a political sarcophagus that fixes the political attitudes and governmental beliefs and understanding of 1789 (or 1865) in place, and does not allow flexibility.

Do that, and take the suppleness and make the document unable to address present necessities, and a certain arch-conservative viewpoint will hold sway until it's swept away in a left-wing revolution, like everywhere else.

I like the way we do it a lot better.

But in direct answer to your question: social welfare is not very well addressed in the Constitution. There is broad power given to Congress to spend money, and a generic "general welfare" clause that has been used to cover what needs to be done. The Founders certainly didn't intend the document to be read that way.

So, the Constitution is inadequate as written, and we've had to politically decide how to get to social welfare in spite of it. We could have gone the revolutionary route. Instead, we chose to let the power of the purse and the general welfare clause suffice, with the Supreme Court's blessing, which got us to where we can do what the document doesn't say we can do.

So, we preserved some of the document and the tradition. Perhaps you'd prefer we just have a revolution and ditch the thing in its entirety, since we cannot get to the social welfare we have to have, or the federal enforcement of equal rights for blacks, on the document as written. I never suggested that government-paid healthcare is free. Nothing is free. Health insurance is expensive no matter who pays for it. Universal health insurance is so expensive that it cannot be provided by the private sector: there are vast swathes of the people who cannot afford it, and the insurance companies cannot make a profit providing it to everybody. It's expensive to cover everybody, and burdensome. That burden has to be borne by the whole society, through taxes. There is no such thing as a free lunch. We don't need free government cheese, most of us. Most of us DO need taxpayer-subsidized health care, particularly in our old age. So we have it. Everybody doesn't have it yet. Obamacare was an effort to get there. It is not going to succeed and we will end up with a single-payer government-operated system, at the end of it all. And that's a good thing.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-08-14 12:25:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com