No, both ways they get billed, but under Obamacare they get the negotiated rate (about 60% lower) than the set uninsured price.
Obamacare essentially DEAD as Aetna announces it's pulling out too.
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
No, both ways they get billed, but under Obamacare they get the negotiated rate (about 60% lower) than the set uninsured price.
The neighbors pay either way, generally the Stint is cheaper than letting them linger sick for 5-7 years. Its cheaper in medical bills and cost to society, and the individual suffers less.
I would be okay with that. Depending on how its reformed and expanded.
The problem thus far is the Republicans have blocked everything past repealed.
Are you willing to let poor people, and the children of poor people die on the streets?
When and if these people get sick, they will be covered in a more cost efficient way. It will cost society less.
I don't know, he will not say.
Its not perfect, its better than things were before the law for society as a whole. Yes some are paying more for their individual coverage, but the Government is paying less for the uninsured.
That might be true, the old system was rigged to benefit certain groups.
Text Drivers are Killers
Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
HAHAHA. So why are aetna and united health care and humana losing money with obamacare.? THINK
Text Drivers are Killers
Joe Biden - "Time to put Trump in the bullseye."
Are you willing to steal money from working whites and give it to millions of illegal aliens who aren't even allowed to be in the country.? THINK, you miserable white-hating racist wretch.
Clearly because their business model was based on the old system that was basically subsidizing them via tax dollars. The government was allowing private enterprise to take all the profitable insurance cases then making up the difference on the non-profitable people using tax dollars.
Now, the Insurance companies cant turn anyone down so that the tax payers make up less of the slack.
Some insurers are insisting on going forward without changing their business model.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
I suppose this reversal of Aetna's earlier position had nothing to do with the DOJ's lawsuit to block Aetna's merger with Humana.
In April, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini said the firm planned to stay in the exchanges and that the company was "in a very good place to make this a sustainable program."
A July letter outlined Aetna's thinking on the public exchanges if the deal with Humana were blocked. The letter from Bertolini to the DOJ outlined the effect of a possible merger on its Affordable Care Act business.
For one thing, Bertolini notes that the cost savings from the Humana deal would allow the companies to further expand coverage into parts of the US.
"As we add new territories, given the additional startup costs of each new territory, we will incur additional losses," the letter said. "Our ability to withstand these losses is dependent on our achieving anticipated synergies in the Humana acquisition."
Additionally, the letter seemed to foretell the move on Monday. Here's the key passage:
"Our analysis to date makes clear that if the deal were challenged and/or blocked we would need to take immediate actions to mitigate public exchange and ACA small group losses. Specifically, if the DOJ sues to enjoin the transaction, we will immediately take action to reduce our 2017 exchange footprint.
"We currently plan, as part of our strategy following the acquisition, to expand from 15 states in 2016 to 20 states in 2017. However, if we are in the midst of litigation over the Humana transaction, given the risks described above, we will not be able to expand to the five additional states.
"In addition, we would also withdraw from at least five additional states where generating a market return would take too long for us to justify, given the costs associated with a potential breakup of the transaction. In other words, instead of expanding to 20 states next year, we would reduce our presence to no more than 10 states."
In other words, the cost of fighting the DOJ would make Aetna unable to sustain the losses incurred from the public exchanges.
A spokesperson for Aetna said the decision to roll back the coverage was "not because of the DOJ's lawsuit".
http://www.businessinsider.com/aetna-humana-merger-reason-for-leaving-obamacare-2016-8
In April, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini said the firm planned to stay in the exchanges and that the company was "in a very good place to make this a sustainable program."
A July letter outlined Aetna's thinking on the public exchanges if the deal with Humana were blocked. The letter from Bertolini to the DOJ outlined the effect of a possible merger on its Affordable Care Act business.
For one thing, Bertolini notes that the cost savings from the Humana deal would allow the companies to further expand coverage into parts of the US.
"As we add new territories, given the additional startup costs of each new territory, we will incur additional losses," the letter said. "Our ability to withstand these losses is dependent on our achieving anticipated synergies in the Humana acquisition."
Additionally, the letter seemed to foretell the move on Monday. Here's the key passage:
"Our analysis to date makes clear that if the deal were challenged and/or blocked we would need to take immediate actions to mitigate public exchange and ACA small group losses. Specifically, if the DOJ sues to enjoin the transaction, we will immediately take action to reduce our 2017 exchange footprint.
"We currently plan, as part of our strategy following the acquisition, to expand from 15 states in 2016 to 20 states in 2017. However, if we are in the midst of litigation over the Humana transaction, given the risks described above, we will not be able to expand to the five additional states.
"In addition, we would also withdraw from at least five additional states where generating a market return would take too long for us to justify, given the costs associated with a potential breakup of the transaction. In other words, instead of expanding to 20 states next year, we would reduce our presence to no more than 10 states."
In other words, the cost of fighting the DOJ would make Aetna unable to sustain the losses incurred from the public exchanges.
A spokesperson for Aetna said the decision to roll back the coverage was "not because of the DOJ's lawsuit".
http://www.businessinsider.com/aetna-humana-merger-reason-for-leaving-obamacare-2016-8
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Anyone visits an Emergency room without any health insurance and the Hospital will bill them the ENTIRE cost of the visit.
Last edited:
zappasguitar
Well-known member
And your point is?
People carry health insurance EVERY YEAR without actually using it.
They did so BEFORE Obama Care and they will continue to do so.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
If you only signed up people who don't need it, want it, or deserve it. What was the point of this massive reform?
Or you could deport them back to their socialist paradises.
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
What socialist paradise is that?
Legion Troll
A fine upstanding poster
You don't know?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
lol.....the new system is the one rigged.......