Insurer bankruptcy portends more of the same: Policyholders in Limbo After Rare Failure of Insurer

Sure it is.

That true of my Auto and Homeowners too, yet, I still purchase across state lines.

 

You brought it up, and falsely claimed that it would be without regulation. When you have to support a point with false claims, you might want to step back and ask yourself if the point is even worth attempting to make.

 

Then blame whatever you did on the Democrats in Congress not Obama who was not POYUS.

 

The Antitrust Exemption Repeal has been on the table debates many times over the years, including while the ACA itself was being drafted in 2010.

McCarran-Ferguson was passed in 1945 and grants an antitrust exemption to the business of insurance, granting states near monopoly regulatory authority.

In fact, a proposal to eliminate the immunity for health insurers passed the House by an overwhelming margin — 406-19 — during the health care reform debates in early 2010. Though the effort gained vocal backing from the White House, neither the House measure nor similar proposals ever made it to a vote on the Senate floor. The Insurance industry lobbyists have been doing a great job!

 

I know you're surprised to receive a "like" from me, but I certainly agree that I want any Trump-led initiative on healthcare to wither away!

Trump made one half-assed attempt to get rid of Obamacare, but by the time the scared-s**tless RINO's in the Republican-dominated House screwed it up, we see that Obamacare is still on the books -- unaltered from its original corrupt status, and headed for a crash-and-burn impact with REALITY in just about a year from now.

GOOD! If enough of Obamacare's real victims (people who actually PAY their way in life without "subsidies") start raising holy hell about this socialistic scam, then, and ONLY then will we finally be rid of it!

 

The problem is that where Trumpcare appears to be headed is down a very similar road that Obamacare went down and that includes the violation of the principles of insurance by not spreading the risk among enough souls and violation of the " ain't no free lunch" rule. Pre-existing conditions and older children on family policies cost money in claims paid. Having large numbers insured you can spread the risk.

The problem with healthcare insurance costs is not lack of access or being able to obtain the coverages you want it is that there are people too many who cannot afford to pay for the coverage.

It is affirdability not access not choice.

I have access to a mosserati sports cars, red. I cannot afford one.

 

I have to admit, you make very good points here this morning. I'm beginning to think that there will ultimately be no sensible path but one that takes us to single-payer. I have always thought that single-payer has the potential be a very viable, effective, healthcare system, but I've been absolutely allergic to the idea of anybody getting "subsidies" and other welfare to pay for their portion of it -- except for those who are verifiably unable to support themselves (birth defects, horrible injuries, catastrophic diseases, etc.).

But, to follow your analogy, we can't start giving Maserati sports cars to everyone.... Besides, I would rather have the government buy me a Bugatti Chiron!

. -- "Cool... so, who gets the bill?"

 

The point is that markets for auto care, life insurance, and homeowner’s insurance already work the same way as markets for health insurance: each seller needs to be licensed in the state in which they wish to sell and they have to comply with that state's regulations.

 

So, who is it you imagine is advocating anything WITHOUT REGULATIONS, much less the entire insurance industry?

For those who want to learn a lot about the insurance industry and what causes most of it's problems(along with a whole lot of great stuff on other business/investing topics), I highly recommend you read Warren Buffett's "Letters to Shareholders", that he puts out every year for Berkshire Hathaway stock owners.

Insurance, and reinsurance, is a huge part of Berkshire Hathaway, and the float it creates is a major driver of the stupendous investing profits Buffett and his team have created over the decades. You will seldom find a more candid, honest and intelligent discussion of the pros, cons and potential pitfalls in the insurance industry than that within Buffett's letters to his shareholders.

 

Quote him

 

The ACA, in section 1333, encourages the formation of regional multi-state compacts, but the hapless and rather useless Obama Administration issued no regulatory guidance on it, so nothing has happened. Thankfully a Republican lawmaker inserted it during during Senate markups of the ACA and since nobody read the the thing before they passed it, it wasn't stripped out by the Democrats.

So, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price will likely issue guidance on the provision, fulfill a this promise, with or without new Congressional action.

Good!

 

Sorry, I confused the two since Congress marched in lock step with Obama.

 

Premiums have increased at a slower rate than pre ACA.

 

Mathematically not possible.

No you didn't. You purchased a policy from an agency that is licensed to sell products in your state. Your policy number prefix is state specific. So, while you may live in say Ohio, and purchased a policy from an agency in Pennsylvania, the policy you have is an Ohio policy, rated in the territory you live in.

 

And rated based on zip code. These people advocating for across state lines don't have the first idea of how insurance principals, or economic principles work.

You can't live in New York City and buy a policy rated for heckled West Virginia. Insurance companies would go insolvent.

 

...or coverage for rare diseases or expensive but life-saving therapies considered "experimental" only because the 50 year studies on people with relatives in Vanuatu aren't done yet, but you sure might need it someday, and that's the whole idea of having insurance, isn't it?

And there's Uncle Frank who would loudly insist he was definitely not and never would be an alcoholic, first from his reserved seat at the corner bar every night and finally from his bed in the cirrhosis ward, where he died.

 

Nonsense.

Brookings 2014 study used actual data and found that “enrollment-weighted premiums in the individual health insurance market increased by 24.4 percent beyond what they would have had they simply followed…trends.”

S&P Global Institute found that average individual market medical costs increased substantially between 2013 and 2015, up an estimated 69%.

2014 insurer data shows that premiums for individual market Qualified Health Plans (QHPs), ACA-compliant plans certified to be sold on exchanges, were much higher than premiums for individual market non-QHPs

Relative to non-QHPs, insurers collected more than $1,000 per enrollee in higher premiums and more than $2,300 in higher premium revenue per enrollee in 2014

IF ACA was delivering better coverage at lower cost, the exchanges would have attracted a wider cross-section of enrollees and more insurers would be looking to enter these markets. Instead we see adverse selection in the individual market, with spiraling premiums, sizeable insurer exits, and enrollees generally attracted to ACA plans only if they are either highly subsidized or relatively old or unhealthy.

The Manhattan Institute estimated that the average state individual market premium increased 41% between 2013 and 2014. A county-level analysis suggested that premiums increased by 49%.

The 2014 Brookings study on this same subject by Amanda Kowalski used actual pre-ACA individual market premium data, finding that “[a]cross all states, from before the reform to the first half of 2014, enrollment-weighted premiums in the individual health insurance market increased by 24.4 percent beyond what they would have had they simply followed state-level seasonally adjusted trends.”

Economists at the University of Pennsylvania, also using actual pre-ACA individual market data, estimated that the total expected price of individual market coverage (premiums plus out-of-pocket payments) increased by 14% to 28% as a result of the ACA. According to their findings, “the pre-ACA average premium was lower than the lowest silver plan premium.” Penn’s economists also estimated that plans in the individual market before the ACA had similar actuarial value to silver plans

S&P Global Institute analysis of individual market per member per month (PMPM) costs from May. The figure below from the S&P report shows trends in PMPM costs for the individual and employer-provided markets. The ACA is responsible for the huge spike, clearly shown in the figure, in the individual market PMPM costs, which by early 2015 exceeded PMPM costs in the employer markets.


The data shows a huge increase in PMPM costs in the individual market between 2013 and 2015. According to S&P, PMPM costs increased 38% between 2013 and 2014, and another 23% between 2014 and 2015. The two-year increase (69%) is the product of the two single-year increases.



And despite the massive increase in premiums and deductibles, insurers incurred substantial losses in both 2014 and 2015.

ACA plan premiums have been much too low to cover insurer expenses, and we both know what that means.

Average QHP premiums exceeded average non-QHP premiums by more than $1,000 in 2014.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...ums-to-increase-substantially/2/#3a6ad20d1670

 

Max Baucus, the source of that provision, was a Democrat.

 

Nope. Premiums increased at a slower rate than pre ACA.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/slower-premium-growth-under-obama/