Democratic Hate Spiral is NOT good for Consumers: Ins Cos
Most would agree the NEW YORK TIMES is pretty much adamantly against Donald Trump, so if the TIMES agrees with Donald Trump's statement: "…ins co's who have made a fortune w/O'Care," perhaps my old-time party of choice would reconsider their hate-mongering fibbing and consider FACTS? Clearly, not yet.
The New York Times, MARCH 18, 2017, Jeff Sommer, "GRIPES ABOUT OBAMACARE ASIDE, HEALTH INSURERS ARE IN A PROFIT SPIRAL." As Jeff Sommer notes, "The numbers are astonishing." The article continues, "…the managed care stocks, as a whole, have gained nearly 300 percent including dividends, according to calculations by Bespoke Group." That's right, insurance companies have gotten super rich under Obamacare.
Quick tutorial: Obamacare has three deals it made with insurance companies. First, the individual mandate so that insurers would have EVERY WORKING PERSON as their customer or else the government would fine them. The second expanded Medicaid to guarantee insurers NEW Medicaid customers capturing individuals who are outside the individual mandate's lower-end income requirements and therefore would be insurance company customers off the federal government's back. Third, the "exchange" customers, those receiving Obamacare entitlements of premium tax credits (paying for GETTING insurance) and cost-sharing subsidies (paying for USING insurance), also a taxpayer funded program for individuals earning up to 400 percent of poverty level, that's, for an individual people earning between $11,880 and $47,520 a year. People earning up to 250 percent of poverty level are also eligible for cost-sharing to USE their insurance IF they enroll in Silver level or better plans.
OK, so the current "news" about cutting off subsidies, the government payouts for people to USE their health insurance if they select a silver-level or better plan affects some people, but really, a fraction of the population, which I can say without guilt since President Obama himself ignored the family glitch that left millions of families unable to purchase health insurance for their dependents. I'm also less guilt-ridden because, the federal bribes, or "stabilizing" scheme didn't work.
Remember, at best only 11 million people were enrolled in Obamacare exchange plans. Of those, according to Obama's Administration, 85 percent of enrollees received premium tax credits, handouts to pay for GETTING health insurance, which would be at its BEST, according to the Obama federal government, 9.35 million people, and of that, some SMALLER number who receive cost-sharing subsidies, federal handouts to pay for USING health insurance, paying copays, coinsurance and deductibles, if your income is within certain lower limits and you selected a silver level (rather than the cheaper bronze) plan.
As the rest of us know, in order to cover these at best 9.35 million people, working NONpublic employee middle class Americans have paid more in premiums, in the double digits more and, have faced worse options for health insurance coverage in terms of narrow networks and increased coinsurance, deductible and copays out of our pockets, as insurers simply charged more for nonObamacare policies.
So the TIMES earlier this year, 2017 confirmed that health insurance companies are making fistfuls of money as Jeff Sommer wrote, using UnitedHealth as an example, "They have diversified, earning money from businesses that include data management, outpatient clinics and surgical services, as well as traditional health insurance," and thereby, "…reduced its exposure to what was its biggest problem in Obamacare: money-losing insurance that it sold in public exchanges to individuals, who often received government subsidies."
Got that? According to the NY Times the insurance companies have made loads of money, with stocks going up 300 percent AND the ONLY part of their business which has LOST money is the EXCHANGES, and that's WITH the government handing over taxpayer dollars to pay premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies.
The "stabilization" of insurance companies refers to insurance companies wanting more money to stay on exchanges, which didn't work with UnitedHealth, that profitable company that bailed on the exchanges last YEAR because Obamacare's transitional reinsurance and risk corridor payout programs (federal government taxpayer funded handouts) EXPIRED last benefits year.
For reasonable people, it should be obvious that sucking up taxpayer and individual dollars did NOT satisfy the insurance companies on exchanges and that Obamacare is a black hole that's sucking up taxpayer money and is still susceptible to insurance company threats, all to satisfy the egos of Democrats in keeping the program of Obamacare and their faux goal of "protecting" citizens which is really a goal of protecting insurance companies, so that those companies will write policies for the at best 9.35 million Americans who use exchange plans and get either premium credit subsidies to buy insurance and-or, the smaller number who get both premium credit and cost-sharing subsidies to help them buy and USE their health insurance.
Therefore, according to the NY Times, President Trump is RIGHT, "Ins co's who have made a fortune w/O'Care." But there is something sinister here that is very bad for consumers and that's the Democrat Hate spiral, which has made me so angry with my party as they report PART of the story simply to keep their agenda going. But it's an agenda of hate, it's an agenda that has hurt the nonpublic employee middle class and it's an agenda of faux inclusion that's merely a shift in who's in and who's out like a "Mean Girls," lunchroom table.
This is what Glenn Kessler's substitute for reporting is under the nervy "fact checker" heading of 10/19/2017, asserting, "President Trump’s false claim that insurance companies ‘have made a fortune’ from Obamacare." Sorry, Washington Post, lies of omission are still lies.
What Kessler does is he IGNORES Obamacare, the three prongs, the non-Obamacare health insurance offered by employers or the individual non-exchange market, (covering most of us and supremely profitable and increasing the costs to consumers in the double digits as insurers "balanced" out cheaper plans they offer, remember the TIMES, 300 percent profits overall for these companies), Kessler IGNORES Medicaid expansion, the federal government's way of opting to pay for individuals NOT captured within the income guidelines of exchanges, and instead chooses to focus only on the third prong, covering somewhat less than 9.35 million people in the US, those on exchanges, getting premium tax credits to buy their insurance and selecting silver level plans so that they can also get federal payouts when they use their insurance, for deductibles, copays and coinsurance.
This not only makes the Washington Post more of a biased rag seeking to cater to the hate-mongering elements that have helped destroy the nonpublic employee middle class, but it deliberately misleads voters and keeps 'em dumb to do it.
The New York Times, MARCH 18, 2017, Jeff Sommer, "GRIPES ABOUT OBAMACARE ASIDE, HEALTH INSURERS ARE IN A PROFIT SPIRAL." As Jeff Sommer notes, "The numbers are astonishing." The article continues, "…the managed care stocks, as a whole, have gained nearly 300 percent including dividends, according to calculations by Bespoke Group." That's right, insurance companies have gotten super rich under Obamacare.
Quick tutorial: Obamacare has three deals it made with insurance companies. First, the individual mandate so that insurers would have EVERY WORKING PERSON as their customer or else the government would fine them. The second expanded Medicaid to guarantee insurers NEW Medicaid customers capturing individuals who are outside the individual mandate's lower-end income requirements and therefore would be insurance company customers off the federal government's back. Third, the "exchange" customers, those receiving Obamacare entitlements of premium tax credits (paying for GETTING insurance) and cost-sharing subsidies (paying for USING insurance), also a taxpayer funded program for individuals earning up to 400 percent of poverty level, that's, for an individual people earning between $11,880 and $47,520 a year. People earning up to 250 percent of poverty level are also eligible for cost-sharing to USE their insurance IF they enroll in Silver level or better plans.
OK, so the current "news" about cutting off subsidies, the government payouts for people to USE their health insurance if they select a silver-level or better plan affects some people, but really, a fraction of the population, which I can say without guilt since President Obama himself ignored the family glitch that left millions of families unable to purchase health insurance for their dependents. I'm also less guilt-ridden because, the federal bribes, or "stabilizing" scheme didn't work.
Remember, at best only 11 million people were enrolled in Obamacare exchange plans. Of those, according to Obama's Administration, 85 percent of enrollees received premium tax credits, handouts to pay for GETTING health insurance, which would be at its BEST, according to the Obama federal government, 9.35 million people, and of that, some SMALLER number who receive cost-sharing subsidies, federal handouts to pay for USING health insurance, paying copays, coinsurance and deductibles, if your income is within certain lower limits and you selected a silver level (rather than the cheaper bronze) plan.
As the rest of us know, in order to cover these at best 9.35 million people, working NONpublic employee middle class Americans have paid more in premiums, in the double digits more and, have faced worse options for health insurance coverage in terms of narrow networks and increased coinsurance, deductible and copays out of our pockets, as insurers simply charged more for nonObamacare policies.
So the TIMES earlier this year, 2017 confirmed that health insurance companies are making fistfuls of money as Jeff Sommer wrote, using UnitedHealth as an example, "They have diversified, earning money from businesses that include data management, outpatient clinics and surgical services, as well as traditional health insurance," and thereby, "…reduced its exposure to what was its biggest problem in Obamacare: money-losing insurance that it sold in public exchanges to individuals, who often received government subsidies."
Got that? According to the NY Times the insurance companies have made loads of money, with stocks going up 300 percent AND the ONLY part of their business which has LOST money is the EXCHANGES, and that's WITH the government handing over taxpayer dollars to pay premium tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies.
The "stabilization" of insurance companies refers to insurance companies wanting more money to stay on exchanges, which didn't work with UnitedHealth, that profitable company that bailed on the exchanges last YEAR because Obamacare's transitional reinsurance and risk corridor payout programs (federal government taxpayer funded handouts) EXPIRED last benefits year.
For reasonable people, it should be obvious that sucking up taxpayer and individual dollars did NOT satisfy the insurance companies on exchanges and that Obamacare is a black hole that's sucking up taxpayer money and is still susceptible to insurance company threats, all to satisfy the egos of Democrats in keeping the program of Obamacare and their faux goal of "protecting" citizens which is really a goal of protecting insurance companies, so that those companies will write policies for the at best 9.35 million Americans who use exchange plans and get either premium credit subsidies to buy insurance and-or, the smaller number who get both premium credit and cost-sharing subsidies to help them buy and USE their health insurance.
Therefore, according to the NY Times, President Trump is RIGHT, "Ins co's who have made a fortune w/O'Care." But there is something sinister here that is very bad for consumers and that's the Democrat Hate spiral, which has made me so angry with my party as they report PART of the story simply to keep their agenda going. But it's an agenda of hate, it's an agenda that has hurt the nonpublic employee middle class and it's an agenda of faux inclusion that's merely a shift in who's in and who's out like a "Mean Girls," lunchroom table.
This is what Glenn Kessler's substitute for reporting is under the nervy "fact checker" heading of 10/19/2017, asserting, "President Trump’s false claim that insurance companies ‘have made a fortune’ from Obamacare." Sorry, Washington Post, lies of omission are still lies.
What Kessler does is he IGNORES Obamacare, the three prongs, the non-Obamacare health insurance offered by employers or the individual non-exchange market, (covering most of us and supremely profitable and increasing the costs to consumers in the double digits as insurers "balanced" out cheaper plans they offer, remember the TIMES, 300 percent profits overall for these companies), Kessler IGNORES Medicaid expansion, the federal government's way of opting to pay for individuals NOT captured within the income guidelines of exchanges, and instead chooses to focus only on the third prong, covering somewhat less than 9.35 million people in the US, those on exchanges, getting premium tax credits to buy their insurance and selecting silver level plans so that they can also get federal payouts when they use their insurance, for deductibles, copays and coinsurance.
This not only makes the Washington Post more of a biased rag seeking to cater to the hate-mongering elements that have helped destroy the nonpublic employee middle class, but it deliberately misleads voters and keeps 'em dumb to do it.
0 Response to "Democratic Hate Spiral is NOT good for Consumers: Ins Cos"
Posting Komentar