- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What would the current healthcare situation in America be if Obamacare wasn't passed?
Posted on 3/26/17 at 4:28 pm to DawgsLife
Posted on 3/26/17 at 4:28 pm to DawgsLife
Here a re a couple of other nuggets from the article.
n two years, Alaska’s individual insurance market provider pool shrank from five providers to one as Moda Health, Aetna, State Farm and Assurant Health left Alaska’s individual insurance market.
On July 18, Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska filed a request for a 9.8 percent increase of individual insurance rates, ending a two-year run of 37 percent and 39 percent increases.
And
The ACA forced insurers to accept high-risk patients for coverage. This drew high-risk patients away from the Alaska Comprehensive Health Insurance Association with lower cost, federally subsidized plans. When federal reimbursements for insurer losses came up short, insurance companies hemorrhaged money and have been forced to raise insurance rates to recoup losses or leave the state altogether.
n two years, Alaska’s individual insurance market provider pool shrank from five providers to one as Moda Health, Aetna, State Farm and Assurant Health left Alaska’s individual insurance market.
On July 18, Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska filed a request for a 9.8 percent increase of individual insurance rates, ending a two-year run of 37 percent and 39 percent increases.
And
The ACA forced insurers to accept high-risk patients for coverage. This drew high-risk patients away from the Alaska Comprehensive Health Insurance Association with lower cost, federally subsidized plans. When federal reimbursements for insurer losses came up short, insurance companies hemorrhaged money and have been forced to raise insurance rates to recoup losses or leave the state altogether.
1
Posted on 3/26/17 at 4:30 pm to 5thTiger
quote:
Also, here is the Kaiser Family Foundation report if you prefer a non-governmental entity with nonpartisan credentials
The foundation is 100% pro ACA and is in no way impartial.
Posted on 3/26/17 at 4:33 pm to PygmalionEffect
quote:
He came back with the retort that Medicaid expansion cost Alaska 44 million, which is completely false.
I simply assumed he mixed up the Medicaid expansion and the exchange bailout.
Posted on 3/26/17 at 4:33 pm to PygmalionEffect
quote:
Did you read your own article that points out that the federal government paid 100% of the medicaid expansion for 2016
Alaska has already appropriated money for 2017. The cost per patient increase was total 30 million more than we were falsely led to believe. That money is already appropriated do Yes, it comes at the expense of other needed programs.
Posted on 3/26/17 at 4:35 pm to Street Hawk
Things were objectively bad before. They got better after the ACA was enacted, but the law needs attention. To the question, things would be double in the toilet at this point had the law never been enacted.
Posted on 3/26/17 at 4:35 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
I simply assumed he mixed up the Medicaid expansion and the exchange bailout
Actually no. Session is about over, budgets and appropriations have been made. Medicaid costs are at the expense of other programs.
Both cost far more than anticipated. Pig just has no idea how state budgets work.
This post was edited on 3/26/17 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 3/26/17 at 4:36 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
Did you see the part where Alaska would slowly be taking over those costs?
Yeah.
5%, then locked at 10%
How can a state be getting ripped off by paying 10% of something they want and having someone else pay 90% of it?
Expansion doesn't change the amount of federal tax that it's citizens are paying.
Only states in the south with republican governors that wanted to make a political statement over the well being of their citizens didn't take that deal.
By the way, what is Jendal up to this days?
Posted on 3/26/17 at 4:40 pm to TBoy
quote:
They got better after the ACA was enacted,
For whom?
Posted on 3/26/17 at 4:40 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
RogerTheShrubber
You were just plain wrong by saying that Medicaid expansion was a bad decision for Alaska because it cost the state 44,000,000.
It didn't cost them a dime and will only cost them 5% to 10% of the total increase in cost going forward.
Plus it cut the uninsured rate in Alaska almost in half down to around 10% if I remember your article THAT I READ.
You don't seem to be too concerned about your fellow Alaskans.
Its got to help the state in other ways by getting these people on Medicaid but I've run out of time to investigate further at this time.
This post was edited on 3/26/17 at 4:42 pm
Posted on 3/26/17 at 4:50 pm to PygmalionEffect
quote:
You were just plain wrong by saying that Medicaid expansion was a bad decision for Alaska because it cost the state 44,000,000
It costs 44 mil. more For 2017 which has already been appropriated. Just admit you have no clue how state budgets work. I believe the total ended being 170 mil.
Tis doesn't even touch how much the exchange is costing.
This post was edited on 3/26/17 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 3/26/17 at 4:59 pm to PygmalionEffect
quote:
Its got to help the state in other ways by getting these people on Medicaid
It helps the medical industry.
If you see a dress on sale for 30 bucks, when it's regularly 100 and you only are interested because of the savings but you can either buy the dress or pay utility bills. You buy the dress, did you really make such a great deal?
Posted on 3/26/17 at 5:01 pm to a want
quote:According to what the State of Florida tells me, it costs them and me around $19,000 to insure my family of four (state pays ~$7500 for me, I pay the rest for wife and kids).
Look at some of the projections pre-2008. They projected it would cost around $20,000 to insure a family of 4 today.
When I get back to work tomorrow I can probably give you an exact figure. Fortunately I do have a family of four, since the cost would be the exact same for a family of three.
One thing I know for certain: if it was real "insurance", using actuarial tables and based on our expected claims determined by our health and personal habits, it would be considerably less.
Posted on 3/26/17 at 6:45 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
When federal reimbursements for insurer losses came up short
Due to Republicans intentionally underfunding the reimbursements to make a point about the ACA.
Posted on 3/26/17 at 9:12 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
It costs 44 mil. more For 2017 which has already been appropriated. Just admit you have no clue how state budgets work.
Just admit you erroneously assigned that cost to Medicaid expansion alone liar and then tried to cover your mistake.
You're too little of a man to admit you fricked up though aren't you.
Posted on 3/26/17 at 9:17 pm to PygmalionEffect
quote:
How can a state be getting ripped off by paying 10% of something they want and having someone else pay 90% of it?
Because that percentage can be changed.
quote:
Expansion doesn't change the amount of federal tax that it's citizens are paying.
It just heats up the money printing press.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News