This is not encouraging.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/3/more-half-obamacare-co-ops-go-belly/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/3/more-half-obamacare-co-ops-go-belly/
More than half of Obamacare co-ops have failed
- Thread starter TexMichFan
- Start date
The plan is working: this is by design. Bankrupt every insurance company, every co-op, crash every state program, Obama swoops in there with the fed and bails them out. Winning.
As I understand it, many of them were actually 'solvent', and were expecting funds from the federal government as part of the ACA agreement (or Medicare expansion). Either Obama or Congress decided to NOT provide those funds, which has led to many of them closing. But, they were not 'failing' from the perspective that they could not pay out claims vs. their premiums income.
I suspect it has to do with the government not coming through with the subsidies for plans which were pro-rated/subsidized.
Thus, they did not specifically 'fail', they had the carpet pulled out from under them when the federal government didn't provide funding that was promised.
I suspect it has to do with the government not coming through with the subsidies for plans which were pro-rated/subsidized.
Thus, they did not specifically 'fail', they had the carpet pulled out from under them when the federal government didn't provide funding that was promised.
and you think the feds might be a good organization to trust for telling you how and whom to go to for healthcare services, after you say they pulled the rug out? are you for single payor which is not single and as is proven, non payor?
you cannot possibly read about a co-op failing and blame anything other than: not enough premiums coming in and too much claims being paid out. You cannot possibly blame this on the feds and subsidies. Or can you? the dirty little secret is: humana was getting subsidies long before the aca with the 2005 or 2006 bush medicare changes, and they were having money troubles if you took away the subsidies. these guys rely upon subsidies and bailouts. this is gm and aig all over again.
Yep, just more of the Republicans putting party before country and attempting to sabotage them from the start:
Congress created the co-ops to increase competition in state insurance markets and to offer additional choices to consumers, with the hope of holding down premiums. Democrats in Congress authorized the co-ops after concluding that they did not have the votes to create a government-run health plan — the so-called public option — to compete with private insurers.
Dr. Cohen told Congress on Tuesday that federal officials had not been lax or negligent in supervising the insurance co-ops.
But, she said, the co-ops faced stiff challenges as they struggled to create networks of doctors and hospitals, win the support of consumers, and compete with larger, more experienced insurers. Unlike established insurers, she said, the co-ops had no claims experience on which to base prices for the health plans they sold in the new public insurance exchanges, or marketplaces.
Congress, she said, also played a role, eliminating nearly 60 percent of the $6 billion that Democrats had hoped to offer the fledgling insurers.
Over all, the 23 co-ops have received $2.4 billion in federal loans to help pay start-up costs and to meet state solvency requirements. Dr. Cohen said the government would “use every tool available to recover taxpayer dollars” from the co-ops going out of business, but she declined to say how much she expected to recoup.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/u...ick&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article
The subsides could be a part of it.
Two things stood out to me in the article. First, they have enrolled far fewer people than they thought. Second, in New York they enrolled 5 times the people they thought they would and still lost money.
So democrats passed it, without rupublican support yet republicans somehow blocked funding for a law that was already passed?
Wouldn't those funds have been approved previously?
Oh...some have lost money; but many have not, yet were expecting loans (I think) from the feds to continue their ramp-ups over the next few years. When either Congress or the WH did not come up with that money, they were required to close up shop - very unfortunate for ones that were actually solvent and providing additional market competition/options vs. Humana, Cigna, UHC, etc....
I haven't researched the answer to that, but the Co-op here in Colorado was in the black, as I understand, and was expecting federal $$ for continued rollout/expansion over the next few years. That money was not provided, and the insurance regulators have shut it down.
Very possible that the lobbyists for the major insurers have had a hand in closing up these co-ops, because in several states they were providing some tough competition. If that is the case, then our elected leaders are not really serving the public on this issue...they are playing politics and serving the big-name insurers.
Again, I'm not an expert on this stuff, but what I've read out here doesn't add up with at least the Co Op out here closing - it was financially sound.
I see nothing wrong with this. Free market at work. It was a good idea when it was a Republican idea. Now, of course, ODS kicked in the moment that Afrekin, mooslem, negro done used it!
Wrong. Many of the Co Ops have been fine. This is the info the Colorado one released:
Colorado HealthOP’s closure is the latest in a series of CO-OP shut downs across the country, spurred by the federal government’s failure to pay billions of dollars in promised funding. Although Colorado HealthOP stood to collect $10 million less than what was owed in federal funds, the CO-OP remained a successful private enterprise. Colorado HealthOP’s independently certified actuarial projections indicate the company would be profitable in 2016, while making significant contributions to capital reserves, and place it well on its way to paying back its federal start-up loans early.
In response to the DOI announcement, Colorado HealthOP CEO Julia Hutchins released this statement:
“We are astonished and disappointed by the Colorado Division of Insurance’s decision. It is both irresponsible and premature. Colorado HealthOP is a profitable start-up insurance company that is in a strong financial position and, for two years, has served the critical needs of Coloradans by enhancing competition in the Colorado insurance market, driving down prices in the state health insurance marketplace and offering new, innovative choices to its more than 80,000 members throughout Colorado. By choosing this course of action, the Division has let local and national politics hurt Coloradans’ access to low-cost healthcare options and assessed Colorado taxpayers with significant avoidable costs. For this reason, Colorado HealthOP will continue its fight, pursuing all possible remedies, to serve Colorado.”
In response to the DOI announcement, Colorado HealthOP CEO Julia Hutchins released this statement:
“We are astonished and disappointed by the Colorado Division of Insurance’s decision. It is both irresponsible and premature. Colorado HealthOP is a profitable start-up insurance company that is in a strong financial position and, for two years, has served the critical needs of Coloradans by enhancing competition in the Colorado insurance market, driving down prices in the state health insurance marketplace and offering new, innovative choices to its more than 80,000 members throughout Colorado. By choosing this course of action, the Division has let local and national politics hurt Coloradans’ access to low-cost healthcare options and assessed Colorado taxpayers with significant avoidable costs. For this reason, Colorado HealthOP will continue its fight, pursuing all possible remedies, to serve Colorado.”
https://cohealthop.org/health-cooperative-closure-press-release/
The info/press out here, regarding our state's Co Op has been that this was a bad decision and the Co Op was solvent.
These co-ops were counting on federal loans during their ramp-ups as the ACA took effect, and either the White House or Congress has failed to follow through on that startup money. If this leads to less competition, it is a losing situation for taxpayers and those looking for affordable options outside of Cigna, Humana, UHC, etc.
Certainly, any Co Ops that WERE looking at insolvency or financial problems SHOULD be shut down, but that is not the case for all of them.
OK, so let's say that Congress and Obama had left in the $6 billion.
It would simply delay the point at which the co-ops would go broke. Perhaps 1-2 years.
Flawed law is flawed.
Nope. Many, including Colorado, were on pace to pay back their federal loans EARLY.
Closing them up is REQUIRING them to default on their federal loans (Yep, that is what's happening).
They just posted a new note on the Colorado website, indicating that hospital profits are at 40%, insurers are 'merging' from 4 carriers into 2 (to 'save' money), and the Congressional decision to not provide the guaranteed loan backing is essentially forcing all the Co Ops to close down.
I believe it was Congress which did not allocate/approve the funds (as that is Congress' job). So, if that's what they did, then they've played right into Obama's Evil Plan here...
No one denies it has a few glitches that need fixing, but it was the best that could be gotten at the time, and is light years better than what we had before.
That's why he agrees with the decision of congress not to provide the extra funding.
I disagree.
The law made millions of people drop coverage they were already satisfied with to try and balance the risk for sicker people and it still failed.
Simple answer would've been to provide subsidies for those who could not get insurance due to pre-existing conditions so they could get basic coverage which would prevent their bankruptcy in the event of catastrophic medical need.
There was no need at all to reshape the entire health insurance marketplace.
In their minds, yes.
But keep in mind that the GOP could not have stopped single payer had the democrats voted for it on their own. The dems controlled both houses and the presidency.
Definitely true they did not have Democratic support for single payer or we would be there today.
Dems didn't have the votes (or public support) to approve a bill that was a single payor system from day 1.
So what was approved was language, barriers, fees, and other guard rails that would eventually lead to a single payor system.
A move by obama, reid, waxman, and others that is a disaster; a disaster that will unfold when they are all out of office
So what was approved was language, barriers, fees, and other guard rails that would eventually lead to a single payor system.
A move by obama, reid, waxman, and others that is a disaster; a disaster that will unfold when they are all out of office
I love the look of Obama voters when they hear there's a sizable penalty if they opt out. Hilarious!!
it was not sound if they were expecting money and never got it and shut it down. jeez, put two and two together please, they were saying it was sound contingent upon getting more money, so it never was really sound if that money never came
The money had been PROMISED/COMMITTED to them as part of their starting up; to guarantee they had reserves in place in the event they DID have too many catastrophic claims. Taking the reserves away was an active way to destroy them as potential competition to the main insurance providers; providers which are charging $100 or more a month for similar coverage. This has all the appearances of an insurance industry lobbying Congress to protect their profit stream.
yes, except you even admitted the insurance companies, nor the exchanges, nor anybody, can make any money without fed money. { i.e. rob from the rich give to the poor} you are saying if the promised money never comes-disaster. so you are saying the rich billionaire bankster insurance companies are lobbying to go bankrupt and make no money. even at 100 dollars a month more, they are bankrupt. what is really going on is this: Obama wants to bankrupt them and have single payor, his exchanges were just a smoke screen. the billionaire bankster insurance companies are more than willing to let Obama bankrupt them so that he can take them over and bail them out ala aig and gm. wake up. the first to go is the exchanges, then the insurance companies.
the dirty little secret is: there is no profit stream, unless you are writing life insurance or disability income or supplemental. there is no profit stream on under age 65 major medical, period, end of story
"This has all the appearances of an insurance industry lobbying Congress to protect their profit stream."
well, they are not very good at winning then because congress had zero to do with the aca, they need to be lobbying the supreme court and Obama then, the tyrants. oh, and zero profits as well. I guess they are just not very good at winning.
well, they are not very good at winning then because congress had zero to do with the aca, they need to be lobbying the supreme court and Obama then, the tyrants. oh, and zero profits as well. I guess they are just not very good at winning.
Baloney. Hospitals out here are making 40% profit with the reimbursements they are getting. That came up in the discussions/testimonies with regard to the Co Op closing.
The problem with healthcare is how many 'middle-men' have their hands in the pot, taking portions of your premiums and direct payments, but add no value to the process.
Hey this is capitalism. Most startups fail. Look at all the cons calling for a socialized guaranteed system. I'm so proud of you guys.
Wellmark is joining Iowa in 2017. Iowa actually has a few to choose from this year. Improvement over last year and the bankrupt one.
Latest posts
-
-
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters
- Latest: clayborn_94
-