You fool. They are adjusting. What do you think United Healthcare is doing?? Please explain to me how dumping thousands and thousands of peoples coverage is "good for us all in the end." Clueless.
Even worse, they want to double down and go full on single payer. They simply will never learn from their mistakes.
If the idea is to force fully socialized medicine, then it would be what they wanted to happen all along. They built the system knowing it would fail and sold it as a good idea just so they could swoop in with something that they couldn't even bribe enough people to support when they were passing the ACA once it ultimately and inevitably failed. People said that was the plan at the time they proposed it and it's obvious they were right.
You would still need to explain how the insurance companies would be on board. Obviously giving them the option to cancel policies was a nice carrot for them.
You can at least wait for Obama to get out of office before you start blaming republicans. This was a Democrat SNAFU, regardless if the Republicans proposed it two decades ago.
The idiotic voters for Trump have perhaps secured that. After Trump loses and there are 2 more left judges in the coming years then it will only be a matter of time.
No health care system is perfect , each system comes with boundle of its own. U.K./Canada are about 30-40% more efficient than the US, more effective in primary care when it comes to prevention/diagnoses but they are way stingy when it comes to procedures , the later is what drive insurance providers in the US out of business .
Of course, all of the great GOP/conservative solutions to the health care costs / insurance problems that existed for years were so successful that the Republicans are blameless...
United entered the market late with little enthusiasm, offered ridiculous rates, and is stepping back out when few signed up. You can live in your far-right or far-left bubbles and pretend like the ACA hasn't been successful, but the uninsured rate has fallen from 15% to 9% in four years. That's historic. Will there be tweaks and adjustments going forward? Yeah, of course, Hillary has already talked about changes she'll make. But "Obamacare" is here to stay and people's lives are being saved. ****ing deal with it.
remember when we were told premiums would go down by $2500/yr on average? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/15E7goj7Fmo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
forcing people to purchase insurance has resulted in more insured people, I'm shocked doesn't say a thing about quality/cost of care
Obama should have passed single payer when he had the votes. We spend more money than any country on healthcare, and there are very few metrics that put our healthcare better than any of the other 1st world nations.
Agreed. The company I work for does tons of consulting with UHG and its always the same story with them when it comes to the individual market. It's never been their strength and they frankly failed pretty badly from the get go when it came to pricing, coverage, networks, etc.. Their offerings were either way too good or absolutely terrible. UHG was barely in the individual market before the ACA so this isn't some shocking revelation. I love that if a company decides to do something like this, the blame automatically shifts to the government rather than asking if the company was at fault in any way. The ACA has plenty of problems but they're all generally fixable.
UHC was never that interested in the exchange. But just because they failed doesn't mean the whole system if whack. Dangerous to use a sample size of one, and these kinds of conclusions you draw continue to undermine your credibility. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-profits-20160427-snap-htmlstory.html I am no fan of Obamacare, but much of the problem hasn't stemmed from that but because of the crazy drug costs. Regardless, I still don't think it should be attacked for not being profitable for insurers. That's not the issue.
What alternative universe do you live in? There were never even close to the number of votes for single payer.
Seriously? If Scott Brown doesn't win in Massachusetts, there potentially would have been enough time to get 60 senators to vote on the House bill (that included the public option) but seeing as how they lost their 60 vote majority midway through the session, the only option was the Senate bill. A full single payer would have never passed. You also have to remember that the Democratic majorities back then were very different from the current caucus. You still had a very large contingent of moderate to conservative Democrats from the South and Midwest. Democrats still had federal delegations from states like Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, North and South Dakota, etc.. Democrats even had majorities of delegations in states like Indiana, Ohio, North Carolina, and Arkansas. Those were never votes for a single payer.
I suspect the quality of care for the newly insured is better than when they didn't have insurance. Plus the costs, both to them, and to the larger society, were better than using ERs for health issues.
