New Mexico insurance company abandoning Obamacare exchange
Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.
Finding out what’s in it: A major New Mexico health insurance company has decided to stop selling individual insurance policies through the Obamacare exchange.
Apparently, people who got insurance through the exchange were generally sicker to begin with, and were poorer (80% required subsidies). The company decided the cost was too much.
Meanwhile, Obama has declared that the solution to this very bad government-run health care system is more government!
President Barack Obama, reviewing his signature health law six years into its implementation, is suggesting Congress and his White House successor add a government-run, or public, insurance option to the Affordable Care Act and increase federal financial assistance for people to buy coverage.
The problem with this proposal is this is exactly what the Obamacare exchanges were, except that the health insurance itself was provided by private companies. Obama is suggesting we expand the exchanges (which have failed miserably), but augment that failure with a system kind of like the Veterans Administration, where the government provides the healthcare. That should work just great, assuming we lived in a fantasyland invented by progressive leftists who pay no attention to reality.
But then, I think we do, considering how many people seem willing to vote for Hillary Clinton, a big supporter of Obamacare and a long time proponent of it.
Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.
Finding out what’s in it: A major New Mexico health insurance company has decided to stop selling individual insurance policies through the Obamacare exchange.
Apparently, people who got insurance through the exchange were generally sicker to begin with, and were poorer (80% required subsidies). The company decided the cost was too much.
Meanwhile, Obama has declared that the solution to this very bad government-run health care system is more government!
President Barack Obama, reviewing his signature health law six years into its implementation, is suggesting Congress and his White House successor add a government-run, or public, insurance option to the Affordable Care Act and increase federal financial assistance for people to buy coverage.
The problem with this proposal is this is exactly what the Obamacare exchanges were, except that the health insurance itself was provided by private companies. Obama is suggesting we expand the exchanges (which have failed miserably), but augment that failure with a system kind of like the Veterans Administration, where the government provides the healthcare. That should work just great, assuming we lived in a fantasyland invented by progressive leftists who pay no attention to reality.
But then, I think we do, considering how many people seem willing to vote for Hillary Clinton, a big supporter of Obamacare and a long time proponent of it.
Some people think that if you take profit out of the equation that everything magically becomes better. With no profits, you can provided unlimited services. What can’t be taken out of the equation is cost. No matter who foots the bill, there will always be cost. Look at the VA or the British NHS, people don’t get every single service they need or desire.
The notion that avoiding cost considerations leads to health care paradise in absurd. And a system where government decides who is worthy of getting care, and who isn’t, leads to institutional systematic abuses.
The purpose of profit, in the free market capitalist system, is to reward efficiency — the reduction of cost. He who finds an improvement, a less expensive way to produce the same or better goods or services, gets to make the profit. He who does not loses his profit to the one who did.
This apparently sounds unfair to the socialist, but to the consumer, it is wonderful, as he spends less and gets more. It is also fair to the innovator, as he gets rewarded for his work.