FWIW.....
".....UnitedHealth's decision -- which is tentative -- doesn't mean much. The company covers less than 6 percent of the exchange population; if it does pull out, those people will be able to get other coverage. The only way this would matter to the future of the exchanges would be if other insurers were to follow UnitedHealth's lead. While that's possible, it's unlikely, because the three biggest players -- Aetna, Anthem and Humana -- depend on the exchanges for more of their business, according to data from Bloomberg Intelligence, and have so far shown no signs that they want out."
"UnitedHealth...has always been lukewarm about the exchanges."
"UnitedHealth's announcement doesn't make failure any more likely. It just reinforces something that should already have been obvious: Obamacare still needs some work."
See:
Bloomberg
Comments
Aetna and Humana shareholders voted Monday (Oct. 19) to approve the two companies’ merger, but like the Cigna-Anthem deal still must be approved by antitrust enforcers.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2015/11/19/obamacare-shocker-stocks-unitedhealth/76054194/
On a side note, to those who are still shopping: I checked out Centene (which is mentioned in this article) and its prices for a bronze HD plan are slightly less than what I'm paying for my Aetna plan, plus they have vision and dental options. Unfortunately for me, they do not sell plans in my county, but maybe it will help someone else. In Florida, the Centene plans are marketed under the Ambetter name.
Prices up + benefits down = Individuals lose
There have been millions of people helped by Obamacare, and there have been millions that have been hurt by it. It seems like all this law has done is pick winners and losers and I am not a fan of that. There are usually many unintended consequences when the government tries to pick winners and losers.
The real question becomes, are they able to make legislative changes, that keep most of the positive benefits of Obamacare, but also make it more affordable to individuals?
From what I can tell, there was absolutely no focus on making it more affordable, it's just a mechanism to force people into insurance that they often can't afford even with subsidies.
UHC's talking out of both sides of its mouth. Earlier this month the CEO spoke with the Chicago Tribune about how it was expanding its ACA participation across Chicagoland and why it believed in the ACA. Here's a video and an edited transcript from the paper.
It starts with: Why are you expanding? We believe it's something we can do at an affordable price.
Regarding competition (or lack thereof), difficulties of insurers, strategy for purchasing insurance, etc., I'll see if I can write something that doesn't run on forever. Something is rarely as bad as its harshest critics think, nor as good as its most zealous supporters believe. The system can be gamed (and I've done so), but that's harder than it seems to some, and may not have as much impact as some argue (in part because of some mechanisms already built into the ACA).
IMHO all aspects are like that - some truth, a lot of hype, and a bit too anecdotal (it shouldn't cost me more, else it's a failure). Reminds me of the Al Franken decade.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/specialty-drugs-now-cost-than-the-median-household-income/ar-BBneCDd?li=BBnb4R7
He said that it would save my family $2,500/year. I'm curious when that will happen.
Hiltzik is a very smart reporter.