But, as the cost of healthcare has increased astronomically since Obamacare's rollout in 2010, many of the nation's healthcare insurers have withdrawn from the failed exchanges:
In response, those proponents are now calling those state exchanges "marketplaces."
Care of the National Center for Policy Analysis, some of those failures include:
- In 2014, losses to healthcare insurers exceeded $2.2B after receiving net reinsurance payments of $6.7B from the federal government. Called a "backstop" to keep healthcare insurers from leaving the exchanges due to the losses incurred, it's yet more government intervention that has failed to prop up the exchanges.
- In 2016, the nation's largest healthcare insurance provider, UnitedHealth Group (UHG), sold plans to 795k beneficiaries in 34 exchanges. UHG will lose $650M (or $800/beneficiary). As a result, UHG has all but withdrawn from the Obamacare exchanges. In a free market, a company can't sustain losses like that and remain in business. Hence the reinsurance payments above which failed to prop up the exchanges.
- Between 2014 and 2016, the average Obamacare exchange premium increased from $346 to $386 (or 12%). But, with 90% of Obamacare enrollees subsidized by tax credits which significantly reduce price of the premium, the cost to the federal government increases. In a free marketplace, there is no government rescue. But, with Obamacare, government subsidies were provided to enrollees tho hide the losses and, of course, those reinsurance payments to the healthcare insurance providers which failed to prop up the exchanges.
- In 2016, the average gross premium increased $30 (or 8% compared to 2015). However, the average tax credit increased by $26. The net premium increased only $4 (or 4%) percent, camouflaging the fact that gross premiums increased 300% between 2015 and 2016. Enrollees are happy with that net premium increase. But, taxpayers will pay the difference.
As it ends up, the Obamacare exchanges have proven attractive to primarily expensive enrollees, that is, folks who are sicker and require high-cost medical care. As rational agents, they purchase healthcare insurance in an exchange to receive the treatment they need. But, once that treatment is finished, those enrollees drop out.
So much for the exchanges, individual mandate, and limited open enrollment doing what originally was promised: Attracting large numbers of enrollees whose premiums would help to offset the losses incurred by covering all of those expensive beneficiaries.
Prior to Obamacare, the healthcare insurance market was not perfect. In fact, most markets aren't perfect. That said, there were individual plans or employer-based plans. In 2014, premiums for those plans were 19% lower than in the Obamacare exchanges. In 2015, premiums were 22% lower than in the Obamacare exchanges. Since 2010, the marketplace contained costs better than the exchanges have demonstrated.
In 2016, things have gotten so bad that even some Obamacare proponents have labeled the President's signature domestic policy "achievement" a failure.
But, don't forget: From the beginning, this failure was "baked into the cake," as those proponents have known all along. The plan was that Obamacare would fail and when it did, the sheeple would rise up in revolt because they deserved their entitlement. Congress would then respond out of fear, replacing Obamacare with a single-payer system (i.e., the federal government).
In the end, the sheeple will fall for the propaganda, once again leaving the 48% of those who pay federal taxes footing the bill because socialism is such a "caring" economic system.
Let the discussion begin...
To access the website identified in this post, click on the following link: