Insurance Companies Will Receive $5.5 Billion in Bailouts in 2015

[Jack V Savage]

Wouldn't that make even less sense then?

Rather than giving them money when they might actually need it to save the industry they're giving it out when they're still turning large profits.

No. Read about the policy. For one thing, the money isn't coming from taxpayers (read the OP); it's coming from other companies in the industry (and they all agreed to this beforehand). It's not about "saving the industry," it's just about intra-industry hedging.

Brutal.

It's hard to lose money when people are forced to buy your product and the government backstops your losses, I guess. :icon_conf

That's not what's happening.

 

[Cid]

No. Read about the policy. For one thing, the money isn't coming from taxpayers; it's coming from other companies in the industry (and they all agreed to this beforehand). It's not about "saving the industry," it's just about intra-industry hedging.

Gotcha. I'm tired, misread the OP.

 

[ben236]

Because they're massive corporate algorithms designed to make money. They don't sell a tangible product they just sell fear and they make billions off it.

It's not like they're a car industry where a bailout is not only going to help the manufacturer but all the people who make parts, services etc and have a follow on affect that is greater than the input.

It's just going into companies that sell nothing.

Maybe I'm biased because my opinion of insurance agencies is that this part of the movie is completely non-fictional.

TBF, the profit margins of health insurance companies are pretty damn slim (around 3%). So they are paying out a lot of money compared to what they take in.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Gotcha. I'm tired, misread the OP.

It was kind of hard to pick up if you were just skimming (that is, it was deliberately written badly), but this is the part:

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, insurers who record a profit of 3 percent or more on their Obamacare business would put some of the gains into a government-controlled fund. Companies whose claims cost at least 3 percent more than their premium revenue can access the money.

That is, companies that had better-than-expected risk pools are paying into a fund that companies with worse-than-expected risk pools paid into. It's not taxpayers saving companies that would go under otherwise; it's just the insurers hedging their risk.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I love how some people are ignoring the quotes that show this isn't a tax payer funded bailout and just sticking to their free-market mantra despite blatant contradiction.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

I thought obamacare was supposed to give subsidies to the poor who can barely afford health insurance. I guess it was only worded that way to make it sound like that. Now it looks like, Obamacare's purpose is to help insurance companies gain even more customers, nominally the ones who cannot afford it before. And their bills will now be footed by those that pay the taxes, at the market rate.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I thought obamacare was supposed to give subsidies to the poor who can barely afford health insurance. I guess it was only worded that way to make it sound like that. Now it looks like, Obamacare's purpose is to help insurance companies gain even more customers, nominally the ones who cannot afford it before, and their bills will now be footed by those that pay the taxes.

From the OP:

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, insurers who record a profit of 3 percent or more on their Obamacare business would put some of the gains into a government-controlled fund. Companies whose claims cost at least 3 percent more than their premium revenue can access the money.

So no.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

I love how some people are ignoring the quotes that show this isn't a tax payer funded bailout and just sticking to their free-market mantra despite blatant contradiction.

Then how can the gubment bail them out? I didn't read the article.

 

[MadSquabbles500]

From the OP:
So no.

Oh so it is not really bailout then. Most insurance companies have RE-insurance that they buy or pool their money into. This just seems like normal business then.

 

[kpt018]

I love how some people are ignoring the quotes that show this isn't a tax payer funded bailout and just sticking to their free-market mantra despite blatant contradiction.

Right. Like Jack pointed out, "bailout" is the new phrase to demonize something you disagree with.

 

[ChainFlow]

Oh so it is not really bailout then. Most insurance companies have RE-insurance that they buy or pool their money into. This just seems like normal business then.

yep. The people crying about "bailouts omg omg" are either lying or so eager to believe it's true that they don't care abut reality.

This is a deception being swallowed wholesale and without question by people who would rather live in a world where slightly modified normal business practices are actually evil theft of money from taxpayers to pay for lazy bums to get *gasp* medical care.

 

[feedmelies]

I love how some people are ignoring the quotes that show this isn't a tax payer funded bailout and just sticking to their free-market mantra despite blatant contradiction.

Blatant contradiction? Is there evidence that the "fund" has enough money to cover the payments? If there isn't enough money there, where else is the money going to come from besides tax payers? Given the horrendous roll out of Obamacare, I have serious doubts that enough "gains" are being channeled to this "fund." Additionally, we've been lied to so many times about this stuff that the government has absolutely no credibility.

 

[RetiredWisFighter]

What about the individuals who find the cost of the law higher than anticipated? Can we get bailed out too?

 

[Kevin Rudd]

Blatant contradiction? Is there evidence that the "fund" has enough money to cover the payments? If there isn't enough money there, where else is the money going to come from besides tax payers? Given the horrendous roll out of Obamacare, I have serious doubts that enough "gains" are being channeled to this "fund." Additionally, we've been lied to so many times about this stuff that the government has absolutely no credibility.

Is there evidence there isn't enough money there?

 

[feedmelies]

Is there evidence there isn't enough money there?

In other words, you cannot answer the question? Do you know if there's any money in the "fund" at all?

 

[MicroBrew]

If after a year (maybee 2?) there is a clear trend of net losses such that the government has to always keep bailing out insurers then lets just scrap the whole mess and make it single payer.

Might as well if the Gov. is going to end up bailing out the Ins companies.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

In other words, you cannot answer the question? Do you know if there's any money in the "fund" at all?

In other words you can't answer my question.

you started this thread whining about there being no evidence of money in the fund but cannot provide any evidence either way.

See the contradiction or are you really that stupid?

OMG I can't see the balance of this fund so it is bailout!!!

Your ire about something that you can neither prove or disprove is laughable.

 

[feedmelies]

In other words you can't answer my question.

you started this thread whining about there being no evidence of money in the fund but cannot provide any evidence either way.

See the contradiction or are you really that stupid?

OMG I can't see the balance of this fund so it is bailout!!!

Your ire about something that you can neither prove or disprove is laughable.

I clearly asked the question in my OP. You cannot answer it.

 

[Jukai]

I'm not really seeing the problem.

Insurers can't turn people away. Some of them get lucky and get more profitable enrolees. Some of them get unlucky. This balances the scales so that the unlucky ones don't go out of business.

Guess some people would rather the companies go out of business so they can gloat about the horrific failure of the ACA.

The point is that this is supposed to lower the cost of healthcare. Without a single payer option to actually rise and drop with the market, there is no reason for these other guys to play fair. Prices will no doubt drop but insurance won't get cheaper, the businesses will just get richer.

 

[ben236]

The point is that this is supposed to lower the cost of healthcare. Without a single payer option to actually rise and drop with the market, there is no reason for these other guys to play fair. Prices will no doubt drop but insurance won't get cheaper, the businesses will just get richer.

Huh? I have no idea what you're basing this on. If healthcare prices dropped, insurance would surely get cheaper.