NYT Editorial Board Calls for Rearrangement of Titanic Deck Chairs
[guest post by JVW]
As a follow-up to Patterico’s post earlier today regarding Aetna’s decision to drastically cut back on their participation in ObamaCare state exchanges, the hopelessly dumb New York Times editorial board types out a typically mindless editorial assuring the Obama Administration’s fan club that this is but a “hiccup” in the irreversible and ongoing establishment of a permanent role for the federal government in administering health care:
[S]ome big national insurers like UnitedHealth, Humana and now Aetna say they are losing too much money on marketplace policies. The reason is that the customers they signed up used more medical services than the insurers had anticipated. On Monday, Aetna said it would reduce the number of counties where it sells such policies to 242, from 778, citing a $200 million pretax loss on those policies in the second quarter. The company had sold marketplace policies to about 911,000 customers as of April.
Losing money will focus your mind in that way, won’t it? The editorial goes on:
There have been questions about Aetna’s motives. Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the insurer could be pressuring the Justice Department to drop or settle a lawsuit it filed last month to block Aetna’s proposed $37 billion acquisition of Humana. She and others have pointed out that as recently as April, Aetna’s chairman and chief executive, Mark Bertolini, told analysts that he considered the company’s presence in the marketplaces “a good investment.” And in May, Aetna said that it might expand into other parts of the country. Aetna says that the lawsuit did not influence its decision to reduce participation.
So an administration with a propensity for exaggerated happy-talk and playing hardball politics is upset that Aetna might be engaging in exaggerated happy-talk and playing hardball politics? Shocking. The conclusion from the NYT:
It is clear, however, that Congress should strengthen the marketplaces to ensure sufficient competition. For example, it could encourage more healthy people to buy insurance by extending tax credits to families that now earn too much to qualify. Many of those people find it cheaper to pay the tax penalty for not having insurance than to buy it. If more healthy people participated, more insurers would want to be on the exchanges. Congress and state governments could also consider offering a government insurance plan in rural areas and other places where there is little or no competition, as President Obama and Hillary Clinton have proposed.
The Affordable Care Act was passed allegedly to address three huge challenges: (1) millions of Americans lacked health insurance, (2) premiums were rapidly rising far beyond inflation and increases in wages, and (3) health care costs (Medicare and Medicaid especially) were eating up a larger and larger share of the federal budget. Today we know that despite the full implementation of the trillion-dollar ACA: (1) 33 million Americans still lack health insurance coverage, (2) premium increases still vastly outstrip economic growth, and (3) health care spending as a percentage of GDP continues to rise.* According to the NYT editorial board — the supposed cream of American journalism — the answer is for the government to throw even more money into the system by subsidizing the healthy young people whose premium payments we were promised would subsidize the otherwise uninsurable who need to consume more expensive health services. It’s like borrowing money at 8% to pay off your credit card balance which is growing at 7%, but far be it for the New York Times to figure that out.
The editorial concludes by pompously telling us that “Any law as complex and comprehensive as the Affordable Care Act is bound to have some hiccups. The only sensible response to those problems is to improve the law.” Because Heaven forbid any government spending program ever be subject to scrutiny and sensibly discontinued due to a failure to meet its objectives.
– JVW
* According to the downloadable spreadsheet at the link, health care spending as a percentage of GDP has risen as follows: 1960 – 5.0%, 1970 – 6.9%, 1980 – 8.9%, 1990 – 12.1%, 2000 – 13.3%, 2005 – 15.5%, 2010 – 17.3%, 2014 – 17.5%. Unsurprisingly, the promised “savings” from ObamaCare have failed to materialize.
“Fortunately,” neither major party candidate seems willing to do anything about the unsustainable growth in Medicare and Medicaid, even through that was supposed to be a justification for ObamaCare. Read Hillary!’s stupid and impossible promises here.
JVW (f97acd) — 8/16/2016 @ 11:05 pmflushing more money down the obamacare toilet strikes me as wasteful
but i’m no policy wonk
happyfeet (28a91b) — 8/17/2016 @ 4:41 amOne fundamental issue that I think is disregarded, though obvious and fundamental, is why don’t we expect health care costs to go up when there is more of it?
In 1960 if you had kidney failure, you died; you didn’t go on dialysis or get a kidney transplant. If you had a heart attack you often stayed home, as there were no ICUs to monitor and treat arrhythmias, no angioplasty to open clogged arteries.
Even in 1987 a mentor said it was a waste of time to learn about HIV drugs because they were too expensive and society would not pay for them, but pay for them we have.
I think looking to control medical costs to some (arbitrary) percentage of the GDP doesn’t make sense. Looking to find ways to make things more efficient makes sense.
The real issues have to do with fundamental behavior and lifestyle, and running out of other peoples money. Too much robbing Peter to pay Paul, and Peter is tired of it.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/17/2016 @ 6:18 amAs I think most of us here agree, ObamaCare was sold under false pretenses, was never designed to do what was promised.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 8/17/2016 @ 6:20 amWe’ve become a nation filled to the brim with chumps. Sayonara!
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 8/17/2016 @ 6:27 amThe entire premise of covering everybody including preexisting conditions is ludicrous. No insurance company of any type can exist long buying a claim. You can’t buy auto insurance after the accident nor homeowners after the fire or life insurance once you’re dead so it stands to reason you can’t buy health insurance after you’ve contracted cancer. The liberals propensity for pissing away OPM notwithstanding the only way to successfully cover preexisting health conditions is the way they cover bad drivers and that is with a high risk pool. There were and are many things wrong with the insurance system and Obamacare solved none of them but making insurance companies take on high cost preexisting conditions without government subsidies is a guaranteed road to failure.
BTW, MD in Philly, I believe the ACA is doing exactly what it was planned to do: FAIL and lead the way to single payer.
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 8/17/2016 @ 7:09 amWith full media collusion, Hoagie.
Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 8/17/2016 @ 9:18 amWere there any group plans, prior to Obamacare, which did not cover pre-existing conditions after the first six months of enrollment? I suspect the problem is elsewhere. Someone suggested hospitals “over-treating” in another thread (translate “padding the bill”). I would add coverage for routine care and office visits which make the system pre-paid health maintenance and not insurance.
nk (dbc370) — 8/17/2016 @ 9:31 amIs an annual checkup, with $500.00 bloodwork billed, really like getting in a car accident — an insurable possibility? Of course not. It’s a for-sure thing. So why is insurance paying for it?
nk (dbc370) — 8/17/2016 @ 9:38 amObamaCare needs to be put on Medicare.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 8/17/2016 @ 9:47 amOr maybe we can just euthanize it.
And there’s this. Insurance is a sucker bet. An insurance company entices people into betting that they will get sick while knowing, through its actuarians, that many will not and the insurance company will take in more than it pays out. Well, healthy, young people are not taking the sucker bet and Obama can’t make them, and the chronically ill, the worriers, and the hypochondriacs are “winning” the bet.
nk (dbc370) — 8/17/2016 @ 9:57 amThe cold fact is that we have seen at least four decades of government fixes of “the health care problem”. Each successve layer has proved flawed. I know that, in theory, each successive law passed repeals whatever it replaces, and I also seriously doubt that that happens in practice. I am increasingly of the opinion that what we need is a massive repeal of the last several decades of medical regulation, followed by a decade’s moratorium on rushes to “fix” anything.
I know; snowball’s chance in hell.
C. S. P. Schofield (8f5ce4) — 8/17/2016 @ 12:16 pmInsurance pays for some things like mammograms and blood tests because of the idea-that may be flawed, actually – that finding something early and beginning treatment early is less expensive in the long run.
I agree with the good Rev. from Willow Grove and CSP Schofield,
a comma, just for our host
MD in Philly (2be95c) — 8/17/2016 @ 4:05 pmMedicare, Medicaid, VA, Obamacare are as much safety nets for health care providers as they are for patients. The practice of medicine is a big investment and doctors. clinics and hospitals want, and deserve, a return. But the safety net should not be the mainstay, as it has become.
nk (dbc370) — 8/17/2016 @ 4:34 pmbobby jindal would know what to do
(former governor of louisiana and one-time presidential candidate what lost fairly decisively to Mr. Donald Trump)
happyfeet (28a91b) — 8/17/2016 @ 4:44 pmThe problem we have nk, is the liberals will trot out some sad case of a 12yo kid with cancer or some other story to pull peoples heart strings then “everybody” is on board with a health insurance plan that covers everybody from the healthiest man on earth to children born with downs syndrome. One insurance policy can’t do all that! But after a parade of Poor Souls the leftist media will announce “67% of Americans want comprehensive insurance to cover preexisting conditions”. The problem is 67% nor 99% of Americans are not qualified to understand insurance, medicine, mortality, morbidity, statistics, or any of a hundred other factors pertaining to the subject. 67% of Americans may “want” to drive a Rolls Royce but that ain’t happening either unless everybody is willing to pay for a Rolls Royce. However, when the dust settles and you didn’t get the Rolls you can settle for a KIA but when the health insurance dust settles a lot of people will needlessly die and the rest will get lousy medical care because everybody can’t drive a Rolls Royce.
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 8/17/2016 @ 4:45 pmthey spend all this effort to destroy a top flight institution, not the best minds but certainly the most devious,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/17/2016 @ 4:50 pmMD in Philly, insurance is not supposed to pay for doctor visits, blood tests or mammograms. It’s supposed to pay for catastrophic medical expenses.
Just like car insurance won’t cover oil changes or wiper blades and home owners insurance won’t cover a broken dishwasher or blown light bulbs with health insurance you are supposed to pay the doctor and buy your own glasses and get a damn filling in a tooth if you need one. The insurance takes care of the heart attacks and broken back.
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 8/17/2016 @ 4:52 pmTell me about it, narciso. The leftist mentality cannot just be some anti America accident. This crap is planned!
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 8/17/2016 @ 4:55 pmtake ezekiel emmanuel, you can’t imagine someone as coldblooded as him, outside of a bond villain, he’s the one that came up with the death panels, that elizabeth mcgaughey sussed on, but the huntress brought to public note,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/17/2016 @ 5:08 pmGuys as cold blooded as he have been around since time immemorial. We just came to not expect it in our wonderful Republic. But with leftism in America came the desire for power over law. Narciso, do you believe there is an American politician alive today who would do what George Washington did after his second term and step down and turn power over to someone else ? Of course Washington was one of those hated white Christian men the New American Order loathes.
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 8/17/2016 @ 5:16 pmVenezuela crushes 2,000 guns in public, plans registry of bullets
in PUBLIC they did it
you say u wanna revolution ooh yeah you know
we’re just pasty british fags
happyfeet (28a91b) — 8/17/2016 @ 5:16 pmThat sounds like a business opportunity.
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 8/17/2016 @ 5:23 pma few, I can’t think right off the back,
http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/hamilton-versus-history/
how history is updated for the current narrative,
narciso (732bc0) — 8/17/2016 @ 5:23 pmI think by FDR’s 4th term we pretty much put to sleep the idea (ideal?) of an American statesman. Now they are just politicians, nothing more. And yes, the “updated” narrative will further relegate those pesky ole’ white bastards to the ashbin of history. I find it saddening that people find it necessary to “unwhiten” American and European history.
Rev. Hoagie® (0f4ef6) — 8/17/2016 @ 6:11 pm