Insurer That Got $145 Million Loan Under Obamacare Is Almost Broke


#1

Bloomberg:

**Insurer That Got $145 Million Loan Under Obamacare Is Almost Broke
**

A startup insurance company loaned $145 million by the U.S. government under Obamacare is running out of money and being taken over by state officials in Iowa. The company, CoOportunity Health, which also serves Nebraska, was placed under Iowa Insurance Commissioner Nick Gerhart’s supervision this week and is no longer accepting new enrollees, according to a statement from his office. While Gerhart’s agency will operate the company for the time being, it’s urging policyholders to seek a new insurer.

CoOportunity Health is a co-op, or Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan, one of 23 nonprofit health insurers providing coverage in 26 states. They were created under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to increase competition. The fate of CoOportunity provides new fodder for Obamacare opponents who argue that the law wastes government money.

The co-op’s troubles are a blow to an Obamacare program that had outperformed the direst predictions of Republicans. While Obamacare opponents had argued the companies would fail and squander government loans, some co-ops including CoOpportunity had outpaced forecasts for enrollment, growing five times faster than expected through March.

CoOportunity now has 96,350 enrollees, up from 63,000 at the end of March, according to its website. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services provided the insurer $130.6 million in funding for solvency and $15.4 million for operations, according to a legal filing by Gerhart. CMS told CoOportunity Dec. 16 it couldn’t provide more funds. The insurer lost $45.7 million from January to October, according to the petition.


#2

Are the conservatives celebrating this? I have never understood conservative Christians that want to deny health care to the working poor. If you don’t have health insurance and you get sick you die. Less then 1% of those without health insurance receive charity healthy care. :frowning:


#3

I think you missed the point about all the government money being squandered here. Where die all the cash go??? Who is being held accountable. this is an excellent example of the govt being unable to use resources wisely.


#4

Was there any evidence of wrongdoing or is it that they just vastly underestimated their expenses?

Lots of businesses fail. Many businesses received government loans and failed. Is there anything exceptional about this except for it being involved in the political football we call Obamacare?


#5

That’s my question too. Isn’t the whole entrepreneurship process - including failure - the diamond in the crown of capitalism? Would the company necessarily be successful today if the loan had come from a bank instead? :confused:


#6

A reasonable question that can be asked is whether banks would make more careful lending decisions than the government. The problem is that banks can be just as dumb as the government.


#7

Even when the business idea seems solid, there’s still no guarantee of success. So nothing can be inferred about the lender (or the soundness of the business plan) by the failure of a single company.


#8

where do you get the idea we want to DENY health care to the working poor? Health insurance is NOT free…Someone has to pay for it.


#9

Information is sparse, but it appears CoOportunity Health went under because healthy people stayed with their prior providers, and they predominantly signed up people with pre-existing conditions.

Unlimited care to people with pre-existing conditions was never sustainable.


#10

So they should just die then?


#11

unlimited care for everyone was never a possibility,
and is not practiced in any single payer country.

Sadly, the high deductibles under ACA are leading many to avoid/delay even initial care, unless it’s essential


#12

So, they should die then?


#13

No, I don’t think we should spend $500k on someone in their 90’s, for treatments with questionable outcomes, and an obvious limited potential to extend their life.

Aged-Based Health Care Rationing
Currently, about 12% of the population is 65 years or older. By the year 2030, that figure is expected to reach 21%. The fastest growing age group is the population aged 80 and over – the very segment of the population that tends to require expensive and intensive medical care. The projected demands from a growing elderly population on a health care system that is already taxed to the breaking point, together with continual advances and availability of expensive life-extending technology, have led to troubling questions about society’s ability to meet future health care demands, and to the increased tolerance of proposals for rationing.

Isn’t the point of universal healthcare to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people?

Is your argument that we should provide every procedure to anyone that might avail of it?


#14

I understand your point better, but don’t you think that people with preexisting conditions deserve access to reasonable care.


#15

Time to ‘man up’ Crossbones,
What are you suggesting?


#16

High deductibles?

I have a plan with no deductible, virtually no out-of-pocket expenses, and benefits that are tailormade to what I need from health insurance coverage, with good coverage in the case of catastrophic conditions. I compare that to my prior plan that cost me several thousand dollars a year in deductibles, had a mandatory $1,000 ER admission fee and a mandatory $1,000 ambulance fee, made counseling essentially unaffordable, and which was extremely picky about what it wanted to cover.

ACA has improved my coverage while drastically slashing my costs. This program is brilliant if you’re smart about signing up for it and don’t pick something crazy expensive for no reason.


#17

This is very confusing to me. I live in Australia. All ambulance usage is paid by rate payers, that is property owners and is free to all, whatever your circumstances or residency status.
All public hospitals are paid by a levy on income tax of 3%, and is free to all, no matter whether you work or not, citizen or not.
Private hospitals are available if you privately insure, with a choice of surgeons and normally single room accommodation.
Our poor are paid for by those who work and no-one resents their care or demeans them in their want. I cannot understand the American culture that would deny the poor appropriate health care.


#18

It isn’t about wanting to deny health care to the working poor,its about not wanting the government to take over heath care and health insurance,and to make the costs increase,and to force people off their private insurance and onto government dependency,and to ration treatment,and to exercise tyrannical control over people’s lives. Getting health care is not always dependent upon having insurance,and having insurance does not guarantee good health care. Insurance is a guarantee to the hospital that it will get paid,not a guarantee that the patient will get the treatment he needs or wants. Hospitals will treat anyone who needs immediate treatment,even homeless people and illegal immigrants. They are required by law to give treatment to anyone who urgently needs it.


#19

True, but it seems that businesses that depend almost exclusively on gov’t grants/loans have a way high failure rate whether we’re talking so-called green energy or health care.


#20

This is an area where so called conservatives are at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical. After all, most so called conservatives are against getting rid of Medicare, even when there is no justification for the program. Anyone who really believes in free markets and freedom cannot come up with a reason for the existence of medicare, yet it still exists. You really cannot be a conservative and in favor of the government run and heavily subsidized health insurance program.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.