We told you so: ObamaCare Causing New Mexico Insurance Companies Dropping Coverage

With Halloween just around the corner, it seems like every day we find out about another “trick” associated with the ObamaCare health plan. Two days ago, the New Mexico Independent reported that Aetna would no longer be writing small group or individual policies in the state.

With Blue Cross already haggling with the state’s PRC over major rate hikes, it seems that the combination of rapidly-rising costs under ObamaCare and the PRC’s unwillingness to raise rates could make individual health insurance plans nearly impossible to obtain in the state, thus forcing more and more people onto government programs.

Perhaps killing the last remnants of private health care was the strategy from the outset?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 Replies to “We told you so: ObamaCare Causing New Mexico Insurance Companies Dropping Coverage”

  1. “Perhaps killing the last remnants of private health care was the strategy from the outset?”

    There’s no perhaps about it. This was obviously the strategy. The supporters of the bill were pretty blatant about what they wanted to accomplish, with folks like Ed Shultz and Bernie Sanders talking openly about this forcing more folks into government run options. I guess they are all government run options though, even in “private health care”, so did anything really change?

  2. I am on Medicare and this year I have had the best insurance coverage I have ever had, bar none. It was a Medicare Advantage plan. I received notice in June that the company would no long offer their plan in New Mexico (PHC) at the end of the year. I have had trouble accepting the fact that I am now a social leech, but they give you no choice.

  3. We must watch every step of the insurance industry . they are in the business of denying claims, not paying them and Aetna is the worst.
    This “health care bill” is not favoring us little people.

  4. Insurance is the sharing of risks by the insured policy holders. If an unisured person has an illness that will require a large expenditure, that person can either be rejected for insurance because of per-existing conditions or can be allowed coverage by the iinsurance company with the costs of the procedures paid by the rest of the insureds. There is no free lunch.
    If the insurance is denied, then the uninsured person if rich enough, has to either pay for the medical procedures or if not rich enough, have somebody else pay, the hospital, physician or the tax payers through medicaid. There is no free lunch.
    In the situation of “single payer” insurance, that is, government paid health insurance, in the United States there will be millions of folks not insured at the present, who will receive insurance coverage; one estimate is around 40 million.
    Since it is impossible for an immediate major increase in either hospital facilities or physicians, some type of rationing iwill be manditory. This is the situation faced by citizens in Canada, many who drive to the norhern states to receive immediate treatment on illnesses that require waiting for months in Canada
    Also, I think, the folks who now do not have health insurance, still receive basic free (to them) health care, through various existing programs including emergency room facilities.
    Today a substantial portion of the increases in health insurance premiums is caused by state mandated coverage of items not traditionally considered as health related, such as alcoholic treatment, psychhiatric treatment and such.
    If basic health insurance plans could be offerred without a lot of options, the cost would surely go down.
    Finally, how would you like your personal health care insurance administered by a New Mexico state agency?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.