The health insurance 'death spiral' hitting more and more Americans

Guno צְבִי

We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
"The overall average increase in underlying individual market premiums for people who weren't subsidy-eligible in 2025 was a little more than 25% nationwide," Norris said. "So this family's experience tracks very similarly to the average."



Among those who were eligible for the enhanced subsidies and then lost them, you find even starker cases, Norris said. She pointed to a hypothetical 63-year-old couple in West Virginia earning $85,000 — just above the subsidy threshold. In 2025, they could get the lowest-cost ACA Gold plan for $300 a month. In 2026, that same plan costs $4,562 a month.

Republicans have tried to repeal, gut, or otherwise undermine the ACA in one form or another since it passed in 2010, including through court challenges and funding fights. The law has always capped the percentage of income expected to be spent on premiums, with subsidies phasing out altogether above 400% of the federal poverty level. That was the baseline for years.

Mike Smith, president emeritus of The Brokerage Inc. and a health insurance expert, said the ACA increasingly resembles a two-tier system in which many middle-income Americans technically have insurance but cannot realistically afford to use it — "catastrophic coverage disguised as comprehensive insurance," as he described it.

"Having insurance doesn't always mean healthcare is affordable or accessible," Noonan said. When premiums rise to the point where people can no longer afford them, she said, the consequences can cascade quickly. People downgrade their coverage. Then they find themselves with less substantial insurance, paying more out of pocket since their plans cover less.



"The first impact is usually cost. Specialist visits, lab work, and routine screenings become harder to afford," Noonan said."What begins as a financial challenge can become a health crisis.

"A screening that gets skipped or a therapy that gets paused rarely stays contained to a single moment," Noonan added. "It resurfaces later as a preventable complication, a condition that has advanced further than it should have, or a recovery that is longer, harder, and more expensive."

 
For-profit healthcare always results in minimum care and minimum staffing to maximize profits. It is easy to justify shutting down rural hospitals because they are not profitable enough.

Is that so, Nerdsperg?

It is not true that for-profit healthcare always produces minimum care and minimum staffing purely to maximize profits.

Evidence is mixed: some studies find lower staffing/investment and worse outcomes in for-profit settings (especially private-equity acquisitions), while others find similar quality, greater efficiency/productivity, or no consistent difference after adjustments.

  • Reviews of U.S. studies since 2000 often find no systematic difference in overall quality, cost/efficiency, or uncompensated care once patient mix and other factors are controlled. For-profits tend to emphasize profitable services and respond faster to financial incentives.
  • Some analyses show for-profit presence associated with lower expenditures and similar outcomes (e.g., for heart attacks), or productivity gains. Quality gaps can vary by market competition and chain status.
  • Nonprofits are not immune to cost pressures, high executive pay, or service-line decisions that prioritize margins.

“Always” and “minimum care” are absolute claims that do not hold across the evidence base. Both ownership types operate under the same payment systems, regulations, and cost pressures. Outcomes depend heavily on market competition, payer mix, regulation, and specific ownership (e.g., private equity vs. other for-profits).

Rural hospital closures are driven mainly by low volume, financial losses, and payer mix; for-profit ownership is a risk factor but not the sole or primary cause.
 
For-profit healthcare always results in minimum care and minimum staffing to maximize profits. It is easy to justify shutting down rural hospitals because they are not profitable enough.

12 rural hospitals face closure in Tennessee​


A July analysis by the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform shows that 36% of Tennessee’s rural hospitals face serious financial trouble, and at least 12 are at immediate risk of shutting down within the next few years.

Harold D. Miller, CHQPR President, explained to News 2 why the policy institute did not name specific hospitals.

“Since things can get much better or much worse at a small hospital in a short period of time, we wouldn’t want to label an individual hospital as being at risk of closing if it has already taken (or is taking) actions that will significantly improve its circumstances,” Miller said.


 

Report shows 45 rural hospitals at risk of closing in Oklahoma​


KLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (KOKH) — The future of healthcare in some rural communities is becoming increasingly uncertain.

A report from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform in July finds 700 rural hospitals nationwide are at risk of closing.


The report shows 45 rural hospitals are at risk of closing in Oklahoma, which is the third most in the nation behind Texas and Kansas. The report says the hospitals face the risk of closing due to serious financial problems.

 
"The overall average increase in underlying individual market premiums for people who weren't subsidy-eligible in 2025 was a little more than 25% nationwide," Norris said. "So this family's experience tracks very similarly to the average."



Among those who were eligible for the enhanced subsidies and then lost them, you find even starker cases, Norris said. She pointed to a hypothetical 63-year-old couple in West Virginia earning $85,000 — just above the subsidy threshold. In 2025, they could get the lowest-cost ACA Gold plan for $300 a month. In 2026, that same plan costs $4,562 a month.

Republicans have tried to repeal, gut, or otherwise undermine the ACA in one form or another since it passed in 2010, including through court challenges and funding fights. The law has always capped the percentage of income expected to be spent on premiums, with subsidies phasing out altogether above 400% of the federal poverty level. That was the baseline for years.

Mike Smith, president emeritus of The Brokerage Inc. and a health insurance expert, said the ACA increasingly resembles a two-tier system in which many middle-income Americans technically have insurance but cannot realistically afford to use it — "catastrophic coverage disguised as comprehensive insurance," as he described it.

"Having insurance doesn't always mean healthcare is affordable or accessible," Noonan said. When premiums rise to the point where people can no longer afford them, she said, the consequences can cascade quickly. People downgrade their coverage. Then they find themselves with less substantial insurance, paying more out of pocket since their plans cover less.



"The first impact is usually cost. Specialist visits, lab work, and routine screenings become harder to afford," Noonan said."What begins as a financial challenge can become a health crisis.

"A screening that gets skipped or a therapy that gets paused rarely stays contained to a single moment," Noonan added. "It resurfaces later as a preventable complication, a condition that has advanced further than it should have, or a recovery that is longer, harder, and more expensive."

You do know that only 7% of Americans buy a plan off the Obamacare (ACA) marketplace don't you?


So, 7% of Americans are getting fucked over by that shitty Obamacare insurance plan. Maybe it's time we just dumped it and went back to what it was before because it would lower the cost of plans for 7% of Americans.
 
"The overall average increase in underlying individual market premiums for people who weren't subsidy-eligible in 2025 was a little more than 25% nationwide," Norris said. "So this family's experience tracks very similarly to the average."



Among those who were eligible for the enhanced subsidies and then lost them, you find even starker cases, Norris said. She pointed to a hypothetical 63-year-old couple in West Virginia earning $85,000 — just above the subsidy threshold. In 2025, they could get the lowest-cost ACA Gold plan for $300 a month. In 2026, that same plan costs $4,562 a month.

Republicans have tried to repeal, gut, or otherwise undermine the ACA in one form or another since it passed in 2010, including through court challenges and funding fights. The law has always capped the percentage of income expected to be spent on premiums, with subsidies phasing out altogether above 400% of the federal poverty level. That was the baseline for years.

Mike Smith, president emeritus of The Brokerage Inc. and a health insurance expert, said the ACA increasingly resembles a two-tier system in which many middle-income Americans technically have insurance but cannot realistically afford to use it — "catastrophic coverage disguised as comprehensive insurance," as he described it.

"Having insurance doesn't always mean healthcare is affordable or accessible," Noonan said. When premiums rise to the point where people can no longer afford them, she said, the consequences can cascade quickly. People downgrade their coverage. Then they find themselves with less substantial insurance, paying more out of pocket since their plans cover less.



"The first impact is usually cost. Specialist visits, lab work, and routine screenings become harder to afford," Noonan said."What begins as a financial challenge can become a health crisis.

"A screening that gets skipped or a therapy that gets paused rarely stays contained to a single moment," Noonan added. "It resurfaces later as a preventable complication, a condition that has advanced further than it should have, or a recovery that is longer, harder, and more expensive."

Talk to obama. He is the one who screwed it up.
You can keep your doctor.
:rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2:
 
So rural hospitals are A ok?
Rural hospitals are what they are. That is, they are what can be afforded for the patient level and numbers expected to be handled. That's as true in socialized medicine countries as it is in the US. If anything, medical care is far worse in rural areas in Mexico and Canada who both have those systems in place. The government prefers one-size fits all and outliers like rural areas get kicked to the curb.




Unlike in Canada, the US generally has helicopter med evac to deal with true emergencies in rural areas. Not cheap by any means, but it is generally available. The same can't be said for Canada where the government is very conscious of costs and aims for cost containment before outcomes.
 
Rural hospitals are what they are. That is, they are what can be afforded for the patient level and numbers expected to be handled. That's as true in socialized medicine countries as it is in the US. If anything, medical care is far worse in rural areas in Mexico and Canada who both have those systems in place. The government prefers one-size fits all and outliers like rural areas get kicked to the curb.




Unlike in Canada, the US generally has helicopter med evac to deal with true emergencies in rural areas. Not cheap by any means, but it is generally available. The same can't be said for Canada where the government is very conscious of costs and aims for cost containment before outcomes.
Are you suggesting that for-profit medicine is not extremely aware of costs and the impact of expensive treatments on the bottom line? You can get some exotic care, but you may wind up paying the rest of your life and having to declare bankruptcy. It is the rural hospitals that are the first to close.
Why are you twisting yourself into knots defending an embarrassingly bad and extremely expensive medical system? Do you work in it?
 
Are you suggesting that for-profit medicine is not extremely aware of costs and the impact of expensive treatments on the bottom line? You can get some exotic care, but you may wind up paying the rest of your life and having to declare bankruptcy. It is the rural hospitals that are the first to close.
Why are you twisting yourself into knots defending an embarrassingly bad and extremely expensive medical system? Do you work in it?
I am suggesting that. like with everything the government runs, there is no competition and the costs to bureaucrats is irrelevant. In a pay-as-you-go system where there is competition in the market providers are forced to deliver a quality product at a cost the market will bear. None of that is present in a Socialized medical system. Quality is irrelevant, or nearly so. Delivery of services has no urgency. Cost for what you get is irrelevant too. What matters to those running a socialized medical system is that the services delivered are, at least on paper, available and that the budgeted funding is what is spent.

So, for example, if you needed an MRI in a free-market healthcare system, you'd pay what it costs to do the MRI plus some profit margin. The wait time would be minimal because long waits increase chances of the competition outdoing you. In a socialized system, the MRI may have to be offered because the government rules say so. But you might have to wait six-months to a year to get one because equipment, technicians, and costs have to be controlled. The bureaucrats don't care if you die. They care that their budget is met and that the process is offered on paper.

Thus, in a for profit, free market system competition, quality of outcomes, and doing that at a price customers will pay is what's important. In a socialized system, meeting budget and required processes along with documentation are what's important. Customers are just a nusiance.
 
You do know that only 7% of Americans buy a plan off the Obamacare (ACA) marketplace don't you?


So, 7% of Americans are getting fucked over by that shitty Obamacare insurance plan. Maybe it's time we just dumped it and went back to what it was before because it would lower the cost of plans for 7% of Americans.
That's impossible because the entire insurance industry was destablized by it.
 
Back
Top