Thanks for your lack of support, here take some money

This is what happens when the right hand doesn’t care what the left hand is doing after being stabbed in the back — to mangle a metaphor.

This past month Anthem Inc. announced it would stop selling ObamaCare-compliant health insurance plans in all but three Nevada counties. The decision left no company willing to sell ObamaCare policies in any counties except Clark, Nye and Washoe.

Gov. Brian Sandoval called the action devastating and unfortunate. His statement at the time read: “My administration is working diligently to identify solutions to ensure there is, at the very least, a safety net available to rural Nevada residents who will be left without any options for coverage in the wake of these devastating and unfortunate decisions. The reduced footprint of carriers on the exchange will leave more than 8,000 Nevadans with no coverage, and that is unacceptable.”

Heather Korbulic, the state’s health exchange director, called the situation a “health care crisis for rural Nevada.”

In pulling out of those 14 counties Anthem stated the “individual market remains volatile” and “planning and pricing for ACA (Affordable Care Act)-compliant health plans has become increasingly difficult due to a shrinking and deteriorating individual market …”

This week the state repaid Anthem’s decision with a huge tax abatement package.

According to a press release from Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance, the Governor’s Office of Economic Development has decided to hand Anthem $831,000 in tax abatements in exchange for leasing a customer service office in Las Vegas and hiring as many as 400 workers — at an average wage of $21.52 an hour or 1 percent more than the minimum requirement — over the next two years. That’s more than $2,000 per job.

Did anyone consider trying to use a little leverage for the rural counties? Or are they better off without ObamaCare policies, since the price is climbing by double digits.

In 2016 Anthem paid its top executive more than $16 million. The company’s gross profits in 2016 exceeded $18 billion.




14 comments on “Thanks for your lack of support, here take some money

  1. Steve says:

    Lacking Obama and Reids constant stream of “fixes” ACA is being allowed to fall apart all on its own.
    Many Democrats are publicly calling for “fixes” to ACA while willfully obstructing anything the Republicans propose and demanding Republicans stop- calling their stuff a “repeal” of “Obamacare”
    Turns out what Trump predicted might be coming true, ACA (lacking that stream of Obama/Reid “fixes”) is falling apart all on its own.

    From the start of the ACA farce, both sides have made it clear something needs to be done with healthcare in the USA. Ever since, both sides have refused to work together, obstructing each other depending on who has the votes.
    Now it appears the only thing that means anything to the Democrats is keeping Obama’s name on health care law and top the Republicans is removing Obama’s name from that same law!

    This farce has become a whiny little crybaby effort of a name game and both sides forget they are playing with people’s lives.

  2. Tell me again governor and senator why it is so important to keep all those people on Medicaid. This may not show cause and effect, but warrants further review, perhaps?

    “… uninsured patients were about 25% less likely than those with Medicaid to have an ‘in-hospital death.’”

    “Medicaid patients were also more than twice as likely to have a major, subsequent heart attack after angioplasty as were patients who didn’t have any health insurance at all.”

    Excerpt from WSJ column:

    Long before he became the head of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Scott Gottlieb wrote on this subject for the Journal in 2011. He described some of the relevant research:
    • Major surgical procedures: A 2010 study of 893,658 major surgical operations performed between 2003 to 2007, published in the Annals of Surgery, found that being on Medicaid was associated with the longest length of stay, the most total hospital costs, and the highest risk of death. Medicaid patients were almost twice as likely to die in the hospital than those with private insurance. By comparison, uninsured patients were about 25% less likely than those with Medicaid to have an “in-hospital death.” Another recent study found similar outcomes for Medicaid patients undergoing trauma surgery.

    • Poor outcomes after heart procedures: A 2011 study of 13,573 patients, published in the American Journal of Cardiology, found that people with Medicaid who underwent coronary angioplasty (a procedure to open clogged heart arteries) were 59% more likely to have “major adverse cardiac events,” such as strokes and heart attacks, compared with privately insured patients. Medicaid patients were also more than twice as likely to have a major, subsequent heart attack after angioplasty as were patients who didn’t have any health insurance at all.

  3. Barbara says:

    Sandoval and the legislators who signed on to the ACA are responsible for the destruction of the health insurance market. Now they, and liberal Senator Republicans, want to go further and spend billions more on this failing program. Subsidizing insurance companies is unconstitutional. All the deceit and cronyism of politicians cannot alter economic principles. Central government control always results in higher prices, shortages, rationing, and less quality. Always.

    The ACA is un-American. It is not compatible with our founding principles and is a direct assault on Americanism. The collusion of the insurance companies and politicians has been revealed. Further bailouts are not the answer.

    Thankfully Senator Mike Lee and a very few conservative Senators have stood strong and killed the proposed Senate bill. Now Senators will vote on a true repeal bill they passed several times when they knew it was only a show vote. We’ll see if Senator Heller will safeguard our American way of life or whether he will continue to send the country down the road to tyranny and condemn future generations to higher costs, rationing, shortages and poorer quality of care.

  4. Steve says:

    The vote will happen but that 2015 bill won’t pass the Senate this time, Barbara.

    Even if it does pass, it provides for two years of “stabilization” for ACA. This is the same thing as all those “fixes” Obama was making.

    The more likely outcome is going to be more gridlock or (in an optimistic hope) Congress decides to do what they are supposed to do, compromise on both sides and reach agreement.

    It’s disgusting to watch both sides try to keep shutting the other out.

  5. Rincon says:

    Your WSJ link is very interesting, Thomas; however, your likely conclusion may be in error. I’m assuming the conclusion is that private insurance creates better outcomes than single payer insurance. This study may help point out a possible issue, but is insufficient to prove anything. Firstly, people with insurance generally have a higher income and educational level than those on Medicaid or Medicare. These people live longer in pretty much every country in the world, regardless of the kind of health care system. Is it reasonable to postulate that a group who is likely to live longer may be healthier in the first place? The Medicaid group in particular includes a variety of alcoholics, drug users, and other rather unhealthy types.

    In the over 65 group, those with private insurance are much more likely to still be working than those on Medicare alone. Is it just possible that a group of people who feel healthy and positive enough to work may actually be healthier and stronger than the group that stopped working, some because they felt exhausted?

    It’s also well known that many doctors refuse Medicare and Medicaid because they pay less. So it’s almost a certainty that the primo doctors are less likely to treat Medicare/Medicaid patients than the dregs of the profession. This just might have some impact on results.

    Since I only had the abstract to read, it’s possible that this study is not as poorly designed as it appears, but regardless, in order to conclude that the method of payment creates the inferior care, the assumption must be that the individual doctors somehow lose their skills when paid by a different party – a very unlikely proposition.

  6. Steve says:

    “Your WSJ link is very interesting, Thomas; however, your likely conclusion may be in error. ”

    Made up position

    Debunked the message about that made up position.

    every post is nothing about communication, only about debunking the message

  7. deleted says:

    After wasting untold billions of dollars and frustrating the country’s efforts to move forward to the important work it faced, republicans today admitted what most Americans have known for years; that the country wants healthcare paid for by the government which only that can fulfill the founders guarantee of “life” as expressed in the Constitution.

    Agent Orange will rue the day, along with any of the anti-American republicans who fail to heed the will of their constituents by protecting that right.

    And here’s how.

  8. Steve says:

    Patrick, think.
    By forcing the issue, Trump is forcing congress to work together.

  9. Rincon says:

    Unfortunately, many Americans don’t want health care paid by the government. According to the Chicago Tribune, only 44% want government health care, which beats the 36% who don’t, but 19% are unsure. We really need a clear majority to decisively move forward in either direction. This is unlikely because of rampant misinformation (or misinterpretation) on both sides such as the WSJ articles at the top of this page. How can the people join in their opinions when the facts themselves are distorted?

  10. deleted says:


    It’s all in the way the question is asked. You don’t think Medicare has withstood the near constant attacks from right wing politicians since it was enacted, and survived, because so few Americans support it do you?

    This country is no different, when it comes to who ought to be paying for healthcare for the masses than the other civilized countries on earth, which ALL have government paid for healthcare; we just have more spinmeisters trying to tell Americans that they don’t like government paid for healthcare.

  11. Steve says:

    Well, Patrick, it certainly does not hurt Medicare to be a requirement (by law) that all seniors sign up for at least Part A by age 65.
    That requirement seems to assure “support” for the program, huh.

    And would someone please stop the incessant robo calls trying to scam us into buying insurance?
    I mean, don’t they realize we KNOW Medicare rates are not available to us until we reach that 3 month threshold?

  12. deleted says:

    “People with group health policies through their employer generally do not have to sign up for Medicare when they turn 65. They, or you in this case, can keep your employer coverage until you retire. You will then have eight months within which to sign up for Medicare without facing any penalties for late enrollment.”

  13. Steve says:

    When in doubt, go to the horses mouth.
    It is still too early for us to check my wife’s status on part A, if she is not eligible for premium free part A, we will need to sign up to avoid the penalty.

    “If you aren’t eligible for premium-free Part A, and you don’t buy it when you’re first eligible, you may have to pay a penalty.”

  14. Barbara says:

    Very interesting info on the cost of health care and how to fix it.

    The big health care myth: The true cost of health care and who distorted it

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s