Aetna to Cut Back 70% on Obamacare in 2017

[Vandalshandle]

Well, as long as the Right continues to keep ACA repeal their main priority on their whining list, I guess that we can put the economy and world terrorism on the back burner. It may have to be put on priority two, though, because they are still trying to repeal Medicare.

 

[Arianrhod]

In the markets where they'll still condescend to do business, you mean. I was referring to the markets they're abandoning.

Okay. Whatever. Your "health insurance start-up" is going to be paying money to Aetna and Blue Cross when their customers are getting medical treatment from companies owned by Aetna and Blue Cross. Let's see how well that works out for whom shall we...

I wasn't aware that Aetna was able to simultaneously pull out of a region and also buy up properties in the same region, and I wonder if that's legal?

If that's what they're doing, a savvy start-up might consider being a one-stop shop as well, before Aetna starts playing the "in-network/out-of-network" game.

Just because they are dropping ACA policies does not mean they are pulling out of the region. Regardless, I am not aware of any reason they cannot invest in companies. It means insurance is probably going to become too big to fail.

Not sure what you mean by "dropping ACA policies." It seems to imply that the PPACA is an insurer (it is not) or that Aetna is refusing the subsidies it's being handed to insure certain patients.

Given that their entire goal is $$$$, that latter makes even less sense than the former.

From the OP "The insurance giant says it will offer ACA exchange plans in Delaware, Iowa, Nebraska and Virginia, slashing its Obamacare footprint by 70 percent next year. It will offer ACA plans in just 242 counties, nationally, down from nearly 780 this year."

That is what this thread is about. Aetna is dropping out of offering many of its PPACA exchange policies. If the policies are not being offered then they are not getting the subsidy for non-existent policies And if you want to be hypertechnical, the insurance company isn't the one getting the subsidy--it is the insured.

The insured may get the subsidy, but the revenue from that subsidy goes to the insurer. Let's not lose sight of that.

 

[Arianrhod]

Well, as long as the Right continues to keep ACA repeal their main priority on their whining list, I guess that we can put the economy and world terrorism on the back burner. It may have to be put on priority two, though, because they are still trying to repeal Medicare.

At least it's [temporarily] distracted them from peeping into strangers' bathroom stalls.

 

[Dekster]

Okay. Whatever. Your "health insurance start-up" is going to be paying money to Aetna and Blue Cross when their customers are getting medical treatment from companies owned by Aetna and Blue Cross. Let's see how well that works out for whom shall we...

I wasn't aware that Aetna was able to simultaneously pull out of a region and also buy up properties in the same region, and I wonder if that's legal?

If that's what they're doing, a savvy start-up might consider being a one-stop shop as well, before Aetna starts playing the "in-network/out-of-network" game.

Just because they are dropping ACA policies does not mean they are pulling out of the region. Regardless, I am not aware of any reason they cannot invest in companies. It means insurance is probably going to become too big to fail.

Not sure what you mean by "dropping ACA policies." It seems to imply that the PPACA is an insurer (it is not) or that Aetna is refusing the subsidies it's being handed to insure certain patients.

Given that their entire goal is $$$$, that latter makes even less sense than the former.

From the OP "The insurance giant says it will offer ACA exchange plans in Delaware, Iowa, Nebraska and Virginia, slashing its Obamacare footprint by 70 percent next year. It will offer ACA plans in just 242 counties, nationally, down from nearly 780 this year."

That is what this thread is about. Aetna is dropping out of offering many of its PPACA exchange policies. If the policies are not being offered then they are not getting the subsidy for non-existent policies And if you want to be hypertechnical, the insurance company isn't the one getting the subsidy--it is the insured.

The insured may get the subsidy, but the revenue from that subsidy goes to the insurer. Let's not lose sight of that.

Not always. Some people who do not get the subsidy at the market get it as a tax credit.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

In the markets where they'll still condescend to do business, you mean. I was referring to the markets they're abandoning.

Okay. Whatever. Your "health insurance start-up" is going to be paying money to Aetna and Blue Cross when their customers are getting medical treatment from companies owned by Aetna and Blue Cross. Let's see how well that works out for whom shall we...

I wasn't aware that Aetna was able to simultaneously pull out of a region and also buy up properties in the same region, and I wonder if that's legal?

If that's what they're doing, a savvy start-up might consider being a one-stop shop as well, before Aetna starts playing the "in-network/out-of-network" game.

Just because they are dropping ACA policies does not mean they are pulling out of the region. Regardless, I am not aware of any reason they cannot invest in companies. It means insurance is probably going to become too big to fail.

Not sure what you mean by "dropping ACA policies." It seems to imply that the PPACA is an insurer (it is not) or that Aetna is refusing the subsidies it's being handed to insure certain patients.

Given that their entire goal is $$$$, that latter makes even less sense than the former.

From the OP "The insurance giant says it will offer ACA exchange plans in Delaware, Iowa, Nebraska and Virginia, slashing its Obamacare footprint by 70 percent next year. It will offer ACA plans in just 242 counties, nationally, down from nearly 780 this year."

That is what this thread is about. Aetna is dropping out of offering many of its PPACA exchange policies. If the policies are not being offered then they are not getting the subsidy for non-existent policies And if you want to be hypertechnical, the insurance company isn't the one getting the subsidy--it is the insured.

An insurance company exists to make money.

What does the moronic left not get about that ?

If Aetna is pulling out....guess what that means.

 

[LittleNipper]

The problem most people observe is that the CEOs of healthcare are made rich. The idea is that the money collected by an "insurer" is supposed to be invested to make additional money. In that way when needed, the one being insured doesn't have unreasonable premiums, unreasonable co-pays, and unreasonable out of pocket expenses.

It is ridiculous to expect people to pay high premiums, high co-pays, and then not cover all hospital expenses. I feel that if all the money was given directly to the hospitals we would end much of the middle man non medical expenses. The fact also, that our judicial system presently allows lawsuits for anything, and so institutions and doctors are forced to again pay out exorbitant amounts for INSURANCE.

I'm sorry; however, unless those in question are out to murder people, sometimes things happen (that is why they call it a "practice". As long as the doctor and or institutions are willing to work with the patients and family members, I see no reason that most lawsuits should NOT be thrown out. God never said that we are entitled to tomorrow. An accident was never meant to be a golden egg for the survivors.

I come from a time when doctor home visits were the norm. Doctors were comfortable but not wealthy. The reason one became a doctor was to help people. A career of a doctor was a "calling" and not about buying a yacht or having social club connections.

I might also add that going to a doctor was not about living forever, either...

 

[Arianrhod]

The problem most people observe is that the CEOs of healthcare are made rich. The idea is that the money collected by an "insurer" is supposed to be invested to make additional money. In that way when needed, the one being insured doesn't have unreasonable premiums, unreasonable co-pays, and unreasonable out of pocket expenses.

It is ridiculous to expect people to pay high premiums, high co-pays, and then not cover all hospital expenses. I feel that if all the money was given directly to the hospitals we would end much of the middle man non medical expenses. The fact also, that our judicial system presently allows lawsuits for anything, and so institutions and doctors are forced to again pay out exorbitant amounts for INSURANCE.

I'm sorry; however, unless those in question are out to murder people, sometimes things happen (that is why they call it a "practice". As long as the doctor and or institutions are willing to work with the patients and family members, I see no reason that most lawsuits should NOT be thrown out. God never said that we are entitled to tomorrow. An accident was never meant to be a golden egg for the survivors.

I come from a time when doctor home visits were the norm. Doctors were comfortable but not wealthy. The reason one became a doctor was to help people. A career of a doctor was a "calling" and not about buying a yacht or having social club connections.

I might also add that going to a doctor was not about living forever, either...

^Excellent post, BTW.

Those making the most noise now are those who don't realize that health insurance began as a nonprofit, consumer-run venture, and that only when the for-profit insurers (life & casualty) were allowed into the market did the concept shift from allowing the paying customer (the insured) to cover medical expenses to lining the execs' golden parachutes and throwing $ at the stockholders.

The more stupid among us keep chanting "Aetna's losing money," whereas anyone who knows how to read a quarterly report or even look at a stock ticker knows this is bullshit. But they'll keep shouting anyway, unaware of what's really going on.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The problem most people observe is that the CEOs of healthcare are made rich. The idea is that the money collected by an "insurer" is supposed to be invested to make additional money. In that way when needed, the one being insured doesn't have unreasonable premiums, unreasonable co-pays, and unreasonable out of pocket expenses.

It is ridiculous to expect people to pay high premiums, high co-pays, and then not cover all hospital expenses. I feel that if all the money was given directly to the hospitals we would end much of the middle man non medical expenses. The fact also, that our judicial system presently allows lawsuits for anything, and so institutions and doctors are forced to again pay out exorbitant amounts for INSURANCE.

I'm sorry; however, unless those in question are out to murder people, sometimes things happen (that is why they call it a "practice". As long as the doctor and or institutions are willing to work with the patients and family members, I see no reason that most lawsuits should NOT be thrown out. God never said that we are entitled to tomorrow. An accident was never meant to be a golden egg for the survivors.

I come from a time when doctor home visits were the norm. Doctors were comfortable but not wealthy. The reason one became a doctor was to help people. A career of a doctor was a "calling" and not about buying a yacht or having social club connections.

I might also add that going to a doctor was not about living forever, either...

While I am not sure of your main point:

1. High Premiums....thank Obamacare.

2. The old medical profession.....you can't go back.

3. The left and right both don't want tort reform.

4. End of life discussion....necessary but hard.

 

[LittleNipper]

While I am not sure of your main point:

1. High Premiums....thank Obamacare.

2. The old medical profession.....you can't go back.

3. The left and right both don't want tort reform.

4. End of life discussion....necessary but hard.

Anything can be reversed except the aging process. What this country needs is a return to godly values. That means an end to promoting secularism. We must first recognize that GOD is at the center of a healthy society and not the "almighty" dollar. It is not all about socialism; however, it isn't all about capitalism either. We need divine assistance, but that will only come when we ask GOD for it .

 

[midcan5]

When will Americans wake up and call out these corporations for the thieves and liars they are? The right wing idiocy along with the libertarian fantasies are lost when it comes to the reality of corporate America today.

Aetna tried to use Obamacare as a hostage in its merger negotiations with the US government

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." Adam Smith

 

[LittleNipper]

Take ALL the government money away from the healthcare insurance providers and give it only to non-profit hospitals.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

When will Americans wake up and call out these corporations for the thieves and liars they are? The right wing idiocy along with the libertarian fantasies are lost when it comes to the reality of corporate America today.

How is it that the left is always pointing at the right ? The right is all hung up on corporations.

However, the left is all hung up on government. They don't realize that government and large corporations are one in the same.

Together they are sucking the life out of this country.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

This is good news. Now we can start over and NATIONALIZE health care in America.

The corporations had their chance and they suck even worse than the government at providing health care.

My families health care has always been beyond perfect. Affordable, total coverage, no problems.
I have to think that maybe its not the insurance companies that are failing the people, but more so the people failing their families by not providing for them properly,
I'm by no means rich so If I can make it work, I see no reason that the majority of people cant do the same.
Maybe it has to do with priorities, Do I buy the crack from the corner dealer or do I take that money and provide for my families needs.. Tough decision.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

This is good news. Now we can start over and NATIONALIZE health care in America.

The corporations had their chance and they suck even worse than the government at providing health care.

My families health care has always been beyond perfect. Affordable, total coverage, no problems.
I have to think that maybe its not the insurance companies that are failing the people, but more so the people failing their families by not providing for them properly,
I'm by no means rich so If I can make it work, I see no reason that the majority of people cant do the same.
Maybe it has to do with priorities, Do I buy the crack from the corner dealer or do I take that money and provide for my families needs.. Tough decision.

We spend 8,500 per person per year.

That you (and I) have great insurance means that someone else is paying a lot more.

Why can't we acknowledge that 800# gorilla in the room ?

 

[Lewdog]

California judge finds Aetna LIED. They pulled out of all those ACA exchanges not because of losing money... but because they were pissed for not being allowed to merge with Humana... and the GOP has been using the excuse of insurance providers losing money as the reason to get rid of the ACA, well it was a big, fat, lie.

U.S. judge finds that Aetna misled the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare

 

[Penelope]

I can't stand the southern GOP like Pete Sessions, one of the worst states for HI and he knows nothing about the ACA. What a moron.

 

[Penelope]

This is good news. Now we can start over and NATIONALIZE health care in America.

The corporations had their chance and they suck even worse than the government at providing health care.

My families health care has always been beyond perfect. Affordable, total coverage, no problems.
I have to think that maybe its not the insurance companies that are failing the people, but more so the people failing their families by not providing for them properly,
I'm by no means rich so If I can make it work, I see no reason that the majority of people cant do the same.
Maybe it has to do with priorities, Do I buy the crack from the corner dealer or do I take that money and provide for my families needs.. Tough decision.

We spend 8,500 per person per year.

That you (and I) have great insurance means that someone else is paying a lot more.

Why can't we acknowledge that 800# gorilla in the room ?

Is that all, my husband paid more than that for one person in 2013.

 

[Moonglow]

THAT MEANS IT’S WORKING:
Aetna to cut back 70 pct on Obamacare plans in 2017.

“As a strong supporter of public exchanges as a means to meet the needs of the uninsured, we regret having to make this decision,” Marc Bertolini, Aetna chairman and CEO, said in a statement.

The insurance giant says it will offer ACA exchange plans in Delaware, Iowa, Nebraska and Virginia, slashing its Obamacare footprint by 70 percent next year. It will offer ACA plans in just 242 counties, nationally, down from nearly 780 this year.

Aetna’s announcement comes two weeks after the company booked $200 million in ACA-related pre-tax losses in its Q2 earnings report and nearly one month after the Department of Justice’s anti-trust division sued to block the health insurer’s acquisition of rival Humana.

Humana has also announced it will cut back sharply from the exchanges. Their pullback, in the wake of UnitedHealth’s departure from all but a handful of exchanges, means that hundreds of thousands of Obamacare plan members will no longer have access to plans from the nation’s three major insurers in 2017.



Customers “taxed” into buying insurance they can’t afford to use from insurers who can’t afford to sell it is a recipe for government-mandated failure.

Free markets will take the blame.

U.S. judge finds that Aetna misled the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare

Aetna claimed this summer that it was pulling out of all but four of the 15 states where it was providing Obamacare individual insurance because of a business decision — it was simply losing too much money on the Obamacare exchanges. Now a federal judge has ruled that that was a rank falsehood. In fact, says Judge John D. Bates, Aetna made its decision at least partially in response to a federal antitrust lawsuit blocking its proposed $37-billion merger with Humana. Aetna threatened federal officials with the pullout before the lawsuit was filed, and followed through on its threat once it was filed. Bates made the observations in the course of a ruling he issued Monday blocking the merger.

U.S. judge finds that Aetna misled the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare

 

[Lewdog]

THAT MEANS IT’S WORKING:
Aetna to cut back 70 pct on Obamacare plans in 2017.

“As a strong supporter of public exchanges as a means to meet the needs of the uninsured, we regret having to make this decision,” Marc Bertolini, Aetna chairman and CEO, said in a statement.

The insurance giant says it will offer ACA exchange plans in Delaware, Iowa, Nebraska and Virginia, slashing its Obamacare footprint by 70 percent next year. It will offer ACA plans in just 242 counties, nationally, down from nearly 780 this year.

Aetna’s announcement comes two weeks after the company booked $200 million in ACA-related pre-tax losses in its Q2 earnings report and nearly one month after the Department of Justice’s anti-trust division sued to block the health insurer’s acquisition of rival Humana.

Humana has also announced it will cut back sharply from the exchanges. Their pullback, in the wake of UnitedHealth’s departure from all but a handful of exchanges, means that hundreds of thousands of Obamacare plan members will no longer have access to plans from the nation’s three major insurers in 2017.



Customers “taxed” into buying insurance they can’t afford to use from insurers who can’t afford to sell it is a recipe for government-mandated failure.

Free markets will take the blame.

U.S. judge finds that Aetna misled the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare

Aetna claimed this summer that it was pulling out of all but four of the 15 states where it was providing Obamacare individual insurance because of a business decision — it was simply losing too much money on the Obamacare exchanges. Now a federal judge has ruled that that was a rank falsehood. In fact, says Judge John D. Bates, Aetna made its decision at least partially in response to a federal antitrust lawsuit blocking its proposed $37-billion merger with Humana. Aetna threatened federal officials with the pullout before the lawsuit was filed, and followed through on its threat once it was filed. Bates made the observations in the course of a ruling he issued Monday blocking the merger.

U.S. judge finds that Aetna misled the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare

This thread must have an echo...

 

[Moonglow]

THAT MEANS IT’S WORKING:
Aetna to cut back 70 pct on Obamacare plans in 2017.

“As a strong supporter of public exchanges as a means to meet the needs of the uninsured, we regret having to make this decision,” Marc Bertolini, Aetna chairman and CEO, said in a statement.

The insurance giant says it will offer ACA exchange plans in Delaware, Iowa, Nebraska and Virginia, slashing its Obamacare footprint by 70 percent next year. It will offer ACA plans in just 242 counties, nationally, down from nearly 780 this year.

Aetna’s announcement comes two weeks after the company booked $200 million in ACA-related pre-tax losses in its Q2 earnings report and nearly one month after the Department of Justice’s anti-trust division sued to block the health insurer’s acquisition of rival Humana.

Humana has also announced it will cut back sharply from the exchanges. Their pullback, in the wake of UnitedHealth’s departure from all but a handful of exchanges, means that hundreds of thousands of Obamacare plan members will no longer have access to plans from the nation’s three major insurers in 2017.



Customers “taxed” into buying insurance they can’t afford to use from insurers who can’t afford to sell it is a recipe for government-mandated failure.

Free markets will take the blame.

U.S. judge finds that Aetna misled the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare

Aetna claimed this summer that it was pulling out of all but four of the 15 states where it was providing Obamacare individual insurance because of a business decision — it was simply losing too much money on the Obamacare exchanges. Now a federal judge has ruled that that was a rank falsehood. In fact, says Judge John D. Bates, Aetna made its decision at least partially in response to a federal antitrust lawsuit blocking its proposed $37-billion merger with Humana. Aetna threatened federal officials with the pullout before the lawsuit was filed, and followed through on its threat once it was filed. Bates made the observations in the course of a ruling he issued Monday blocking the merger.

U.S. judge finds that Aetna misled the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare

This thread must have an echo...

It does, since it a weatherman empty head thread, the echo chamber is very large...