3rd Largest Health Insurer Will Likely Pullout Of ACA

[Dekster]

Single-payer is inevitable.

I'd much rather see healthcare insurance forced into non-profit.

It could be the same--something like a single payer post office type entity. They have to be able to operate at a surplus and those surpluses invested into reserve accounts. If not, it will never be properly funded in a way that takes the political fingers out of the pudding.

What has our government done effectively.

If someone says Social Security, I'll be ROTFLMAO.

Liberated Europe, effectively eradicated polio and small pox in the US, committed genocide against Native Americans, and invented a pen that writes upside down.

And I would agree that military action falls within their purview.

The upside down pen.......hmmmmm.....

Astronauts needed them.

 

[Moonglow]

[

You keep an eye on that, then. I'm more puzzled by why Aetna's pulling out of two states that agreed to Medicaid expansion. Couldn't possibly be corporate greed...Sun Devil approves of that sort of thing. Watch him do his little victory dance every time a consumer-run co-op closes.

They were probably planning to offer similar policies to the ones they already offer and since they are losing money on them, they would just lose more. Medicaid type people is not the market they are insuring

The point is that states that opted for the Medicaid expansion made it easier for their insurers to attract middle-class customers and secure their bottom line. But those governors and state legislators that refused the Medicaid expansion in an attempt to scuttle the PPACA overburdened the market (at least if you listen to the sob stories from the insurers, despite the fact that their shareholder reports say otherwise).

Medicaid expansion is irrelevant. Low income workers are exempt from the penalties and therefore do not have to carry insurance. Further, to pay for those middle-aged middle class policies they needed young healthy people to sign up--the same people who either are exempted for the most part by their low incomes or covered by medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion and exempting the poor people who supposedly were the reason the PPACA was created from the penalties disrupted the revenue streams needed to cover cost of 50 year old diabetics with heart and kidney failure.

If there is Medicaid expansion in their states. Here's what the map looked like a little over a year ago:

Here's what it looks like now:

A lot of state legislators gambled on the outcome of King v Burwell. Their constituents lost.

I really don't know how to say it any plainer: EVEN IF THEY HAD EXPANDED MEDICAID, THAT WOULD NOT GIVE AETNA ONE MORE DIME TO COVER ITS $300M IN LOSSES.

Sucks when them CEO's don't get their multi-million packages...

 

[Moonglow]

Single-payer is inevitable.

I'd much rather see healthcare insurance forced into non-profit.

It could be the same--something like a single payer post office type entity. They have to be able to operate at a surplus and those surpluses invested into reserve accounts. If not, it will never be properly funded in a way that takes the political fingers out of the pudding.

What has our government done effectively.

If someone says Social Security, I'll be ROTFLMAO.

Liberated Europe, effectively eradicated polio and small pox in the US, committed genocide against Native Americans, and invented a pen that writes upside down.

And I would agree that military action falls within their purview.

The upside down pen.......hmmmmm.....

They managed to get some fellows on the Moon ...built the interstate system also...........

 

[pwjohn]

I wonder if this means I'll get my $2,500 savings and the doctor I liked.


Aetna, the third-largest health insurer in the US, said Tuesday that it is reconsidering its offerings on the state exchanges that make up the back-bone of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

In a conference call following the company’s earnings announcement, CEO Mark Bertolini said that the firm has halted its plans to expand into two new states’ exchanges in 2017 and is looking into the reasons for losses in the exchanges it is currently participating in.

Here’s Bertolini (emphasis ours):

“In light of the disappointing year to date performance and updated 2016 projections for our individual on and off exchange products, combined with the significant structural challenges facing the public exchanges, we believe it is only prudent to reassess our level of participation on the public exchanges. Our initial action will be to withdraw our 2017 public exchange expansion plans. Additionally, given the deadline to attest to our final rate filings for 2017, we are also undertaking a complete evaluation of our current exchange footprint as the poor performance of these products warrants such an analysis.”

Keep reading…

And have repubs offered to work with dems to fix whatever is ailing ACA.

It was passed without a single Republican vote and any and all amendments they offered were voted down by the Democrat controlled House.

The ACA has been seemingly off Congress’ radar since the veto of Restoring Americans’ Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015, the last attempt to repeal the ACA; however, in recent weeks there have been a few developments. Rep. Pete Sessions, (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Cassidy, (R-LA), introduced H.R. 5284, the Health Empowerment Liberty Plan or the HELP Act, what they are terming an “alternative” health care bill which will not repeal the ACA, but work alongside it and modify various parts of the system. Congressman Sessions calls the legislation “The World’s Greatest Health Care Bill. Ever.” We shall see.

Speaker Ryan's promised replacement plan is "coming later this month" and in the meantime, "House Republicans are considering small-bore changes to ObamaCare," according to The Hill. On the Senate side, Majority Leader McConnell seeks to "steer Republicans away from fights on ObamaCare," in upcoming spending legislation.
Legislative Update: June 13, 2016

That's good news

 

[Grizz]

They were probably planning to offer similar policies to the ones they already offer and since they are losing money on them, they would just lose more. Medicaid type people is not the market they are insuring

The point is that states that opted for the Medicaid expansion made it easier for their insurers to attract middle-class customers and secure their bottom line. But those governors and state legislators that refused the Medicaid expansion in an attempt to scuttle the PPACA overburdened the market (at least if you listen to the sob stories from the insurers, despite the fact that their shareholder reports say otherwise).

Medicaid expansion is irrelevant. Low income workers are exempt from the penalties and therefore do not have to carry insurance. Further, to pay for those middle-aged middle class policies they needed young healthy people to sign up--the same people who either are exempted for the most part by their low incomes or covered by medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion and exempting the poor people who supposedly were the reason the PPACA was created from the penalties disrupted the revenue streams needed to cover cost of 50 year old diabetics with heart and kidney failure.

If there is Medicaid expansion in their states. Here's what the map looked like a little over a year ago:

Here's what it looks like now:

A lot of state legislators gambled on the outcome of King v Burwell. Their constituents lost.

I really don't know how to say it any plainer: EVEN IF THEY HAD EXPANDED MEDICAID, THAT WOULD NOT GIVE AETNA ONE MORE DIME TO COVER ITS $300M IN LOSSES.

Sucks when them CEO's don't get their multi-million packages...

You aren't real bright. I am betting you have no idea what a "risk corridor" is let alone how much came through them as opposed to how much was SUPPOSED to come through them.

 

[Moonglow]

The point is that states that opted for the Medicaid expansion made it easier for their insurers to attract middle-class customers and secure their bottom line. But those governors and state legislators that refused the Medicaid expansion in an attempt to scuttle the PPACA overburdened the market (at least if you listen to the sob stories from the insurers, despite the fact that their shareholder reports say otherwise).

Medicaid expansion is irrelevant. Low income workers are exempt from the penalties and therefore do not have to carry insurance. Further, to pay for those middle-aged middle class policies they needed young healthy people to sign up--the same people who either are exempted for the most part by their low incomes or covered by medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion and exempting the poor people who supposedly were the reason the PPACA was created from the penalties disrupted the revenue streams needed to cover cost of 50 year old diabetics with heart and kidney failure.

If there is Medicaid expansion in their states. Here's what the map looked like a little over a year ago:

Here's what it looks like now:

A lot of state legislators gambled on the outcome of King v Burwell. Their constituents lost.

I really don't know how to say it any plainer: EVEN IF THEY HAD EXPANDED MEDICAID, THAT WOULD NOT GIVE AETNA ONE MORE DIME TO COVER ITS $300M IN LOSSES.

Sucks when them CEO's don't get their multi-million packages...

You aren't real bright. I am betting you have no idea what a "risk corridor" is let alone how much came through them as opposed to how much was SUPPOSED to come through them.

Insurance companies are the largest cash reserve holders in the nation...Why do you think they are in the banking/ lending industry as well?
They were salivating at the prospects of yet another govt. mandated insurance law.......

 

[Grizz]

Medicaid expansion is irrelevant. Low income workers are exempt from the penalties and therefore do not have to carry insurance. Further, to pay for those middle-aged middle class policies they needed young healthy people to sign up--the same people who either are exempted for the most part by their low incomes or covered by medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion and exempting the poor people who supposedly were the reason the PPACA was created from the penalties disrupted the revenue streams needed to cover cost of 50 year old diabetics with heart and kidney failure.

If there is Medicaid expansion in their states. Here's what the map looked like a little over a year ago:

Here's what it looks like now:

A lot of state legislators gambled on the outcome of King v Burwell. Their constituents lost.

I really don't know how to say it any plainer: EVEN IF THEY HAD EXPANDED MEDICAID, THAT WOULD NOT GIVE AETNA ONE MORE DIME TO COVER ITS $300M IN LOSSES.

Sucks when them CEO's don't get their multi-million packages...

You aren't real bright. I am betting you have no idea what a "risk corridor" is let alone how much came through them as opposed to how much was SUPPOSED to come through them.

Insurance companies are the largest cash reserve holders in the nation...Why do you think they are in the banking/ lending industry as well?
They were salivating at the prospects of yet another govt. mandated insurance law.......

You are deflecting.
What is a "risk corridor", and how much came through them as opposed to what was promised?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, sod off, you moth-eaten, ash covered piece of ratty fur carpet.

Risk Corridors

As if you have the slightest idea of what is a risk corridor and why it is important.

You don't have the slightest.

(smile)

 

[Dekster]

They were probably planning to offer similar policies to the ones they already offer and since they are losing money on them, they would just lose more. Medicaid type people is not the market they are insuring

The point is that states that opted for the Medicaid expansion made it easier for their insurers to attract middle-class customers and secure their bottom line. But those governors and state legislators that refused the Medicaid expansion in an attempt to scuttle the PPACA overburdened the market (at least if you listen to the sob stories from the insurers, despite the fact that their shareholder reports say otherwise).

Medicaid expansion is irrelevant. Low income workers are exempt from the penalties and therefore do not have to carry insurance. Further, to pay for those middle-aged middle class policies they needed young healthy people to sign up--the same people who either are exempted for the most part by their low incomes or covered by medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion and exempting the poor people who supposedly were the reason the PPACA was created from the penalties disrupted the revenue streams needed to cover cost of 50 year old diabetics with heart and kidney failure.

If there is Medicaid expansion in their states. Here's what the map looked like a little over a year ago:

Here's what it looks like now:

A lot of state legislators gambled on the outcome of King v Burwell. Their constituents lost.

I really don't know how to say it any plainer: EVEN IF THEY HAD EXPANDED MEDICAID, THAT WOULD NOT GIVE AETNA ONE MORE DIME TO COVER ITS $300M IN LOSSES.

Sucks when them CEO's don't get their multi-million packages...

he got $17M last year and $15M the year before so I doubt he is crying too much about it.

 

[Moonglow]

The point is that states that opted for the Medicaid expansion made it easier for their insurers to attract middle-class customers and secure their bottom line. But those governors and state legislators that refused the Medicaid expansion in an attempt to scuttle the PPACA overburdened the market (at least if you listen to the sob stories from the insurers, despite the fact that their shareholder reports say otherwise).

Medicaid expansion is irrelevant. Low income workers are exempt from the penalties and therefore do not have to carry insurance. Further, to pay for those middle-aged middle class policies they needed young healthy people to sign up--the same people who either are exempted for the most part by their low incomes or covered by medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion and exempting the poor people who supposedly were the reason the PPACA was created from the penalties disrupted the revenue streams needed to cover cost of 50 year old diabetics with heart and kidney failure.

If there is Medicaid expansion in their states. Here's what the map looked like a little over a year ago:

Here's what it looks like now:

A lot of state legislators gambled on the outcome of King v Burwell. Their constituents lost.

I really don't know how to say it any plainer: EVEN IF THEY HAD EXPANDED MEDICAID, THAT WOULD NOT GIVE AETNA ONE MORE DIME TO COVER ITS $300M IN LOSSES.

Sucks when them CEO's don't get their multi-million packages...

he got $17M last year and $15M the year before so I doubt he is crying too much about it.

Amazing how you can lose and still win.........

 

[Moonglow]

If there is Medicaid expansion in their states. Here's what the map looked like a little over a year ago:

Here's what it looks like now:

A lot of state legislators gambled on the outcome of King v Burwell. Their constituents lost.

I really don't know how to say it any plainer: EVEN IF THEY HAD EXPANDED MEDICAID, THAT WOULD NOT GIVE AETNA ONE MORE DIME TO COVER ITS $300M IN LOSSES.

Sucks when them CEO's don't get their multi-million packages...

You aren't real bright. I am betting you have no idea what a "risk corridor" is let alone how much came through them as opposed to how much was SUPPOSED to come through them.

Insurance companies are the largest cash reserve holders in the nation...Why do you think they are in the banking/ lending industry as well?
They were salivating at the prospects of yet another govt. mandated insurance law.......

You are deflecting.
What is a "risk corridor", and how much came through them as opposed to what was promised?

Why? Do you not know? Since there are three provisions in the ACA which addresses the issue............
The ACA includes three risk-sharing programs to mitigate these risks—a permanent risk-adjustment program, a transitional reinsurance program that will run from 2014-2016, and a temporary risk-corridor program that will run from 2014-2016.

Which one did you need clarification upon?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Grizz ran away on risk corridors. That's risky.

 

[Dekster]

Medicaid expansion is irrelevant. Low income workers are exempt from the penalties and therefore do not have to carry insurance. Further, to pay for those middle-aged middle class policies they needed young healthy people to sign up--the same people who either are exempted for the most part by their low incomes or covered by medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion and exempting the poor people who supposedly were the reason the PPACA was created from the penalties disrupted the revenue streams needed to cover cost of 50 year old diabetics with heart and kidney failure.

If there is Medicaid expansion in their states. Here's what the map looked like a little over a year ago:

Here's what it looks like now:

A lot of state legislators gambled on the outcome of King v Burwell. Their constituents lost.

I really don't know how to say it any plainer: EVEN IF THEY HAD EXPANDED MEDICAID, THAT WOULD NOT GIVE AETNA ONE MORE DIME TO COVER ITS $300M IN LOSSES.

Sucks when them CEO's don't get their multi-million packages...

he got $17M last year and $15M the year before so I doubt he is crying too much about it.

Amazing how you can lose and still win.........

They didn't lose. They lost money on the PPACA crap but they made it up elsewhere. That is the problem people so keen on the PPACA do not seem to realize. You are not soaking CEO's. You are soaking people like me who do not get a subsidized policy but have our rates going up between 25-30% a year when it used to be half that, and it isn't like I am some billionaire. All that extra money gets parked in Wall Street or a bank and doesn't get spent locally where it could create some velocity to support businesses that could be creating jobs if they were not dumping so much into their own insurances and losing sales to people who have less discretionary income to spend.

 

[Arianrhod]

If there is Medicaid expansion in their states. Here's what the map looked like a little over a year ago:

Here's what it looks like now:

A lot of state legislators gambled on the outcome of King v Burwell. Their constituents lost.

I really don't know how to say it any plainer: EVEN IF THEY HAD EXPANDED MEDICAID, THAT WOULD NOT GIVE AETNA ONE MORE DIME TO COVER ITS $300M IN LOSSES.

Sucks when them CEO's don't get their multi-million packages...

he got $17M last year and $15M the year before so I doubt he is crying too much about it.

Amazing how you can lose and still win.........

They didn't lose. They lost money on the PPACA crap but they made it up elsewhere. That is the problem people so keen on the PPACA do not seem to realize. You are not soaking CEO's. You are soaking people like me who do not get a subsidized policy but have our rates going up between 25-30% a year when it used to be half that, and it isn't like I am some billionaire. All that extra money gets parked in Wall Street or a bank and doesn't get spent locally where it could create some velocity to support businesses that could be creating jobs if they were not dumping so much into their own insurances and losing sales to people who have less discretionary income to spend.

Did you check the exchanges or did you just accept whatever plan your employer decided was in his best interests?

 

[Moonglow]

Grizz ran away on risk corridors. That's risky.

Gheesh, my old man was a stock broker. I read all his stuff years ago on speculative operations, hedging etc., etc,,,, at least the govt. backs these fellows, unlike most Joe's that get ripped when they fall short...........Frickin' bankers and their TARP, where the hell was my TARP for my business?

 

[Dekster]

I really don't know how to say it any plainer: EVEN IF THEY HAD EXPANDED MEDICAID, THAT WOULD NOT GIVE AETNA ONE MORE DIME TO COVER ITS $300M IN LOSSES.

Sucks when them CEO's don't get their multi-million packages...

he got $17M last year and $15M the year before so I doubt he is crying too much about it.

Amazing how you can lose and still win.........

They didn't lose. They lost money on the PPACA crap but they made it up elsewhere. That is the problem people so keen on the PPACA do not seem to realize. You are not soaking CEO's. You are soaking people like me who do not get a subsidized policy but have our rates going up between 25-30% a year when it used to be half that, and it isn't like I am some billionaire. All that extra money gets parked in Wall Street or a bank and doesn't get spent locally where it could create some velocity to support businesses that could be creating jobs if they were not dumping so much into their own insurances and losing sales to people who have less discretionary income to spend.

Did you check the exchanges or did you just accept whatever plan your employer decided was in his best interests?

Neither. I do not have insurance through work and I make too much to get a subsidy, so I buy my insurance through an agent.

 

[Moonglow]

If there is Medicaid expansion in their states. Here's what the map looked like a little over a year ago:

Here's what it looks like now:

A lot of state legislators gambled on the outcome of King v Burwell. Their constituents lost.

I really don't know how to say it any plainer: EVEN IF THEY HAD EXPANDED MEDICAID, THAT WOULD NOT GIVE AETNA ONE MORE DIME TO COVER ITS $300M IN LOSSES.

Sucks when them CEO's don't get their multi-million packages...

he got $17M last year and $15M the year before so I doubt he is crying too much about it.

Amazing how you can lose and still win.........

They didn't lose. They lost money on the PPACA crap but they made it up elsewhere. That is the problem people so keen on the PPACA do not seem to realize. You are not soaking CEO's. You are soaking people like me who do not get a subsidized policy but have our rates going up between 25-30% a year when it used to be half that, and it isn't like I am some billionaire. All that extra money gets parked in Wall Street or a bank and doesn't get spent locally where it could create some velocity to support businesses that could be creating jobs if they were not dumping so much into their own insurances and losing sales to people who have less discretionary income to spend.

I covered my azz by being in the military...............My wife works for Cisco and sells the ACA and the company pays for her insurance.......So I have never had to deal with it.......And I would not if I had to..I'd tell them to GFT...

 

[Dekster]

I really don't know how to say it any plainer: EVEN IF THEY HAD EXPANDED MEDICAID, THAT WOULD NOT GIVE AETNA ONE MORE DIME TO COVER ITS $300M IN LOSSES.

Sucks when them CEO's don't get their multi-million packages...

he got $17M last year and $15M the year before so I doubt he is crying too much about it.

Amazing how you can lose and still win.........

They didn't lose. They lost money on the PPACA crap but they made it up elsewhere. That is the problem people so keen on the PPACA do not seem to realize. You are not soaking CEO's. You are soaking people like me who do not get a subsidized policy but have our rates going up between 25-30% a year when it used to be half that, and it isn't like I am some billionaire. All that extra money gets parked in Wall Street or a bank and doesn't get spent locally where it could create some velocity to support businesses that could be creating jobs if they were not dumping so much into their own insurances and losing sales to people who have less discretionary income to spend.

I covered my azz by being in the military...............My wife works for Cisco and sells the ACA and the company pays for her insurance.......So I have never had to deal with it.......And I would not if I had to..I'd tell them to GFT...

Well I could, but then I would have to pay a fine and still have no insurance so that is not a viable option outside the ego part of my brain.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Shouldn't the Right repeal Medicare before repealing ACA? Medicare became law in 1965, and having spent my entire career in health insurance, I have been listening to the Right scream about it for decades. Granted, Medicare has been kind of off the radar since ACA became law, but it seems sad to watch the Right surrender in only 51 years....

 

[Arianrhod]

Sucks when them CEO's don't get their multi-million packages...

he got $17M last year and $15M the year before so I doubt he is crying too much about it.

Amazing how you can lose and still win.........

They didn't lose. They lost money on the PPACA crap but they made it up elsewhere. That is the problem people so keen on the PPACA do not seem to realize. You are not soaking CEO's. You are soaking people like me who do not get a subsidized policy but have our rates going up between 25-30% a year when it used to be half that, and it isn't like I am some billionaire. All that extra money gets parked in Wall Street or a bank and doesn't get spent locally where it could create some velocity to support businesses that could be creating jobs if they were not dumping so much into their own insurances and losing sales to people who have less discretionary income to spend.

Did you check the exchanges or did you just accept whatever plan your employer decided was in his best interests?

Neither. I do not have insurance through work and I make too much to get a subsidy, so I buy my insurance through an agent.

And the agent's primarily interested in his fee. Before this year's deadline, do yourself a favor and check this out:

Subsidy Calculator Widget

You may save yourself a few $.