Now Aetna?

It would have been a good thing if they slowly implemented it instead of trying to make legacy or a statement by rushing it through. I would have no problem phasing it in in increments, not shove it down our throats and make us like it. The small companies cannot take a loss on this and government can't afford to subsidize them, it would cripple our already staggering debt.

This is does not bother me because of my job but those who will feel the brunt of it, yikes.
 
Do "we" actually read these articles you post ?
I mean, this is like the 3rd and 4th paragraph.

" These statements, however, appeared to be a dramatic turnaround from the company's first-quarter earnings call in April, when CEO Mark Bertolini said the firm planned to stay in the exchanges and that the company was "in a very good place to make this a sustainable program."

Now, however, it appears a large reason for the shift in tone was the Department of Justice's lawsuit to block Aetna's merger with rival Humana. "
 
Aetna is doing precisely what a monopolist does—using its market power and political influence to achieve a goal that would allow it to acquire more power and influence. It’s heartening that the Justice Department did not base its antitrust decision on Aetna’s threat. But it shows how market concentration in the insurance industry was out of control well before Aetna and Humana decided to team up. If Aetna makes that threat and there are 20 other market participants offering insurance on the exchanges, it rings hollow. Only because of the current concentration is that threat credible. And a concentrated industry that serves as a pillar of the president’s biggest legacy item may not be a reliable partner.

So the issue isn’t that individual insurance markets aren’t profitable, just that the exchanges are. Aetna appears to be trying to game the system. It doesn’t want to pick up sicker customers, who invariably have lower incomes that entitle them to exchange subsidies. And it doesn’t necessarily want to comply with exchange regulations if they constrain profits. Despite the new mandate to offer coverage to whoever wants it, Aetna would rather pick and choose its customers, ensuring that it pays as little as possible in medical bills.

Or, read the entire article
https://newrepublic.com/article/136155/never-ending-battle-obamacare
 
57Brave said:
Aetna is doing precisely what a monopolist does—using its market power and political influence to achieve a goal that would allow it to acquire more power and influence. It’s heartening that the Justice Department did not base its antitrust decision on Aetna’s threat. But it shows how market concentration in the insurance industry was out of control well before Aetna and Humana decided to team up. If Aetna makes that threat and there are 20 other market participants offering insurance on the exchanges, it rings hollow. Only because of the current concentration is that threat credible. And a concentrated industry that serves as a pillar of the president’s biggest legacy item may not be a reliable partner.

So the issue isn’t that individual insurance markets aren’t profitable, just that the exchanges are. Aetna appears to be trying to game the system. It doesn’t want to pick up sicker customers, who invariably have lower incomes that entitle them to exchange subsidies. And it doesn’t necessarily want to comply with exchange regulations if they constrain profits. Despite the new mandate to offer coverage to whoever wants it, Aetna would rather pick and choose its customers, ensuring that it pays as little as possible in medical bills.

Or, read the entire article
https://newrepublic.com/article/136155/never-ending-battle-obamacare
Click to expand...

Yes you dumb asshole health insurance companies are natural monopolies and passing a bill forcing us at gunpoint to buy their product only strengthens their monopoly.
 
can't wait for us to join the rest of the modern world and just have single payer

so stupid we have to waste years doing this plan instead of just doing what we all know is coming

and hopefully everyone will work together to make it as best it can for everyone instead of fighting for no reason (but i won't hold my breath cause that would mean they were doing what is best for the people)
 
but this story is just them trying to strong arm the justice dept but i won't let that get in the way of whatever absurd point you are trying to make
 
keithlaw said:
are natural monopolies and passing a bill forcing us at gunpoint to buy their product only strengthens their monopoly.
Click to expand...

forced at gun point ?
Geez- I take it by your profile and status you had health insurance prior to ACA. Taking all of that into account, what ****ing gun point are you talking about ?

a "natural monopoly"

http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Natural_monopolies.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
https://books.google.com/books?id=s...onepage&q=is aetna a natural monopoly&f=false

unless of course "natural Monopoly" takes on the same ambiguity as "states rights"
 
goldfly said:
can't wait for us to join the rest of the modern world and just have single payer

so stupid we have to waste years doing this plan instead of just doing what we all know is coming

and hopefully everyone will work together to make it as best it can for everyone instead of fighting for no reason (but i won't hold my breath cause that would mean they were doing what is best for the people)
Click to expand...

Not everyone in the modern world has single payer. There are modern countries who have much better healthcare than the US without going to a single payer healthcare system. Also, many failed non first world countries have single payer.
 
weso1 said:
Not everyone in the modern world has single payer. There are modern countries who have much better healthcare than the US without going to a single payer healthcare system. Also, many failed non first world countries have single payer.
Click to expand...

define modern for me

cause it seems my definition (and most peoples) might be different than yours

cause these countries have single payer:

863px-Universal_health_care.svg.png


also, what "failed non first world countries" are you speaking about?
 
goldfly said:
define modern for me

cause it seems my definition (and most peoples) might be different than yours

cause these countries have single payer:

863px-Universal_health_care.svg.png


also, what "failed non first world countries" are you speaking about?
Click to expand...

I define modern as most technologically advanced.

Define "single payer" for each country on your map. What exactly does single payer mean? Are all those countries really single payer?
 
A little anecdotal story to interject: my Grandmother pays $60 a month to 'rent' her wheelchair. She has paid approximately $1440 -- and counting -- for something that can be bought on Amazon for a little over $100. Something that will be RECLAIMED and rented to someone else when she no longer needs it. Medicare pays, but you can't tell me that a system which has this kind of insanity in place (and I won't even get into the up-charges on generic medications and other absurd financial irregularities) doesn't need to be scuttled immediately and with prejudice.

These insurance companies need to be castrated and a universal national healthcare system should be put in place with obscene regulatory and oversight bodies installed.
 
weso1 said:
I define modern as most technologically advanced.

Define "single payer" for each country on your map. What exactly does single payer mean? Are all those countries really single payer?
Click to expand...

you didn't define modern yet with those words

yes, those are single payer countries
 
Hawk said:
A little anecdotal story to interject: my Grandmother pays $60 a month to 'rent' her wheelchair. She has paid approximately $1440 -- and counting -- for something that can be bought on Amazon for a little over $100. Something that will be RECLAIMED and rented to someone else when she no longer needs it. Medicare pays, but you can't tell me that a system which has this kind of insanity in place (and I won't even get into the up-charges on generic medications and other absurd financial irregularities) doesn't need to be scuttled immediately and with prejudice.

These insurance companies need to be castrated and a universal national healthcare system should be put in place with obscene regulatory and oversight bodies installed.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you get from point A to point C.
 
weso1 said:
Are you willing to have a conversation or are you just going to stick with this post?
Click to expand...

i am willing to have a conversation

i asked your definition of modern cause it seems like it would differ than everyone else but then all you said was "technologically advanced."

when you use everyone else and yours, it seems to line up as the same and then also lines up that they all have single payer

if you would like to list the countries that are modern that don't have single payer, i would like to see your list as well as the modern ones that have failed at having single payer (like you suggested)

i am here for the conversation cause i honestly don't see how you disagreed with my original comment the way you did
"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top