RIP Obamacare: Aetna another health giant pulls out

[hater]

Well that didn't last long huh? Aetna is another health giant that pulled out of Obamacare. Nothing can save it now.

Now can we all safely say Obama is a shit president?

[CosmicCowboy]

Well that didn't last long huh? Aetna is another health giant that pulled out of Obamacare. Nothing can save it now.

Now can we all safely say Obama is a shit president?

He was actually pretty smart. He intended from the very start for it to fail. He just wanted to fuck up the system so bad that it would generate political support for single payer which is what he wanted from the start.

[boutons_deux]

He was actually pretty smart. He intended from the very start for it to fail. He just wanted to fuck up the system so bad that it would generate political support for single payer which is what he wanted from the start.

Obama didn't fuck up ACA.

Max Baucus hired a Big Insurance executive/lobbyist to write ACA to protect/increase BigInsurance/BigPharma profits.

And Lieberman, whose home state CT is full of BigInsurance companies, refused to allow any talk about Medicare-for-all.

There won't EVER be any Medicare-for-all and Americans will continue to fucked over their entire lifetimes out of $100Ks upwardly distributed to BigHealthCare.

[ElNono]

One storyline is that they're using it as leverage since the administration intends to block their acquisition of Humana on anti-competitive grounds.

[boutons_deux]

extortion by BigCorp

Aetna CEO Warned DOJ Of Obamacare Withdrawal If Its Merger Was Blocked

Aetna, a major insurer that announced that it was significantly scaling back its Obamacare exchange participation this week, warned in a letter to Department of Justice sent in July that it would pull out of a significant portion of the marketplaces if its proposed merger with Humana was blocked. The letter was obtained and first reported on by the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aetna-obamacare-pullout-humana-merger_us_57b3d747e4b04ff883996a13).

The department had asked how its decision whether to block the merger would affect the insurer's presence on the marketplaces. Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini responded that "if the DOJ sues to enjoin the transaction, we will immediately take action to reduce our 2017 exchange footprint."

Bertolini said that, with a blocked merger, "we would need to take immediate actions to mitigate public exchange and ACA small group losses."

"[I]t is very likely that we would need to leave the public exchange business entirely and plan for additional business efficiencies should our deal ultimately be blocked," he said. "By contrast, if the deal proceeds without the diverted time and energy associated with litigation, we would explore how to devote a portion of the additional synergies ... to supporting even more public exchange coverage over the next few years."

The Justice Department sued to block the Aetna-Humana merger in mid-July.

When Aetna announced Monday that it intended to scale back its Affordable Care Act participation, some ACA supporters began to speculate that the DOJ's move to block the merger played a role in the insurer's decision to withdraw from nearly 70 percent of the counties where it was participating on exchanges.

Back in April, Aetna was bullish on its prospects on the exchanges, with Bertolini telling investors the company thought it was a "a good investment."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/aetna-department-of-justice-letter?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

... what happens when BigCorp gets so BIG, powerful, and wealthy that it makes govt policy to fuck over America and Americans.

[RandomGuy]

He was actually pretty smart. He intended from the very start for it to fail. He just wanted to fuck up the system so bad that it would generate political support for single payer which is what he wanted from the start.

You are giving him too much credit here.

He passed what he thought he could pass.

[hater]

You are giving him too much credit here.

He passed what he thought he could pass.

He passed gas :lol

[SnakeBoy]

You are giving him too much credit here.

He passed what he thought he could pass.

I actually agree with you here. I remember an article saying Obama will get healthcare passed because Obama will pass anything. He just wanted to put a check mark next to the reform healthcare box. Folded like a cheap suit on pretty much everything to get it done.

[boutons_deux]

Obama will pass anything. He just wanted to put a check mark next to the reform healthcare box.

link? or, are you mind reading?

Obama and team didn't want to get Harry-and-Louise'd like Hillary did.

BigHealthcare had to get paid, or else.

Obama chose, achieved the humanitarian objective of getting poor Americans health care.

ACA is evidence that BigCorp owns and operates America for its own profit, aka the corporatocracy, no matter who gets fucked.

ACA has accomplished much more than just health care access for poor people, the people, the 47% that the Repugs fuck systematically as worthless, jettisonable untermenschen.

[ElNono]

I actually agree with you here. I remember an article saying Obama will get healthcare passed because Obama will pass anything. He just wanted to put a check mark next to the reform healthcare box. Folded like a cheap suit on pretty much everything to get it done.

Completely agree with this

[Th'Pusher]

Completely agree with this

Disagree with this completely. I don't think he was actively plotting for the ACA to fail to usher in single payer, but on every issue, he takes a pragmatic approach and he let congress hash it out and pass what could pass.

Pragmatism and incremental progress will be his legacy.

[ElNono]

Disagree with this completely. I don't think he was actively plotting for the ACA to fail to usher in single payer, but on every issue, he takes a pragmatic approach and he let congress hash it out and pass what could pass.

Pragmatism and incremental progress will be his legacy.

That's not what I agreed with. I agreed with the opinion that he would sign off on anything as long as it looked like a staple of his administration. I can't imagine that law looks anything like what him or the party envisioned, especially with all the special interests rolled into it. But he did sign off on it anyways.

I don't know that he wants it to fail. I do think one plus of the law is that it moved healthcare "somewhere". Better, worse, time will tell, but it did move the needle in an area that I think needed that.

[Th'Pusher]

That's not what I agreed with. I agreed with the opinion that he would sign off on anything as long as it looked like a staple of his administration. I can't imagine that law looks anything like what him or the party envisioned, especially with all the special interests rolled into it. But he did sign off on it anyways.

I don't know that he wants it to fail. I do think one plus of the law is that it moved healthcare "somewhere". Better, worse, time will tell, but it did move the needle in an area that I think needed that.

Sorry, I should have quoted snakeboy, who I disagreed with, whereas you agreed with instead of quoting you. In any event, you're right, he signed the bill. But that's to what I was referring when I referenced his pragmatism and dedication to incremental progress. The ACA undeniably increased the number of people who have healthcare coverage. It passed, warts and all. That's a dedication to pragmatism and incremental progress. Snakeboy's view, which you agreed with, is too cynical imo.

[ElNono]

Sorry, I should have quoted snakeboy, who I disagreed with, whereas you agreed with instead of quoting you. In any event, you're right, he signed the bill. But that's to what I was referring when I referenced his pragmatism and dedication to incremental progress. The ACA undeniably increased the number of people who have healthcare coverage. It passed, warts and all. That's a dedication to pragmatism and incremental progress. Snakeboy's view, which you agreed with, is too cynical imo.

I'll simply disagree because I remember the whole process. How that law transformed throughout deliberations in Congress, when pharma came onboard, and all the other shit they had to add to get it through. The law really did change dramatically, and the feeling I had at the time is that it ended up being a turd. You can probably dig up my posts from the time, and that was my general feeling. I did, however, mention back then what I'm mentioning now: the law at least helped move away from the status quo, which was deeply flawed too.

At the end of the day, I felt that Barry wanted his signature legislation through, despite how much it really changed or what it looked like. It was indeed an intense fight, so I also understand that aspect too.

[Th'Pusher]

I'll simply disagree because I remember the whole process. How that law transformed throughout deliberations in Congress, when pharma came onboard, and all the other shit they had to add to get it through. The law really did change dramatically, and the feeling I had at the time is that it ended up being a turd. You can probably dig up my posts from the time, and that was my general feeling. I did, however, mention back then what I'm mentioning now: the law at least helped move away from the status quo, which was deeply flawed too.

At the end of the day, I felt that Barry wanted his signature legislation through, despite how much it really changed or what it looked like. It was indeed an intense fight, so I also understand that aspect too.

Absolutely a fair assessment.

He was criticized at the time for taking a hands off approach and letting congress hash out the details of the ACA, which is a legitimate criticism and shows a naiveté of a inexperienced politician.

I don't mean to harp on the point, but I believe Obama is a pragmatist at his core. I simply feel at the end of his analysis of the sausage that came out of congress, he simply valued broadening coverage over all of the special interests that were inserted into the bill. Incremental progress. He's playing the long game, or at least he believes he is...

[boutons_deux]

What it would take to fix Obamacare exchanges


the impression that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is imploding.
That is a misimpression, say health policy experts.
“When people talk about the ACA, they focus on the exchanges, but a lot of other pieces are working,”

About 20 million Americans now have health insurance who did not have it before.

And projections for the total cost (http://www.urban.org/research/publication/widespread-slowdown-health-spending-growth-implications-future-spending-projections-and-cost-affordable-care-act-update) of healthcare in America have fallen – by $2.6 trillion – compared to the government forecast in 2010, when the law was signed.

The consulting firm lists seven (red/slave) states – Alaska, Alabama, Kansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wyoming – where Obamacare consumers can expect to be offered only one insurer in each market-exchange region in the state. :lol

Some of these markets are serviced by smaller insurers – and the big companies simply couldn’t compete.

“When some insurers are coming in with narrower networks, at a lower price, that’s what you want,” says Linda Blumberg, an expert on the exchanges at the Urban Institute. That’s healthy competition, she says, “not necessarily a cause for panic.”

Here are some of the commonly suggested “fixes” to the exchanges:

Expand the pool of healthy enrollees

Increase federal financial support in troubled markets.

Let states take the lead.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/0820/What-it-would-take-to-fix-Obamacare-exchanges

Big insurers couldn't compete?

Isn't size, economy of scale supposed to crush smaller competitors, dissuade newcomers?

Maybe the Big Insurers couldn't screw consumers bad enough for profit.

[Winehole23]

Our health care system was already broken well before the ACA: https://ourworldindata.org/the-link-between-life-expectancy-and-health-spending-us-focus#life-expectancy-vs-health-expenditure-over-time-1970-2014ref

We spend way more than any other country, with worse outcomes.

What next?

[Winehole23]

the US is the only country in the world in which maternal deaths increased between 1990-2013. you can't pin that on the ACA.

[Winehole23]

poor insurance companies. what made them so poor?:


Medicare’s administrative costs last year were $9 billion, compared with benefits of around $640 billion (https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/Downloads/TR2016.pdf) That’s around 1.4 cents for every dollar paid out. Private insurers: around 20 times as much.

[Winehole23]

failure to control costs impacts human health:


A massive spike in insulin prices is causing a health crisis for millions of diabetes patients who depend on the lifesaving drug, doctors say.



Now, after years of rapid increases having nothing to do with available supply and not matched elsewhere in the world, those in the U.S. insulin supply chain are blaming each other.



Tens of thousands of medical professionals are engaged in an intricate therapeutic ballet performed to protect the health, limbs, and lives of the almost 30 million people in the U.S. suffering from diabetes.



But their efforts have been dramatically complicated by the soaring increase in the cost of insulin. They find themselves balancing the cost of the essential medication and their patients' ability to pay.



"The manipulation of insulin cost is a medical crisis in Montana and everywhere else in this country," said Dr. Justen Rudolph, a diabetes specialist at St. Vincent Healthcare in Billings. "My patients having trouble with their insulin availability range from teenagers to a 90-year-old man, and there's not a day that goes by when I'm not talking to a patient about the cost of their insulin.

"They try to spread out the insulin they have to make do, and that's not how you can control diabetes," said Rudolph.


http://mtstandard.com/news/local/insulin-price-spike-leaves-diabetes-patients-in-crisis/article_74cd6b23-7d9d-5f36-9df0-9c72c5de9f1a.html

[rmt]

failure to control costs impacts human health:

http://mtstandard.com/news/local/insulin-price-spike-leaves-diabetes-patients-in-crisis/article_74cd6b23-7d9d-5f36-9df0-9c72c5de9f1a.html

Walmart is the cheapest place to buy diabetes supplies (Relion Prime) and insulin. A lot of the problem is the doctor/nutritionist suggested list of foods. My aunt has this list from her doc with bananas, oats, etc. Those should be no-nos. I loosely follow the Diabetes Solution diet by diabetic Dr. Richard Bernstein - low carb, high fat resulting in 5.4 A1C

[Winehole23]

Diabetes is not a matter of personal choice and lifestyle for everyone, nor are dietary/lifestyle changes sufficient for all.

[Winehole23]

are you trying to apologize for greedy drug companies by suggesting people who need treatment for diabetes deserve it?

[rmt]

Where do you get that I say that? I'm recommending Walmart as a place to buy diabetic supplies and suggesting that a low carb diet is good for diabetics.

[Winehole23]

well i won't argue with that

[Spurminator]

One storyline is that they're using it as leverage since the administration intends to block their acquisition of Humana on anti-competitive grounds.

U.S. judge finds that Aetna misled the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html


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.