Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Another talking point collapses under scrutiny

34 views
Skip to first unread message

xyzzy

unread,
May 9, 2017, 12:49:17 PM5/9/17
to
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html

Aetna didn't pull out of Obamacare because they were losing money. They pulled out because they thought it would help make their case for a merger with Humana.

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
May 9, 2017, 12:55:11 PM5/9/17
to
On Tue, 9 May 2017 09:49:13 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html
>
>Aetna didn't pull out of Obamacare because they were losing money. They pulled out because they thought it would help make their case for a merger with Humana.

Has Aetna rejoined the UnACA or do you have an excuse for that also?

Hugh

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

unread,
May 9, 2017, 1:04:27 PM5/9/17
to
I note that you aren't trying to do a Gruber, where you claim Trump
caused the current problems with Obamacare. But are you going to claim
that the insurers are doing just fine, and the myriad other pull-outs
were for similar, non-performance-related reasons?

--
"We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more
than they hate us". -- Golda Meir

Ken Olson

unread,
May 9, 2017, 1:39:27 PM5/9/17
to
On 5/9/2017 1:04 PM, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2017-05-09, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html
>>
>> Aetna didn't pull out of Obamacare because they were losing money.
>> They pulled out because they thought it would help make their case for
>> a merger with Humana.
>
> I note that you aren't trying to do a Gruber, where you claim Trump
> caused the current problems with Obamacare. But are you going to claim
> that the insurers are doing just fine, and the myriad other pull-outs
> were for similar, non-performance-related reasons?
>

Don't scrutinize him like that! ;)

xyzzy

unread,
May 9, 2017, 1:49:45 PM5/9/17
to
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 1:04:27 PM UTC-4, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2017-05-09, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html
> >
> > Aetna didn't pull out of Obamacare because they were losing money.
> > They pulled out because they thought it would help make their case for
> > a merger with Humana.
>
> I note that you aren't trying to do a Gruber, where you claim Trump
> caused the current problems with Obamacare. But are you going to claim
> that the insurers are doing just fine, and the myriad other pull-outs
> were for similar, non-performance-related reasons?

I don't make any claims other than that the Aetna talking point was BS. Now the question is, what general assumption should that cause one to question?

A quick google, which is by no means exhaustive research, shows that health insurers seem to be doing fine, with the most recent report I can find (summer 2016) saying that insurers that lost money under Obamacare had been losing money already before Obamacare.

Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

unread,
May 9, 2017, 2:09:48 PM5/9/17
to
On 2017-05-09, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 1:04:27 PM UTC-4, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
>> On 2017-05-09, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html
>> >
>> > Aetna didn't pull out of Obamacare because they were losing money.
>> > They pulled out because they thought it would help make their case for
>> > a merger with Humana.
>>
>> I note that you aren't trying to do a Gruber, where you claim Trump
>> caused the current problems with Obamacare. But are you going to claim
>> that the insurers are doing just fine, and the myriad other pull-outs
>> were for similar, non-performance-related reasons?
>
> I don't make any claims other than that the Aetna talking point was
> BS. Now the question is, what general assumption should that cause
> one to question?

None unless you are going to believe that the preponderance of
evidence about one narrow question is dispositive to the whole
market.

"In fact, says Judge John D. Bates, Aetna made its decision at least
partially in response to a federal antitrust lawsuit blocking its
proposed $34-billion merger with Humana."

In other words, he nowhere discounts Aetna's statement that they
were doing poorly in that business. He just says it is clear that
they had other reasons to make the decision.

>
> A quick google, which is by no means exhaustive research, shows that
> health insurers seem to be doing fine,

In what way?

> with the most recent report I can find (summer 2016) saying that
> insurers that lost money under Obamacare had been losing money
> already before Obamacare.

If they had been holding the on, or reducing, premiums then I might
find this persuasive. But since premiums in the individual market
have increased much more than overall health care costs, I find it
not at all so.


--
How far can you open your
mind before your brains
fall out?

xyzzy

unread,
May 9, 2017, 2:15:37 PM5/9/17
to
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 2:09:48 PM UTC-4, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> On 2017-05-09, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 1:04:27 PM UTC-4, Con Reeder, unhyphenated American wrote:
> >> On 2017-05-09, xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html
> >> >
> >> > Aetna didn't pull out of Obamacare because they were losing money.
> >> > They pulled out because they thought it would help make their case for
> >> > a merger with Humana.
> >>
> >> I note that you aren't trying to do a Gruber, where you claim Trump
> >> caused the current problems with Obamacare. But are you going to claim
> >> that the insurers are doing just fine, and the myriad other pull-outs
> >> were for similar, non-performance-related reasons?
> >
> > I don't make any claims other than that the Aetna talking point was
> > BS. Now the question is, what general assumption should that cause
> > one to question?
>
> None unless you are going to believe that the preponderance of
> evidence about one narrow question is dispositive to the whole
> market.
>
> "In fact, says Judge John D. Bates, Aetna made its decision at least
> partially in response to a federal antitrust lawsuit blocking its
> proposed $34-billion merger with Humana."
>
> In other words, he nowhere discounts Aetna's statement that they
> were doing poorly in that business.

You must have missed this part:

"Bates found that this rationalization was largely untrue. In fact, he noted, Aetna pulled out of some states and counties that were actually profitable to make a point in its lawsuit defense — and then misled the public about its motivations."

or this:

“Indeed, he wrote, Aetna’s decision to pull out of the exchange business in Florida was “so far outside of normal business practice” that it perplexed the company’s top executive in Florida, who was not in the decision loop.

“I just can’t make sense out of the Florida dec[ision],” the executive, Christopher Ciano, wrote to Jonathan Mayhew, the head of Aetna’s national exchange business. “Based on the latest run rate data . . . we are making money from the on-exchange business. Was Florida’s performance ever debated?” Mayhew told him to discuss the matter by phone, not email, “to avoid leaving a paper trail,” Bates found. As it happens, Bates found reason to believe that Aetna soon will be selling exchange plans in Florida again."

Mergers in the healthcare sector: why you'll pay more
Mergers in the healthcare sector: why you'll pay more

Con Reeder, unhyphenated American

unread,
May 9, 2017, 2:19:13 PM5/9/17
to
> actually profitable to make a point in its lawsuit defense ??? and
> then misled the public about its motivations."
>
> or this:
>
> ???Indeed, he wrote, Aetna???s decision to pull out of the exchange
> business in Florida was ???so far outside of normal business
> practice??? that it perplexed the company???s top executive in
> Florida, who was not in the decision loop.
>
> ???I just can???t make sense out of the Florida dec[ision],??? the
> executive, Christopher Ciano, wrote to Jonathan Mayhew, the head of
> Aetna???s national exchange business. ???Based on the latest run
> rate data . . . we are making money from the on-exchange business.
> Was Florida???s performance ever debated???? Mayhew told him to
> discuss the matter by phone, not email, ???to avoid leaving a paper
> trail,??? Bates found. As it happens, Bates found reason to believe
> that Aetna soon will be selling exchange plans in Florida again."

So? Profitability in one market segment doesn't necessarily pertain to the
profitability of the whole.

--
An amateur practices until he gets it right. A pro
practices until he can't get it wrong. -- unknown

Michael Press

unread,
May 9, 2017, 3:20:53 PM5/9/17
to
In article <b77e962d-01e2-4a12...@googlegroups.com>,
xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:


Like the one where the woman was convicted of laughing?

--
Michael Press

agavi...@gmail.com

unread,
May 9, 2017, 3:41:58 PM5/9/17
to
> health insurers seem to be doing fine

Duh.

They're making record revenues.

xyzzy

unread,
May 9, 2017, 3:52:41 PM5/9/17
to
On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 3:20:53 PM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote:
> In article <b77e962d-01e2-4a12...@googlegroups.com>,
> xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Like the one where the woman was convicted of laughing?

No, that one's true.

J. Hugh Sullivan

unread,
May 9, 2017, 5:07:38 PM5/9/17
to
On Tue, 9 May 2017 12:52:40 -0700 (PDT), xyzzy <xyzzy...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Charged only with laughing would be like charging John Wilkes Booth or
Bob Ford for having a gun.

Michael Press

unread,
May 9, 2017, 5:34:30 PM5/9/17
to
In article <b58f8d14-c371-47cf...@googlegroups.com>,
No, it is not and proved so.
Charge sheet and Jury decision say so.

--
Michael Press
0 new messages