Live data from Hacker News

Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

huffingtonpost.com

231–240 of 353 posts

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the government is going to be making all the decisions there's no benefit. But I doubt we would have had Obamacare at all if he'd proposed a single-payer plan. Insurance companies, which have a lot of clout in Washington, helped push it through because they expected to make more money. Which, quite frankly, was stupid. It was pretty clear from the outset the ACA would break the US health care system so badly singl…

Do you think that was as clear to the sponsors of the ACA as it was to you?

If by "sponsors" you mean the political leaders, then yes. They knew they were fudging the books. They explicitly abused the GAO ten year window to make it look like there would be enough money even though the wheels were due to start coming off after seven years.

They also had enough political experience to know getting the (delayed) more unpopular parts (like cuts in payments to doctors accepting Medicare, increases to penalties for people who don't buy insurance, and extra taxes for "Cadillac plans") might be too difficult to get through when the time came. That's why they were delayed.

I suppose I can give them enough benefit of the doubt to say many of them may have believed once the system was in place they could solve the problems by closing the gap with something something.

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#232
post #169
post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reality, of course, being that the US has death panels: Insurance providers, so the argument was idiotic to begin with. The difference is that with most socialised systems there are two system in parallel: A public system whose priorities set based on measured impact, rather than by . E.g. in the UK, a separate agency develops guidance independently that measures how treatments affect "quality adjusted life years". A…

Except you can sue your insurance provider if they deny you coverage for something that they're obligated to cover. You wouldn't be able to sue the government. Edit: Let me also add this; when you sign up for health insurance you're entering into a contract with the insurer. They have to be up front about what they're providing and it's your obligation to understand what you're buying. With the government you don't g…

(successful) Suit against Medicare:

https://www.cms.gov/medicare/medicare-fee-for-service-paymen...

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more about opposing their attempts to thwart antitrust law. After AT&T's merger failed, T-Mobile used the money and the public fallout as an opportunity to reinvent themselves as a company that caters to the public. I'm wondering if this could be a similar opportunity for Aetna's competitors. If the government is unable to prevent monopolies, then consumers should step in by punishing companies that seek to mono…

The headline is misleading. Aetna didn't threaten to pullout if their merger wasn't approved, they said that they would be forced to do so because they would be losing too much money. That isn't "attempting to thwart antitrust law," it's simply stating the facts.

Then so be it. If Aetna is unable to withstand the rigors of the post-Obamacare climate, then they should fail accordingly. Their competitors seem to be able to hold on without resorting to monopolistic tactics. Better they fail now, before they become too big to fail through mergers and acquisitions.

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#234
post #2

Can anyone succinctly explain the benefits of having a market for private health insurance companies, rather than a single provider of health insurance (government, aka "public option")? Can a capitalist case be made for their existence? Does the lack of a large private insurance market in countries with government-provided health insurance cause lots of inefficiencies and waste?

There's a book called "Catastrophic Care" that directly addresses this question. It's an expansion of an article the same author wrote for The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-amer...). And for a summary of the book in video form, here's a long interview the author did with Malcolm Gladwell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP--XMgEv4c

To answer your question, the way we think of health insurance isn't compatible with a free market system. Insurance pools risk and money to cap your losses in rare, ruinous events. But that's not how we use health insurance. We use health insurance to pay for low-cost, common, certain-to-happen events (blood work, checkups, X-rays, sprained joints, etc.). To borrow an example from the book, imagine we had grocery insurance. Every month, you paid $500 to the grocery insurance company, and you could go to the store to pick out any covered groceries. The market for food would quickly take on all the negative features we find in the market for healthcare. Prices that are crazy and only get higher, minimal competitive forces against low-quality providers, no transparency for consumers, etc.

Market forces are great at lowering prices while increasing quality, but they only work if people personally decide how and where to spend their money. If you give your money to a third party who then makes all the spending decisions, it smothers all the price/demand/competition signals that providers should naturally get. (And which, in a healthy market, automatically put providers out of business when their prices get to high or their results dip too low.)

To borrow from the book again: it seems crazy to expect people to pay for healthcare out of pocket. But add up your premiums. You're probably paying $6-10k per year right now. That's many times more than enough to cover typical healthcare in most years. With plenty left over to buy catastrophic coverage for high-cost low-probability stuff. And in a market where people are making their own decisions with their own money, prices would quickly drop, which would stretch your out-of-pocket dollars much further than they go today. Every $2500 MRI would go out of business, replaced by $500 ones. (We already see this kind of price deflation in the corners of medicine where people do pay out of pocket, namely laser vision correction, plastic surgery, and to some extent walk-in checkup clinics.)

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#235
post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no expert in this at all, but I do know a number of people who work in government and across the board they are all of the opinion that most people would be shocked if they knew just how cheap it was to buy major influence, even at the national level.

There are people that are experts and they generally agree that the effects of political contributions are much smaller than is generally believed by the public.

Unless you cite some credible sources, this is just a case of dueling anecdotes.

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#236
post #2

Can anyone succinctly explain the benefits of having a market for private health insurance companies, rather than a single provider of health insurance (government, aka "public option")? Can a capitalist case be made for their existence? Does the lack of a large private insurance market in countries with government-provided health insurance cause lots of inefficiencies and waste?

In theory? As I understand it ... A market allows for innovators to find ways to deliver better service for less money and thus offer a more competitive product and gain market share. This competition forces all players to improve, or be forced from the market. A publicly owned and operated business has no incentive to improve its operational efficiency and little to no incentive to respond to complaints in service.…

This meme that private businesses are always better than government because of market incentives has been proven false time and time again. Cities starting municipal broadband services are far, far better than the private businesses that should have been more efficient and more innovative, should your meme hold true.

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#237
post #2

Can anyone succinctly explain the benefits of having a market for private health insurance companies, rather than a single provider of health insurance (government, aka "public option")? Can a capitalist case be made for their existence? Does the lack of a large private insurance market in countries with government-provided health insurance cause lots of inefficiencies and waste?

> Can a capitalist case be made for their existence?

Yes, and rather than do it myself, I'll let Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman do it:

http://www.hoover.org/research/how-cure-health-care-0

Note the date. He did studies in the 1970s and updated them in the 1990s with consistent results. This was all well known and the case was made repeatedly before Obamacare was passed.

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#238
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think a ~$100,000 a year to a politician (plus another couple million to some other politicians) is largely responsible for the rules that govern how 20% of our economy functions you are quite mistaken. There are huge economic and political forces at work that render Aetna's tiny expenditure irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

> If you think a ~$100,000 a year to a politician (plus another couple million to some other politicians) is largely responsible for the rules that govern how 20% of our economy functions you are quite mistaken. cough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act cough That was purchased pretty cheaply, and industries affected by copyright(books, movies, music, software, software) are a decent chunk of t…

The average member of the public doesn't care at all about copyright terms so policy in that area is much more susceptible to this sort of thing.

The average member of the public cares a great deal about their health insurance so policy in this area is much much less susceptible to influence with small political donations.

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#239
post #2

Can anyone succinctly explain the benefits of having a market for private health insurance companies, rather than a single provider of health insurance (government, aka "public option")? Can a capitalist case be made for their existence? Does the lack of a large private insurance market in countries with government-provided health insurance cause lots of inefficiencies and waste?

Everything the government provides causes lots of inefficiencies and waste, and unintended consequences to boot. That said, some things may be worth the sacrifice, healthcare may be one of those things. One question to ask, will the quality of care improve (whatever the cost) if the government takes over? Since the US is made up of states, what is stopping one state from providing single-payer and proving the model w…

At least one has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_health_care_reform

It apparently didn't work well, though.

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#240
post #2

Can anyone succinctly explain the benefits of having a market for private health insurance companies, rather than a single provider of health insurance (government, aka "public option")? Can a capitalist case be made for their existence? Does the lack of a large private insurance market in countries with government-provided health insurance cause lots of inefficiencies and waste?

I'm not well enough informed to give a complete opinion on what's better, because it's a complicated solution. I do know some reasons why a public option might not be good. (This doesn't mean it's the wrong option - just considerations) 1 - When you eliminate competition, you lose innovation and smart cost control. Look at most monopolies for evidence of this. 2 - You wind up forcing a "one size fits all" on everyone…

1 is disproven when you look at other countries with single payer, and they have a much better handle on their healthcare costs than we do.

3 - about the same amount as the private sector.

Post reply on HN