Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–155 of 155 posts

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#151

Post by Consultant32452 »

quadrangle wrote: post #147
Consultant32452 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The insurance provider doesn't care how much it costs. The ACA states that the insurance provider must spend 80% on services. So as far as they're concerned, the higher the costs of healthcare the more money they get to keep. They just can't let costs skyrocket faster than they're able to increase your premiums.

The market is a horrible contrivance, and insurance is fundamentally unworkable in a market, unlike actual services and products where you know what you're getting and when you'll need it… But that said, do you have even the tiniest bit of evidence that insurers actually do what you're saying in order to keep their costs up per ACA requirements?? There's all sorts of shenanigans in the industry, but your speculation…

Occam's razor is a better fit here. In a world where they have to return any cost savings to the insured, what is the incentive to reduce costs?

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#152

Post by maxerickson »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #151
quadrangle wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market is a horrible contrivance, and insurance is fundamentally unworkable in a market, unlike actual services and products where you know what you're getting and when you'll need it… But that said, do you have even the tiniest bit of evidence that insurers actually do what you're saying in order to keep their costs up per ACA requirements?? There's all sorts of shenanigans in the industry, but your speculation…

Occam's razor is a better fit here. In a world where they have to return any cost savings to the insured, what is the incentive to reduce costs?

In theory, competitive rate setting for premiums. Hasn't worked out that way in many places though.

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#153

Post by Consultant32452 »

maxerickson wrote: post #152
Consultant32452 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Occam's razor is a better fit here. In a world where they have to return any cost savings to the insured, what is the incentive to reduce costs?

In theory, competitive rate setting for premiums. Hasn't worked out that way in many places though.

This is the fundamental flaw in the ACA. It did nothing to increase competition. In fact, increased regulation pushed some competitors out of the market. I can't tell whether this was a fool's errand or an intentional destruction of the market, pushing us towards socialization.

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#154

Post by code_duck »

hiram112 wrote: post #137
code_duck wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The risk is that poor people get basic care while rich people get full care, widening health disparities. In my experience, that's already the situation. Actually, reality is worse. The rich (meaning, upper middle class and not sick) get full care and even excessive care, while the poor get basic or no care, often emergency only. If you go to a hospital for an emergency procedure, the level of care and follow up car…

This may have been true pre-ACA, but it isn't the reality now. It's now a system where wealthy, government employees, and the poor (i.e. subsidized) have access to full care, and most of the middle class just goes without. In the past 5 years, I've gone from a decent $20 copay to a employer-sponsored high deductible to currently a fully out of pocket deductible of $2k before insurance pays a cent. I've begun rationin…

Right, it is worse to have some money then none. But still, if you are super poor receiving free care, you do not get anywhere the same level of care as people with good insurance. But at least you're not paying tons of money for it or getting none (massive deductibles) like the middle class.

Re: CVS Is Said to Agree to Buy Aetna

#155

Post by libertyEQ »

nradov wrote: post #136
libertyEQ wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Amazon is going to buy drugs in major bulk (Walmart, or Mail-order-pharmacy style) All pharmacies, electronic and brick-and-mortar, go through one of 3 wholesalers: Cardinal, AmerisourceBergen, or Mckesson. It's, "which retailer can drive distribution?"

If Amazon enters the pharmacy business is there any reason they couldn't bypass the wholesalers and buy directly from pharmaceutical companies?

No. To be clear, I don't make these regulatory decisions, I'm just relaying the reality of the situation. It's very difficult to have these discussions with people that don't even know the basics about the industry under discussion.
Post reply on HN