Lucille
08-17-2016, 02:56 PM
"Awful nice medical system you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-17/more-crony-capitalism-aetna-gives-ultimatum-doj-if-humana-deal-blocked-we-exit-obama
US health insurer Aetna already made waves earlier this week when it announced on Monday that it would exit 11 of 15 state exchanges in which it offers Obamacare plans as a result of mushrooming financial losses. While that move was largely expected due to the inherent flaws in Obamacare, today it surprised market watchers, and its shareholders, again by handing an ultimatum to the Department of Justice, and thus the US government, threatening it would immediately reduce its presence in the remaining Affordable Care Act exchanges and cancel a planned expansion, if its merger with Humana was blocked.
Amusingly, the analysis of the announcement broke down firmly along party line: according to some, the previous decision to exit more than two-thirds of Obamacare exchanges was the first shot across the DOJ's bow, coming a few weeks after the Department of Justice filed a suit to stop the Humana merger. Prominent Republicans, including Donald Trump’s campaign, said the move, which came after similar ones by other major insurers, reflected flaws of the ACA. Others, notably those with a more Democratic bent, including Elizabeth Warren, suggested that Aetna’s stance on the exchanges was affected by the Justice Department’s decision. “The health of the American people should not be used as bargaining chips to force the government to bend to one giant company’s will,” she wrote in a Facebook post.
Of course, it could well be both. As the WSJ notes, Aetna wouldn’t be the only insurer to link its exchange position to a hoped-for deal. Anthem has publicly said that if it is able to consummate its acquisition of Cigna , a combination that is also facing a Justice Department suit, the merged company would likely expand into nine new exchange states.
In a July 5 letter to the Justice Department, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Aetna said that if the Humana deal drew a legal challenge, “instead of expanding to 20 states next year, we would reduce our presence to no more than 10 states.” In addition, the letter, signed by Aetna Chief Executive Mark T. Bertolini, said the insurer believed “it 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.”
Sure enough, one month later, Aetna executed on its warning with a dramatic reduction of its Obamacare offerings. It may only escalte from there.
The company said in the letter that an antitrust suit or a successful prevention of its deal would create financial strains that would force it to pull back from the exchanges, where it was losing money. “Although we remain supportive of the Administration’s efforts to expand coverage, we must also face market realities. Our customers expect us to keep their insurance products affordable and continually improving, and our shareholders expect that we will generate a market return on invested capital for them,” the letter said.
While it is undisputed that contrary to expectations, Obamacare has ended up being a far greater drain on profits than insurance providers had expected - on August 2, Aetna disclosed that its ACA plans had lost approximately $200 million in the second quarter of 2016 and were expected to lose more than $300 million this year - this type of "bargaining" with the government is disturbing, as it suggests a quid-pro-quo arrangement with the government is not only possible but expected when making corporate decisions.
An Aetna spokesman told the WSJ the letter came in response to a Justice Department request. After it was sent, “we then gained full visibility into our second quarter individual products loss, which is what ultimately drove us to narrow our 2017 public exchange presence,” he said.
Call it non-GAAP visibility.
In the letter, Aetna told the Justice Department that it was “challenged to get to break even this year” on its exchange business. CEO Bertolini wrote that, despite Aetna’s past support for the exchanges, “unfortunately, a challenge by the DOJ to that acquisition and/or the DOJ successfully blocking the transaction would have a negative financial impact on Aetna and would impair Aetna’s ability to continue its support, leaving Aetna with no choice but to take actions to steward its financial health.”
Specifically, he wrote, if the Justice Department sued to block the Humana combination, “we will immediately take action to reduce our 2017 exchange footprint,” canceling the planned five-state expansion, and “we would also withdraw from at least five additional states where generating a market return would take too long for us to justify, given the costs associated with a potential breakup of the transaction.”
But, Bertolini added, if you allow the deal to take place, all shall be well, because if the deal closed without an antitrust challenge, Aetna would “explore how to devote a portion of the additional synergies...to supporting even more public exchange coverage over the next few years.”
There is another name for this: crony capitalism of the worst kind, a hallmark feature of the Obama administration's new normal.
And the progs can just forget about "single payer." It's not gonna happen-ever-because even though statist acolytes are ineducable dumbasses, our rulers have learned a thing or two:
http://blog.independent.org/2012/10/30/once-more-with-feeling-our-system-is-not-socialism-but-participatory-fascism/
Participatory fascism’s second great advantage over socialism is that when serious economic problems do arise, as they have during the past five years, the rulers and their key supporters in the “private” sector can blame residual elements of the market system, and especially the richest people who operate in that system, for the perceived ills. No matter how much the problems arise from government intervention, it is always possible to lay the blame on actors and institutions in the remaining “free enterprises,” especially the biggest bankers and other apparent top dogs. Thus, fascistic rulers have build-in protection against popular reaction that the rulers in a socialist system lack. (Rulers under socialism tend to designate foreign governments and capitalists and domestic “wreckers” as the scapegoats for their mismanagement and inability to conduct economic affairs productively and fairly.)
Plus, like Tobias, they've got something of a mess on their hands.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljgv3sTDfB1qb17kao1_500.png
Healthcare In America: Countless Layers Of Grift And Counter-Grift
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-04/healthcare-america-countless-layers-grift-and-counter-grift
ObamaCare was designed to work like a giant roll of duct tape that would allow the current cast of characters in charge (Democratic Progressives) to pretend that the system could keep going a few years longer. But it looks like it has already blown out the patch on the manifold and is getting ready to throw a rod — which duct tape will not avail to fix.
[...]
This ghastly matrix of corruption really only has two ways to go. It can completely implode in a fairly short time frame (say, five years, tops), or we can, by some miracle of political will, get our priorities straight and sweep away all the layers of racketeering with a single-payer system. The evidence in other civilized countries is not so encouraging. England’s National Health Service has degenerated into a two layer system of half-assed soviet-style medicine for the proles and concierge service for the rich. France’s system works more democratically, but the nation is going bankrupt and eventually their health care network will fall apart. The Scandinavian countries have relatively tiny populations. I don’t know, frankly, how the Germans are doing.
[...]
You can argue that nobody complains about government spending on the highway system, so why should “the people” complain about organizing a medical system that really works? Obviously, there’s no consensus to make that happen. Too many doctors want to drive BMWs. Too many insurance executives and hospital administrators want to make multi-million dollar salaries. Too many lobbyist parasites and lawyers are feeding off that revenue stream. Too many politicians with gold-plated health insurance coverage don’t want to change the current distribution of goodies. End-of-story, as the late Tony Soprano used to say.
It’s the old quandary of fire or ice… which way do you want to go? Since I’m interested in reality-based outcomes, my bet would be on implosion. In any case, several of the other systems that currently support the activities of our society are scheduled for near-term implosion, too. That would be the banking-finance system, the energy supply system, and the industrial agriculture system. As those things wind down or crash, you can be sure that everything connected with them will be affected, so the chance that we could mount a real national health care system is, in my opinion, zero.
The ObamaCare duct-taped system will go down. The big hospitals, HMOs, insurers, pharma companies will all starve and shrivel. Like all things in the emergent new paradigm, they will reorganize on a small and much simpler basis. Everyone will make less money and high-tech medicine will probably dwindle for all but a very few… and for them, only for a while. Eventually, we’ll re-set to local clinic style medicine with far fewer resources, specialties, and miracle cures. There will be a whole lot less aggravation, though, and people may die more peacefully.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-17/more-crony-capitalism-aetna-gives-ultimatum-doj-if-humana-deal-blocked-we-exit-obama
US health insurer Aetna already made waves earlier this week when it announced on Monday that it would exit 11 of 15 state exchanges in which it offers Obamacare plans as a result of mushrooming financial losses. While that move was largely expected due to the inherent flaws in Obamacare, today it surprised market watchers, and its shareholders, again by handing an ultimatum to the Department of Justice, and thus the US government, threatening it would immediately reduce its presence in the remaining Affordable Care Act exchanges and cancel a planned expansion, if its merger with Humana was blocked.
Amusingly, the analysis of the announcement broke down firmly along party line: according to some, the previous decision to exit more than two-thirds of Obamacare exchanges was the first shot across the DOJ's bow, coming a few weeks after the Department of Justice filed a suit to stop the Humana merger. Prominent Republicans, including Donald Trump’s campaign, said the move, which came after similar ones by other major insurers, reflected flaws of the ACA. Others, notably those with a more Democratic bent, including Elizabeth Warren, suggested that Aetna’s stance on the exchanges was affected by the Justice Department’s decision. “The health of the American people should not be used as bargaining chips to force the government to bend to one giant company’s will,” she wrote in a Facebook post.
Of course, it could well be both. As the WSJ notes, Aetna wouldn’t be the only insurer to link its exchange position to a hoped-for deal. Anthem has publicly said that if it is able to consummate its acquisition of Cigna , a combination that is also facing a Justice Department suit, the merged company would likely expand into nine new exchange states.
In a July 5 letter to the Justice Department, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Aetna said that if the Humana deal drew a legal challenge, “instead of expanding to 20 states next year, we would reduce our presence to no more than 10 states.” In addition, the letter, signed by Aetna Chief Executive Mark T. Bertolini, said the insurer believed “it 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.”
Sure enough, one month later, Aetna executed on its warning with a dramatic reduction of its Obamacare offerings. It may only escalte from there.
The company said in the letter that an antitrust suit or a successful prevention of its deal would create financial strains that would force it to pull back from the exchanges, where it was losing money. “Although we remain supportive of the Administration’s efforts to expand coverage, we must also face market realities. Our customers expect us to keep their insurance products affordable and continually improving, and our shareholders expect that we will generate a market return on invested capital for them,” the letter said.
While it is undisputed that contrary to expectations, Obamacare has ended up being a far greater drain on profits than insurance providers had expected - on August 2, Aetna disclosed that its ACA plans had lost approximately $200 million in the second quarter of 2016 and were expected to lose more than $300 million this year - this type of "bargaining" with the government is disturbing, as it suggests a quid-pro-quo arrangement with the government is not only possible but expected when making corporate decisions.
An Aetna spokesman told the WSJ the letter came in response to a Justice Department request. After it was sent, “we then gained full visibility into our second quarter individual products loss, which is what ultimately drove us to narrow our 2017 public exchange presence,” he said.
Call it non-GAAP visibility.
In the letter, Aetna told the Justice Department that it was “challenged to get to break even this year” on its exchange business. CEO Bertolini wrote that, despite Aetna’s past support for the exchanges, “unfortunately, a challenge by the DOJ to that acquisition and/or the DOJ successfully blocking the transaction would have a negative financial impact on Aetna and would impair Aetna’s ability to continue its support, leaving Aetna with no choice but to take actions to steward its financial health.”
Specifically, he wrote, if the Justice Department sued to block the Humana combination, “we will immediately take action to reduce our 2017 exchange footprint,” canceling the planned five-state expansion, and “we would also withdraw from at least five additional states where generating a market return would take too long for us to justify, given the costs associated with a potential breakup of the transaction.”
But, Bertolini added, if you allow the deal to take place, all shall be well, because if the deal closed without an antitrust challenge, Aetna would “explore how to devote a portion of the additional synergies...to supporting even more public exchange coverage over the next few years.”
There is another name for this: crony capitalism of the worst kind, a hallmark feature of the Obama administration's new normal.
And the progs can just forget about "single payer." It's not gonna happen-ever-because even though statist acolytes are ineducable dumbasses, our rulers have learned a thing or two:
http://blog.independent.org/2012/10/30/once-more-with-feeling-our-system-is-not-socialism-but-participatory-fascism/
Participatory fascism’s second great advantage over socialism is that when serious economic problems do arise, as they have during the past five years, the rulers and their key supporters in the “private” sector can blame residual elements of the market system, and especially the richest people who operate in that system, for the perceived ills. No matter how much the problems arise from government intervention, it is always possible to lay the blame on actors and institutions in the remaining “free enterprises,” especially the biggest bankers and other apparent top dogs. Thus, fascistic rulers have build-in protection against popular reaction that the rulers in a socialist system lack. (Rulers under socialism tend to designate foreign governments and capitalists and domestic “wreckers” as the scapegoats for their mismanagement and inability to conduct economic affairs productively and fairly.)
Plus, like Tobias, they've got something of a mess on their hands.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljgv3sTDfB1qb17kao1_500.png
Healthcare In America: Countless Layers Of Grift And Counter-Grift
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-04/healthcare-america-countless-layers-grift-and-counter-grift
ObamaCare was designed to work like a giant roll of duct tape that would allow the current cast of characters in charge (Democratic Progressives) to pretend that the system could keep going a few years longer. But it looks like it has already blown out the patch on the manifold and is getting ready to throw a rod — which duct tape will not avail to fix.
[...]
This ghastly matrix of corruption really only has two ways to go. It can completely implode in a fairly short time frame (say, five years, tops), or we can, by some miracle of political will, get our priorities straight and sweep away all the layers of racketeering with a single-payer system. The evidence in other civilized countries is not so encouraging. England’s National Health Service has degenerated into a two layer system of half-assed soviet-style medicine for the proles and concierge service for the rich. France’s system works more democratically, but the nation is going bankrupt and eventually their health care network will fall apart. The Scandinavian countries have relatively tiny populations. I don’t know, frankly, how the Germans are doing.
[...]
You can argue that nobody complains about government spending on the highway system, so why should “the people” complain about organizing a medical system that really works? Obviously, there’s no consensus to make that happen. Too many doctors want to drive BMWs. Too many insurance executives and hospital administrators want to make multi-million dollar salaries. Too many lobbyist parasites and lawyers are feeding off that revenue stream. Too many politicians with gold-plated health insurance coverage don’t want to change the current distribution of goodies. End-of-story, as the late Tony Soprano used to say.
It’s the old quandary of fire or ice… which way do you want to go? Since I’m interested in reality-based outcomes, my bet would be on implosion. In any case, several of the other systems that currently support the activities of our society are scheduled for near-term implosion, too. That would be the banking-finance system, the energy supply system, and the industrial agriculture system. As those things wind down or crash, you can be sure that everything connected with them will be affected, so the chance that we could mount a real national health care system is, in my opinion, zero.
The ObamaCare duct-taped system will go down. The big hospitals, HMOs, insurers, pharma companies will all starve and shrivel. Like all things in the emergent new paradigm, they will reorganize on a small and much simpler basis. Everyone will make less money and high-tech medicine will probably dwindle for all but a very few… and for them, only for a while. Eventually, we’ll re-set to local clinic style medicine with far fewer resources, specialties, and miracle cures. There will be a whole lot less aggravation, though, and people may die more peacefully.