5 ms·

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

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.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Apocryphon 10y ago
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.
- harryh 10y ago
  The issue is not that the ACA is causing Aetna to fail. Aetna makes an enormous amount of money on employer sponsored health care plans. Where Aetna was losing money was on the public exchanges, a new line of business that didn't exist before the ACA. And it's not just them. Nearly all of the large insurance companies are pulling out of the exchanges because they're losing money. A lot of people believe this is because, as they are currently constructed, the public exchanges are untenable. And that's a very big deal if it's true. Not for the profitability of insurance companies, but for public health care policy in this country.
- rayiner 10y ago
  You make it seem like forcing a company to serve an unprofitable market is the same as regular market competition. It's not. It's extremely distortionary. And it hurts competition--it basically means only huge insurance companies that make big profits on group plans they can use to offset losses on exchange plans can afford to enter the market.
  - Apocryphon 10y ago
    Them having to scramble for dear life in an inequitable market situation doesn't justify them engaging in anti-competitive actions. The problems with public exchanges in the ACA should be addressed without resorting to monopolistic practices. Let them fail.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Apocryphon 10y ago

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.

harryh 10y ago
The issue is not that the ACA is causing Aetna to fail. Aetna makes an enormous amount of money on employer sponsored health care plans. Where Aetna was losing money was on the public exchanges, a new line of business that didn't exist before the ACA. And it's not just them. Nearly all of the large insurance companies are pulling out of the exchanges because they're losing money. A lot of people believe this is because, as they are currently constructed, the public exchanges are untenable. And that's a very big deal if it's true. Not for the profitability of insurance companies, but for public health care policy in this country.
rayiner 10y ago
You make it seem like forcing a company to serve an unprofitable market is the same as regular market competition. It's not. It's extremely distortionary. And it hurts competition--it basically means only huge insurance companies that make big profits on group plans they can use to offset losses on exchange plans can afford to enter the market.
- Apocryphon 10y ago
  Them having to scramble for dear life in an inequitable market situation doesn't justify them engaging in anti-competitive actions. The problems with public exchanges in the ACA should be addressed without resorting to monopolistic practices. Let them fail.