I should clarify, I didn't mean it was trivial to Aetna. I meant it was trivial compared to the cost of the existing subsidies and risk corridors in the ACA, a

I should clarify, I didn't mean it was trivial to Aetna. I meant it was trivial compared to the cost of the existing subsidies and risk corridors in the ACA, and that this is not an existential problem for ACA. Over the past few months, several major insurers have either reduced or ended their participation in the ACA exchanges. That is troubling news. However, setting aside the political feasibility, it's hardly an unsolvable problem. If the risk pool does not improve, and insurers keep losing money, then we can raise funding for the risk corridors. To put this in perspective, Aetna, one of the largest insurers in the marketplace, is losing about $300 million. We're spending about $200 billion/year on ACA currently.