3 ms·

Even if this was true, which the article states it is not, isn't that the point of insurance? To spread the risk and cost across a geographic or demographic po

• tptacek 10y ago
  I want to be clear that I'm not saying Aetna should have left unprofitable markets; I think, for instance, that it would be reasonable to require that any insurer wishing to offer group coverage in a state also offer individual market coverage. But the claim Aetna is making is that, at least in some of the markets it abandoned, it was making a net loss on insurance contracts.
  • milliondollar 10y ago
    This a million times over. Aetna makes huge money in the group business. By allowing insurers to take all the healthy people in group business, but absolving them from taking the sick people in a market, you essentially create smaller pools of "unprofitable" customers. But essentially it is a giant subsidy to the group insurance providers.
• djrogers 10y ago
  > Even if this was true, which the article states it is not, Not really: "As for Aetna’s claimed rationale for withdrawing from all but four states, Bates accepted that the company could credibly call it a “business decision,” since the overall exchange business was losing money;" Again, both can be true...
  • mattmanser 10y ago
    Though, again, it clearly says in the article it's not and they pulled out of states where they were profitable.