U.S. judge finds that Aetna deceived the public about its reasons for quitting Obamacare

[Homerboy]

I for one am shocked -- SHOCKED that an insurance company was abusing the system to make as much money as possible. But yeah, the ACA was a complete failure due to it's own short-comings :eyeroll:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html

Aetna claimed this summer that it was pulling out of all but four of the 15 states where it was providing Obamacare individual insurance because of a business decision — it was simply losing too much money on the Obamacare exchanges.

Now a federal judge has ruled that that was a rank falsehood. In fact, says Judge John D. Bates, Aetna made its decision at least partially in response to a federal antitrust lawsuit blocking its proposed $37-billion merger with Humana. Aetna threatened federal officials with the pullout before the lawsuit was filed, and followed through on its threat once it was filed. Bates made the observations in the course of a ruling he issued Monday blocking the merger.

Aetna executives had moved heaven and earth to conceal their decision-making process from the court, in part by discussing the matter on the phone rather than in emails, and by shielding what did get put in writing with the cloak of attorney-client privilege, a practice Bates found came close to “malfeasance.”

The judge’s conclusions about Aetna’s real reasons for pulling out of Obamacare — as opposed to the rationalization the company made in public — are crucial for the debate over the fate of the Affordable Care Act. That’s because the company’s withdrawal has been exploited by Republicans to justify repealing the act. Just last week, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) cited Aetna’s action on the “Charlie Rose” show, saying that it proved how shaky the exchanges were.

 

[Sunburn74]

I for one am shocked -- SHOCKED that an insurance company was abusing the system to make as much money as possible. But yeah, the ACA was a complete failure due to it's own short-comings :eyeroll:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html

Incredible. Absolutely incredible. I wonder what the penalty will be?

 

[Homerboy]

Incredible. Absolutely incredible. I wonder what the penalty will be?

Probably pay millions after saving billions.
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[MrSquished]

I am aghast and totally taken aback by surprise.

 

[repoman0]

And the usual rubes will ignore this or never hear about it.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

well this ruse never would have happened if the ACA wasn't implemented, so yea, duh, it is Obamacare's fault that aetna quit the ACA.


(edited for 'accuracy of snarkiness')

 

[shortylickens]

I dont know about the rest of you, but Aetna fucked me over pretty hard.
NOTHING I did was covered by them. They always had some excuse not to take care of me. And they messed up my dental care too. Put me down as a child, couldnt get tooth care at all.
Fuck heads.

 

[Thump553]

AEtna is one of the major employers in my area. They are certainly not a model of good corporate citizenship.

Kudos to the judge for issuing his decision. Hopefully the White House will not find a way to circumvent it. I have a strong feeling that what remains of antitrust law is going to be gutted under the purported populist Trump.

 

[disappoint]

The pathological sociopaths that rise to the top to become CEOs and executives in some large corporations can be the most vindictive conniving criminals whom are never prosecuted or given a mere slap on the wrist due to their power and influence in our historically corrupt government officials that take bribes that they've managed to convince the public are harmless by calling it lobbying instead.

This is one of the reasons some voted for DJT Orangeman because they think that a wealthy person won't need a handout. While that may be true to a certain extent I doubt anything will change because:

1. DJT is just one person, this won't change how the rest of the govt. operates.

2. DJT may not be bribable with a monetary handout by lobbyists but he will still want to get things done and the rest of the players (lobbyists and other members of the govt. branches may hold out on what the POTUS wants to get done in exchange for favors.

I wish I were wrong and that he could "drain the swamp" and "make America great again" but it's not likely much will change. Humans are creatures of habit. Yes there are exceptions when people can individually change their habits when they are ready to do so, and entire articles have been written on that subject alone, but changing they way a large group of people operate is probably even more unlikely especially when they benefit so much from the status quo.

I'd love to be proven wrong that nothing will change for the better.

 

[Jaskalas]

I for one am shocked -- SHOCKED that an insurance company was abusing the system to make as much money as possible. But yeah, the ACA was a complete failure due to it's own short-comings :eyeroll:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html

Your quote did not once dispute Aetna's claim that the ACA is sinking them.

However, the link and article itself does speak to it.

Bates found that this rationalization was largely untrue. In fact, he noted, Aetna pulled out of some states and counties that were actually profitable to make a point in its lawsuit defense — and then misled the public about its motivations.

I wonder how true that is. If they were only marginal and soon to sink under rising costs. Part of running a business is not looking at today's numbers, but projecting so you can plan ahead. I'd need to see the numbers and their trends over time to know just how likely their excuse was.

 

[disappoint]

AEtna is one of the major employers in my area. They are certainly not a model of good corporate citizenship.

Kudos to the judge for issuing his decision. Hopefully the White House will not find a way to circumvent it. I have a strong feeling that what remains of antitrust law is going to be gutted under the purported populist Trump.

Trump a populist? What gave you that idea? A populist doesn't 'tweet rant' pissing off millions of people at a time with unpopular views. A populist wouldn't have so many demonstrators protesting the day after his inauguration.

He's more of an unfiltered grandpa that says whatever he wants with little regard for tact or consequences. He says whatever is on his mind with nary a filter. Does that sound like a populist to you?

 

[wetech]

Your quote did not once dispute Aetna's claim that the ACA is sinking them.

However, the link and article itself does speak to it.


I wonder how true that is. If they were only marginal and soon to sink under rising costs. Part of running a business is not looking at today's numbers, but projecting so you can plan ahead. I'd need to see the numbers and their trends over time to know just how likely their excuse was.

This. The judge didn't say that they lied about losing money in the exchanges, just that they didn't disclose all reasons for pulling out.

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; he just didn’t buy that that was its sole reason.

 

[sandorski]

Maybe the French had the right idea.

 

[realibrad]

Maybe the French had the right idea.

Lol, yeah because France did so well after that.

 

[glenn1]

This. The judge didn't say that they lied about losing money in the exchanges, just that they didn't disclose all reasons for pulling out.

The company didn't have an obligation to provide any reasons to the public for pulling out of these markets or tell the truth if they did. They could have done exactly as the judge said and pulled out for exactly the reason of a proposed merger being approved or disapproved. Now if they cited in a legal document such as a court disposition or SEC filing they should be penalized accordingly. But the mere fact that it might have damaged the viability of Obamacare is the problem of politicians and not the legal risk of the company for making that business decision.

 

[EduCat]

OMG this is SHOCKING news!