Now we know the real reason Aetna bailed on Obamacare

business insider ^ | 8/17 | bob bryan

[GT Vander]

It's ALWAYS about the Benjamins. No matter what else is said, it's ALWAYS about the Benjamins.

[avital2]

economy of size for Aetna/Humana merger might help pare the losses mounting up from an imbalance in the risk pool. sounds like Econ 1-2 to me.

[RummyChick]

Aetna called their bluff. Basically, Screw us over Obambi..we will screw over your precious Obamacare.

[Steely Tom]

No matter what else is said, it's ALWAYS about the Benjamins.

Learn it.
Love it.
Live it.

[Gaffer]

“Benjamins.” Well, at least until Obama succeeds in renaming them “Stowes,” “Parks,” or “Weezy’s.”

[relictele]

Given the corruption at all levels of government, a failed merger is less about preserving competition and more likely a failure somewhere along the way to cross the correct palms with the correct amount of silver.

Given Obama’s obsession with establishing oligopolies and/or monopolies in the so-called exchanges it seems odd that a merger leading to this same market condition would be blocked.

But we’re talking about the Holder/Lynch DOJ. Mussolini’s black shirts were more honest, impartial and reasonable.

[dp0622]

Obamacare is a disaster. There’s no sinister reasons healthcare companies are leaving it.

[larryjohnson]

It’s always the greedy insurance companies who bail. There seems to be no other reason than profit for insurance companies to exist. Big government managed health care for all must be the solution.

[Mr. K]

They say this as if its some sort of revenge for the government stepping in to tell businesses what they must do...

In reality, the merger probably would have had cost savings benefits, and without the merger they have cut costs some where else- usually that means your least profitable (or greatest cost = loss) products.

[dp0622]

Why should they stay in the disastrous obamacare fiasco?

And it should be about the Benjamins. It’s a for profit company.

[BBB333]

“Weezy’s.”

LOVE IT!

[Tenacious 1]

Correct on the Econ part. But a merger is usually attractive where costs can be cut in overheads, competition is reduced and prices can be raised. If the product is still losing money at the point of sale, how do the numbers work to make a merger attractive? Two companies both losing money merge to lose less money? The government sets prices.

They are losing money in exchanges = get out of exchanges. Your right pretty simple.

[dhs12345]

And it has nothing to do with Obamacare. /sarc.

[notdownwidems]

They say this as if its some sort of revenge for the government stepping in to tell businesses what they must do... In reality, the merger probably would have had cost savings benefits, and without the merger they have cut costs some where else- usually that means your least profitable (or greatest cost = loss) products.

Exactly! They were on board with obamacare from the outset, thinking the government would continue greasing their palms; the corruptocrats failed to approve their merger so now they are like, 'eff you, you don't scratch our back, we don't scratch yours, and double eff the public!' These insurance guys are just as bad as the government corruptocrats

[avital2]

this Obamacare is only one part of Aetna/Humana’s business. i assume the numbers work in other areas to offset - or the merger wouldn’t have been considered.

[Tenacious 1]

Good point. It makes sense that the company is getting out of the business that is losing money.

[Brilliant]

This is the liberal spin. Obamacare is going down irrespective though.

[Tenacious 1]

A tax paying company HAS to make profit before any additional “purposes” can be acted upon. If they don’t “make profit”, then they are called a charity.

Liberals would like all companies to be charities. Or at least they think they do.

[Tallguy]

Would have happened anyway. Aetna lost $200 million in the exchanges IN THE 2ND QUARTER ALONE. I’ve seen annual losses in excess of a billion for a single provider.

What I want to know is why aren’t these CEO’s being sued by their boards? Why hasn’t a US district... Strike that. We know the answer to that one.