SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
Source:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html
At what point does arbitrarily screwing with the healthcare of millions of people rise to the level of criminality?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:02PM
I'm gonna go ahead and quote TFS:
Now a federal judge has ruled that that was a rank falsehood.
Your premise is flawed, and this next bit doesn't even make sense:
but a judge with no financial stake has no valid opinion on whether the markets were making Aetna money.
So the IRS is not equipped to audit companies because they don't have a financial stake? A judge can't review evidence and come to a decision? Let's drop this whole "post truth" bullshit where we assign Truth to reality based on our personal opinions. The judge is in a court of law, not a random internet forum...
From the report's conclusion:
Because Aetna’s withdrawal from the public exchanges in the 17 complaint counties was to avoid antitrust scrutiny, the Court gives that evidence little weight in predicting whether Aetna will continue to compete on the exchanges in the future
There you have the all powerful profit motive, a corporation engaging in political games in order to increase the chances of a successful merger and thus a greater monopoly on which to make profit. Simplistic logic like "they would only pull out of the market if they were losing money" won't fly, and ignores a lot of evidence that companies will harm themselves in the short term in order to win the long game. For another example, gas station franchises used to (still do?) save up a chunk of change so that they could offer below cost prices in order to drive their competitors out of business. A shady tactic aimed at reducing choice for consumers.
Don't presume to be wiser than a judge who has reviewed the actual case details, and don't presume that businesses are innocently just trying to make some money. The big bad government is looking out for the little people in this case, and insurance companies are one of the industries least deserving of any sympathy.
~Tilting at windmills~