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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @08:51PM
I read the linked article, and the judgement.
Short version:
Aetna discovers that this Obamacare thing isn't working out for them, money-wise, as they might have liked. The administration's/congress's promises of sweet cash streams were rotten.
Aetna thinks they can make this all work by engaging in a merger. They point out the financial aspects of this to the world, government in particular.
The government threatens to refuse, Aetna threatens to pull out of unprofitable markets, including possibly some marginally profitable ones.
The government refuses, Aetna pulls out.
The government and its cheerleaders are TOTALLY miffed that a corporation might mean what it says and not bluff, when it needs them as a partner on board their 'bamacare train.
Judge says they're shady - why this is news, considering it's an insurance company we're talking about, speaks more loudly about the attitude of the media than it does about the company itself.
No actual wrongdoing appears to have been uncovered. The right of companies not to be the lapdogs of government appears to be retained.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @10:56PM
Now, you can argue whether you believe the judge to be a liar or a leftist, but you should not claim that the article states Aetna only pulled out of unprofitable markets. Your worm words "... possibly some marginally profitable ones..." appear to be designed to avoid acknowledging the fact, so shame on you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 24 2017, @11:16PM
Don't be silly.
Aetna threatened to pull out of a range of markets, ranging from unprofitable to marginally profitable. They didn't suggest that they'd just close shop and pay off their investors, or that they'd pull out of their most profitable markets. And let's see - did they do that? They did not. They're still in business where they're making money hand over fist.
It's entirely possible that they did it to make a point. This is not illegal - maybe inadvisable, but not illegal, and the judge did not rise from the bench to scream that they were all crooks. He observed that they are behaving, to put it briefly, in a shady fashion.
So, as it turns out, was pretty much everyone involved with the exception of poor slobs who wanted insurance and weren't apparently committing fraud to get it.
So where's the shame? Aetna threatened, and that was the shape of their threat, as stated. The summary did not state at all that they only pulled out of unprofitable markets. It stated that they made good on their threat.
Details matter. Read with attention.