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: 3, Insightful) by dry on Wednesday January 25 2017, @02:45AM
Companies leave markets all the time due to not making enough profit. For an insurance company, anything less then 10% or 20% is probably enough to force them to close up shop and concentrate their resources somewhere with higher profit margins. It's one of the things that pisses me off with industry, no longer happy to make a decent profit, it's gotta be a endlessly increasing profit so the CEO can make good on his/hers stock options