Aetna pulling out of the ACA exchanges - Effect on Affordable Care Act

[prideandfall]

What exactly do CA, NY, OR, WA and MA do to help the big insurers make money that the other states don't?

have sizable segments of the population that aren't A. morbidly obese health hazards and B. poverty stricken - poor people and people who require medical care are anathema to insurance companies.

a state with a larger density of healthy financially stable people (especially if they're liberals) is the golden calf for that business model: health-conscious people with money to burn who think your company's ponzi scheme is a good idea.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Aetna is pulling out of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.

You know, the 'small government' states (except for maybe IL and PA).

States with stricter insurance regulations (CA, NY, OR, WA and MA) don't seem to have this Aexit problem...

aa

I'm not sure what you are attempting to claim here. It would seem silly to argue that they chose the states they would do business in based on the size of the government.

Assuming they stayed in the states where they were the most profitable, your position would seem to be that the states with stricter regulation result in more profitable markets for insurers?

What exactly do CA, NY, OR, WA and MA do to help the big insurers make money that the other states don't?

My point is simply this: There seems to be at least some correlation between those Commie states with the highest tax rates and commitment to ensure that their citizens receive coverage - particularly when it is mandated. None of the insurance exchanges make money, but the states committed to propping up their respective residual market make their state a more competitive place to play.

Insurance regulation isn't about just imposing restrictions. When JohnnyComeLately Insurance Company enters a state and tries to undercut the entire market, the regulator declines those rates because they aren't in line with the rest of the market and can't cover losses. Oregon and Massachussets have notoriously declined requests for rate decreases time and again. They aren't ensuring corporate profitability, they are maintaining a fair and reasonable insurance market.

aa

 

[dismal]

I'm not sure what you are attempting to claim here. It would seem silly to argue that they chose the states they would do business in based on the size of the government.

Assuming they stayed in the states where they were the most profitable, your position would seem to be that the states with stricter regulation result in more profitable markets for insurers?

What exactly do CA, NY, OR, WA and MA do to help the big insurers make money that the other states don't?

My point is simply this: There seems to be at least some correlation between those Commie states with the highest tax rates and commitment to ensure that their citizens receive coverage - particularly when it is mandated. None of the insurance exchanges make money, but the states committed to propping up their respective residual market make their state a more competitive place to play.

Insurance regulation isn't about just imposing restrictions. When JohnnyComeLately Insurance Company enters a state and tries to undercut the entire market, the regulator declines those rates because they aren't in line with the rest of the market and can't cover losses. Oregon and Massachussets have notoriously declined requests for rate decreases time and again. They aren't ensuring corporate profitability, they are maintaining a fair and reasonable insurance market.

aa

So, your thesis is what the big government states do is make it more friendly to big insurance company profits by keeping out those companies that would undercut their pricing?

Sounds nice and cozy.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

My point is simply this: There seems to be at least some correlation between those Commie states with the highest tax rates and commitment to ensure that their citizens receive coverage - particularly when it is mandated. None of the insurance exchanges make money, but the states committed to propping up their respective residual market make their state a more competitive place to play.

Insurance regulation isn't about just imposing restrictions. When JohnnyComeLately Insurance Company enters a state and tries to undercut the entire market, the regulator declines those rates because they aren't in line with the rest of the market and can't cover losses. Oregon and Massachussets have notoriously declined requests for rate decreases time and again. They aren't ensuring corporate profitability, they are maintaining a fair and reasonable insurance market.

aa

So, your thesis is what the big government states do is make it more friendly to big insurance company profits by keeping out those companies that would undercut their pricing?

Sounds nice and cozy.

1. I propose no 'thesis'. These are insurance pricing 'facts' and if you have evidence to the contrary I look forward to reviewing it.

2. Your statement only makes sense if you believe that insurers own their own pricing. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the State's pricing, for which the insurer asks permission in which to participate. The state knows better what rate levels are adequate and not excessive for its particular legal environment.

In fact, if you research 'insurance regulatory capture' you will find the same offending states that Aetna is currently exiting (particularly Florida). No one accuses CA, NY, MA, etc. of capture by insurers.

aa

 

[RavenSky]

Aetna is pulling out of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.

You know, the 'small government' states (except for maybe IL and PA).
States with stricter insurance regulations (CA, NY, OR, WA and MA) don't seem to have this Aexit problem...

aa

Interesting how many of those states also did NOT expand the Medicaid program. Plus two of the state are HIGH retirement states (Arizona and Florida) so not surprised more older people on plans.

^^^ Was thinking almost the same thing. I wonder how much Rick Scott's refusal to take federal dollars and expand Medicaid has created this problem.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Apparently Pennsylvania was profitable.

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2016/08/17/aetna-cynicism-and-pennsylvania/

 

[dismal]

So, your thesis is what the big government states do is make it more friendly to big insurance company profits by keeping out those companies that would undercut their pricing?

Sounds nice and cozy.

1. I propose no 'thesis'. These are insurance pricing 'facts' and if you have evidence to the contrary I look forward to reviewing it.

2. Your statement only makes sense if you believe that insurers own their own pricing. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the State's pricing, for which the insurer asks permission in which to participate. The state knows better what rate levels are adequate and not excessive for its particular legal environment.

In fact, if you research 'insurance regulatory capture' you will find the same offending states that Aetna is currently exiting (particularly Florida). No one accuses CA, NY, MA, etc. of capture by insurers.

aa

All of the evidence we have seems to suggest that it is more profitable, for Aetna anyway, to sell insurance in the big Democrat states.

If this is not because these states are cozy with the big insurance companies I'm not sure how the practical effect is any different.

 

[ksen]

They did threaten to Obamacarexit if the merger was denied.

Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

Yep. Basically this has nothing to do with profitability and instead is just a giant, CEO-hissyfit because he didn't get the merger he wanted and probably just coincidentally would have resulted in a tidy, little windfall for him.

The big insurance companies are the Left's best weapon to get singlepayer healthcare enacted.

Thanks guys!

 

[Horatio Parker]

Interesting to see if HRC lowers the medicare age to 50 as she says.

That would help the exchanges, as well as pave the way for single payer.

 

[blastula]

I also wonder if the pool problem happens more in states that didn't expand Medicaid.

 

[lpetrich]

Interesting to see if HRC lowers the medicare age to 50 as she says.

Where is she supposed to have promised that?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Interesting to see if HRC lowers the medicare age to 50 as she says.

Where is she supposed to have promised that?

Google "Hillary Medicare 50" and take your pick.

 

[lpetrich]

Like this? Fact-Checking Hillary Clinton's Medicare Buy-In Proposal : NPR (May 12) -- it states that HRC was "floating a proposal" to reduce the Medicare age from 65 to 50.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Like this? Fact-Checking Hillary Clinton's Medicare Buy-In Proposal : NPR (May 12) -- it states that HRC was "floating a proposal" to reduce the Medicare age from 65 to 50.

So? Does that make it uninteresting if she does it?

 

[lpetrich]

Floating a proposal is not quite the same as promising something. Also, it does not seem as if HRC has committed herself to that proposal, though I could be wrong about that.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Floating a proposal is not quite the same as promising something. Also, it does not seem as if HRC has committed herself to that proposal, though I could be wrong about that.

I never said she promised. Besides, what would that really mean? The point is to what extent it would be a game changer for ACA.