The Politifact head correctly tweet-taunted the Hot Air piece for its attempt to recontextualize the question to "death spiral shorthand." Ironically, they did so to call Politifact "biased" and "sloppy."While touting what it calls "empirical data," Hot Air ignores contrary evidence such as the Congressional Budget Office specifically saying that no such death spiral exists. In all its shouting, which devotes space to a lengthy look at Marco Rubio's unfair Politifacting history for some reason, Hot Air never mentions the CBO at all. But Hot Air does cite a kind of evidence. As it says, the "evidence might be..." what Aetna is doing. After all, they assert, "companies don’t abandon profitable markets out of spite." I'd hate to risk the further wrath of Hot Air by adhering to "a hyper-literal and narrow definition," so I won't say Aetna abandoned profitable markets out of spite. I'll leave someone else to name the company's motive:http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/24/investing/aetna-obamacare-humana-merger/A federal judge has ruled that Aetna wasn't being truthful when the health insurer said last summer that its decision to pull out of most Obamacare exchanges was strictly a business decision triggered by mounting losses.U.S. District Judge John Bates concluded this week that Aetna's real motivation for dropping Obamacare coverage in several states was "specifically to evade judicial scrutiny" over its merger with Humana. That decision to retreat from Obamacare came just a month after the Department of Justice blocked Aetna's $34 billion merger with Humana on antitrust grounds.But Bates said this week the DOJ presented "persuasive support" -- including internal Aetna emails -- for the conclusion that Aetna (AET) withdrew from the Obamacare exchanges in those counties "to improve its litigation position." "The Court does not credit the minimal efforts of Aetna executives to claim otherwise," Bates wrote in a ruling following a trial over the merger. He added that Aetna's decision regarding participation in the 2017 exchanges in these counties was "in fact manipulated."...Bates said it's clear that "Aetna tried to leverage its participation in the exchange for favorable treatment" from regulators.The judge said there is "persuasive evidence" that when Aetna later withdrew from the 17 counties in question, "it did not do so for business reasons, but instead to follow through on the threat that it made earlier."
"And that data has led Aetna, Humana, Blue Cross, United Healthcare and others to extricate themselves from Obamacare’s crumbling markets."As conspiracies go, this one is pretty far-reaching. Everybody is getting out of these profitable Obamacare exchanges out of spite or something.When do we get our $2500 in savings?
Are the judge's words printed in invisible ink? Aetna and Humana are the two companies whose merger got blocked. Aetna "did not do so for business reasons."And Blue Cross? Blue Cross Anthem is planning to expand its Obamacare coverage. And unlike the Aetna CEO, Anthem's CEO keeps saying his company is "all in." For example, they're the only company sticking with Oklahoma, which has done everything it can to drive Obamacare insurers out.https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2016/08/21/blue-cross-plans-may-be-obamacares-fire-wall/#4e60aee334aeConservatives claim they want a healthcare free market, but then they wet their pants over each free market decision that suits their preexisting suspicion. 39 insurers left the marketplace in 2016, while 40 insurers joined it. Must be one of those uncommon two-directional death spirals. Those 40 insurers haven't heard the news that "everybody is getting out."The insurers openly opposed this month's GOP Trumpcare repeal botch, too. For some reason, THAT business opinion was meaningless.Many Republican Governors have deliberately sabotaged Obamacare from the get-go. And it's paid off for their constituents: the states that are most hostile to the law have seen the largest premium hikes. The states that have embraced the law have had a different story. http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obamacare-rates-20161031-story.htmlLook at what's happening in Kansas right now, this week, as the state's Senate and House are belatedly and desperately voting to opt in, while Sam Brownback is stubbornly trying to keep his "Kansas miracle" (and presidential delusions) going.Brownback is the embodiment of the Republican approach to Obamacare: Keep hopelessness alive!
Yes, Blue Cross is "all in". It's super easy to run a business when all your competitors have packed up.And what's this?"Swedish has repeatedly said the company remains “all in” when it comes to offering individual coverage on public exchanges. Swedish has, however, said certain regulatory issues need to be taken care of to improve risk pools as well as other measures like increasing the amount of penalties to coax more younger and healthier patients into buying policies."I don't want to say it but it sounds like something that rhymes with "schmeth miral."Also, Blue Cross will expand but only if they can get regulatory approval of their Cigna takeover. I guess that's different than the Aetna shakedown, somehow.
That LA Times "article" by Michael Hiltzik was a trip. It was three paragraphs of statistics followed by eight explaining how the data was massaged to reach the conclusion they wanted.How, exactly, Republican governors have deliberately sabotaged a federal program was alluded to without evidence. But you know how those Republicans are.
Yes, Blue Cross is "all in". It's super easy to run a business when all your competitors have packed up.An intriguing free market claim. Perhaps a Hot Air article branding Politifact as "sloppy" should have explored that, instead of citing Blue Cross as an insurer fleeing the ACA.Also, Blue Cross will expand but only if they can get regulatory approval of their Cigna takeover. I guess that's different than the Aetna shakedown, somehow.Staying in is the same as pulling out? Interesting. You must have dozens of children. When future Blue Cross mimics the duplicitous strategy that just got Aetna slapped down in court, you'll have a better point.How, exactly, Republican governors have deliberately sabotaged a federal program was alluded to without evidence. But you know how those Republicans are.Did I say Republican Governors? I was unclear. That was my "hyper-literal and narrow" way of saying Republican Governors and Republican Senators and Republican Congressmen and Republican state legislatures.https://www.thenation.com/article/blueprint-gops-attempt-sabotage-obamacare/http://www.salon.com/2017/03/22/how-republicans-quietly-sabotaged-obamacare-long-before-trump-came-into-office_partner/Imagine how much MORE miraculous "the Kansas Miracle" would be if the state had gotten on board the ACA immediately, rather than wandering the GOP's Trail of Tears to the bitter end. Or if future President Brownback has his way, beyond the bitter end.http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/22816/413192-What-is-the-Result-of-States-Not-Expanding-Medicaid-.PDFhttp://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article4606201.html
Michael Hiltzik AND The Nation AND Salon AND Urban.org? My cup runneth over! Was Ezra Klein of Vox unavailable?Blue Cross is in the position of saying: "We're the only insurer left in town. It would be a shame if anything happened in case that Cigna merger didn't go through." It's disingenuous to say that Blue Cross is expanding when the article you cite clearly says that this expansion is contingent on the Cigna merger. Aetna said the exact same thing and, according to you, decided to leave millions on the table out of pure spite. That's dedication.But wait: there's another proviso! Blue Cross says something has to be done about that thing where fewer young people sign up and then premiums rise and then this drives more young, healthy Americans out of the exchanges, further driving up premiums. There's a name for it, but we're not allowed to say it in mixed company.I'll just assume the Kansas articles says the same thing that every entitlement expansion article says: heartless Republicans want people to die and we have no idea what the national debt is.http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-debt-idUSKBN171212
But... what if Blue Cross, might, in the future, do something new that reveals their business plan to have been as phony as Aetna's already is? Even insurers that remain in the ACA want to shore up the ACA. And something about how uttering “death spiral” is like “radical Islamic terror” or “Yahweh.” You’re repeating yourself. Michael Hiltzik AND The Nation AND Salon AND Urban.org?Die, messenger, die! If only they had the scrupulous truth-seeking eye of the journalists you prefer at Hot Air.Aetna said the exact same thing and, according to you, decided...I'm not the one who said that. I'm not a federal judge. That means you don't have to keep standing up every time I leave a post.Ever calculated how much time you’ve spent reading about and predicting Obamacare’s ever-impending doom? Forget the dollars, you should be worried about where your 2,500 hours went.
Well, well, well, lookee here! The news from just LAST NIGHT is certainly fortuitous:"Anthem Inc (ANTM.N) is likely to exit from a large portion of its Obamacare individual insurance markets next year, Jefferies analysts said, nearly a week after Republican leaders pulled legislation to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system.Anthem is one of the few health insurers that still sells plans under Obamacare. Humana Inc (HUM.N), Aetna Inc (AET.N) and UnitedHealth Group Inc (UNH.N) pulled out after reporting hundreds of millions of dollars of losses.Anthem is leaning toward exiting a "high percentage" of the 144 rating regions in which it currently participates, Jefferies analysts said in a note on Thursday after talking to the health insurer."The future is now!http://www.reuters.com/article/us-anthem-obamacare-idUSKBN1712VG
Aw, nuts! And just when it was super easy for them to run a business when all their competitors have packed up.
Post a Comment