Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Generally, they'll tell you they also don't like the ACA, but for different reasons than you.
Public Option was the real reason the left wanted ACA, without it it's just a money guaranteer for large insurance companies.
I dislike the ACA, not because I want it repealed to go back to the sad state of affairs that existed before it, but because I want something better in a direction already embraced world wide.
We may end up with single payer, but it's really going to take a slow process to get the most amount of people there. Maybe I'm wrong here but I'd think setting up a public insurance option that could be paid into pre-tax would be a good step towards better coverage and reduced cost, so long as the public option set-up could negotiate prescription costs. See if private health insurance can compete with basic coverage and then let teh chips fall where they may.
Don't know what Aetna is complaining about.
First they killed my original plan.
Ever since I've been on their ACA plan (costing $15k a year), they've basically covered nothing and I've been out thousands out of pocket.
How is this costing them anything when everything is magically not covered or applied to various different deductibles?
We may end up with single payer, but it's really going to take a slow process to get the most amount of people there. Maybe I'm wrong here but I'd think setting up a public insurance option that could be paid into pre-tax would be a good step towards better coverage and reduced cost, so long as the public option set-up could negotiate prescription costs. See if private health insurance can compete with basic coverage and then let teh chips fall where they may.
The fact that we are in discussion of single-payer tells you that the ACA has served some purpose.
It's still garbage legislation, but it was a large step.
Don't know what Aetna is complaining about.
First they killed my original plan.
Ever since I've been on their ACA plan (costing $15k a year), they've basically covered nothing and I've been out thousands out of pocket.
How is this costing them anything when everything is magically not covered or applied to various different deductibles?
Something tells me Aetna's CEO wants the company to go down and blame it on the ACA.
Quote:
Aetna Inc. CEO Mark Bertolini has the most to gain among top executives at the three U.S. health insurers seen as targets in a potential wave of industry consolidation.
Bertolini could receive $131.3 million should he lose his job in a takeover, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Cigna Corp. Chief Executive Officer David Cordani would get $58.7 million, while Humana Inc. CEO Bruce Broussard’s so-called golden parachute is valued at $26.1 million.
The five biggest publicly traded insurers are all eyeing potential combinations after a two-year lull in big managed-care deals. Anthem Inc. has explored a takeover of Cigna and Humana, and Aetna and Cigna have considered buying Humana, Bloomberg has reported. The Wall Street Journal has said UnitedHealth Group Inc. might be interested in Aetna or Cigna.
There's a lot of ignorance about the subject matter.
All national healthcare systems are universal healthcare systems, but not all universal healthcare systems are national healthcare systems.
There are two primary systems of healthcare: Bismarck and Beveridge.
The Beveridge System is national healthcare, as practiced in the UK, Portugal, Spain and Sweden.
The Beveridge System is illegal in the US according to the Supreme Court's Sebelius decision, see National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, US Supreme Court 183 L. Ed. 2d 450 (2012)
The Canadian system is an hybrid of the Beveridge System and thus illegal in the US.
The Bismarck System and hybrids of the system are universal healthcare systems practiced by Germany, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Italy, etc etc etc.
The Bismarck System may be legal in the US, under certain specific conditions.
Neither doctors nor hospitals can be forced into a Medicare-for-All plan, and there are prior court rulings dealing with it.
Best case scenario, a universal system that permits an opt-out for everyone.
That would create a two-tiered system, one for private insurance, who would get the best care, and then one for everyone else on the government system, which would require rationing of healthcare, or the federal debt gets bloated and you run into financial and economic problems.
Thank you for this informative reply. I tried to query in as benign a way as possible so that responses wouldn't be knee jerk reactions to buzzwords or a particular slant/take on the situation....and I wanted to gain more knowledge. I don't know anyone in Britain who relies on the NHS, and I feel the friends I have there who have additional private arrangements might think it gauche if I asked about details. Are people who have private coverage in Britain guaranteed to not be denied the care that they need, or does that depend on the specific private coverage they have?
My understanding of the Canadian system is that 'separate' private insurance isn't allowed because the moral consensus is that you shouldn't have access to better care just because you have more money. Perhaps that is why some Canadians don't want to wait through access being rationed and come to the U.S. for that care. I love Canada, and Canadians in general, but I think their approach to this is wrong.
Your reply enlightened me, such that I was able to find this:
....the current GOP will simply die off.. they force everyone else out of their party so most of the members left are the same ones from 50 years ago... and well, time isn't there for them
And the money isn't there for liberals to spend on their favorite programs.
We're already $18 trillion in debt -- that's enough to give 180 million families $100,000 each.
Thank you for this informative reply. I tried to query in as benign a way as possible so that responses wouldn't be knee jerk reactions to buzzwords or a particular slant/take on the situation....and I wanted to gain more knowledge. I don't know anyone in Britain who relies on the NHS, and I feel the friends I have there who have additional private arrangements might think it gauche if I asked about details. Are people who have private coverage in Britain guaranteed to not be denied the care that they need, or does that depend on the specific private coverage they have?
My understanding of the Canadian system is that 'separate' private insurance isn't allowed because the moral consensus is that you shouldn't have access to better care just because you have more money. Perhaps that is why some Canadians don't want to wait through access being rationed and come to the U.S. for that care. I love Canada, and Canadians in general, but I think their approach to this is wrong.
Your reply enlightened me, such that I was able to find this:
That would create a two-tiered system, one for private insurance, who would get the best care, and then one for everyone else on the government system, which would require rationing of healthcare, or the federal debt gets bloated and you run into financial and economic problems.
Excellent assessment!
I continue to support a public option, and let the privates do as they may.
The public option would necessarily provide the standard of medical care, which would be far from bare bones.
The amount of new debt created to support the poor and middle class would be a big bone of contention. I personally and professionally prefer much broader HC and access for all, and worry less about whether our National Debt is $25T or $28T.
Earlier Monday, the company reported earnings. Fourth-quarter net income rose 38 percent to $321 million, or 91 cents a share, from $232 million, or 65 cents a share, a year before, the company said in a statement on Monday. Operating earnings were $1.37 a share, compared with the $1.21 average of analysts’ estimates.
Aetna CEO says not time to give up on health insurance exchanges
Quote:
Jan 12 AETNA CEO MARK BERTOLINI SAYS IT'S NOT TIME TO GIVE UP ON PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGES AETNA CEO SAYS IMPORTANT TO INSURE ALL AMERICANS AETNA CEO SAYS IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE RETAIL MARKET WORK IN HEALTHCARE
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you for this informative reply. I tried to query in as benign a way as possible so that responses wouldn't be knee jerk reactions to buzzwords or a particular slant/take on the situation....and I wanted to gain more knowledge. I don't know anyone in Britain who relies on the NHS, and I feel the friends I have there who have additional private arrangements might think it gauche if I asked about details. Are people who have private coverage in Britain guaranteed to not be denied the care that they need, or does that depend on the specific private coverage they have? 
I also have an Aetna ACA plan. This ^^^^^ is upsetting, but better to know this than not. Thanks for posting this.
