Aetna CEO: Obamacare can't be repealed, but it can be fixed

[edpc]

Mark Bertolini, the CEO of insurance giant Aetna (AET), argues that the ACA can’t be repealed. But he sees things that can be done to fix it.
“So here we have a bill that was passed in 2010, and hasn’t been touched for seven years because it’s been a political football,” Bertolini said in a wide-ranging interview with Yahoo Finance. “It was not bipartisan, and here we have it fraying at the edges because we haven’t made the changes necessary to keep it viable.”

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/aetna-ceo-obamacare-cant-repealed-can-fixed-211653463.html

[edpc]

Someone tell Mark Bertolini he's 60 and looks absolutely ridiculous in that getup.

[Smokin Joe]

Oh, Really? Now one of the guys who stands to gain is telling Congress what it can and can't do? WTF????

They can kill it or we'll find people who will.

[endicom]

Ever get the feeling that we face an uphill battle?

[austingirl]

He looks like a bum, not a CEO. He has no business telling Congress that Obamacare can't be repealed. It could be done if they would live up to their promises.

[rodamala]

How many people have lost their health insurance because the insurance companies have gone tits up?

Just sayin'.

[Smokin Joe]

How many people have lost their health insurance because the insurance companies have gone tits up?

Just sayin'.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=272519.0

Let's find out! (At least among people here).

[rodamala]

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=272519.0

Let's find out! (At least among people here).

@Smokin Joe

What I am saying is Aetna is not bankrupt.

All this government meddling has not crippled insurance companies the way it has real businesses that are not racketeering with big medical.

I was quite pleased last weekend seeing a Fox News contributor doing an exposé on the healthcare scam that "non-profit" UPMC and insurance company Highmark have been performing.

The people of western Pennsylvania are being fleeced by that racket.

Bring free market competition to actual health care.  Everything else the government does is nothing but corporate welfare and social engineering.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

What I am saying is Aetna is not bankrupt.

All this government meddling has not crippled insurance companies the way it has real businesses that are not racketeering with big medical.

I was quite pleased last weekend seeing a Fox News contributor doing an exposé on the healthcare scam that "non-profit" UPMC and insurance company Highmark have been performing.

The people of western Pennsylvania are being fleeced by that racket.

Bring free market competition to actual health care.  Everything else the government does is nothing but corporate welfare and social engineering.

I am sure they aren't. You are 'forced to offer' (at gunpoint) insurance coverage for things people will never need, at insane prices, subsidized by government, you're going to rake it in. No question.
The middle class falls through the cracks, well, they weren't buying that level of coverage anyway, so that was a relatively low profit offering. Ka-ching! The low margin product line has been eliminated. At least my provider just said no more health policies and stepped out of the marketplace. I liked having major medical, but I admire the integrity of that decision, too (though it was likely made for other reasons).

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The insurance companies want the feds to funnel money to them so that they can lose money on ObamaCare itself, but still come out net ahead because of taxpayer subsidies.  And that's exactly what is going to end up happening if the House and Senate don't manage to actually pass a bill.

The House Bill did what Democrats usually do, but it reverse.  They passed ObamaCare but didn't have it fully implemented until after the 2012 election.  That way, Obama escaped political blowback.  It was brilliant.

The House bill gave wishy-washy GOP members some political cover by keeping the Medicaid expansion subsidies in place for a couple of years, but then phasing them out.  That was the only way, politically, to get enough votes to actually end it.  But for some conservatives who demanded immediate dismantlement, that wasn't enough.  Even if it there weren't the votes to achieve it.

[bilo]

The insurance companies want the feds to funnel money to them so that they can lose money on ObamaCare itself, but still come out net ahead because of taxpayer subsidies.  And that's exactly what is going to end up happening if the House and Senate don't manage to actually pass a bill.

The House Bill did what Democrats usually do, but it reverse.  They passed ObamaCare but didn't have it fully implemented until after the 2012 election.  That way, Obama escaped political blowback.  It was brilliant.

The House bill gave wishy-washy GOP members some political cover by keeping the Medicaid expansion subsidies in place for a couple of years, but then phasing them out.  That was the only way, politically, to get enough votes to actually end it. But for some conservatives who demanded immediate dismantlement, that wasn't enough.  Even if it there weren't the votes to achieve it.

When has Congress ever ended a program like that? They kick the "phase out" down the road and when the time comes they give it more money.

The beauty of Sen Cruz's amendment was it created the opportunity for people to stay out of the obamacare program and forced enrollment in medicaid.

obamacare will die because we can't afford single payer and as the pressure on the budget mounts people are not going to agree with subsidizing insurance companies. The Pubs may end up forcing us to live with obamacare for the next ten years or so because they will lose their majority after turning their back on their mandate but any system that lets you force someone else to pay your expenses after the fact will fail. No pre-existing conditions will kill any reform.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

When has Congress ever ended a program like that? They kick the "phase out" down the road and when the time comes they give it more money.

Congress has never voted to end an entitlement, even by an attempted phase-out, which is precisely why the House Bill was such a big deal.   To give it more money, you'd actually have to pass a completely new law, which would have to be passed by a GOP Congress and signed by Trump.  And that is far easier to stop.

The beauty of Sen Cruz's amendment was it created the opportunity for people to stay out of the obamacare program and forced enrollment in Medicaid.

It was a great Amendment.  There just aren't/won't be 50 Senators willing to vote for it.  The reality is -- and Ted knows this -- that his Amendment would greatly increase premiums in the plans would still be part of ObamaCare.  The healthy people would all take the op-out plans.  Whether that is right/wrong or good/bad is a separate issue from that being the reality, and because of that reality, too many moderates won't support that Amendment.

[bilo]

Congress has never voted to end an entitlement, even by an attempted phase-out, which is precisely why the House Bill was such a big deal.   To give it more money, you'd actually have to pass a completely new law, which would have to be passed by a GOP Congress and signed by Trump.  And that is far easier to stop.

It was a great Amendment.  There just aren't/won't be 50 Senators willing to vote for it.  The reality is -- and Ted knows this -- that his Amendment would greatly increase premiums in the plans would still be part of ObamaCare.  The healthy people would all take the op-out plans.  Whether that is right/wrong or good/bad is a separate issue from that being the reality, and because of that reality, too many moderates won't support that Amendment.

You're right on both counts. What people just don't want to come to grips with is we will have to have high risk pools that are subsized, but the burden of these high risk pools can't be largely passed off onto the 7-10% of the market that buys individual policies. Sen. Cruz's amendment would end up converting the obamacare policies into a national high risk pool in which the entire tax base would pay for the entire subsidizes.

The reality that the Pubs do not have 50 senators willing to vote for as close to a free market solution as is possible reveals two things that need to be resolved. The first issue is a lack of party discipline and the second issue is the Pubs don't actually believe what they claim to believe. The obamacare tyranny is not going to be ended until the Pubs resolve these issues. I give Pres. Trump credit for pushing for a vote. Lets get these Pubs on record so we know who needs to be primaried and not supported in the general election if they aren't voted out in the primary. Sen. McConnell could also exert pressure by making it clear to those who won't support repeal that their effectiveness and position in the party will come to an end if they don't vote with the party on this. We may lose the Senate in the short term if these liberals decide to sit with the Rats, but in the end the Pubs will not only win at the polls but will be able to actually implement what they say they believe in.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You're right on both counts. What people just don't want to come to grips with is we will have to have high risk pools that are subsized, but the burden of these high risk pools can't be largely passed off onto the 7-10% of the market that buys individual policies. Sen. Cruz's amendment would end up converting the obamacare policies into a national high risk pool in which the entire tax base would pay for the entire subsidizes.

The reality that the Pubs do not have 50 senators willing to vote for as close to a free market solution as is possible reveals two things that need to be resolved. The first issue is a lack of party discipline and the second issue is the Pubs don't actually believe what they claim to believe. The obamacare tyranny is not going to be ended until the Pubs resolve these issues. I give Pres. Trump credit for pushing for a vote. Lets get these Pubs on record so we know who needs to be primaried and not supported in the general election if they aren't voted out in the primary. Sen. McConnell could also exert pressure by making it clear to those who won't support repeal that their effectiveness and position in the party will come to an end if they don't vote with the party on this. We may lose the Senate in the short term if these liberals decide to sit with the Rats, but in the end the Pubs will not only win at the polls but will be able to actually implement what they say they believe in.

I'd say another issue is that thinking of "Republicans" as a collective rather than as a collection of individuals is fundamentally flawed.  Some people want to punish "the Republicans" because "they" won't pass desire legislation, but there is no "they".  It's certain individual Members who call them selves Republicans that are the problem.

[bilo]

I'd say another issue is that thinking of "Republicans" as a collective rather than as a collection of individuals is fundamentally flawed.  Some people want to punish "the Republicans" because "they" won't pass desire legislation, but there is no "they".  It's certain individual Members who call them selves Republicans that are the problem.

I recognize that the Pubs are more willing to embrace people of varying views than the Rats, but on a core issue such as repealing obamacare party loyalty and discipline has to prevail. If not the Pubs can never truly enact what they claim they want to enact.

The people who gave the Pubs majorities in both Houses and the Executive branch were not the "nuanced" liberal big govt nanny state pro-abortion Pubs. It was the Tea Party and most recently the cross over blue collar Rats. If the Pubs want to ignore this part of their base then they deserve to be a minority party. At some point there has to be party discipline if you're going to be a majority party.