There are about 50 private insurers of significance covering health care in USA.
There will be 1 government insurer competing with the 50.
The consensus view is that government employees are less productive, more expensive, lazier than private industry employes.
If this is true, it is clear AET has nothing to be concerned about competing with government.
If this is not true, AET had better do whatever it takes to be more efficient than government to maintain its operating margins.
In any case, 1 government plan VS over 50 private. It is most probable at least 1 of the 50 can be sufficiently more productive and efficient than government.
If so and that 1 is AET, what's the problem? As for me, I am watching until I am convinced.
Even though I "think" private sector companies are massively more efficient than government, I want to see discussion points on both sides. Here are a couple of concerns:
What concerns me is how efficient the military is. What concerns me is how efficient SSA is. What concerns me is how efficient IRS is. What concerns me is how efficient Medicare is at delivering to retired folks.
Look at the government run U.S. Post Office vs. the private delivery firms like Fedex and UPS. Albeit the USPS was first and privates came later, they are still in business due to more efficiency and better customer service. When something as personal as healthcare is delivered I think Americans will opt for the privates for better service.
you can;t be everything to everybody...bottom line is that the govt will ration care. Do you want your benefits determined by physicians on staff at Aetna or by an analyst who couldn't get a job at one of the private companies??? Think about it...Obama and his mafia need to be stopped