[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Notice the subtle nuance in the announcement:

Amid questions about the role that Hartford's Aetna headquarters will play in the new company, Bertolini has said that the company "remains headquartered in Hartford." However, Aetna has not said where the headquarters will be after the merger.

It was careful not to talk about the future state.

I have seen too many of these "reverse integrations" when acquisitions take place. It doesn't make sense to maintain 2 groups of decision-making execs in different locations.

Too early to say "told you so" but it doesn't look good per the Courant's business columnist either:

Aetna's Silence Points To Headquarters In Play - Hartford Courant

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Too early to say "told you so" but it doesn't look good per the Courant's business columnist either:

Aetna's Silence Points To Headquarters In Play - Hartford Courant

Cigna merged and is going to have layoffs, now Aetna is merging and guess what? There will be more layoffs!

Does anyone know why this is happening? Because Obamacare is causing health insurers to merge!!!!!!

This is what happens to the private marketplace when government runs amok

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

Cigna merged and is going to have layoffs, now Aetna is merging and guess what? There will be more layoffs!

Does anyone know why this is happening? Because Obamacare is causing health insurers to merge!!!!!!

This is what happens to the private marketplace when government runs amok

Correct. The 80% rule at work when the long-term market set % was 76%. Wisely they were not going to accept 4% less profit (as a % of revenue). Stock values would tank if they did.

[BicoastalAnn]

That article on Aetna is just more speculation. I don't know that it's any more revealing about this situation.

Why do people harp on Obamacare as some unique catalyst for mergers... mergers/acquisitions are profitable, before, after, and outside Obamacare. Look at aviation, automobile, technology, etc. It happens, people.

[Mr_250]

Aetna isn't going anywhere. Cigna might have some layoffs but nothing more.

This is all blown out of proportion.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by BicoastalAnn

That article on Aetna is just more speculation. I don't know that it's any more revealing about this situation.

Why do people harp on Obamacare as some unique catalyst for mergers... mergers/acquisitions are profitable, before, after, and outside Obamacare. Look at aviation, automobile, technology, etc. It happens, people.

Because merger activity in the industry spiked up post ACA..post dumb 80% rule. Corps do not accept declines in earnings..they come up with strategies to combat them.

[Henry10]

Originally Posted by ctguy87

Can you though? Local school boards also open up the door to nepotism and preferential treatment. I'm not saying to federalize everything, but there are significant overlaps in education, transportation, DPW, general town finances, etc. that cost money in CT (and other northeastern states.)

Just look at maps - the lack of coordination in development leads to subpar routes between towns and neighborhoods, such as the example below between West Hartford and Newington:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ha...8e4aa8e97d5999

Smart regionalization would be for Coventry/Bolton, Rocky Hill/Wethersfield, Granby/East Granby, Ansonia/Derby, Ellington/East Windsor, etc. to combine roles, tasks, and resources. It'll never happen so it's a moot point.

Counting on the Govt to achieve cost-efficiency is like chasing unicorns. Incentive is not there. What would be a positive step, and probably unavoidable for some cities / towns in the future is privatization.

Here is NYT article about a pilot project -- Sandy Springs in GA privatized most of its functions, at substantial cost savings and improvements in levels of service. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/bu...s-private.html

For bankrupt cities or the State this avenue may be unavoidable.

Capitalism is anathema to progressives, yet, Math (or Bankruptcy) may force this down their throats.

[Henry10]

Progressives loves Sweden, but Sweden has privatized its Welfare services. Progressives will not tell you this.

You want to be like Sweden? Let's be like Sweden. There is hope for CT, but it will not go there until we get rid of left-wing politicians and policies.

https://mises.org/library/market-tak...9s-health-care

Private healthcare: the lessons from Sweden | Society | The Guardian

[Mr_250]

I have a feeling this budget cycle we are going to see "tax" increases but not 'proposed' by Malloy. His budget goes right down the list and cuts line item by line item which I think is needed in the over bloated departments ::cough: dot ::cough::

But with this is the line items for town aid which in turn will force towns to lay off workers or raise taxes. So indirectly Malloy isn't raising taxes he'll blame it on the towns.

The line items to hospitals and social services I think could be trimmed but just cutting 5% off the top isn't the right way. Look at consolidation or privatization of some services.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by Mr_250

I have a feeling this budget cycle we are going to see "tax" increases but not 'proposed' by Malloy. His budget goes right down the list and cuts line item by line item which I think is needed in the over bloated departments ::cough: dot ::cough::

But with this is the line items for town aid which in turn will force towns to lay off workers or raise taxes. So indirectly Malloy isn't raising taxes he'll blame it on the towns.

The line items to hospitals and social services I think could be trimmed but just cutting 5% off the top isn't the right way. Look at consolidation or privatization of some services.

Which is why Malloy shouldn't propose to cut funding to towns without removing an equal amount of unfunded state mandates, making it revenue neutral. The towns will still complain about losing the funding, but at least it would be offset by a reduction in expenditures.