<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>elipsey</author><text>Aetna hoped to forego smaller profits from these exchanges to access larger profits with the acquisition of Humana. By withdrawing from those markets where Humana was competing with Aetna, Aetna could then claim that the merger would not reduce competition between insurance providers. Also, article claims that participation in ACA exchanges was privately used as a bargaining chip to pressure the DOJ into allowing the merger.&lt;p&gt;From article:
&amp;quot;Aetna tried to leverage its participation in the exchanges for favorable treatment from DOJ regarding the proposed merger.&amp;quot; — U.S. District Judge John D. Bates</text><parent_chain><item><author>burkaman</author><text>Am I misreading this, or are they forgoing profit purely out of spite? Or I guess the idea is they could make more profit in the long run if they generate enough bad publicity for the ACA. These quotes almost seem too on the nose to be real:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; “I just can’t make sense out of the Florida dec[ision],” the executive, Christopher Ciano, wrote to Jonathan Mayhew, the head of Aetna’s national exchange business. “Based on the latest run rate data . . . we are making money from the on-exchange business. Was Florida’s performance ever debated?” Mayhew told him to discuss the matter by phone, not email, “to avoid leaving a paper trail,” [the judge] found.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>U.S. judge finds that Aetna misled the public about its reasons for quitting ACA</title><url>http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>dragonwriter</author><text>&amp;gt; Am I misreading this, or are they forgoing profit purely out of spite?&lt;p&gt;Not spite: it&amp;#x27;s sacrificing short-term profit to help create a political context in which they expect more favorable general policy -- the entire idea was that if the Democratic administration wouldn&amp;#x27;t give them favorable anti-trustanalysis treatment, they&amp;#x27;d do what they could to make the ACA look like a failure, knowing it would be a major election issue. Presumably, they expected a Republic administration to be friendlier, either for ideological reasons, or gratitude, or because Aetna successfully flexing it&amp;#x27;s political muscles would have proven that they must be deferred to (or a mix of all three.)</text><parent_chain><item><author>burkaman</author><text>Am I misreading this, or are they forgoing profit purely out of spite? Or I guess the idea is they could make more profit in the long run if they generate enough bad publicity for the ACA. These quotes almost seem too on the nose to be real:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; “I just can’t make sense out of the Florida dec[ision],” the executive, Christopher Ciano, wrote to Jonathan Mayhew, the head of Aetna’s national exchange business. “Based on the latest run rate data . . . we are making money from the on-exchange business. Was Florida’s performance ever debated?” Mayhew told him to discuss the matter by phone, not email, “to avoid leaving a paper trail,” [the judge] found.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>U.S. judge finds that Aetna misled the public about its reasons for quitting ACA</title><url>http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-aetna-obamacare-20170123-story.html</url></story>