We have a moral obligation to get healthcare to people who need it.

There are several problems with the ACA's reliance on means-based inclusion criteria and mandatory participation in exchanges - the complexity of the exchange mechanism, and the potential for income-based subsidies to become a disincentive to earn if insurance rates escalate for those beyond the income threshold.

When I retired from Aetna, I became part of the private equity world. It turned out to be a natural fit.

I think the U.S. is conflicted. When it comes to our own health care, we all want the best - access to the latest and most important technology. At the same time, health care is typically purchased in an institutional setting. So we purchase it in the aggregate, but we consume it as individuals.

Many who know me or have worked for me are aware of my penchant for strategic planning. I consider it a critical component of the success of any organization and believe in the value of planning for a company's needs over multiple time horizons, as well as reviews against that plan at regular intervals.

It's difficult to compete against a player that's also refereeing the game.

We know a culture doesn't just happen; it is the result of what you do every day.

I think reasonable people could agree that, at some point, there's enough income that someone should be expected to participate in the health-care system.

For insurance solvency, ongoing plan participation is vital.

The federal government should encourage rather than micromanage market reform in all 50 states. Since health care is local, private-sector innovation in conjunction with state-level reform of the individual and small-group markets is a better approach.