Fact Check: Health Insurer Profits Not So Fat

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Seems as if the DICs (Democrats In Charge) are lying about private health insurance company profits to push their agenda of more control over all Americans. Anyone surprised?

FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat


Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry. In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama.




posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Also plucked from your own source.




according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.


Kaiser Foundation- we all know who they are, right?




posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rhetoric
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Also plucked from your own source.




according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.


Kaiser Foundation- we all know who they are, right?



Hmmm. Wonder why you clipped the quote? Your quote was not about profits but premiums.


Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


No one on the left will argue the facts:


THE CLAIMS

_"I'm very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years." House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers' "obscene profits."

_"Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed." Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

_"Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe." A MoveOn.org ad.

THE NUMBERS:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better — drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

www.google.com...

So, they, as so many here do, just make them up.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


Regardless of the OP "source," this is an AP story making the rounds. Will MSM pick it up?

ABC has, but those who choose not to know will find it convenient to do so.

jw



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 07:03 PM
link   
The OP is correct, they don’t make very much profit. Your premiums go up because of the cost of treatment and Medicines, Not because they want more money.

The problems with what the Gov. wants to do by making laws that these companies cannot restrict your cover or place a cap on limits of cover or deny you cover for pre-existing conditions. They will bankrupt these companies, or make the premiums go up so much you’ll cancel your cover and move to the Government option.

I’m not saying I agree with all the business practices of these Health corporates, I’m just agreeing that their Margins are thin.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SharkBait
The OP is correct, they don’t make very much profit. Your premiums go up because of the cost of treatment and Medicines, Not because they want more money.





And because the CEOs need somemore vacation homes, yachts, Lamborginis etc.


Ins. Co. & CEO With 2007 Total CEO Compensation

Aetna Ronald A. Williams: $23,045,834
Cigna H. Edward Hanway: $25,839,777
Coventry Dale B. Wolf : $14,869,823
Health Net Jay M. Gellert: $3,686,230
Humana Michael McCallister: $10,312,557
U.Health Grp Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529
WellPoint Angela Braly (2007): $9,094,271
L. Glasscock (2006): $23,886,169
Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation


Aetna, Ronald A. Williams: $24,300,112
Cigna, H. Edward Hanway: $12,236,740
Coventry, Dale Wolf: $9,047,469
Health Net, Jay Gellert: $4,425,355
Humana, Michael McCallister: $4,764,309
U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley: $3,241,042
Wellpoint, Angela Braly: $9,844,212


Now that's FAT!!!



[edit on 25-10-2009 by whaaa]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
No doubt about that, I agree to the salary cap for anyone working for a Public Listed Company.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SharkBait
 
Bingo! s4u

I'm not a fan of insurance. I make a decent living DISPUTING insurance companies. And the government, too.

Insurance companies have to act with some sense of business and market awareness. Government has no restrictions whatsoever.

Which is worse, a 4% profit margin, or 45% tax rate? Government social services are NEVER the cheapest, or the most efficient, or the smartest, or the best at ANYTHING. Ever.

jw



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


Can you please list a source for your information? Thanks.


Obama 2007 earnings: $4,200,000 Source.
Obama 2008 earnings: $2,656,902 Source.
Oprah Winfrey 2007 earnings: $260,000,000 Source.
Oprah Winfrey 2008 earnings: $275,000,000 Source.

Here's a couple more for your list.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by whaaa


And because the CEOs need somemore vacation homes, yachts, Lamborginis etc.

Ins. Co. & CEO With 2007 Total CEO Compensation
...

Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation

Now that's FAT!!!


Typical disinformation and misdirection of you.

Of course, you forget to mention one important fact. Those CEOs MADE money for their shareholders.

You forgot to mention “shareholder return” in addition to the income.

Look at the companies Obama is now an owner of or major supporter of, and look at their shareholder return. Obama’s administration now owns major interests in Chrysler, AIG and Citigroup, and many others. They bailed out dozens of others, and are committed to continue to do so.

What did these LOSERS get, with Barack Obama’s blessings?

Chrysler forced out Robert Nardelli, who got $38.5 million to run it into the ground (who was forced out of Home Depot w/a $210 million “golden parachute;
Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide Financial, made $362 million;
AIG CEO Martin Sullivan received $25.4 million; replaced by Robert Benmosche for $10.5 million base salary;
Lehman Brothers CEO Richard Fuld got $187 million;
Stan O'Neal of Merrill Lynch received $66 million;
Charles Prince of Citigroup made $105 million, until the government bought a huge interest and much of its worthless assets ($42 million in 2007);
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein made $76.2 million;

www.usatoday.com...

For an honest comparison, and the true measure of whether any of these people EARNED their pay, check out the 2007 industry summary.
www.usatoday.com...

Get the picture yet?

I could go on, but the truth is clear.

Obama is supporting a bunch of thieves who delivered NOTHING of value to thier shareholders, lied to the public, and ran their companies and the economy into the dirt.

Your philosophy is perfectly in line with many: support the losers in America; trash and rob the winners.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Its about time somebody FACT checked the admin's claims.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by SharkBait
The OP is correct, they don’t make very much profit. Your premiums go up because of the cost of treatment and Medicines, Not because they want more money.


And because the CEOs need somemore vacation homes, yachts, Lamborginis etc.


So, back to “outrageous profits!”

What did the companies with the HIGHEST executive compensation actually DO for their investors? Of the companies benefitting from federal assistance, here’s what the shareholders (taxpayers, all) got for their “investment:”

AIG 0 (75% owned by USA)
Bank of America -63%
Chrysler 0 (bankrupt, now 68% owned by UAW)
Citigroup -76%
Freddie Mac 0 (bankrupt, now 100% owned by USA)
Fannie Mae 0 (bankrupt, now 100% owned by USA)
GE -54% (CEO Jeffrey Immelt now Obama “Economic Advisor”)
GM 0 (bankrupt, now 32% owned by USA)
JPMorgan – Chase -25%
Merrill Lynch 0 (100% acquired by BoA)
Morgan Stanley -97%
Wachovia 0 (100% owned by Wells Fargo)

Source: "USA Today Executive Compensation - 2008"
www.usatoday.com...

Isn’t that “outrageous” and “unconscionable?”

Deny ignorance.

jw


[edit on 28-10-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 




You forgot to mention “shareholder return” in addition to the income.


So...then...Healthcare is a business of profiting off of the weak and helpless?

its' about making money - and NOT about saving lives?

Glad you cleared that up.

Public Option Please.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56
Its about time somebody FACT checked the admin's claims.


that's easy

go to a hospital and tell them you want an operation on your right shoulder


then, after they operate on the wrong shoulder - and through a series of idiot mistakes, bill you twice (once for each shoulder)

and your insurance company denies both claims

you'll have your fact check that we need a better system.

By the way - the above is a true story. Happened to my father.





new topics
top topics
 
5

log in

join