Fact Check: Health Insurer Profits Not So Fat

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

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

---

Also plucked from your own source.




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

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

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II

---

No one on the left will argue the facts:


www.google.com...

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

Deny ignorance.

jw

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

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.

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



Now that's FAT!!!



[edit on 25-10-2009 by whaaa]

No doubt about that, I agree to the salary cap for anyone working for a Public Listed Company.

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

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.

Originally posted by whaaa


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

Its about time somebody FACT checked the admin's claims.

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]

reply to post by jdub297

---

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.

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.