FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I just looked up the net profit margins for a few insurers on Google finance.

Atna 4.0%

United Health Group 4.77%

But, that is not enough a reason why the public option should be offered. The reason is the cost.

Atena CEO paid 24 million last year. Overall Atena spent about $45 million for executive compensation.

In a private heath insurance model, a lot of the money we spend on the system, goes out not to provide care, but to pay shareholders and executives. There are countries which use the private insurance model like Switzerland, but basic plans are heavily regulated.

I've never heard of "Atena". I've also never heard of "Atna". Are you guys talking about Aetna? If so, the CEO was paid salary and bonuses of $3 million last year, and exercised no stock options. For a company with revenues over $32 billion, it sounds like his compensation is pretty modest. If I were running a $32 billion company I'd expect to make more than $3 million per year.

Aetna has a current profit margin of 3.85%. That's hardly enough to be considered "obscene", in the words of Nancy Pelosi. She holds stock in Johnson and Johnson, which has a profit margin of over 21%. She also holds stock in Pfizer, which has a profit margin of nearly 18%. Where's the outrage?

Also, only 0.14% of Aetna shares are held by insiders. 90% of their shares are held by institutions. Your 401K stock fund may very well hold some shares of Aetna.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The health insurance industry doesn't add any value to the health care system - none. Hence, any profit they make is questionable. They're the pimps. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

With the return of the "public option", the fate of the evil health insurance companies is sealed. There is no way a private corporation can compete with the US government, when the government can operate at a loss indefinitely without going "out of business".

Wrong again. We have a public option property insurance here in Florida that directly competes with private insurers. This evil, socialist public insurance option was established by our conservative government (both the legislature and executive are in GOP hands) a couple of years ago. Not only does private homeowners insurance continue to exist in the state but it has also dropped the premiums in order to remain competitive. My private insurance premiums ave dropped roughly 30% over the last two years. Coincidence? I think not.

Crist isn't a conservative. Try again.

Whether he's a conservative or not, the Speaker of the House at the time this evil, socialist public option was passed was Marc Rubio - Crist's conservative opponent in the GOP primary for the US Senate seat that Sen. Mel Martinez has vacated. Marc Rubio is the darling of the conservative wing of the Florida GOP and he presided over the introduction of this evil, socialist public insurance option scam in the House.

And even if none of them is "conservative" in your view - i.e. if neither is a right wing radical - the fact remains that the public insurance option has brought coverage to those who could not get it in the private insurance market and it has brought down premium rates in the state overall.

Bottom line is that conservatives wouldn't be for it.

Beacuse those you call conservatives - commonly, those folks are known as right wing radicals - aren't for anything that actually works. Which is why nobody likes them very much.

We'll see about that.

[mawilson 2,133]

I've never heard of "Atena". I've also never heard of "Atna". Are you guys talking about Aetna?

Or perhaps, Athena?

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I've never heard of "Atena". I've also never heard of "Atna". Are you guys talking about Aetna?

Or perhaps, Athena?

Athena is a myth. They now worship Obama.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

The health insurance industry doesn't add any value to the health care system - none. Hence, any profit they make is questionable. They're the pimps. Nothing more and nothing less.

Health insurance companies allow YOU to share the cost of getting sick with other people who are not sick. When you're not sick and someone else is, then YOU help to pay THEIR medical costs. This adds nothing? Ok, I supposed the government could do this for you instead an insurance company. Could the government do it as efficiently as a private insurance company? Aetna has 35,000 employees, and more than 56 million members who carry their insurance, plus 1.3 million hospitals, doctors, and health care professionals who are participating service providers. That's more than 1600 members per employee. How many government bureaucrats would it take to provide the same service for the same number of people? If you think the government can provide the same service at a lower cost, I've got a bridge to sell you...

I've never heard of "Atena". I've also never heard of "Atna". Are you guys talking about Aetna?

Or perhaps, Athena?

Athena Health provides management services for health care professionals. They don't provide health insurance. I couldn't find any other public company with a name resembling "Atena" or "Atna" that provided health insurance, other than Aetna.

[HAL 9000 96]

How many insurance company bureaucrats would you need to deny service to the insured to keep the profit margin on the positive side for the upper echelons of the company?

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

How many insurance company bureaucrats would you need to deny service to the insured to keep the profit margin on the positive side for the upper echelons of the company?

Hmmm. A lot of quips and banter in these replies, but no substance. How's the Kool-Aid?

So, insurance companies are bad because they operate in the black - by a whopping 3.85%, no less! But, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, with profits of 21% and 18%, and who are major suppliers of health care products and prescription medications, are not bad, right? They must not be bad, because Nancy Pelosi doesn't criticize them, and she owns stock in both companies. But they aren't bad, so we can't blame them for the high cost of health care. It's those pesky evil insurance companies that are the real bad guys!

[Joseph & Ana 0]

How many insurance company bureaucrats would you need to deny service to the insured to keep the profit margin on the positive side for the upper echelons of the company?

Hmmm. A lot of quips and banter in these replies, but no substance. How's the Kool-Aid?

So, insurance companies are bad because they operate in the black - by a whopping 3.85%, no less! But, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, with profits of 21% and 18%, and who are major suppliers of health care products and prescription medications, are not bad, right? They must not be bad, because Nancy Pelosi doesn't criticize them, and she owns stock in both companies. But they aren't bad, so we can't blame them for the high cost of health care. It's those pesky evil insurance companies that are the real bad guys!

Amen brother... They should be operating in the red like Obama and his government.

[kaydee457 13]

The health insurance industry doesn't add any value to the health care system - none. Hence, any profit they make is questionable. They're the pimps. Nothing more and nothing less.

Really? They negotiate with the industry, particularly Hospitals and Drug makers to set fair prices for services. They also administer all process' from "soup to nuts" when you do need their services, acting on your behalf as well as theirs.

It's pretty naive to tote the nonsensical partisan diatribe that Pelosi and Obama proclaim that these companies are evil and make inordinate profit. They have been rebuked on that false, hysterical, and ignorant notion just today.

They (Pelosi, Reid and Obama) are Socialist, period. Neither of them have ever, ever, ever, ever, acquired any tangible work experience in any Corporation in this country- did I say EVER!

They do however possess that peculiar attribute that defines them as Liberals; they believe that they have some God given intuitive wisdom that the rest of us don’t possess and it’s apparent in this push for legislation that the majority of this country says NO to…..

They’ll pay for it in 2010 and 2012 if they’re successful with this craziness.

Edited October 27, 2009 by *entitlements_yay

[AlHayatZween 2]

They negotiate with the industry, particularly Hospitals and Drug makers to set fair prices for services

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The health insurance industry doesn't add any value to the health care system - none. Hence, any profit they make is questionable. They're the pimps. Nothing more and nothing less.

Really?

Yes, really. Over the last 30 years, health care cost in the private insurance segment have increased at an average of 11.1% annually vs. 9.6% for the government managed services (Medicaid). Accumulated over the last three decades, that's almost 50% more cost growth on the private insurance side vs. the government. In other words, without the private health insurance our health care system might today absorb 1.7 - 2 trillion annually rather than the 2.5 trillion it currently costs putting us closer to comparable nations. The private insurance industry has failed on all fronts - cost, coverage, service. They are nothing but pimps busy only taking their cut off the top. They're worthless.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[HAL 9000 96]

How many insurance company bureaucrats would you need to deny service to the insured to keep the profit margin on the positive side for the upper echelons of the company?

Hmmm. A lot of quips and banter in these replies, but no substance. How's the Kool-Aid?

So, insurance companies are bad because they operate in the black - by a whopping 3.85%, no less! But, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer, with profits of 21% and 18%, and who are major suppliers of health care products and prescription medications, are not bad, right? They must not be bad, because Nancy Pelosi doesn't criticize them, and she owns stock in both companies. But they aren't bad, so we can't blame them for the high cost of health care. It's those pesky evil insurance companies that are the real bad guys!

I guess not addressing the actual context of the question will be expected from some, hmmm?