Oliver Willis

Like Kryptonite To Stupid

Blue Cross: Oppose The Public Option, By The Way We’re Increasing Your Rates

October 28th, 2009 Health Care Public Option 20 Comments

('’)

Share

Insurance companies are so amazingly stupid, its criminal they have so much sway over our health.

Posted in Health Care, Public Option |

« Obama Signs Hate Crime Bill Into Law

GDP Up »

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

20 Responses to “Blue Cross: Oppose The Public Option, By The Way We’re Increasing Your Rates”

1. The Liberal Curmudgeon says:

   October 28, 2009 at 10:55 pm

   It’s also criminal that they have so much financial sway over the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who oppose health care reform.
2. James E. Powell says:

   October 28, 2009 at 11:01 pm

   The health insurance companies don’t look stupid to me. Arrogant, maybe, but not stupid. They own enough legislators, federal and state, to ensure their income stream. They have enough sway with the corporate press/media to keep single-payer, national health care (the best option for the people) completely off the table. Even mentioning it will cause a politician or pundit to be relegated to the fringe. They have been able to engage in a steady pattern of conduct wherein they wrongfully deny coverage, fight the lawsuits, pay the occasional big award or fine, then charge it right back as costs. The executives are very well paid.

   So how are they stupid?
   • Skippy says:

     October 29, 2009 at 10:14 am

     Screwing their customers over and then asking for their help is extremely stupid. If you kick a dog so many times it will eventually bite back.
     • James E. Powell says:

       October 30, 2009 at 12:44 am

       If you kick a dog so many times it will eventually bite back.

       A dog is smart enough to bite back. The American people? I’m not so sure. When they get mad, they usually elect Republicans.
3. White Whale says:

   October 29, 2009 at 8:34 am

   Insurance companies will raise rates whether reform is passed or not. More reason to do reform. They have utter contempt for this nation.
4. Buzz Killington says:

   October 29, 2009 at 9:01 am

   I, for one, am outraged at their ~3% profit margin. Time for torches and pitchforks!
   • Quaker in a Basement says:

     October 29, 2009 at 3:22 pm

     Three percent? Pish and tosh!

     What’s their “earnings from operations” look like? For United Health Group last year that number was between 6.5 and 7 percent and totalled nearly 6 billion (with a b) dollars. Their net was down around 3 percent because of the losses they took on their investments or the losses they absorbed during mergers.
     • Buzz Killington says:

       October 29, 2009 at 3:40 pm

       Yes, profits do tend to be linked to expenditures. Good point.
   • Quaker in a Basement says:

     October 29, 2009 at 3:29 pm

     Not only that, Mr. Killington, but if you look just at their healthcare business, last year was a major disappointment. The earnings from operations for their healthcare business typically runs between 8.5 and 10 percent.

     Three percent, indeed.
5. Rheinhard says:

   October 29, 2009 at 10:18 am

   That magic “3% profit margin” that the wingnutosphere has been throwing around like a ward against witchcraft is complete and utter BS, and you know it.
6. Buzz Killington says:

   October 29, 2009 at 10:27 am

   Rheinhard, you have argued with your own positions previously… but I mean this sincerely: link to something showing what you mean… I am interested.
7. jr says:

   October 29, 2009 at 12:09 pm

   We’re serfs to the insurance companies
8. White Whale says:

   October 29, 2009 at 2:00 pm

   I’m sure Buzz then won’t mind showing his work? Even if true and thier profit margin is low, they are doing right by the American people? Like I said previously…they don’t give a rat’s behind about your health. A company that makes money off of sickness and denying coverage and operates like a monopoly is not helping America. Of course, in liberatarian/conservative land, if it makes money then it must be good right?
   • Buzz Killington says:

     October 29, 2009 at 2:04 pm

     At least they have an incentive, unlike government. Never forget, the people that make every law are motivated solely by the desire to get reelected.
     • Repack Rider says:

       October 30, 2009 at 5:56 pm

       Never forget, the people that make every law are motivated solely by the desire to get reelected.

       I certainly hope so, although sometimes I wonder. People who want to get re-elected should do things that help people, which makes people grateful, and then they vote for the people who provided them with, say, health coverage.

       You say it like it’s a bad thing that elected officials have to please people or lose their jobs. What alternative do you suggest?
9. Rheinhard says:

   October 29, 2009 at 2:04 pm

   The “poor us, only 3% profits” is a wonderfully misleading obfuscation, because you’re expected to imagine that the giant health insurance monopoly is basically no different from the local hardware store or coffee shop in how it distributes its assets.

   Let’s take a look at the bonuses health insurance CEOs made:

   $124.8 million total compensation of United Health Group (parent of United Healthcare) CEO William McGuire.

   Howard Phanstiel, PacifiCare, 3.38 million; Edward Hanway, Cigna, $13.3 million; John Rowe, Aetna, $22.2 million; and Larry Glassrock, Wellpoint, $25.0 million.

   McGuire’s compensation was so large as to take a measurable part of this large company’s net income (5%!). Or to look at it from a stock-holder’s (and hence, an company owner’s) viewpoint, had McGuire, who is an employee, been only paid a cool million, and this money had been distributed as a dividend, it would amount to about a $0.20 per share dividend. (The current dividend is $0.03 per share.)

   To look at it from the viewpoint of the health care system, the $124.8 million total compensation of a single United employee could pay the salaries of 833 general internists at current typical salaries. Or the $124.8 million could run one reasonable size community hospital for a year.

   AND, that’s only considering executive pay. We haven’t even touched upon the insurance company expenditures on advertising, lobbying Congress, and paying the legions of adjusters whose main purpose in life is denying patient claims.

   So basically, after taking out all these gigantic and totally unnecessary expenditures as “costs” the bit left over is labeled “profit” and SURPRISE it looks insignificant. Yes, if we just allow insurers to account however they like they can always come up with a metric by which they’re on the brink of poverty despite taking in record incomes. But I’m pretty sure that if I ran a business that took in $10 million in income, paid myself a $9.99 salary and claimed “Woe is me! My company only made a 0.1% profit! How ever will I survive!?”, y’all would look at me a little funny.
10. White Whale says:

    October 29, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    At least they have an incentive- Buzz

    I can at least vote against politicians and attempt to hold them accountable. Government only sucks when those serving have no desire to be a public servant. All these anti-government types should really put thier money where their considerably ridiculous mouth is and just give up thier seats. As far as incentive…yeah its to make money by ANY means neccesary. You can live in libertarian fantasy land, but motive is important. I don’t care for a society that puts money(just printed paper) above the general welfare.
    • Buzz Killington says:

      October 29, 2009 at 2:23 pm

      I understand your point in principle, but I think it breaks down in practice. For that it’s worth, in an ideal world, I do agree with you.
11. fafaroo says:

    October 29, 2009 at 2:35 pm

    “For that it’s worth, in an ideal world, I do agree with you.”

    And this incentive that corporations have? That’s perfect and operates ideally in the real world?
12. Quaker in a Basement says:

    October 29, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    Never forget, the people that make every law are motivated solely by the desire to get reelected.

    Not one acts in what he or she believes to be the best interests of the people? Ever?

    That’s awfully cynical, don’t you think?