FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat

[Article 15]

Dude? Observant you are not.

But now you are on the right track ... sort of. Hourly pay is based on how much time is spent "at the office" ... which they spend little time there because ... well ... they are not needed most times.

So your point is that he makes 124 million a year for nothing?? Because he is not needed most times to use your words.. You are making my arguement for me..

No, I am not making your argument at all. Actually the whole point here is that they are only getting a 6% profit from services they render, meaning that most of what is paid to the insurance companies (94%) goes to taking care of their clients, not into the pockets of the company.

Bwuh? How do you figure that?

 

[KittenKoder]

So your point is that he makes 124 million a year for nothing?? Because he is not needed most times to use your words.. You are making my arguement for me..

No, I am not making your argument at all. Actually the whole point here is that they are only getting a 6% profit from services they render, meaning that most of what is paid to the insurance companies (94%) goes to taking care of their clients, not into the pockets of the company.

Bwuh? How do you figure that?

When a company only makes 6% profit ... 100 - 6 = ....

 

[Article 15]

No, I am not making your argument at all. Actually the whole point here is that they are only getting a 6% profit from services they render, meaning that most of what is paid to the insurance companies (94%) goes to taking care of their clients, not into the pockets of the company.

Bwuh? How do you figure that?

When a company only makes 6% profit ... 100 - 6 = ....

... doesn't equal 94% taking care of their clients.

You gotta cover your labor, overhead, lobbyists and lord knows what else before you get to the percent of their revenue that actually goes towards taking care of their clients.

 

[KittenKoder]

Bwuh? How do you figure that?

When a company only makes 6% profit ... 100 - 6 = ....

... doesn't equal 94% taking care of their clients.

You gotta cover your labor, overhead, lobbyists and lord knows what else before you get to the percent of their revenue that actually goes towards taking care of their clients.

That's not taking care of their client?

 

[Article 15]

When a company only makes 6% profit ... 100 - 6 = ....

... doesn't equal 94% taking care of their clients.

You gotta cover your labor, overhead, lobbyists and lord knows what else before you get to the percent of their revenue that actually goes towards taking care of their clients.

That's not taking care of their client?

No.

 

[KittenKoder]

... doesn't equal 94% taking care of their clients.

You gotta cover your labor, overhead, lobbyists and lord knows what else before you get to the percent of their revenue that actually goes towards taking care of their clients.

That's not taking care of their client?

No.

Okay ... so then why is it that people can't afford health care without them?

 

[Article 15]

That's not taking care of their client?

No.

Okay ... so then why is it that people can't afford health care without them?

Huh?

 

[KittenKoder]

No.

Okay ... so then why is it that people can't afford health care without them?

Huh?

If paying for all the employees, lobbyists, etc. does not help the client, then why is it that no one can afford medical care out of pocket?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay ... so then why is it that people can't afford health care without them?

Huh?

If paying for all the employees, lobbyists, etc. does not help the client, then why is it that no one can afford medical care out of pocket?

You are wasting your time, these boobs are to busy following the lead of Our President, he identifies who to hate and they all jump on board.

 

[KittenKoder]

Huh?

If paying for all the employees, lobbyists, etc. does not help the client, then why is it that no one can afford medical care out of pocket?

You are wasting your time, these boobs are to busy following the lead of Our President, he identifies who to hate and they all jump on board.

Not all are lost, just as I have not given up on you, I have not given up on those who do not want to see the big picture. It's not because of him pointing fingers at who to hate will all of them, the Obamaborg yes, but some who are looking to blame corporations or insurance companies have simply not seen the big picture. They fail to make the connections, I know because I was once just like that.

 

[Article 15]

Okay ... so then why is it that people can't afford health care without them?

Huh?

If paying for all the employees, lobbyists, etc. does not help the client, then why is it that no one can afford medical care out of pocket?

1.) Some people can

2.) Unless I'm mistaken insurance companies work in such a way you have enough people paying in but not taking out at the time to cover for those who are taking out. Right? It's a collective thing because the cost to the individual would be too great.

That, however, doesn't mean that new office furniture or annual raises or multiple six figure salaried execs collecting bonuses or company outings or (gawd) advertising helps the client. It's just not so.

 

[KittenKoder]

Huh?

If paying for all the employees, lobbyists, etc. does not help the client, then why is it that no one can afford medical care out of pocket?

1.) Some people can

2.) Unless I'm mistaken insurance companies work in such a way you have enough people paying in but not taking out at the time to cover for those who are taking out. Right? It's a collective thing because the cost to the individual would be too great.

That, however, doesn't mean that new office furniture or annual raises or multiple six figure salaried execs collecting bonuses or company outings or (gawd) advertising helps the client. It's just not so.

That is how it's suppose to work, however, with each new regulation imposed by the government, more fees are added on, more costs are accumulated for not only health care itself, but also the cost of remaining in business for the insurance company. This is why many have had to restrict services, with the exceptions of those who have extremely strong ties to politicians. This creates near monopolies, allowing those with the strength of government backing to essentially set their own rates and increase what they get for a profit. To simplify, take away the power that the government has in controlling healthcare and you destroy the overbearing insurance and medical companies that have been constantly driving the prices up.

 

[Article 15]

If paying for all the employees, lobbyists, etc. does not help the client, then why is it that no one can afford medical care out of pocket?

1.) Some people can

2.) Unless I'm mistaken insurance companies work in such a way you have enough people paying in but not taking out at the time to cover for those who are taking out. Right? It's a collective thing because the cost to the individual would be too great.

That, however, doesn't mean that new office furniture or annual raises or multiple six figure salaried execs collecting bonuses or company outings or (gawd) advertising helps the client. It's just not so.

That is how it's suppose to work, however, with each new regulation imposed by the government, more fees are added on, more costs are accumulated for not only health care itself, but also the cost of remaining in business for the insurance company. This is why many have had to restrict services, with the exceptions of those who have extremely strong ties to politicians. This creates near monopolies, allowing those with the strength of government backing to essentially set their own rates and increase what they get for a profit. To simplify, take away the power that the government has in controlling healthcare and you destroy the overbearing insurance and medical companies that have been constantly driving the prices up.

I'm not about to give the insurance companies free reign to do what they want.

 

[KittenKoder]

1.) Some people can

2.) Unless I'm mistaken insurance companies work in such a way you have enough people paying in but not taking out at the time to cover for those who are taking out. Right? It's a collective thing because the cost to the individual would be too great.

That, however, doesn't mean that new office furniture or annual raises or multiple six figure salaried execs collecting bonuses or company outings or (gawd) advertising helps the client. It's just not so.

That is how it's suppose to work, however, with each new regulation imposed by the government, more fees are added on, more costs are accumulated for not only health care itself, but also the cost of remaining in business for the insurance company. This is why many have had to restrict services, with the exceptions of those who have extremely strong ties to politicians. This creates near monopolies, allowing those with the strength of government backing to essentially set their own rates and increase what they get for a profit. To simplify, take away the power that the government has in controlling healthcare and you destroy the overbearing insurance and medical companies that have been constantly driving the prices up.

I'm not about to give the insurance companies free reign to do what they want.

This is why we need to see capitalism come back. Not one person alive today has ever actually seen capitalism without over regulation. If the insurance companies had no government involvement then they would have to increase coverage in order to keep their customers, otherwise people would rather just let the government pay it (as many are now). But the powerful insurance companies are able to remain in power because the government prevents competition, so there is nothing to drive prices down ... in any industry. First we have to drive medical costs down, which means we have to ensure that the government cannot charge them any money, nor that the government cannot prevent people from getting medications and such from "lesser" companies which are not allowed in the US, then eventually you drop the control the government has over insurance companies ... they would have to reduce their prices or sink, once people can afford their own medical without the need of insurance companies. As I said, it's a big picture, not a small one, there is no one person to blame, but there are a lot of politicians who are at fault.

 

[Article 15]

That is how it's suppose to work, however, with each new regulation imposed by the government, more fees are added on, more costs are accumulated for not only health care itself, but also the cost of remaining in business for the insurance company. This is why many have had to restrict services, with the exceptions of those who have extremely strong ties to politicians. This creates near monopolies, allowing those with the strength of government backing to essentially set their own rates and increase what they get for a profit. To simplify, take away the power that the government has in controlling healthcare and you destroy the overbearing insurance and medical companies that have been constantly driving the prices up.

I'm not about to give the insurance companies free reign to do what they want.

This is why we need to see capitalism come back. Not one person alive today has ever actually seen capitalism without over regulation. If the insurance companies had no government involvement then they would have to increase coverage in order to keep their customers, otherwise people would rather just let the government pay it (as many are now). But the powerful insurance companies are able to remain in power because the government prevents competition, so there is nothing to drive prices down ... in any industry. First we have to drive medical costs down, which means we have to ensure that the government cannot charge them any money, nor that the government cannot prevent people from getting medications and such from "lesser" companies which are not allowed in the US, then eventually you drop the control the government has over insurance companies ... they would have to reduce their prices or sink, once people can afford their own medical without the need of insurance companies. As I said, it's a big picture, not a small one, there is no one person to blame, but there are a lot of politicians who are at fault.

Yes, we have had a sort of hybrid of capitalism in this county for some time now. Let's say for instance that the gov't isn't going to just go hands off (because we know they wont) ... then what?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How about we make Government obey the Constitution? Novel Idea indeed. You want Government run health care? Make an amendment to the Constitution that grants that power to the Federal Government and get it passed.

You want the Government to run all our banks? Make an Amendment and get it passed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The CEO of United Healthcare makes $102,000 dollars an HOUR!!! One hundred thousand dollars an HOUR!! That is obscene and that fact alone trashes this thread!! Keep in mind that profits are after everyone is paid.. I don't give a flying set of monkey nuts what their margin is.. $102,000 dollars an hour is insane!!

They also get 50% of premiums from every policy of flood insurance sold.. And they don't do flood insurance the government does.. They just sell it.. That is some 40 billion or so anually for doing next to nothing and having no exposure of their own..

Poor poor insurance companies!! They are are poverty stricken and barely make a profit.. MY ASS!! The facts say otherwise if you morons care to look at them and not some right wing spin site that was bought and paid by the insurance companies..

They make 30% on the dollar which is almost as much as a casino at 33% on the dollar..

Fact hurt don't it!!

Possibly you didn't conprehend the fact check re: industry profits and CEO pay.

Have a literate friend explain it to you.

Then, consider this as an mitigation for you your whining, envious sensibilities: choose a healthcare provider whose CEO makes what you consider a more reasonable salary.

And here's a hint: in the future, study harder in school.

I'm sorry?? The IRS says one thing and your fact check says something else where again?? How bout you study harder and learn to read!! Starting with tax forms you moron!!

Then how bout you explain the 20 billion in government subsidies that insurance gets??

Your article is a joke!!

It is neither my article nor 'my' fact check.

And the following re: factcheck-
"Our Mission

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels."

About | FactCheck.org

As for "I'm sorry?? "

Yes, you should be.