OH MY-Even A.P. getting on wagon

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Is this indication of things to come--
Believe this Admin has pissed off press in general with their Chicago Thugary

even liberal A.P. coming out with the facts -"someone" posted here previously :SIB

FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat

<!-- end .topics --><!-- end: .hd --> <CITE class=caption>AP ? In this Oct. 21, 2009, photo, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., center, accompanied by Sen. ? </CITE>

<!-- end #main-media -->
<!-- end .primary-media -->
<!-- end .related-media --><CITE class=vcard>By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer Calvin Woodward, Associated Press Writer </CITE>? <ABBR class=recenttimedate title=2009-10-25T06:59:59-0700>11 mins ago</ABBR>
<!-- end .byline -->WASHINGTON ? 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.
The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.
They may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.
But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. A look at some claims, and the numbers:

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.
The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.
HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.
The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.
UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

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.

But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?


Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent. The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

:0corn

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Opps forgot

Trench--
These are opinions--

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.

These are facts--
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.
The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.
HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.
The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.
UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

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.

 

[Jabberwocky]

"But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?"

No, they were the golden years for the drug companies. So let me ask you something Wayne, the Health Care system is perfect and is not stiffling business(es) small and large? I think we probably agree on this one.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Now ABC and White House in a tiff

ABC: $160,000 Per Stimulus Job? White House Calls That 'Calculator Abuse'...



--and CNN climbing on

A senior White House advisor on Tuesday told Campbell Brown that Fox News is biased, but refused to comment when the CNN host asked her, "Well, then do you also think that MSNBC is biased?"
During a taped interview at the Woman's Conference in California later broadcast on CNN's "Campbell Brown," Valerie Jarrett sidestepped this marvelous question and instead haplessly said, "I don't want to just generalize all Fox is biased or that another station is biased."
Actually, Jarrett already had, and the incredulous look on Brown's face when the high-ranking Administration official contradicted herself and refused to talk about MSNBC's eminently apparent political leaning was absolutely priceless (video embedded below the fold with transcript,




Looks like nbc/msnbc only one left in tank.

The narcasitic veiw of O and his chicago politics crew have made flagrant mistake--

Don't start wars with entities that buy ink by the barrel

 

[Chadman]

Again, Wayne, you leave out important parts of the story as far as medical costs go. I've posted the following in at least two other threads here, after you've posted this, and either you agree it's a problem or are avoiding the obvious. We see how important segments of health insurance companies, like the ones that cause doctors to raise their rates, ARE skyrocketing, and this makes tort reform seem like a pretty unimportant part of the puzzle, while remaining THE most important part of it to republicans.

From your post: As is typical, other health sectors did much better ? drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

And this, from my third post on it, with no follow up:

Medical Malpractice Insurers? Profits Higher Than Nearly All Fortune 500 Companies

By DAPHNE EVIATAR 10/6/09 11:57 AM

The American Association for Justice ? the trial lawyers? lobby group ? has just released an astounding statistic: medical malpractice insurance companies? average profits are higher than those of 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies.

As the nation remains mired in a debate over health care reform and how to keep down the costs of expanding coverage, AAJ is trying to point out that Republicans claims that medical malpractice lawsuits are one of the big cost drivers is completely misleading. In fact, though malpractice claims and so-called ?defensive medicine? does account for a small percentage of unnecessary costs, medical errors and the astronomical profits of malpractice insurers appear to be a bigger part of the problem.

AAJ?s report released today finds that the average profit of medical malpractice insurance companies is higher than 99 percent of all Fortune 500 companies and 35 times higher than the Fortune 500 average for the same time period; and malpractice insurers have seen their profit margins range from 5.9 percent to 74.8 percent, with an average of 31.2 percent. The report also finds that malpractice insurers have publicly overestimated their losses and underestimated their profits in an attempt to suggest the insurance business and medical practice in general faces a crisis that must be resolved by so-called ?tort reform? ? i.e., making it harder for patients to sue and to collect damages for their injuries.

?Insurance companies are gouging doctors on their premiums to mislead lawmakers,? said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone, managing partner at Kreindler & Kreindler LLP, in a statement released with the report. ?And today, injured patients are often left with no avenue to pursue justice, while health care costs continue to skyrocket.?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Chad I didn't really think you'd expect me to critique article from trial laywers lobby group on what ins companies make on malpractice insurance.

Your using the rope a dope because Gumby and crew was caught blantantly lying again about health insurance companies. If you want to harp on insurance that is obscenely profitable I'll give you the 2 biggies--flight ins and idemnity policies--the latter pay so much a day if your in the hospital--you'd have to spend about 4.7 days in hospital every year of your life to break even.

All these Dem plans so far have had "cost cutting measures--most cutting medicare nione cutting medicade that I can find.

The 2 universal things both parties agree on that would cut medical cost the most is tort reform and being able to buy insurance fro carriers across state lines.

Now if these are the biggest--WHY has not one plan presented (from the Dems) included either one.?????

---and I'm still waiting to find out why these now up to 36 million aren't covered considering people in poverty are covered by medicade and schip covers those 400% above poverty.

Appears to me my taxes aren't going to the poor-aged or disable-but rather to illegals and those that figure they will absorb the risk of loss rather than pay ins premium.

 

[Chadman]

I didn't expect you to critique it, Wayne, but to ignore the message because of the messenger doesn't address it. Guessing lawyers have a pretty good idea about the situation, and guessing the profits of public companies are pretty much public domain information, and have seen not one post or story about how it is inaccurate. Not one republican, not one PR from those companies, nothing. Usually if there is an argument or if the story is not factual, there would be something turned up about it.

I would definitely argue that the two specific things you picked out would be the only two universal things both parties agree on, but I would submit that you don't have much from the republicans to pick from, especially items the dems didn't already have out there in the plans they submitted. Again, five different plans, all because dems see the need for reform - and NOW republicans agree there needs to be reform. NOTHING before now. Ironic? To say the least.

I'd say a public option does a lot more to reduce costs than just letting people go across state lines, essentially just picking from the same plans from the same big companies that control the market in the U.S., giving people many different options to pick from, adding hundreds of thousands to those membership plans, driving down costs, competition would have to be a big part of providing those options as part of a big umbrella coverage option.

And again, it's just an option. An option that before the dems we would have never had. It's nice to have options, and a real look at reform. Again, options we have, thanks to the dems.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I doubt you'll have trial attorneys being upset with Dems in charge--they take care of their own--lawyers-unions and Da Base

<CODE><CODE> </CODE> </CODE>

Pelosi Health Care Bill Blows a Kiss to Trial Lawyers

by Capitol Confidential <!-- Article Start -->The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):

Section 2531, entitled ?Medical Liability Alternatives,? establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]?? a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys? fees or imposes caps on damages.
​

So, you can?t try to seek alternatives to lawsuits if you?ve actually done something to implement alternatives to lawsuits. Brilliant! The trial lawyers must be very happy today!
While there is debate over the details, it is clear that medical malpractive lawsuits have some impact on driving health care costs higher. There are likely a number of procedures that are done simply as a defense against future possible litigation. Recall this from the Washington Post:

?Lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits, congressional budget analysts said today ? a substantial sum that could help cover the cost of President Obama?s overhaul of the nation?s health system. New research shows that legal reforms would not only lower malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers, but would also spur providers to save money by ordering fewer tests and procedures aimed primarily at defending their decisions in court, Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, wrote in a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).?
​