Private Insurance Lovers... You Need to Know This...
By iriscot
@iriscot (1289)
United States
August 14, 2009 5:16pm CST
Here is an excerpt from an article I just read in the August addition of Forbes Magazine... If you don't get the magazine you can read the whole article at your local library. The article was written by David Whelan of Forbes.
Ronald Williams, head of the insurance company Aetna is against any government-run insurance plan, he advocates cutting costs by standardizing payments among insurers, doctors and hospitals. He said "I don't meet anyone who doesn't think we should get more people covered." This statement doesn't hold true with what his company practices, they profited in the past by deliberately covering fewer people.
Ronald Williams joined Aetna in the year 2001 and was recruited for the position by John Rowe, his predecessor. From 2001 to 2006 under William's reign the company went from losing $266 million to earning $1.7 BILLION.
How did they do this? By getting rid of or dumping millions of policy holders they figured were unprofitable to them. Their membership dropped by 8 million policy holders from 1999 to 2004. "Thousands of workers lost their jobs and millions of other people their insurance coverage," says Wendell Potter, a former Cigna executive.
Williams, who has earned $54,000,000.00 since he was promoted, says Aetna is "well positioned" for a shift in the insurance system. "It's a result of conscious strategic work on our part," he says.
The company reported a loss of profit of 28% in the second quarter this year.... Williams says the company is fixing the problem. Barclalys HMO analyst Joshua Raskin predicts that by next year Aetna will right the ship -- by cutting 600,000 insurance policy members.
I don't imagine Williams will take a pay cut!
Just maybe... We need a little government regulation here???
*****************************************
Now, if any of these members have existing health problems they will have a hard time finding another insurance company to take them. I've been there so I know how it is.
3 people like this
5 responses
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
14 Aug 09
"From 2001 to 2006 under William's reign the company went from losing $266 million to earning $1.7 BILLION."
Well then I'd say he's earning that $54 million paycheck.
I don't think anyone here are "Private insurance lovers". We don't really trust the insurance companies, we just trust Obama LESS.
"Data released earlier today shows that 51% of voters fear the federal government more than private insurance companies when it comes to health care decisions. Forty-one percent (41%) have the opposite fear."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/32_favor_single_payer_health_care_57_oppose
"Now, if any of these members have existing health problems they will have a hard time finding another insurance company to take them."
That is a sad truth. We really do need reform, but not in the way of this single payer system piled high with 1,000 pages of crap from congress. We need to fix the cost of healthcare since people are charged different amounts depending on how they pay or what their insurance is and they need to end this crap where companies don't cover preexisting conditions. I'm seen conditions labeled as preexisting when they clearly were not.
2 people like this
@iriscot (1289)
• United States
15 Aug 09
Now that they are losing is he going to give any of that $54 million back, you know he won't. It's just another rip off by big business execs, just like wall street traders and investment companies. If you can recall Ronald Reagan started all of the deregulation that has let big business run wild. He was paid that kind of money because he cut the companies loses by raising rates and dropping insurance customers and that's the same thing he will do to put the company back on track. Do you think Aetna is the only company that is sticking it to their customers?
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
15 Aug 09
Taskr, I agree that we need to do something, and I agree that this plan isn't perfect. But, it is a start. The insurance industry is more interested in making money then taking care of their customers, and everyone in the health care industry know this. That is why the doctors at the AMA conference that Obama spoke to all applauded when he said he wanted to end the term "pre-existing condition". The only people that enjoy hearing those words are insurance companies that consider someone a risk, and their numbers show they can't make money on them.
The thing I don't understand is why it is that no one else has offered an alternative plan to this. When ever there is something like this going on in the country, the oppostion party usually presents their own idea, but NO ONE has stepped up to even suggest changes that they would want to see. This is a perfect opportunity for another party to introduce another idea that could lead to a compromise.
@Carson11 (332)
• United States
15 Aug 09
I wish this Williams guy was working for me.Did he break any laws?Sue them. This is America,what right do you have telling this insurance company how to run their business? If they cancel people when they shouldn't then people will hear about it and they will drop their policies.What happens if you get drunk and run over a little kid crossing the road? Should the insurance company be forced to insure you at the same rate? The solution is to get all these people who can't get insurance in a plan where all the insurance companies have to split up all the uninsurable equally. The only problem with that is people like me will have people like you confiscating my money.Does that sound fair to you? Sounds like I'm getting cheated. Maybe instead of smoking 4 packs aday and weighing 400 lbs,I lived a healthy lifestyle and I get screwed by people like you.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
14 Aug 09
When the number two Dem, Senator D.ck Durbin says he will vote for the bill even if they take out the public option, you know that this is not about getting health insurance for those who are uninsured and the poor. This is about government running the health insurance companies. There are people who are uninsurable according to the standards of private insurers? There are other ways to deal with that than to take over the insurance companies.
There are lots of people who cannot get auto insurance because of bad driving records or living in areas with high theft rates, etc. No company will voluntarily write them, but in my state they go into a pool and the Insurance Commission assigns them to the various auto insurance companies depending on their book of business and profitability ratings, etc. Such a program could work with health insurance as well. Yes, some companies will have to accept members they wouldn't voluntarily take, but no company will be forced to take so many that it would put them out of business and there must be regulations on how their policy is administrated to make sure that standard protocol is followed in their treatment.
The point is that there are many other ways to deal with rising health care costs and having government run anything is not the way to make it more efficient or less expensive. The federal government is possibly the worst entity to try to run anything efficiently or to contain costs.
1 person likes this
@iriscot (1289)
• United States
15 Aug 09
It's possible that you don't realize that Medicare is a government run insurance program? I am on medicare and have used it to cover my surgery and cancer treatments for over 6 years. I've had no problem with them paying the bills. So maybe they can handle a voluntary plan that will be the citizens choice whether they pay the rising independant rates or take the government plan. I don't believe your arguement is valid. All there has been is false information being spread by those who chose to go along with the republican leaders and they have a lot of people believing their propaganda.
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
15 Aug 09
Rollo, if Obama's health care plan is passed, it will not put the insurance companies out of business. It will make them become more competitive, but it will not eliminate these corporations. The US government is in the shipping business, and they compete with UPS, and FEDEX all day long. The last time I checked both UPS, and FEDEX were not complaining about the government competing with them, and they both make pretty good money doing so. The US government has the largest stockpile of oil in the world, they purchase millions of barrels a day. But, so do oil companies all day long, and they compete with each other for those gallons. There are many examples of where the US government is in certain businesses, and they have competitors, and those competitors are not upset about the government being in their business.
Today, insurance companies have it very good, most states require you to have auto insurance to drive a car. The majority of Ameircans have health insurnace, and millions of Americans have life insurance. Insurance companies also have a cash cow in malpractice insurance, and they have alot of power in congress to make sure they NEVER pass tort reform (in 2004 malpractice insurance went up 30%, while the insurance industry blamed lawsuits, the judgement amounts in malpractice lawsuits only went up 1% in 2004. So where did the other 29% increase REALLY come from?). As this post says, I wouldn't worry abou them one bit, they will have no problem surviving. They might not be able to pay their CEO's tens of millions, but they will be fine
@Carson11 (332)
• United States
15 Aug 09
The government is already screwing up health insurance.10 years ago when I started my business,I wanted a HSA but NYS wouldn't let me!!! It cost mt approx 30-50K!! What would have been even better would have been to not get insurance at all! I would have over 70k right now.I currently can't afford insurance,but I don't want Obamacare.How about a tax break so I can get my own insurance? Most people make enough money to buy their own insurance or they qualify for medicaid or other subsidized gov. programs anyway.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Aug 09
Of course there is room for reform and regulation... but that is a far cry from government takeover.
Don't act like those of us who are against government run health care are "insurance lovers". Reform is needed, what isn't is just changing the names of the people running the corruption. Which is ALL Obama's plan does. He doesn't even deny that. In fact, most defenders say something stupid like, "I'd rather have the governmetn deciding than insurance companies".
There is absolutely no intelligence or honesty in that thought process. All they are saying is they would rather be denied medical care by a mindless bureaucrat than a greedy insurance exec.
If we are going to tackle the problem, how about we do something that improves the outcome instead of just empowers Obama and inspires idiocy.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
15 Aug 09
Ted, I agree that we need reform, but unlike most of the people on here, I support the presidents plan. It makes me laugh when I hear people say I support reform, but I just don't support any reform that would actually change the current system we have. This isn't a perfect plan, but it is a start, and it is better than what we have now.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
17 Aug 09
The plan doesn't even attempt to do three crucial things...
1) Assess the real problems with our current system.
2) Address the problems identified in the assessment.
3) Reduce the cost of medical care.
Any plan that leaves these things out is not only worthless, it is dangerous.
The CBO has proven that this plan will be much more costly than even our current system. It adds more bureaucracies to our already over-bloated government. It would do things already done by the states (such as Advanced Directives).
When even the strongest defenders of the bill use the argument, "I'd rather have someone from the government making these decisions than someone from some corporation". That tells me that it isn't so much a bill about "healthcare reform" as it is anti corporation.
If the biggest change here is whose payroll the idiot making boneheaded decision that cost people's lives in on... the whole debate is inhuman.
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
15 Aug 09
That's a huge turn around in a company. I don't understand how any member of our society can say we don't need control of the insurance companies. I was all excited because a few months ago my son's adderal xr went generic it was $175 (name brand) and the generic is $155. Great savings huh? LOL
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
15 Aug 09
Iriscot, this is a very common practice in the insurance industry. The insurance industry has made billions the last decade, and they always have find someone to blame for their profits. These are the same people that blamed 9/11 for their loses in 2001, yet most of them didn't even have a claim from it. They are also the reason that malpractice insurance is so expensive. I am sure the reason why Aetna lost money is because of the stock market, one of the things that they won't tell you is that insurance companies invest billions in the stock market. In January of 2002 while all of the US insurance companies were talking about huge loses due to 9/11, the CEO of Lloyds of London was on CNBC talking about the fact that they made a profit (they had the largest exposer to what happened on 9/11, and paid more than any other company). He told them the secret that the rest of the insurance industry never wanted anyone to know: The reason Lloyds made money is because their mandate doesn't allow them to invest one dime in any open market (stock market, or any other exchange). I am sure that their lost had more to do with the stock market than any policy, or insurance claims.
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
15 Aug 09
Insurance companies invest in the stock market because the profitability from premium dollars is so low. They really don't make huge profits off your premiums and one big disaster could wipe them out completely if they didn't have investment profit to keep the company running. That's also why they buy re-insurance from companies like Lloyds, which only pay out if there's a catastrophe that costs more than the insurance company has money to pay the claims on. That's why Lloyds paid out more than the other companies for 9/11, they were paying the claims those companies didn't have the money to pay.
2 people like this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
15 Aug 09
Carson, LMFAO, you actually think the money they make in the stock market lowers your rates? Are you insane? Do you know that they denied that they lost any money in the stock market, and stated that all of their loses came from 9/11? Look it up. You should have seen the faces of all of the guys on CNBC, when the CEO of Lloyd's said that. They were in complete shock, and had to ask him twice what he just said, because no one would publicly come out and say they lost all that money. When they lost billions in 2001 none of them would admit they lost money in the market because they feared people would lose faith in them, and fear they wouldn't be able to cover things like life insurance policies, so they made up the 9/11 excuse (even though many never had one claim associated with 9/11). You are correct that they compete with each other, but they all are looking at the same programs the figure out the variables, and risks. If they can also figure out an estimate of what their competitors rates are, and they decide if it is worth the risk.
By the way, your cancelling policies comment is correct in some aspects, but NOT in health insurance. The majority of Americans don't decide what company they have for health insurance, their employer does that for them. And, most employers are only interested in the price, not the coverage.
What the hell do you expect them to do with their money? Stick it under their floorboards? What are you talking about nobody knows they invest in the stockmarket? The money they make in the stockmarket helps them lower rates for everyone.Don't you understand these co's compete against each other? If 2 co's have the same coverage and one is $100 a month cheaper,what do you think happens? If one company starts canceling policies when they shouldn't,people talk about it and they lose business.Will anyone ever debate me on this site???????
@Carson11 (332)
• United States
15 Aug 09
What the hell do you expect them to do with their money? Stick it under their floorboards? What are you talking about nobody knows they invest in the stockmarket? The money they make in the stockmarket helps them lower rates for everyone.Don't you understand these co's compete against each other? If 2 co's have the same coverage and one is $100 a month cheaper,what do you think happens? If one company starts canceling policies when they shouldn't,people talk about it and they lose business.Will anyone ever debate me on this site???????
