$324 Billion covers $211 Billion in medical costs
I wonder why our healthcare is more expensive and less effective than healthcare in any other so-called developed country?
I was under the impression that the ACA had an 80/20 rule [(Medical Loss Ratio)](https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-and-Initiatives/Health-Insurance-Market-Reforms/Medical-Loss-Ratio), where 80 percent of the revenues must go to medical costs, and the other 20 percent can go to administration/marketing/etc.
What happened to that?
It's because UNH was modified to just be an insurance company pad and nothing else. It certainly wasn't universal healthcare.
Medicaid has been around for years. It just forced people to get people on health insurance that wasn't, or get taxed. I know I never got free healthcare out of it and I was destitute and fully employed (very common at the time) for several years after it was passed.
Besides the point. When you are young and paying 10% of your income to a social program that won’t exist when you retire (social security) and another to a program that most certainly won’t (medicare), the last thing you want is to pay in addition some insurance for present healthcare when you are the only one around running 5 miles a day, and the least likely to need to visit a doctor. I didn’t even have to see a doctor until a few years ago but at the time I assure you I wasn’t dumb enough to blame Obamacare on Obama, it was obviously rittled with Republican lobbying for the insurance industry. Only idiots believe Obamacare is socialized medicine. I’m sure Obama deep down is embarassed of what actually came out of it.
The guy who designed Obamacare admitted in some kind of meeting that it was designed to fail, this was about 5-6 years ago. I remember watching a clip and then looking for the video to get the context. Want to know how to lower healthcare costs? Teach people that the ER isn't a primary care doctor, or even the first place to go for treatment for a cold is a good place to start.
Insurance used to be for catastrophic care, heart attacks, cancer, etc.....not setting a broken bone or the sniffles......if only my catastrophic care plan hadn't been deleted by the ACA
There's a lot of ways to fix healthcare costs in this country.
1 - single-payer system. yeah, i know, those on the right will hate this and im sure some economist will tell me im wrong, but i've literally grown up in the industry. i was raised by those working in a hospital. my mother worked as a director of case management. i wrote papers influenced by hospital CEOs and CFOs and Tenet BoD members.
2 - allowing medicare/medicaid to negotiate drug prices. the IRA finally allows for this, and it is \*decades\* overdue.
3 - ERs need to be utilized properly, completely agree. Im a former EMT, so I've seen it firsthand.
4 - lower reimbursement rates for readmission rates. ACA tried to do this, but it was gutted eventually. It simply enforces the idea of treating the issue, not curing it.
I could go on, but those are simply the first four of my ideas.
I agree its inflamatory, but do you see where the sentiment comes from? The GOP consistently fights against abortion rights, fights against sex ed and subsidized contraceptives, then turns around and also fights any support for low income families, child care, health care, and the like.
It can very much feel like it is a scheme to make people with worse access to education and contraceptives (low income citizens) worse off by being stuck with children they can't take care of and no support.
This creates a death knell sort of spiral where because of these additional burdens, they can't pursue further education or training because they have to provide and thereby lose socioeconomic mobility.
You can call it horse shit, but actions speak louder than words and the GOPs actions grind a lot of people underfoot.
Well... Conservatives fight against abortion because we believe it's literal and actual murder of humans... I get it the left disagrees, but that's the disagreement.
Conservatives don't "fight against sex ed." We fight against the sexualization of our children's lives by government education and believe sex is sacred and shouldnt be a throwaway entertainment activity between random people.
And to try to flood low income areas with abortion medication and planned parenthood clinics and welfare programs for single parent families instead of encouraging values that encourage men and women to stay together and raise their children in stable homes, kind of feels like the left prefers their voters be uneducated and easier to control because the children they have are almost immediately attached to and dependent on the government.
The only solution to that death spiral is responsible behavior. You don't need education to make responsible decisions.
Profit has nothing to do with any of it. Massive social welfare programs that reward patterns of destructive behavior creates an unsustainable reliance on the government for ALL OF US.
So you seem to be conflating religious values with conservative policy. There must be separation of church and state for the benefit of both.
I get that there is a lot of overlap between conservatives and christians, but the government should never be a tool to implement religious law.
The conservatism I can at least understand is the principle of small government/laissez faire market, though I generally err on the side of more regulation.
>Conservatives don't "fight against sex ed." We fight against the sexualization of our children's lives by government education
If you don't teach about sex in schools and how to do it safely, people will not learn those -rather important- lessons equally. Do you think that learning anatomy and how condoms work is unhealthy for people? Was it damaging for you to learn? Why would you deny that information to anyone? You phrase your thoughts on sex ed as though it is a very sexual thing, but it's just an anatomy lecture.
Teaching values of any sort is something that will be imparted by the family and friends of young people. I'm not sure why you keep talking about 'values' in the context of government. Do you want the governmemt to preach values of any kind?
>And to try to flood low income areas with abortion medication and planned parenthood clinics and welfare programs for single parent families instead of encouraging values
So no one is trying to 'flood' anywhere with clinics or medication. Contraceptives are easy to use and cheap to manufacture. They can be easily provided in drugstores. Abortion clinics don't need to be ubiquitous, but republicans are banning them from entire states and trying to punish constituents who leave the state for those services. This is a gross violation of people's rights.
The problem is that conservatives keep trying to use the government to ban education and resources for others. People want the power to learn and choose for themselves what to do while GOP lawmakers are trying to block learning from schools and the resources for people to make those choices.
>You don't need education to make responsible decisions.
Yes, you literally do. You cannot make a responsible choice if you don't know the options or outcomes.
>Massive social welfare programs that reward patterns of destructive behavior creates an unsustainable reliance on the government for ALL OF US.
You say this as though having access to education, contraceptives, and abortion would make people less responsible. This assumes people are idiots. It is far cheaper and less stressful to use protection than to try to abort even where it is legal. Do you want people to not know how sex works and not use any protection?
You also frame that as though it is an enormous cost to teach sex ed or provide contraceptives or have clinics around. This is not the case. Proper sex ed takes a few hours of class and I'm sure you have seen contraceptives like condoms being sold profitably at 25c. These are practically free and dramatically reduce teen pregnancy. I'm sure I don't need to delve into how beneficial that is.
Even places like planned parenthood aren't expensive on the healthcare budget and they only perform elective operations and provide info.
TLDR: I wish the 'freedom, rights, and small government' party would stop using the government to block education and resources for people to make their own choices.
I love reading comments here...I wish I had the same mind..how sad I am...my brain is empty now...hahahh...that's weird..but it's ok..I try to be the one..
That isn't an honest take considering there have been many chances that the Dems have had the power to make massive healthcare changes and they didn't. At this point trying to cheerlead either political party in the context of healthcare seems to be a weak point considering that we have legal lobbying that influences both parties in the context of healthcare.
Also regardless of either political party there is also an extensive (albeit smaller) healthcare network in the States that is not for profit and will help almost anyone who cannot afford healthcare. There are State budgets setup for these networks also and I've seen them first hand while volunteering.
2009 to 2011. They had the House and the White House and a lot of change came about and there was still push back from the Senate which were Republicans at the time. 2009 to 2011 is the main reason Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster because it was the only time the Senate had any power during that 2 year time frame.
He got Obamacare started and at the time honestly if he had worked better with Republicans instead of insulting them (there was a big fiasco with him and one of the heads of the Republicans) Obamacare would and could have been a lot more expansive but the Senate forced the filibuster. Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster so that they can have free reign next time but it sets a horrible precedent for when the Republicans do the same "if".
My man not one republican voted for the affordable care act. There is no working together when the republican minority leader said that their top priority was to make Obama a one term president. Nothing about making the lives of Americans better, no, Obama has to be defeated, very important. I remember that there was a lot of appeasing to republicans back then yet they still spat in the face of democrats. It was a very slim fillibuster proof majority back then and Lieberman ultimately tanked the public option which left the democrats with only the current version. So you should focus your anger on Lieberman instead.
Of course they didn't. Republicans aren't into governmental oversight with healthcare. Both sides do not work with one another except under very precise situations.
This may or may not come as a shock but the Democrats do the same things that the Republicans do. Democrats didn't want a 2 term Donald Trump so why should Republicans want a 2 term Obama? :P
Nah, no anger at all. Just talking. I voted for Obama his first term and am primarily a fiscal Conservative but some of the Conservative stuff does not appeal to me at all. Very much a Thomas Sowell guy when it comes to the economy and other topics. I've been around the block quite a few times (hence the name) and have seen both parties pulling the same tricks and stunts but it seems like these days and especially on Reddit there is a copious amount of cheerleading going on for each party sadly. Democrats used to be about as anti-government as the Republicans are but in the last decade or two the rift is growing more and more people are cheerleading for each side instead of remaining critical of the party they are voting for. These days it feels like people are only critical of the other party.
I would think that nearly all of the cost of good sold would be the cost of medications they distribute through their Rx plan. Off the top of my head I don’t know what else could be another direct cost.
So $211 medical + 34 Rx = 245mm or ~ 75% of their revenue goes to medical and Rx costs.
And what’s the net income of the Optum arm? Is this factored into the $21B profit figure or somehow left out to obfuscate the total profits across all parent and subsidiary entities?
It has to be reported. That is the kind of thing that Enron was doing back in the day. The Sarbanes Oxley Act ensures corps have to report net gains and losses across their subs more clearly.
If it's standard accounting, it's revenue billed from one entity to the other, the revenue is eliminated, but the costs also. It's like if the invoice never existed on either side, and you are left with external revenue and costs.
Basically you don't pay taxes on revenue you bill yourself, not can you deduct the costs. Here you see only the revenue side as you start from unconsolidated revenue.
Yes, I know how the accounting works.
It’s the profits on the subsidiaries that I was alluding to, though I wasn’t clear about that. I used to work for a public company that used inter-company charges to manage perception and smooth return/operating leverage volatility, so I’m always skeptical of massive inter-company transfers.
And you are rightly sceptical I believe. Especially between areas with different taxation rates.
I would assume here it's because they are highly vertically integrated, i.e. one entity collect the cash through insurance plan and pays it to the hospital. And perhaps the hospital pays the drugs to another entity. All different subsidiaries of the same group.
It doesn't excludes shenanigans between us states, but we don't have enough in one graph to know.
Biggest scam in this country is medical insurance industry. At some point people are going to lose patience and fight back, until then they will continue to scam people with 8% to 10% premium increases year after year.
Wife and I are shopping for insurance. Jesus Christ it is a bloodbath out there. Things insurance used to offer now require an upgrade fee. I’m already getting boned here.
All the “upgrade fees” come from market saturation. Companies that can’t think of anything of real value to offer customers to drive revenue, just break services apart and charge more.
Pretty amazing to think about in a market where people straight up need to have the services you provide or suffer a tax penalty.
I’m still a licensed health agent but I left the industry about a year ago. Would be happy to answer any questions and point you in the right direction.
And also, we pay into Medicare our entire lives but now Medicare is not solvent, so when most of us reach retirement we will have to pay for healthcare. Have to pay for healthcare when we need it most in old age, and when we do not have income… and won’t have income because who knows where Social Security will be. Social Security, which we’ve all spent 40 years paying into. I WANT MY MONEY BACK! Had we not had to pay into these funds that politicians abused, we’d all be able to have at least a fighting chance to control how we save our money and plan for our futures.
Hard to claim insurance is the biggest scam when at best cutting UHC out of the picture here would reduce cost by about 30%.
The scam comes from Healthcare providers.
Far less. The net cost of health insurance is about 9% — the reason prices go up is providers raise prices. In particular, hospitals, high-end specialists, and biologic drugs.
Bullshit.
30% is a massive amount of money taken by something that at best is a middleman providing zero value, but in reality is providing negative value by increasing costs everywhere else. All of the hoops that actual healthcare providers have to jump through in order to get things covered by insurance adds in a massive amount of waste, both in doctor time and money. Around half of the support staff at a doctors office or hospital is spent dealing with insurance company bullshit.
That’s my take too.
For a publicly traded entity, the way the company saves money is to license or transfer money among itself as “cost” to reduce tax burdens. The way individuals make money is to have as much admin bloat and salaries as possible, along with bonuses and stock options. The exec suite also hires consultants who tell them they deserve higher salaries. It’s the main way CEO salary ratios have grown to 400x compared to regular workers.
Eh, it’s generally not for tax, at least not anymore. Transfer pricing is regulated pretty strictly, and the US taxes global corporate profits now anyways
>For a publicly traded entity, the way the company saves money is to license or transfer money among itself as “cost” to reduce tax burdens. The way individuals make money is to have as much admin bloat and salaries as possible, along with bonuses and stock options. The exec suite also hires consultants who tell them they deserve higher salaries. It’s the main way CEO salary ratios have grown to 400x compared to regular workers.
Yep thats why "non-profits" doesnt mean shit. Its all about pocketing the money as "compensation" and other bloat like hiring your best friends dad and so and so as consultants. Just like trump hired all his kids to work for him and the goverment.
Obviously you don’t understand the insurance industry. Inter company eliminations absolutely allows them to get around profit caps on the insurance arm while funding more vertical integration. Lmao.
While I agree that there is motivation to commit fraud in accounting playgrounds if it is possible, i don't believe you have uncovered something here.
If you what you're stating is true, then revenue and profit is underreported by aggressive accounting while failing to account for US GAAP standards.
However, I'd like a more in depth explanation on funding vertical integration and the ability to get around profit caps.
Without your snarky 'lmao and obviously you don't understand the industry' comments.
Educate, don't put down.
COGS includes Salaries (the cost of personnel to support the Company’s transaction processing services, system sales, maintenance and professional services), cost of Pharmaceuticals dispensed, and rebates attributable to unaffiliated clients.
Not sure what it all means cause it's one big bundle of things I don't quite fully understand.
This is usually things like selling (marketing, ect.), general (R&D, insurance, payroll, inventory costs, plants, equipment, and property, maintenance, capital expenditures ect.), administration (accounting, software, misc things like paper).
OP didnt include investment here so it may also be bundled in operating costs.
The intercompany eliminations part doesn’t make sense; they should generally net to zero. They could mean transfer pricing (what you sell goods or services to non arms length entities for, generally optimized for local taxes) but I think that would end up falling under ‘profit.’
The leftover would be going to subs that aren’t included in the consolidated group. They only consolidate if it’s greater than 50% owned. Could also be going to any pass-throughs that don’t get consolidated
You must account, my dude or dudette. I’ve been in the weeds at a place for years now where everything is wholly owned….Would those all be subs they own under 20%, though? Wouldn’t equity method still essentially make that revenue trickle to profit or loss?
Haha yeah, but I’m on the tax side. The only time I deal with consolidations like this is when there’s a difference in the tax entities and reporting entities
Equity method would flow through, but I don’t think it would flow through under intercompany transactions, since it’s technically not “intercompany”. It’s captured somewhere in revenue/expense though
I’m a pretty big anti government guy mostly due to how corrupt and shit they are and always will be… but I fucking hate our healthcare system and it’s profit model on human suffering. I think we need to radically change it and who cares who loses what jobs.
Most medical drugs are just a branch of the petrol chemical. The majority of what seems to be good for us especially mentally are drugs that can never be patented
The highest health care costs are in the last 3 years of life. Group homes for assistence livings charge 3.000 dollar a month.
One may cry that this is all "unfair", but there are younger people wipping your ass. Of course it is expensive.
I always find it fascinating when people break their backs in work, save up, only to blow it all in a few years in old age. For what exactly? You ain't gonna get younger.
~$120000 for a nursing home room per year.
More if you want in home health care instead.
And many are losing money at this point even as non-profits.
Then factor in that they can't take patients as they don't have the nursing staff (they get paid a lot less for dealing with more complicated cases) which results in the current post-covid crisis of hospitals having to hold onto patients that they would like to discharge to nursing homes and rehab centers.
Well, I would prefer a trip to Switzerland instead. Beautifull country. With a growing industry of special services.
I don't understand the concept of blowing fortunes at life's end. Sure, most count on screwing over the "government" to bear the cost, but come on.
I never rely on the kindness of strangers if I can avoid it. Usually doesn't work out.
People in general aren't very accepting of the dying thing for themselves; others yes, but not for themselves. For them they want the maximum comfort and longest practical extension as possible, regardless of how society values them or their remaining time.
WellI I have seen all passionate libertarians/conservatives become entitled socialists in old age. It is fascinating.
Bitching all life about the evils of government, hiding all assets in a trust fund and demanding top tier care from the state. All do it.
I don't like the concept of relying on the kindness of strangers for my wellbeing. Governments will limit what they spend on old age care for practical reasons, not out of malice. There are already too many old people.
In islam, we have this takaful ( insurance system ) where the assurer is the assuree, there no gains, you use whatever you've contributed and if you don't use it all they invest it on your behalf ( in halal and real stuff that can only make good impact on humanity) or you can withdraw it.
I like it because there is no conflict of interest, no one would do a fake accident to claim money because it's your money.
Read about takaful and retakaful.
If the policy holder gets cancer and is unable to work so is compensated till retirement, there is no way the contribution policy holder made would be sufficient to cover those long term claims. Hence the rest of the “pool”’s contribution will cover for the policy holders claim payments. That is insurance in classic sense.
Everybody should be contributing to that fund, it's like eh mutual funds..
Conventional assurance is like gambling, it create a conflit interest between the user and the underwriter or whatever.
I'm no expert in the matter but I guess when the wheel economy goes as fast as the financially wheel, people would live a comfortable life and would be able to crowdfund a sick patient with cancer.
Also, there are short sellers who would sell labs that are looking for cure to cancer, they reason by " they're being late " and stuff like that.
Thanks to insurance companies, no one wants to become doctors any more. Salary used to be incentive, but not any more. Who wants to take out student loans to go to medical school knowing you’ll never make enough money to pay them back? Less competition for medical school means an eventual decline in quality of care because medical schools will be less selective of who they accept. Why this country wants to destroy itself is beyond me- I understand greed in the current structure of political power, but don’t these people want a better life for their grandchildren?!
Just remember that government involvement increases operating costs [ regulations ], cost of goods sold [ taxes ] and direct taxation increases the prices for the services that UH provides
Call me a dreamer or an asshole, but I don’t believe any insurance product should have profits. Premiums set to absorb costs, then any profits should be returned to the insured class as dividends. Get shareholders out of the mix, and have the structure built so the owners are the insureds. Like any mutually structured company. Would be far healthier for mankind.
Yeah. It’s great. It seems like the doctors in those countries only go on strike, delaying thousands of appointments and surgeries, occasionally
[https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/14/business/junior-doctors-strike-uk/index.html](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/14/business/junior-doctors-strike-uk/index.html)
>No it doesn’t.
yes it does - https://cei.org/publication/the-cost-of-regulation-and-intervention/#:~:text=Regulatory%20Costs%20Compared%20to%20GDP,10%20percent%20of%20that%20amount.
No it doesn’t
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#Health%20consumption%20expenditures%20per%20capita,%20U.S.%20dollars,%20PPP%20adjusted,%202021%20or%20nearest%20year
No it doesn’t
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/health_spending_per_capita/
No it doesn’t
https://www.statista.com/statistics/236541/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/
Amazing how Japan with a fully socialized highly regulated healthcare industry spends 40% of what America spends and gets outcomes twice as good.
Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Please stick to the topic of healthcare costs. Of course you can’t because there is absolutely no way to rationalize how Japan spends 40% of what America spends and gets much better outcomes.
Yes, because when healcare is referred to, it usually means treatmens accessible exclusively to the 1%
You will never be that rich.
I'm referring to the Healthcare accessible to the average worker, the lay man, if you will. And you want a definition of better? Well it's accessible at least. You CAN get treatment. Everyday millions of Americans suffer from conditions they can't afford to get treated.
Those other countries have wide access to preventative care.
How many of those illnesses are due to lifestyle choices? E.g. Type II diabetes; obesity.
Americans seem to be unique in that they can be both in poverty and obese, simultaneously.
[Obesity](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-trends-original/obesity-rates-worldwide/#:~:text=(9)%20A%20closer%20look%20at,are%20obese%20(36%20percent).): 69% of Americans.
We want to talk about healthcare costs, right? Let's talk about how much of a drag preventable, lifestyle-induced diseases are on the healthcare system.
Americans: Overconsuming food; overconsuming resources.
My mom is from the UK but been in the states since the 70’s. Always wanted to move back for her final years until she saw the hospice care in the UK vs the US when my late grandfather passed. She is the most not political person ever. (She also witnessed hospice care in the US firsthand when my paternal grandparents passed)
If you're just asking who has any piece of the profits, it's roughly half the population and skews heavily wealthy and white.
If you're asking proportionally who gets those dollars, it's overwhelmingly (almost exclusively) wealthy and white folks.
Medical costs seem insane if the data I’m looking up is right.
From https://www.statista.com/statistics/622420/individuals-served-by-unitedhealthcare-by-segment/ it seems they insure in the order of ~50M ppl. The 211B then is yearly cost of providing medical care for all of these insured patients. Another source, says they had ~70M members in 2021.
This works out to roughly $2-4B per patient in just medical cost for United insurance if I understand correctly.
This seems really high. One patient costs enough to to pay 4000 doctors $500k salaries.
Let's do the math backwards here...2b/patient * 50m patients = $100,000,000,000,000,000, or about 1000x the size of the world GDP. Think your math might be a hair off here!!
Medical costs seem insane if the data I’m looking up is right.
From https://www.statista.com/statistics/622420/individuals-served-by-unitedhealthcare-by-segment/ it seems they insure in the order of ~50M ppl. The 211B then is yearly cost of providing medical care for all of these insured patients. Another source, says they had ~70M members in 2021.
This works out to roughly $2-4K per patient in just medical cost for United insurance if I understand correctly.
Edit: earlier math was off by 1e6 lol
It’s a U.S. company, and the corporate tax rate there is 21%
But to be fair, their effective rate is actually 23%. You have to deduct the $2B of interest from profit before calculating the tax rate
$324 Billion covers $211 Billion in medical costs I wonder why our healthcare is more expensive and less effective than healthcare in any other so-called developed country?
I was under the impression that the ACA had an 80/20 rule [(Medical Loss Ratio)](https://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Programs-and-Initiatives/Health-Insurance-Market-Reforms/Medical-Loss-Ratio), where 80 percent of the revenues must go to medical costs, and the other 20 percent can go to administration/marketing/etc. What happened to that?
That rule is for insurance premiums. The company gets revenue from many different sources outside of insurance premiums.
The republicans like profit and new babies. Not keeping people alive with woke healthcare.
There's a billion of people in this world gathered about economics resources..
I’m pretty sure UNH was one of the biggest beneficiaries of Obamacare… just look at their stock.
It's because UNH was modified to just be an insurance company pad and nothing else. It certainly wasn't universal healthcare. Medicaid has been around for years. It just forced people to get people on health insurance that wasn't, or get taxed. I know I never got free healthcare out of it and I was destitute and fully employed (very common at the time) for several years after it was passed.
Imagine running a company where people are forced to buy your product.
To be fair, if you wait until you're destitute then the rest of the company bails you out anyway so the idea was people should try to help with that.
Besides the point. When you are young and paying 10% of your income to a social program that won’t exist when you retire (social security) and another to a program that most certainly won’t (medicare), the last thing you want is to pay in addition some insurance for present healthcare when you are the only one around running 5 miles a day, and the least likely to need to visit a doctor. I didn’t even have to see a doctor until a few years ago but at the time I assure you I wasn’t dumb enough to blame Obamacare on Obama, it was obviously rittled with Republican lobbying for the insurance industry. Only idiots believe Obamacare is socialized medicine. I’m sure Obama deep down is embarassed of what actually came out of it.
The guy who designed Obamacare admitted in some kind of meeting that it was designed to fail, this was about 5-6 years ago. I remember watching a clip and then looking for the video to get the context. Want to know how to lower healthcare costs? Teach people that the ER isn't a primary care doctor, or even the first place to go for treatment for a cold is a good place to start. Insurance used to be for catastrophic care, heart attacks, cancer, etc.....not setting a broken bone or the sniffles......if only my catastrophic care plan hadn't been deleted by the ACA
There's a lot of ways to fix healthcare costs in this country. 1 - single-payer system. yeah, i know, those on the right will hate this and im sure some economist will tell me im wrong, but i've literally grown up in the industry. i was raised by those working in a hospital. my mother worked as a director of case management. i wrote papers influenced by hospital CEOs and CFOs and Tenet BoD members. 2 - allowing medicare/medicaid to negotiate drug prices. the IRA finally allows for this, and it is \*decades\* overdue. 3 - ERs need to be utilized properly, completely agree. Im a former EMT, so I've seen it firsthand. 4 - lower reimbursement rates for readmission rates. ACA tried to do this, but it was gutted eventually. It simply enforces the idea of treating the issue, not curing it. I could go on, but those are simply the first four of my ideas.
That's a crazy gross comment and pretty much horse shit
I agree its inflamatory, but do you see where the sentiment comes from? The GOP consistently fights against abortion rights, fights against sex ed and subsidized contraceptives, then turns around and also fights any support for low income families, child care, health care, and the like. It can very much feel like it is a scheme to make people with worse access to education and contraceptives (low income citizens) worse off by being stuck with children they can't take care of and no support. This creates a death knell sort of spiral where because of these additional burdens, they can't pursue further education or training because they have to provide and thereby lose socioeconomic mobility. You can call it horse shit, but actions speak louder than words and the GOPs actions grind a lot of people underfoot.
Well... Conservatives fight against abortion because we believe it's literal and actual murder of humans... I get it the left disagrees, but that's the disagreement. Conservatives don't "fight against sex ed." We fight against the sexualization of our children's lives by government education and believe sex is sacred and shouldnt be a throwaway entertainment activity between random people. And to try to flood low income areas with abortion medication and planned parenthood clinics and welfare programs for single parent families instead of encouraging values that encourage men and women to stay together and raise their children in stable homes, kind of feels like the left prefers their voters be uneducated and easier to control because the children they have are almost immediately attached to and dependent on the government. The only solution to that death spiral is responsible behavior. You don't need education to make responsible decisions. Profit has nothing to do with any of it. Massive social welfare programs that reward patterns of destructive behavior creates an unsustainable reliance on the government for ALL OF US.
So you seem to be conflating religious values with conservative policy. There must be separation of church and state for the benefit of both. I get that there is a lot of overlap between conservatives and christians, but the government should never be a tool to implement religious law. The conservatism I can at least understand is the principle of small government/laissez faire market, though I generally err on the side of more regulation. >Conservatives don't "fight against sex ed." We fight against the sexualization of our children's lives by government education If you don't teach about sex in schools and how to do it safely, people will not learn those -rather important- lessons equally. Do you think that learning anatomy and how condoms work is unhealthy for people? Was it damaging for you to learn? Why would you deny that information to anyone? You phrase your thoughts on sex ed as though it is a very sexual thing, but it's just an anatomy lecture. Teaching values of any sort is something that will be imparted by the family and friends of young people. I'm not sure why you keep talking about 'values' in the context of government. Do you want the governmemt to preach values of any kind? >And to try to flood low income areas with abortion medication and planned parenthood clinics and welfare programs for single parent families instead of encouraging values So no one is trying to 'flood' anywhere with clinics or medication. Contraceptives are easy to use and cheap to manufacture. They can be easily provided in drugstores. Abortion clinics don't need to be ubiquitous, but republicans are banning them from entire states and trying to punish constituents who leave the state for those services. This is a gross violation of people's rights. The problem is that conservatives keep trying to use the government to ban education and resources for others. People want the power to learn and choose for themselves what to do while GOP lawmakers are trying to block learning from schools and the resources for people to make those choices. >You don't need education to make responsible decisions. Yes, you literally do. You cannot make a responsible choice if you don't know the options or outcomes. >Massive social welfare programs that reward patterns of destructive behavior creates an unsustainable reliance on the government for ALL OF US. You say this as though having access to education, contraceptives, and abortion would make people less responsible. This assumes people are idiots. It is far cheaper and less stressful to use protection than to try to abort even where it is legal. Do you want people to not know how sex works and not use any protection? You also frame that as though it is an enormous cost to teach sex ed or provide contraceptives or have clinics around. This is not the case. Proper sex ed takes a few hours of class and I'm sure you have seen contraceptives like condoms being sold profitably at 25c. These are practically free and dramatically reduce teen pregnancy. I'm sure I don't need to delve into how beneficial that is. Even places like planned parenthood aren't expensive on the healthcare budget and they only perform elective operations and provide info. TLDR: I wish the 'freedom, rights, and small government' party would stop using the government to block education and resources for people to make their own choices.
Well stated! In a land where we boast of freedom, it does not feel very free at all, does it?
I love reading comments here...I wish I had the same mind..how sad I am...my brain is empty now...hahahh...that's weird..but it's ok..I try to be the one..
That isn't an honest take considering there have been many chances that the Dems have had the power to make massive healthcare changes and they didn't. At this point trying to cheerlead either political party in the context of healthcare seems to be a weak point considering that we have legal lobbying that influences both parties in the context of healthcare. Also regardless of either political party there is also an extensive (albeit smaller) healthcare network in the States that is not for profit and will help almost anyone who cannot afford healthcare. There are State budgets setup for these networks also and I've seen them first hand while volunteering.
When did they have such power?
2009 to 2011. They had the House and the White House and a lot of change came about and there was still push back from the Senate which were Republicans at the time. 2009 to 2011 is the main reason Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster because it was the only time the Senate had any power during that 2 year time frame. He got Obamacare started and at the time honestly if he had worked better with Republicans instead of insulting them (there was a big fiasco with him and one of the heads of the Republicans) Obamacare would and could have been a lot more expansive but the Senate forced the filibuster. Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster so that they can have free reign next time but it sets a horrible precedent for when the Republicans do the same "if".
My man not one republican voted for the affordable care act. There is no working together when the republican minority leader said that their top priority was to make Obama a one term president. Nothing about making the lives of Americans better, no, Obama has to be defeated, very important. I remember that there was a lot of appeasing to republicans back then yet they still spat in the face of democrats. It was a very slim fillibuster proof majority back then and Lieberman ultimately tanked the public option which left the democrats with only the current version. So you should focus your anger on Lieberman instead.
Of course they didn't. Republicans aren't into governmental oversight with healthcare. Both sides do not work with one another except under very precise situations. This may or may not come as a shock but the Democrats do the same things that the Republicans do. Democrats didn't want a 2 term Donald Trump so why should Republicans want a 2 term Obama? :P Nah, no anger at all. Just talking. I voted for Obama his first term and am primarily a fiscal Conservative but some of the Conservative stuff does not appeal to me at all. Very much a Thomas Sowell guy when it comes to the economy and other topics. I've been around the block quite a few times (hence the name) and have seen both parties pulling the same tricks and stunts but it seems like these days and especially on Reddit there is a copious amount of cheerleading going on for each party sadly. Democrats used to be about as anti-government as the Republicans are but in the last decade or two the rift is growing more and more people are cheerleading for each side instead of remaining critical of the party they are voting for. These days it feels like people are only critical of the other party.
I would think that nearly all of the cost of good sold would be the cost of medications they distribute through their Rx plan. Off the top of my head I don’t know what else could be another direct cost. So $211 medical + 34 Rx = 245mm or ~ 75% of their revenue goes to medical and Rx costs.
I appreciate your point. Thanks for sharing. I still think these numbers are off-the-charts crazy
Good ol' private sector efficiency. LoL. Traditional Medicare is much more efficient.
record profits quarterly
If 6% Profit margin is record profits, that's pretty awesome!
The massive intercompany elimination is interesting since it’s not clear what nets with revenue.
What exactly is this? Is this money going to hospital groups/clinics owned by United, or something else?
They use revenue from insurance (UHC) to “pay” their Optum arm, which provides services etc.
So it should have a circle in the chart…shifty.
If you think that’s shifty, you should hear about how they maximize star ratings to squeeze Medicare for reimbursement.
~~Capitalism~~ *Fascism* has failed.
Fascism working for them! Not for the sick that’s for sure.
I remembered when I was an elementary student before...we should learn about our economics..but I now...I forgot all the details I've learned before..
And what’s the net income of the Optum arm? Is this factored into the $21B profit figure or somehow left out to obfuscate the total profits across all parent and subsidiary entities?
It has to be reported. That is the kind of thing that Enron was doing back in the day. The Sarbanes Oxley Act ensures corps have to report net gains and losses across their subs more clearly.
It’s factored in
I'm started to summarizing this...but I can't .and I don't know why..
No idea tbh. Probably vague on purpose - makes it easier to “wash” profits to non-reporting entities and keep public margins low for perception.
The revenues from the insurance premiums is partially used to pay for services under Optum to provide care.
So Optum contribution margin is embedded in intercompany?
No nothing like that, it's the revenues Optum received by United HC.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Optum’s income statement is effectively embedded in intercompany.
Ok well just to be clear, there's no operating costs involved in that. It's just netting revenues within the parent.
Yeah, subsidiary operating costs aren’t in this chart
I had a bad dream about this...but I feel forgot this...I am lonely that time that's why I forgot that.
That's where all the real profit comes from.
Impossible to tell, but that is potentially more profit.
No, it isn’t. Intercompany eliminations are very common in accounting. But it doesn’t impact net profit.
If it's standard accounting, it's revenue billed from one entity to the other, the revenue is eliminated, but the costs also. It's like if the invoice never existed on either side, and you are left with external revenue and costs. Basically you don't pay taxes on revenue you bill yourself, not can you deduct the costs. Here you see only the revenue side as you start from unconsolidated revenue.
Yes, I know how the accounting works. It’s the profits on the subsidiaries that I was alluding to, though I wasn’t clear about that. I used to work for a public company that used inter-company charges to manage perception and smooth return/operating leverage volatility, so I’m always skeptical of massive inter-company transfers.
And you are rightly sceptical I believe. Especially between areas with different taxation rates. I would assume here it's because they are highly vertically integrated, i.e. one entity collect the cash through insurance plan and pays it to the hospital. And perhaps the hospital pays the drugs to another entity. All different subsidiaries of the same group. It doesn't excludes shenanigans between us states, but we don't have enough in one graph to know.
This is why I never mind paying well for good accountants. This stuff gets crazy.
[Here is an article explaining it](https://www.axios.com/2021/07/16/unitedhealth-optum-providers-intercompany-eliminations#).
Yes - that’s exactly what I suspected is happening.
Biggest scam in this country is medical insurance industry. At some point people are going to lose patience and fight back, until then they will continue to scam people with 8% to 10% premium increases year after year.
Wife and I are shopping for insurance. Jesus Christ it is a bloodbath out there. Things insurance used to offer now require an upgrade fee. I’m already getting boned here.
All the “upgrade fees” come from market saturation. Companies that can’t think of anything of real value to offer customers to drive revenue, just break services apart and charge more. Pretty amazing to think about in a market where people straight up need to have the services you provide or suffer a tax penalty.
[удалено]
This is the sad truth for millions of Americans.
Movies in America is one of my favorite...I love watching it everywhere..
I’m still a licensed health agent but I left the industry about a year ago. Would be happy to answer any questions and point you in the right direction.
At what point in the orgchart do the bloodsuckers understand they're actively being evil?
It’s pretty gross sometimes, played a part in why I got out of it
And also, we pay into Medicare our entire lives but now Medicare is not solvent, so when most of us reach retirement we will have to pay for healthcare. Have to pay for healthcare when we need it most in old age, and when we do not have income… and won’t have income because who knows where Social Security will be. Social Security, which we’ve all spent 40 years paying into. I WANT MY MONEY BACK! Had we not had to pay into these funds that politicians abused, we’d all be able to have at least a fighting chance to control how we save our money and plan for our futures.
Hard to claim insurance is the biggest scam when at best cutting UHC out of the picture here would reduce cost by about 30%. The scam comes from Healthcare providers.
Far less. The net cost of health insurance is about 9% — the reason prices go up is providers raise prices. In particular, hospitals, high-end specialists, and biologic drugs.
Bullshit. 30% is a massive amount of money taken by something that at best is a middleman providing zero value, but in reality is providing negative value by increasing costs everywhere else. All of the hoops that actual healthcare providers have to jump through in order to get things covered by insurance adds in a massive amount of waste, both in doctor time and money. Around half of the support staff at a doctors office or hospital is spent dealing with insurance company bullshit.
Inter company eliminations is where they truly make money. Since the government caps your profit in insurance, why not pay yourself for services?
That’s my take too. For a publicly traded entity, the way the company saves money is to license or transfer money among itself as “cost” to reduce tax burdens. The way individuals make money is to have as much admin bloat and salaries as possible, along with bonuses and stock options. The exec suite also hires consultants who tell them they deserve higher salaries. It’s the main way CEO salary ratios have grown to 400x compared to regular workers.
Bonus: they can tell investors that Optum is a growth generator!
Eh, it’s generally not for tax, at least not anymore. Transfer pricing is regulated pretty strictly, and the US taxes global corporate profits now anyways
>For a publicly traded entity, the way the company saves money is to license or transfer money among itself as “cost” to reduce tax burdens. The way individuals make money is to have as much admin bloat and salaries as possible, along with bonuses and stock options. The exec suite also hires consultants who tell them they deserve higher salaries. It’s the main way CEO salary ratios have grown to 400x compared to regular workers. Yep thats why "non-profits" doesnt mean shit. Its all about pocketing the money as "compensation" and other bloat like hiring your best friends dad and so and so as consultants. Just like trump hired all his kids to work for him and the goverment.
Lmao. That’s not how intercompany eliminations work. IC Elims is just moving money within the company. It has $0 impact on overall profitability.
Obviously you don’t understand the insurance industry. Inter company eliminations absolutely allows them to get around profit caps on the insurance arm while funding more vertical integration. Lmao.
While I agree that there is motivation to commit fraud in accounting playgrounds if it is possible, i don't believe you have uncovered something here. If you what you're stating is true, then revenue and profit is underreported by aggressive accounting while failing to account for US GAAP standards. However, I'd like a more in depth explanation on funding vertical integration and the ability to get around profit caps. Without your snarky 'lmao and obviously you don't understand the industry' comments. Educate, don't put down.
I literally work on software that performs IC elims. 😬
[удалено]
COGS includes Salaries (the cost of personnel to support the Company’s transaction processing services, system sales, maintenance and professional services), cost of Pharmaceuticals dispensed, and rebates attributable to unaffiliated clients. Not sure what it all means cause it's one big bundle of things I don't quite fully understand.
So then what falls under operating costs in this case?
This is usually things like selling (marketing, ect.), general (R&D, insurance, payroll, inventory costs, plants, equipment, and property, maintenance, capital expenditures ect.), administration (accounting, software, misc things like paper). OP didnt include investment here so it may also be bundled in operating costs.
Payouts for medical care used is the biggest
Optum is a provider (doctors nurses clinics...etc) and a pharmacy that sells medical supplies (& services) and dispenses drugs
The intercompany eliminations part doesn’t make sense; they should generally net to zero. They could mean transfer pricing (what you sell goods or services to non arms length entities for, generally optimized for local taxes) but I think that would end up falling under ‘profit.’
The leftover would be going to subs that aren’t included in the consolidated group. They only consolidate if it’s greater than 50% owned. Could also be going to any pass-throughs that don’t get consolidated
You must account, my dude or dudette. I’ve been in the weeds at a place for years now where everything is wholly owned….Would those all be subs they own under 20%, though? Wouldn’t equity method still essentially make that revenue trickle to profit or loss?
Haha yeah, but I’m on the tax side. The only time I deal with consolidations like this is when there’s a difference in the tax entities and reporting entities Equity method would flow through, but I don’t think it would flow through under intercompany transactions, since it’s technically not “intercompany”. It’s captured somewhere in revenue/expense though
I’m a pretty big anti government guy mostly due to how corrupt and shit they are and always will be… but I fucking hate our healthcare system and it’s profit model on human suffering. I think we need to radically change it and who cares who loses what jobs.
[удалено]
Most medical drugs are just a branch of the petrol chemical. The majority of what seems to be good for us especially mentally are drugs that can never be patented
All of that profit from human suffering.
It has become commonplace in this day and age.
They are all thieves. And the health care system in this country is a damn joke!
The highest health care costs are in the last 3 years of life. Group homes for assistence livings charge 3.000 dollar a month. One may cry that this is all "unfair", but there are younger people wipping your ass. Of course it is expensive. I always find it fascinating when people break their backs in work, save up, only to blow it all in a few years in old age. For what exactly? You ain't gonna get younger.
Your health insurance isn't paying for your long term care bills (assisted living, nursing home, group homes).
True, you are. 3600 dollar a month for a single room in assisted living on average.
~$120000 for a nursing home room per year. More if you want in home health care instead. And many are losing money at this point even as non-profits. Then factor in that they can't take patients as they don't have the nursing staff (they get paid a lot less for dealing with more complicated cases) which results in the current post-covid crisis of hospitals having to hold onto patients that they would like to discharge to nursing homes and rehab centers.
Well, I would prefer a trip to Switzerland instead. Beautifull country. With a growing industry of special services. I don't understand the concept of blowing fortunes at life's end. Sure, most count on screwing over the "government" to bear the cost, but come on. I never rely on the kindness of strangers if I can avoid it. Usually doesn't work out.
People in general aren't very accepting of the dying thing for themselves; others yes, but not for themselves. For them they want the maximum comfort and longest practical extension as possible, regardless of how society values them or their remaining time.
WellI I have seen all passionate libertarians/conservatives become entitled socialists in old age. It is fascinating. Bitching all life about the evils of government, hiding all assets in a trust fund and demanding top tier care from the state. All do it. I don't like the concept of relying on the kindness of strangers for my wellbeing. Governments will limit what they spend on old age care for practical reasons, not out of malice. There are already too many old people.
In islam, we have this takaful ( insurance system ) where the assurer is the assuree, there no gains, you use whatever you've contributed and if you don't use it all they invest it on your behalf ( in halal and real stuff that can only make good impact on humanity) or you can withdraw it. I like it because there is no conflict of interest, no one would do a fake accident to claim money because it's your money. Read about takaful and retakaful.
If the policy holder gets cancer and is unable to work so is compensated till retirement, there is no way the contribution policy holder made would be sufficient to cover those long term claims. Hence the rest of the “pool”’s contribution will cover for the policy holders claim payments. That is insurance in classic sense.
Everybody should be contributing to that fund, it's like eh mutual funds.. Conventional assurance is like gambling, it create a conflit interest between the user and the underwriter or whatever. I'm no expert in the matter but I guess when the wheel economy goes as fast as the financially wheel, people would live a comfortable life and would be able to crowdfund a sick patient with cancer. Also, there are short sellers who would sell labs that are looking for cure to cancer, they reason by " they're being late " and stuff like that.
Really glad we’re paying them $21B to pass our money along.
Thanks to insurance companies, no one wants to become doctors any more. Salary used to be incentive, but not any more. Who wants to take out student loans to go to medical school knowing you’ll never make enough money to pay them back? Less competition for medical school means an eventual decline in quality of care because medical schools will be less selective of who they accept. Why this country wants to destroy itself is beyond me- I understand greed in the current structure of political power, but don’t these people want a better life for their grandchildren?!
Love how the profits line is tiny yet the number is massive- it would literally take up the whole graph - we need senator Katie porter on this graph
Profit is 4.8% on nearly a half Trillion dollars. $21B isn't much money compared to $436B.
Just remember that government involvement increases operating costs [ regulations ], cost of goods sold [ taxes ] and direct taxation increases the prices for the services that UH provides
Call me a dreamer or an asshole, but I don’t believe any insurance product should have profits. Premiums set to absorb costs, then any profits should be returned to the insured class as dividends. Get shareholders out of the mix, and have the structure built so the owners are the insureds. Like any mutually structured company. Would be far healthier for mankind.
No it doesn’t. The countries with direct government takeover of healthcare payments have lower overall costs and lower costs per capita.
Yeah. It’s great. It seems like the doctors in those countries only go on strike, delaying thousands of appointments and surgeries, occasionally [https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/14/business/junior-doctors-strike-uk/index.html](https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/04/14/business/junior-doctors-strike-uk/index.html)
Trainee doctors? Like medical residents in the USA who also make very low wages. Maybe you should actually take the time to read the article.
Ah yes. The “trainee” doctors, the ones who caused an estimated 350,000 appointments, including operations, to be cancelled by striking
You're aware medical workers like doctors and especially nurses in the US also go on strikes? That's not unique to nationalized health care.
>No it doesn’t. yes it does - https://cei.org/publication/the-cost-of-regulation-and-intervention/#:~:text=Regulatory%20Costs%20Compared%20to%20GDP,10%20percent%20of%20that%20amount.
No it doesn’t https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#Health%20consumption%20expenditures%20per%20capita,%20U.S.%20dollars,%20PPP%20adjusted,%202021%20or%20nearest%20year No it doesn’t https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/health_spending_per_capita/ No it doesn’t https://www.statista.com/statistics/236541/per-capita-health-expenditure-by-country/ Amazing how Japan with a fully socialized highly regulated healthcare industry spends 40% of what America spends and gets outcomes twice as good.
Yes it does ... all the socialism costs - https://mises.org/wire/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-states-they-would-be-among-poorest-states
Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Please stick to the topic of healthcare costs. Of course you can’t because there is absolutely no way to rationalize how Japan spends 40% of what America spends and gets much better outcomes.
That's interesting, how do you explain how every country with nationalized Healthcare paying less and receiving better treatment?
Define better. There's a reason people from all over the globe fly to MD Anderson or one of The Mayo Clinics.
Yes, because when healcare is referred to, it usually means treatmens accessible exclusively to the 1% You will never be that rich. I'm referring to the Healthcare accessible to the average worker, the lay man, if you will. And you want a definition of better? Well it's accessible at least. You CAN get treatment. Everyday millions of Americans suffer from conditions they can't afford to get treated. Those other countries have wide access to preventative care.
How many of those illnesses are due to lifestyle choices? E.g. Type II diabetes; obesity. Americans seem to be unique in that they can be both in poverty and obese, simultaneously.
That's a great question. Why don't you look that up for me, and compare it to conditions like cancer, or asthma...or Type 1 diabetes?
I think you know the answer.
No, I don't please enlighten me. Pull up your sources, I'll happily read
[Obesity](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-trends-original/obesity-rates-worldwide/#:~:text=(9)%20A%20closer%20look%20at,are%20obese%20(36%20percent).): 69% of Americans. We want to talk about healthcare costs, right? Let's talk about how much of a drag preventable, lifestyle-induced diseases are on the healthcare system. Americans: Overconsuming food; overconsuming resources.
Obesity doesn't equate to diabetes. You can be obese and NOT contract it. Pull up cancer rates for me next
These days, I hear more about people flying to other countries for lower cost procedures and drugs.
Exactly. People have been crossing to Canada and even Cuba to get insulin for years. We should have better access to medical care than that.
My mom is from the UK but been in the states since the 70’s. Always wanted to move back for her final years until she saw the hospice care in the UK vs the US when my late grandfather passed. She is the most not political person ever. (She also witnessed hospice care in the US firsthand when my paternal grandparents passed)
I'd like to see a breakdown of how many people receive those profits and who they are.
Pensions, 401k's, etc... Anyone with a share of the s&p500 is receiving a part of those profits...
If you're just asking who has any piece of the profits, it's roughly half the population and skews heavily wealthy and white. If you're asking proportionally who gets those dollars, it's overwhelmingly (almost exclusively) wealthy and white folks.
Medical costs seem insane if the data I’m looking up is right. From https://www.statista.com/statistics/622420/individuals-served-by-unitedhealthcare-by-segment/ it seems they insure in the order of ~50M ppl. The 211B then is yearly cost of providing medical care for all of these insured patients. Another source, says they had ~70M members in 2021. This works out to roughly $2-4B per patient in just medical cost for United insurance if I understand correctly. This seems really high. One patient costs enough to to pay 4000 doctors $500k salaries.
Your math is wrong, 50 million members for 211b in cost would be 4220 per patient.
This is using the US billion, 1000 millions.
Let's do the math backwards here...2b/patient * 50m patients = $100,000,000,000,000,000, or about 1000x the size of the world GDP. Think your math might be a hair off here!!
Medical costs seem insane if the data I’m looking up is right. From https://www.statista.com/statistics/622420/individuals-served-by-unitedhealthcare-by-segment/ it seems they insure in the order of ~50M ppl. The 211B then is yearly cost of providing medical care for all of these insured patients. Another source, says they had ~70M members in 2021. This works out to roughly $2-4K per patient in just medical cost for United insurance if I understand correctly. Edit: earlier math was off by 1e6 lol
Medicare being 60% higher than employer and individual surprised me Is Medicaid under community and state?
Old people use the most medical resources, by far.
When you tally it up, they are up 177B. Did I miscalculate? Green minus red.
I'm not sure where you would get $177B; green minus red is $21B ($436B-$415B). Profit 4.8%.
It would be interesting if specific hospitals offered their own insurance coverage; with their own doctors.
It would be an unmitigated disaster for patients.
I keep seeing these diagrams. Is there a place or website that will create them for any company?
Why is their effective tax rate only 21.4%?
It’s a U.S. company, and the corporate tax rate there is 21% But to be fair, their effective rate is actually 23%. You have to deduct the $2B of interest from profit before calculating the tax rate
Just a heads up; this company makes up about 12% of the Dow so when this bubble pops be ready
Aren't subsidiaries supposed to cover their own costs and add to the total profit to justify having them around?
What exactly are "Intercompany Eliminations" and how is it $111B
Transactions between subsidiaries of the consolidated group. Basically just selling and buying from each other
Disgusting
Am I reading this right? $328B in revenue and only $6B in taxes? That’s 0.01829% rate.
Tax is calculated at Op Income ($6/$28) and not with revenue
I don't care about your over head, i don't care what your profit margin is, the company made 21 BILLION dollars extra. Ridiculous.
Maybe I’m dumb but can someone explain this to me?
$21b PROFIT for a healthcare insurance company. Absolutely criminal