The Sunlight Report on UnitedHealth Group is a first-of-its-kind look at the nearly 2,700 subsidiaries that make up UnitedHealth Group, the largest health care conglomerate in the world.
An excellent report. I appreciate the invitation to read the full result in the Sunlight report, and to provide my opinion of its content, but realistically I am neither qualified to interpret the figures and charts found therein, or have the time to do so. What I would appreciate instead, is some guidance on how to go about raising this issue to the correct decision makers in government and to elected officials at both the state and federal level demanding action. That I can do.
Thank you for another excellent article. I was proud to see you in Washington yesterday, standing with the Legislators and activists at the introduction of SBUHCA, State Based Universal Health Care Act. Your support to individual states such as my own Colorado in addition to national efforts makes a difference, and we are grateful. You spoke at our Colorado Foundation for Universal Health Care conference in June, and I look forward to hearing you at the One Payer State conference in Denver in August.
“... any transaction that could be considered 'material to earnings'.”
That would be ALL transactions. Every single one of them is "material to earnings" just as every straw is material to the load on a camel's back. The straw that breaks the camel's back is no more and no less significant (material) than any other straw – it is simply one more of many that ultimately became too many.
The acquisition transaction that is one too many could be absolutely any transaction on the list ... if it came last on the list. To think otherwise is to assume (erroneously) that the order in which the transactions happen is of greater significance than the cumulative effects of each and every one of the transactions.
Great breakdown of the report. I just wrote up an article on the antitrust approach to UHG; how they won when acquiring Change Healthcare, and how they might not with Amedisys.
Curious what you think the best strategy is for breaking up UHG?
Did you hear about the UHG nursing home scandal? If people have loved ones in long term care, or doctors that are employed by Optum, or insurance through United, antitrust helps protect their ability to actually receive the healthcare they pay for.
60-70% of the people want universal healthcare. This video shows how: Put the market on the SUPPLY side & and put single-payer M4A on the DEMAND side. If Democrats learn to talk both social AND market principles, they will win elections. Democratic candidates should watch the full playlist, called "New Addition to Economics."
TAXES--Assume that the 29.8% average U.S. tax rate already includes FICA. Add the total contribution (employee + employer) to PRIVATE healthcare premiums as a percentage of income (around 14%? in 2020) plus average deductibles (4.7%). That gives the U.S. somewhere around 48.5% average fed. tax rate including all healthcare, the highest rate in the chart. That may be a little high; let's split the difference and make it 40%.
I don't know what the population size has to do with it. Larger numbers should engage larger economies of scale, in innovation, and in the risk pool.
GUARDRAILS--U.S. currently has a situation in which guardrails were hammered out, yet currently private health insurance is rife with rent-seeking and market failure, including capture of government. This is Wall Street's endemic culture. There is little reason to believe that anything but a clean break will fix this.
Another question: What value-added does private health insurance bring to the healthcare itself?
Please provide a link to the source of your list of tax rates.
Taxes are often reduced. Assertions to the contrary ignore history (even absent the current OBBB travesty).
There are multiple and interconnected economies of scale to be found in: 1. Reduced healthcare administrative costs. 2. Reduced costs for marketing of supply innovations, thus reducing costs of care per person. 3. Keeping more people healthy, learning, growing and working, thus increasing economic growth. 4. Easier and cheaper business start-ups, thus increasing economic growth. 5. Making U.S. labor costs more competitive in world markets, thus increasing production for export. 6. Reduced individual time, attention and transaction costs in dealing with healthcare and insurance issues.
Thus, boomers would benefit LEAST from universal healthcare: they are already retired, already covered.
Of COURSE the risk pool concept exists in public insurance. You just don't need to hedge bets. The larger the risk pool, the further risk is spread, reducing costs for individuals including chronic illness or personal catastrophe, at whatever age.
What is the logic behind your assertion that reducing the size of payors will decrease their rent-seeking? You have to explain logically how your guardrails will work, not just hand-waving that guardrails will suddenly be found (perhaps against historical evidence and political reality).
And please answer the question: What "value-added" does private health insurance add to healthcare? What are you paying the extra money FOR?
Yes, but UnitedHealth is FOR PROFIT rather than NOT FOR PROFIT. A federal single-payer system would effectively be not for profit which means our premiums would go towards actual health care costs plus administrative costs. Premiums would not go to shareholders and a highly paid CEO and upper management, so overall costs could be lower.
An excellent report. I appreciate the invitation to read the full result in the Sunlight report, and to provide my opinion of its content, but realistically I am neither qualified to interpret the figures and charts found therein, or have the time to do so. What I would appreciate instead, is some guidance on how to go about raising this issue to the correct decision makers in government and to elected officials at both the state and federal level demanding action. That I can do.
Has UnitedHealthgroup acquired the Sun yet?
We deserve a national healthcare system that covers total cost of all medical necessities for all U.S. residents for life
Thank you for another excellent article. I was proud to see you in Washington yesterday, standing with the Legislators and activists at the introduction of SBUHCA, State Based Universal Health Care Act. Your support to individual states such as my own Colorado in addition to national efforts makes a difference, and we are grateful. You spoke at our Colorado Foundation for Universal Health Care conference in June, and I look forward to hearing you at the One Payer State conference in Denver in August.
Excellent and detailed article. I appreciate your knowledge and commitment to making public healthcare available to all of us.
“... any transaction that could be considered 'material to earnings'.”
That would be ALL transactions. Every single one of them is "material to earnings" just as every straw is material to the load on a camel's back. The straw that breaks the camel's back is no more and no less significant (material) than any other straw – it is simply one more of many that ultimately became too many.
The acquisition transaction that is one too many could be absolutely any transaction on the list ... if it came last on the list. To think otherwise is to assume (erroneously) that the order in which the transactions happen is of greater significance than the cumulative effects of each and every one of the transactions.
The Truth Must Be Shared!
Great breakdown of the report. I just wrote up an article on the antitrust approach to UHG; how they won when acquiring Change Healthcare, and how they might not with Amedisys.
Curious what you think the best strategy is for breaking up UHG?
How does anti-trust and conflict of interests help the masses with the current Republican potus
Did you hear about the UHG nursing home scandal? If people have loved ones in long term care, or doctors that are employed by Optum, or insurance through United, antitrust helps protect their ability to actually receive the healthcare they pay for.
One thing to learn is that if someone is lying to another, they are lying to you.
60-70% of the people want universal healthcare. This video shows how: Put the market on the SUPPLY side & and put single-payer M4A on the DEMAND side. If Democrats learn to talk both social AND market principles, they will win elections. Democratic candidates should watch the full playlist, called "New Addition to Economics."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-3CSl7yo_I
TAXES--Assume that the 29.8% average U.S. tax rate already includes FICA. Add the total contribution (employee + employer) to PRIVATE healthcare premiums as a percentage of income (around 14%? in 2020) plus average deductibles (4.7%). That gives the U.S. somewhere around 48.5% average fed. tax rate including all healthcare, the highest rate in the chart. That may be a little high; let's split the difference and make it 40%.
I don't know what the population size has to do with it. Larger numbers should engage larger economies of scale, in innovation, and in the risk pool.
GUARDRAILS--U.S. currently has a situation in which guardrails were hammered out, yet currently private health insurance is rife with rent-seeking and market failure, including capture of government. This is Wall Street's endemic culture. There is little reason to believe that anything but a clean break will fix this.
Another question: What value-added does private health insurance bring to the healthcare itself?
Please provide a link to the source of your list of tax rates.
Taxes are often reduced. Assertions to the contrary ignore history (even absent the current OBBB travesty).
There are multiple and interconnected economies of scale to be found in: 1. Reduced healthcare administrative costs. 2. Reduced costs for marketing of supply innovations, thus reducing costs of care per person. 3. Keeping more people healthy, learning, growing and working, thus increasing economic growth. 4. Easier and cheaper business start-ups, thus increasing economic growth. 5. Making U.S. labor costs more competitive in world markets, thus increasing production for export. 6. Reduced individual time, attention and transaction costs in dealing with healthcare and insurance issues.
Thus, boomers would benefit LEAST from universal healthcare: they are already retired, already covered.
Of COURSE the risk pool concept exists in public insurance. You just don't need to hedge bets. The larger the risk pool, the further risk is spread, reducing costs for individuals including chronic illness or personal catastrophe, at whatever age.
What is the logic behind your assertion that reducing the size of payors will decrease their rent-seeking? You have to explain logically how your guardrails will work, not just hand-waving that guardrails will suddenly be found (perhaps against historical evidence and political reality).
And please answer the question: What "value-added" does private health insurance add to healthcare? What are you paying the extra money FOR?
Why would a single payer have inevitable and growing tax hikes and inequities?
And how will you ensure that better guardrails for non-governmental care are followed?
Yes, but UnitedHealth is FOR PROFIT rather than NOT FOR PROFIT. A federal single-payer system would effectively be not for profit which means our premiums would go towards actual health care costs plus administrative costs. Premiums would not go to shareholders and a highly paid CEO and upper management, so overall costs could be lower.