After Billions of $$$ to Stockholders, UnitedHealth Claims Poverty Due To Obamacare

[Omaha Steve]

http://nhlabornews.com/2015/11/billion-to-stockholders-why-blame-obamacare/

By Liz Iacobucci | November 20, 2015 | Economy

Yesterday’s 24/7WallSt article about UnitedHealth said that an “earnings warning” issued by the corporation “could be a serious blow to at least part of ACA/Obamacare.”

UnitedHealth’s latest advice to investors is that the corporation now expects slightly lower 2015 profits. (Can’t help noticing: that recalculation includes a write-off of “$275 million related to the advance recognition of 2016 losses.” Nevermind that we haven’t actually gotten to 2016 yet; UnitedHealth is already calculating losses.)

Apparently, that press release was worth the headline “UnitedHealth Warning Creates Huge Spillover, With Big Implications Ahead.”

Just a month ago, 27/7WallSt was writing happier news about UnitedHealth. Quarterly earnings per share were better than expected, and better than 2014. Premiums were up 9.87% over last year. The company was adding about 100,000 new subscribers a month (1.7 million new people a year). And for the first three quarters of 2015, things were so rosy that UnitedHealth spent $1.1 billion buying back its own stock.

FULL story at link.

About Liz Iacobucci
Liz Iacobucci is the former Public Information Officer for the State Employees’ Association of New Hampshire, SEIU Local 1984. Over the past three decades, she has served in government at the federal, state and municipal levels; and she has worked for both Democratic and Republican politicians.

[DJ13]

1. Pure f'kin greed and opportunism

How many of us here on DU tried to point out that Obama was being foolish thinking he could trust the insurance industry ib setting up Obamacare?

[Stargazer99]

2. The American people need to get some balls and get rid of the insurance companys and pharma

and model after Europe

[global1]

3. Isn't United Healthcare The Insurance Company Of The AARP?.....

I wonder how Seniors will take this news?

[snot]

4. The fatal flaw:

So policies qualify for subsidies only if they meet certain minimum requirements; fine. But why not require insurers to accept subsidies on ALL policies that DO meet the minimum requirements?

E.g., why allow insurers to offer better policies through employers than they do to individuals?

Right now, insurers are withdrawing all but HMO and other minimal policies from the Marketplace. This means, anyone who, with the help of the subsidy, might otherwise need or want higher-quality policies, can't get them.

My own household will have to switch to a policy covering NONE of the docs we've seen for various conditions over the decades.

Sorry if this is off-topic; but this is upsetting.