Obamacare Update

Profits earned were earned in the past.

The past being the past 12 months. What's your explanation for their profit growth while being submersed knee deep in Obamacare?

20% profit growth is a path towards bankruptcy ? That's carelessly desperate even for you.

Revenue grew 20%. Revenue is not profit, which only grew 3.6%. Increased losses in obamacare would have eventually eliminated profits from the other business operations.

Without doing research, I would assume that it's because 90% of their business is outside of Obamacare. Soon 100% of their business will be outside of Obamacare, and I'm certain that stockholders will be happy about that.

I've heard some on this site make comments such as the "corporation made $100 billion", as they referred to revenue. At the time, I argued that profits, not revenue refer to how much a company "makes". I was scolded as silly.

I'm guessing when these same guys hit an Easter Holiday sale, they talk about how much money they saved. Possibly a better analogy is the girl who comes home from Vegas, claiming to have won $1000..............only to find out later that the girls net gambling situation was minus $500, yet she did win a $1000 pull on the slots.

The Company explains why it is exiting the Obamacare Market:
"The country's largest insurer will pare its presence from 34 states currently to ;only a handful' in 2017, says CEO Stephen Hemsley, speaking on the earnings call (transcript). '[The] smaller overall market size and shorter-term, higher-risk profile within this market segment continue to suggest we cannot broadly serve it on an effective and sustained basis.'
The company now expects to lose $650M on its 2016 exchange business vs. earlier guidance of $525M."
Ref: seekingalpha

DonDiego wonders how big a loss UnitedHealth should've eaten to satisfy the advocates of Obamacare, . . . especially given the projections of Obamacare advocates that the business in Obamacare exchanges would be profitable.
And for how long the Company should've endured losses.

And DonDiego wonders what solution those advocates of Obamacare propose.
Maybe, a complete takeover of the healthcare system by the Government? Luckily there is a precedent against which to compare the likely results of such a course of action, . . . the Veterans Administration Hospitals.
Hmm, . . . monopolies, especially Government monopolies, seldom result in efficient productive enterprises.

I'm certain that some would suggest that they eat their "fair share".

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Boilerman
I'm certain that some would suggest that they eat their "fair share". Understand, that "fair share" always increases.

Advocates of Obamacare typically argue that it's not the health insurance reform they really wanted, but it's better than what we had. Their preference is for socialized Health Insurance like Canada, not a government take over of the healthcare system like the UK. Instead of pointing to the Veterans Administration Hospitals, they will point to Medicare for everyone as the likely result of such a course of action.