Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

haele

(13,715 posts)
40. My FIL was a VP at several insuance companies...
Mon May 16, 2016, 04:32 PM
May 2016

At each company except for USAA, he was informed by the boards and the CEOs that as an executive strategist and decision maker, he had to keep in mind his most important customer was - the shareholder. Not the customers who bought policies, as their money just went into the investment side of the house to attract more money. He was told point blank at Blue Cross that the policy owners are a loss-leader to attract investors - especially fund investing. If they had too many claims on the "costs" side of the ledger, they were far less attractive. The strategy to keep money coming in was that the company had to maintain a dis-incentive for policy owners to make claims.

The most important thing that any for-profit insurance company had to do was maintain fiduciary responsibilities.
Because they had to make an attractive enough profit to keep paying the shareholders so they would maintain the company on their investment portfolios.

He worked for Blue Cross/Blue Shield for six months and at Traveler's for a year, until he parlayed that experience plus his military rank into a position at USAA, where he stayed for 25 years, because of the construct of USAA which considered the cost of doing business part of the fiduciary responsibilities to the policy holders. They built their company with the understanding that they were going to have to pay out on claims, so maybe they wouldn't be as profitable as a "prove you weren't at fault before we pay you" insurance company.

When it comes to a "for profit" insurance plan, it doesn't matter what the CEO makes or actual claim costs are, it matters what the ROI is to the shareholders.

Haele

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

um, pharma price gouging? AgerolanAmerican May 2016 #1
um not at all hill2016 May 2016 #4
Most of it goes to pmorlan1 May 2016 #18
'Insurance' itself not viable, sounds like. elleng May 2016 #2
+1. Why are they in the middle of this anyway? nt bemildred May 2016 #21
Screw the insurance companies, they've screwed the people long enough anyway. If they are shraby May 2016 #3
well hill2016 May 2016 #5
Any CEO salary cuts? Downwinder May 2016 #6
No they get a raise Txbluedog May 2016 #8
Humana has 20 million memebers Travis_0004 May 2016 #24
They were represented at the table when the deal was cut. Downwinder May 2016 #25
But does an insurance CEO earn his money My Good Babushka May 2016 #27
AHIP Lobbyist? pmorlan1 May 2016 #17
My FIL was a VP at several insuance companies... haele May 2016 #40
Let them all go out of business and force Medicare for Lint Head May 2016 #7
Let them all go out of business TexasTowelie May 2016 #34
For-profit insurance is not viable in the area of health care. truebluegreen May 2016 #9
Exactly. silverweb May 2016 #13
+1 leeroysphitz May 2016 #31
In the last three months 1939 May 2016 #36
That is what I said: the insurance model is not sustainable. truebluegreen May 2016 #37
Which states are some of them exiting from? My suspicion is those states that never expanded still_one May 2016 #10
Insurance companies are leaving CA. former9thward May 2016 #11
Whats the date on this article. Why is it okieinpain May 2016 #14
That article is dated 2013? Canesfan May 2016 #20
the United Healthcare argument is wrong and not representative CreekDog May 2016 #12
^^^This^^^ ProfessorGAC May 2016 #33
This was inevitable. Socal31 May 2016 #15
AHIP pmorlan1 May 2016 #16
This message was self-deleted by its author Cheese Sandwich May 2016 #19
A Hillary Supporter speaks. Katashi_itto May 2016 #22
I would like a study of how many people suffered My Good Babushka May 2016 #23
Medicare for All is the only answer. A strong public option would have lead to it naturally. merrily May 2016 #26
Clearly we need single payer pengu May 2016 #28
Yes, CLEARLY we do SmittynMo May 2016 #29
You and me both :( pengu May 2016 #30
Won't happen. Not under Clinton and all her 1 percent Insurance company CEO buddies. n/t leeroysphitz May 2016 #32
Oh well. Nothing we can do about it, right? vi5 May 2016 #35
The revolution will not be comfortable. RadiationTherapy May 2016 #38
Don't blame them, nationalize them! hunter May 2016 #39
Not surprised. Xolodno May 2016 #41
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The insurance companies a...»Reply #40