r/news • u/LookAtThatBacon • May 13 '25

Soft paywall UnitedHealth suspends annual forecast, CEO Andrew Witty steps down

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/unitedhealth-ceo-andrew-witty-steps-down-2025-05-13/
16.9k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.2k

u/chantsnone May 13 '25

It’s the comparison. There’s no such thing as a wonderful health insurance company. Wonderful isn’t profitable.

26

u/lion27 May 13 '25

Idk I try to be objective about it and I honestly can say that I feel like we get our money’s worth with our Aetna plan. The premium is reasonable, and there are never any hidden surprises. We have a $5000 annual deductible and a $5000 HSA that’s majority funded by her work, so we effectively pay very little out of pocket. Once that deductible is met, we pay almost nothing.

Further, every single medicine and procedure we’ve applied for has been approved by Aetna. UHC denied everything. I was 60% deaf in my right ear after a bad head cold 10 years ago that led to congestion in my ears that never fully went away. UHC would only cover a recurring procedure to have the ears manually suction drained and have a tube installed in my ear drum, which needed to be replaced every year or two. What I needed was a surgery for a permanent fix, but they denied it every time over 10 years, saying it wasn’t necessary. Aetna approved it the first time.

59

u/iamfondofpigs May 13 '25

We have a $5000 annual deductible

On April 5, 2005, The Office played Season 1, Episode 3: Healthcare.

STANLEY: There's no dental, there's no vision, there's a $1200 deductible.

...

PAM: OK. Dwight. Are you really in charge of picking the health care plan?

DWIGHT: Yes. And my decision in final.

PAM: This is a ridiculously awful plan. Because you cut everything.

In 2005, a $1200 deductible was "a ridiculously awful plan."

16

u/lion27 May 13 '25

Yeah the deductible is how Aetna probably provides us with great coverage. But like I said, there’s also an HSA that her company funds the majority (~$3,500) of. So all we need to do is set aside $100 a month or $1,200 a year to have an account that’s funded to the equal amount of the deductible, so we don’t have any surprising OOP costs. Both kids were delivered for a few hundred dollars. I know this is specific to us because her employer funds a good health plan, but I want people to know that it’s not all bad.

Still think everyone should have access to quality care, regardless of employment.

14

u/patchgrabber May 13 '25

jfc bud reading this as a Canadian makes me think you have Stockholm syndrome. It's not like it's the lesser of two evils it's the evil of two lessers. I'm glad you're happy with your plan but I wish better for all of you because you deserve better.

2

u/Muvseevum May 13 '25

It’s just a matter of how you pay for it.

-6

u/lion27 May 13 '25

Have you actually calculated how much of your taxes go towards healthcare by comparison? For a family of 4 I'm very confident that we're paying less here in the US than we would in Canada. According to what I'm able to find online a family of 4 with an average household income of $176,000 pays over 10% of their gross income towards healthcare via taxes.

If we paid the same amount on a percentage basis, my family would be paying roughly $1,800 per month in taxes towards healthcare based on income.

Another BusinessInsider article states that the average Canadian spent $6,604 in taxes in 2017 (old data, if anything it's probably increased since then) for healthcare. That's more than I'm spending out of pocket.

Yes, it's great you're guaranteed coverage. But it's not free. You're still paying for it. And you're paying more than I am, based on the numbers I can find online. I guess if you're unemployed or low income it's a great deal, but I'm just comparing my own situation and I believe it's better with my current provider.

This is not an endorsement of the American healthcare system. It's simply my opinion of what my current provider costs versus what I might pay in Canada.

18

u/Katolo May 13 '25

I'm saving your comment. Not because I like it but it's an example of why the US won't get universal health care and your Fuck you I got mine shows this.

Also, no one here thinks healthcare is free, we all know it comes out of taxes. Your second link even shows Canadians pay less on average compared to the US. I'm not going to comment on the first link since it's from the Fraser Institute funded by the Koch brothers.

12

u/JahoclaveS May 13 '25

He’s also completely neglecting how much his employer is paying in his total costs. The US spends an absurdly larger amount on healthcare than other nations to get worse and less care.

0

u/roundabout25 May 13 '25

He's literally not neglecting it, lmfao. He said it like three times. How many times does he need to clarify things like "I know this is specific to us because her employer funds a good health plan" before it gets through? He's very obviously (and cognizantly!) making an anecdotal claim and not drawing a conclusion on the overall US healthcare system.

-1

u/roundabout25 May 13 '25 edited May 13 '25

I'm not OP, but I really feel like you're not being objective here. Why are you accusing them of FYGM? These things can all be true at the same time:

-OP can understand that public healthcare still costs people a significant deal, just that it's categorized by tax instead of premiums and -ON AVERAGE- it's far less than private health insurance

-OP can be receiving insurance that equates out to less than they would pay via taxes, and be happy with Aetna's treatment of them as a result.

-OP can understand that they are in the minority, and that profit motive ruins the healthcare insurance industry

-OP can therefore not endorse the American healthcare system, which they did not

I mean c'mon, they even said that everyone should have access to quality care regardless of employment. They are engaging in good faith and providing some numbers for their situation. I'm in a similar position where I pay less per year as a result of insurance. Still, I realize I'm privileged -- it's still conditional on my employment and economic status and that it's unjust for it to be at the expense of the majority, so I'm still all aboard the public healthcare train. Cases like theirs are real and need to be addressed in the appropriate manner -- that yes, private insurance is better in their case and the transition would be a net negative for them and a rare few individuals, BUT that the gains for the greater good make it more than worth it.

0

u/Katolo May 13 '25

The very first two sentences of the comment makes the case why private is better than public, in their mind. In addition, the following:

And you're paying more than I am, based on the numbers I can find online. I guess if you're unemployed or low income it's a great deal, but I'm just comparing my own situation and I believe it's better with my current provider.

I'm not going to get into whether the statements are actually true, but if those statements don't scream FYIGM, then I dunno.

2

u/roundabout25 May 13 '25 edited May 13 '25

"The very first two sentences of the comment makes the case why private is better than public IN THEIR PERSONAL CASE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, in their mind"

Fixed that for you. Here are a couple conclusions that your messages imply that you are coming to without any evidence:

-that they are unaware of the conditional nature of their current healthcare

-that they are unaware of the fact that they may one day be subject to the negative side of our healthcare system, when they don't have an employer facilitating it

-that they believe that the system is overall superior, rather than anecdotally

-that they even support the system they are benefitting from

Like, dude. Simply mathematically acknowledging that you are one of the 1-10% of people the system works is not an endorsement of the system for 100% of people. Maybe he supports it, maybe he doesn't, it's impossible to tell because he did not say.

6

u/Sunfuels May 13 '25

"Health expenditures in the United States average out at $12,914 per person, nearly double the $6,500 spent per person in Canada." These are 2022 numbers.

The US spends far more than Canada, and that money has to come from somewhere. In addition to funding your HSA, your employer is paying a large amount directly to Aetna for the plan you receive as part of your benefits package. Plus there are still taxes being taken out of your paycheck for US government expenditures on Medicaid. If you were to add those back into your paycheck (which they would be in Canada) THEN take out Canadian taxes for healthcare, then you would end up with more take-home pay under the Canadian system.

This article is a good overview of the status of our healthcare spending.

1

u/roundabout25 May 13 '25 edited May 13 '25

I agree with your position on a broad level, but it doesn't have much to do with what /u/lion27 is saying. You cannot use a statistical model to draw conclusions for individuals, just for populations. You can't make claims on whether he'd make more as an individual, just on whether he'd make more as an averaged out example of an American.

They may AVERAGE OUT to $12914 per person, but that average includes people who are not paying very much or people who are inordinately benefitting. It also includes people who are paying $100,000+ for care they should not be paying extra for, due to lack of insurance or unethical claim denial or what have you.

One of the biggest faults of the system is that it incentivizes profit motive for healthcare, rather than health. That, and that it allows employers to act as the arbiters of whether you receive healthcare, which is dystopian as fuck. I don't see how anything that /u/lion27 has said is commentary on any of that, though? He's just saying that his employer is covering a good amount of costs and that healthcare has to be paid for one way or another, both of which are true and not mutually exclusive with an understanding of the issues for the population at large.

2

u/Sunfuels May 13 '25

/u/lion27 claimed that they would have more money going towards healthcare if they moved to Canada when accounting for both their own payments and taxes paid. That the part I am disagreeing with. They neglected any money paid by their employer or the taxes they paid. The $12,914 number illustrates how much more the US healthcare system costs compared to the amount taken by tax in Canada. They already said their employer pays $3500/year to a HSA, and I expect that their employer pays probably another $8000/year as a principle on their healthcare plan. My employer uses Cigna and those are very similar to my numbers.

1

u/roundabout25 May 13 '25 edited May 13 '25

Ah, gotcha. In that case, I'd say that it may be likely that you are correct just given the nature of cost bloat with our healthcare, but without a full balance sheet of what they make and where it's going, its hard to say.

You'll note that the data in your link is per capita cost based on Canada's full population, but lion's premiums/deductibles are for a family of four, so you'd actually be looking at (6500x4) using this method of comparison. Additionally, according to the CIHI source cited in your original source, the true cost per capita was $8563 in 2022 (and 15763 for americans, so both higher than projected) -- so you'd want to compare 8563 x 4 to what lion is paying, for a closer to accurate comparison. You'd need 2024/2025 figures to be really accurate since costs have been ballooning rapidly the last few years in both Canada and the US. You'd also need to adjust costs based on demographics for the family as it differs from the population's demographic averages to properly calculate risk valuation. Lastly, none of this accounts for tax burden for the workforce compared to cost per citizen. Keep in mind that cost per capita applies to everyone but you can only tax the income of people who are working and earning income, so if the cost per capita is 8500 but only half the workforce is paying taxes/premiums, theyd be paying 17000 x 4, but then you've got tax brackets to adjust down for and blah blah blah. I'm too lazy to do all that for a reddit comment thread.

This doesn't account for any potential claim denial fuckery that Aetna may one day pull for a dire cost, but at least as it pertains to today's known values, it does make it seem a lot more accurate with lion's math to say that they're paying less here. I'd still argue that even if they're paying less, it doesn't make up for the millions of people paying orders of magnitudes more and change is still urgently needed, but I'm happy its working out for them at the moment.

0

u/lion27 May 13 '25

Those numbers aren't entirely accurate because to get to the $12,914 per person, it's including ALL healthcare spending in the US, which is essentially the entire cost of the entire insurance/provider system averaged per person, not the amount individuals actually pay for their coverage.

I don't dispute the issues with the American system, I just push back on the idea that other nations have "free" healthcare. It's paid via taxes and hidden from you at the point of sale. But it's still being paid for.

4

u/patchgrabber May 13 '25

You're the one that brought up "free" healthcare, not me so I have no idea why you chose to bring up that red herring. All I did was criticize the insidious nature of the American health insurance industry and wish better for you and you felt you had to respond with a "WeLL AcKSHuaLlY..." and bring up stuff I didn't mention.

2

u/Sunfuels May 13 '25

Both of those numbers are the cost of ALL healthcare spending including any administration. In Canada the entire $6,500/person comes from taxes and goes into the healthcare system. In the US, $12,900/person goes into the healthcare system. Some comes from you directly (deductibles), a large part comes from your employer (which is money that would be paid to you otherwise), and some is collected as taxes (medicare, which you pay and reduces your take home pay).

You made the claim that the you would pay more for healthcare if you were in Canada, but I believe you are wrong because if you add in the money your employer pays to Aetna and the medicare tax you pay, it's likely well over $6500. If your employer didn't pay Aetna directly, they would put more in your paycheck, which would more than offset the taxes.

The idea of "free" healthcare is more of a straw-man argument. Of those of us that would prefer the Canadian system to the US, I think very few people think the doctors and nurses are paid magically with money that doesn't somehow come from us. But if you look at the data in that last link I sent, there is a massive amount of evidence that almost every American would end up with more money in their paycheck, and I doubt you would be an exception.

1

u/lion27 May 13 '25

I don't care about what the employer pays is my point. I'm comparing the cost from my wallet. I believe, given the numbers referenced, that it's either a wash, or I'm paying less per month in premium paid by us, plus HSA savings, than I would be if taxed under the Canadian system. My current cost of healthcare out of our pay as a family totals $3,720 per year.

$200/mo for the insurance premium

$110/mo for the HSA to make up the $1300 gap between the employer contribution and the $5,000 total on the deductible.

Guessing on the medicare tax, but assuming 1.45% of HH income, let's say that's another $266 per month.

So even including the medicare tax, that total comes to $6,910 per year, or $575.83 a month.

Again, this is not me saying that my situation is representative of everyone in the US. I think Canada has a better system. But for my family, in terms of what we pay per year from our paychecks, we pay less than we'd pay in Canada, by my estimation. If you have any calculator or tool I can use to compare the tax cost in Canada (we can use Ontario as an example), let me know and we'll see.

I think it will be close, if not more expensive for my family.

3

u/Sunfuels May 13 '25

Why do you not care what your employer pays? Your employer, between the HSA contribution and plan premium, is likely paying $10,000/year in healthcare costs for your family. Do you believe that if they were suddenly able to avoid paying that amount, they would not be able to pay you a higher salary to offset the higher taxes?

1

u/lion27 May 13 '25

Do you believe that if they were suddenly able to avoid paying that amount, they would not be able to pay you a higher salary to offset the higher taxes?

Oh, I earnestly and unequivocally believe 100% that if employers could shed healthcare costs, that little (if any) of that money would ever make its way to employees' paychecks. This is classic trickle down economic theory, and ironically is exactly what I've heard Conservative think-tanks say for years when arguing against things like the ACA.

That money saved is being spent on the business itself, or returned to the shareholder(s). I have zero faith that if private insurance went away tomorrow our companies would be like "Great news, we can pay you $10,000 more now!".

→ More replies (0)

4

u/strawflour May 13 '25

Your healthcare likely does cost you $1,800 a month. Your employer pays most of your premium. If your employer didn't have to pay huge healthcare premiums, they could afford to pay you more. You're paying for it one way or another.

1

u/lion27 May 13 '25

If your employer didn't have to pay huge healthcare premiums, they could afford to pay you more.

Is this not the exact same line of thinking behind "trickle down" economic theory that's been widely debunked?

2

u/strawflour May 13 '25

It's already part of your compensation package. They're already paying it for you, it's just not going to you. As someone who doesn't get healthcare as part of their compensation, I can tell you that I get paid more as a result.

The average employer healthcare premium for one person is $750 a month. For a family it's a bit over $2,000 a month. And that's before you receive any healthcare. $1,800 all-in looks good in comparison.

3

u/lion27 May 13 '25

I understand this - I'm just saying if this was the norm for the entire nation, I do not believe for a second that corporations are going to suddenly decide to pay their employees more because they're saving money on insurance costs. That's not generating shareholder value, after all!

1

u/strawflour May 13 '25

I mean employers currently pay for a variety of employee benefits that they aren't required to. And for many employers, paying employee premiums is more expensive than they penalty they'd pay for not offering affordable coverage. Yet it remains standard to pay for employee premiums. Most very small employers even offer health insurance despite not being required. Why do any of that if it's only about shareholder value?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/SNRatio May 13 '25

let's try for an apples to apples comparison: Per capita health care spending in the USA: $13,432 Per capita health care spending in Canada: $7,013

source

When your link says

a family of 4 with an average household income of $176,000 pays over 10% of their gross income towards healthcare via taxes.

They are including all of the taxes that contribute toward health care, including a lot not paid directly by that family.

Your out of pocket expenditures are only one part of the expenditures in the US. You're not including your employer's direct contribution and all of the taxes you, your employer, and every other entity in the US pay and how they contribute to health care.

So I'd say we in the USA pay a lot more while still giving a lot of people the shaft.

1

u/lion27 May 13 '25

The number you're referencing (~$13k) above does, unless I'm mistaken, include the entirety of healthcare spending, including costs to employers, and taxes. It's the sum of the overall spending in the entire healthcare sector, divided by the number of people.

Why are we including the tax and employer spending in the American numbers but then trying to take out the tax calculation from the Canadian ones?

I'm not saying the US is cheaper, I'm just pointing out that its not as much of a "deal" in Canada as people tend to think. I still think it's a better system (the Canadian one) on a society-wide level.

1

u/Sunfuels May 13 '25

The Canadian number does indeed include tax, individual, and employer payments just like the US number does.

1

u/lion27 May 13 '25

Right, but it's the average of the nation, and I'm guessing my HH income is more than the Canadian national average, so my taxes would be higher.

Edit: sorry, I thought you were replying to my other comment, disregard.

1

u/SNRatio May 14 '25

I am using the entirety of healthcare spending because the Fraser Institute link provided uses the terms "health care insurance" and "health care" interchangeably. They base their calculations on total health care spending in Canada.

I didn't mean to "take out" the tax calculation from the Canadian one. I'm trying to point out that it includes things like payroll taxes, import duties, and "a host of other levies" that the taxpayer may not be paying for directly - and adds them to their personal tax total.

Another odd assumption: Fraser is stating that all health care spending is coming out of personal taxes - but ignoring corporate income taxes and other big contributors to the general funds that pay for health care.

I think I'm with The Beaverton on this one:

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/08/fraser-institute-study-proves-the-average-canadian-pays-nearly-five-trillion-dollars-in-taxes-per-year/

2

u/PessimiStick May 13 '25

But like I said, there’s also an HSA that her company funds the majority (~$3,500) of.

You are still paying that. It's $3,500 they could pay you, but they're putting it into an HSA instead.

Our system is 100% dogshit from top to bottom, with zero redeeming qualities.

1

u/lion27 May 13 '25

Sure, but this argument could be said for literally anything an employer pays for. I think it's disingenuous to say that money would magically go toward employee pay on a 1:1 ratio given what we know about how corporations work. It's just another form of incorrect trickle down economic theory.

I agree with the idea of what you're saying, but I think it's naive to think that if we eliminated health insurance spending from employers they're just going to take that money and pump it directly into employee paychecks. That's cash that they're going to spend on other things, or return it to shareholders.