Health insurance profits are not a major part of health care costs in the U.S.

"Fudging" seems to be the nucleus of this debate, interesting. As the challenger in this debate I am merely responding to the initial argument and use of potentially "fudged" statistics. I reiterate my early point that statistics can and will be manipulated to provide support for any argument. Pro's insistence on sticking with his "1% percent profit margin" theory illuminates the health care industry's desire to beguile the people into ignoring the fundamentals of capitalism. Who would invest in a company producing 1% profit? As an example, strong companies like Alliance Health and Life Insurance attract investors wanting a piece of their profits (certainly more than 1%) and the less successful companies posting weaker profits flounder and slowly die. Before these "losers" fold up they do service to the winner by lowering the industry profit average. The "Top 10" are making huge profit gains while the "Bottom 10" lose millions, even billions, with the latent consequence of making the "Top 10" look less profitable. Unless, we focus on the providers we actually use, the "Top 10". The fact that these less successful providers are entering the market, and ultimately failing, exposes the tight grip the "Top 10" have on the sector and lack of competition in the private health insurance market. Lack of competition drives profits up, not down. The same problem is occurring with public utilities, banking, and oil companies. All of which are claiming severe financial difficulty. To answer the claim that I have not provided statistics to counter pro's claims. 40% of private health insurers did not exist in their present form a decade ago, making it a little difficult to track their long term profit growth. 100% of the researched companies show massive increases in revenue, spiking around 2006. The following health insurance companies/managed care organizations are shown with their overall Fortune 500 ranking as a US company (2008) and I added the first year they showed up on the NYSE using their current stock symbol: 1. UnitedHealth Group - 25 * 2. WellPoint - 33 (2002) 3. Aetna - 85 (2001) 4. Humana - 98 * 5. Cigna - 141 * 6. Health Net - 179 * 7. Coventry Health Care - 266 * 8. Amerigroup - 555 (2002) 9. Universal American - 669 (Investing firm turned health insurer, not sure when this change occurred, likely during the Bush years.)* 10. Centene - 685 (2002) *companies older than a decade The bottom line here is; does a strong business atmosphere for private health insurers transform into valuable, yet inexpensive health care for its members? Major carriers are seeing record gains in profits while providing coverage for fewer people. Business costs may be rising, but it is unlikely that they have gone up 400% in the past decade. Some portion of the 400% increase must represent profit. I find it highly improbable that medical expenses, administrative expenses, or even executive salaries have increased by even a fraction of 400%. Profits could indeed be a bazillion percent as you so mockingly remarked my friend. I find myself in the position of the old man by sea, trying to reel in a huge fish. To find evidence of such a large and expansive scheme to steal the wealth of a nation is a difficult task for 100 men, let alone this one.