In fact, I think the studies that do look at Yum Brand's products suggest otherwise.

Woodward goes further off base when he uses net profits to illustrate his point. He ignores the medical benefit ratio and gross profits. He ignores that the point spread between gross and net profits goes toward executive pay, stock warrants, corporate junkets to Hawaii and the such. He ignores how multiple health insurance CEO's make $12 million per year and get $73 millionwhen they quit their jobs.

The Hershey Company declared a 40% gross profit for the 3rd quarter of 2009 and a net profit of 11%. Compare that to Cigna's 2nd quarter for 2009 where they declared a 54% benefit loss ratio (a 6% greater gross profit) and a 10% net profit. Both companies are higher than the 6% profit figure Woodward sites as "average" (he should take a gander at Assurant). If we were comparing apples to apples, Cigna could look like a better investment, but that's the problem; Cigna makes death panel decisions that kill people. Hershey makes candy, not the most healthful food, but denying people access to chocolate doesn't kill them.

Declaring that health insurers make on average a 6% net profit doesn't excuse health insurance company behavior. Woodward's apology continues:

That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones. Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

(emphasis mine)

Excusing health insurers because they make less than malpractice, car or home owners insurers leads me to think we need to look at the entire insurance sector more closely. Woodward doesn't consider the idea that the health insurance market is shrinking because health insurers are pricing their policies beyond what the market can bear. He doesn't discuss the fact that most markets are dominated by only 2-3 insurance companies. He doesn't consider the possibility that fee for service reimbursements fuel over utilization. Nor does he explore why the net profits of health insurers are so low. Could it be due to squandering the gross profits on a select few highly compensated employees? It certainly isn't due to an increase in approved health care claims. The problem is that Woodward doesn't think outside the Republican box if he's capable of independent thought at all.

The points that no Republican, insurance company, health care lobbyist or Mr. Woodward can explain to me are:

"What benefit does it give me, the patient to pay an insurance company anywhere from 30 to 54 cents on the dollar for administering my health insurance when Medicare does it for 11?"

What's in it for me to preserve a health insurance company's ability to raise my insurance rates 100% every 8 years?

How is paying more for insurance and getting less health care making Americans more healthy?

Why should we allow an individual mandate requiring me to buy insurance if there isn't a government sponsored Public Option available that will ensure that most of my premium dollars go toward health care claims?

Mr. Woodward is so enamored with the morality of preserving the "free market" for health insurance that he can't see the consequences of murder by spreadsheet. However, there's more to comparing health insurance to Tupperware than simply looking at the 10Q's.

Putting profits and financial analysis aside, there's another reason comparing candy and Clorox bleach to health insurance is silly. Unlike health insurance there is vibrant and robust competition among processed food, food storage containers and candy corporations. The McCarren Ferguson Act did not exempt these companies from anti-monopoly laws. The individual states abdicated their role in controlling insurance companies from forming monopolies and oligarchies, but when it comes to candy bars they are on the ball. You have a selection of at least a hundred different candy suppliers. All you need to do is go to a dollar store to trade off quality for an alternative product to Tupperware that works reasonably well for a reasonable amount of time for 1/10th the price. There's few alternatives if you don't like the insurance product your employer offers you and the current reform bills offer you nothing if you don't take the insurance your employer offers you (even if it won't cover the health problem you have).

Health insurers have too little competition, but Woodward doesn't have that concept on his radar. Insurers have had an open season on their customers for over 60 years and the federal government has exempted them from serious anti-monopoly regulation. Whenever a conservative touts a market-driven solution for health care, they need to start with repealing the exemption insurance companies enjoy and writers like Woodward need to back up and look at the damage they are promoting. Pooh pooing criticism of the "poor" insurance company that is only trying to make an "honest" buck as wrong because they don't make any more money than KFC is either idiocy or lunacy. It ignores the reality of what health insurers do in their standard operating procedures, which is kill people by rationing care according to your ability to pay for the care your insurance company denies you or kill people by corporate death panels. That requires more than an apology. It requires Congressional action.