Excuse me, but did I hear that the CEO . . .

of United Healthcare makes $66,000,000/frigging year?

Seems to me that takes a certain amount of criminal brass, and I don't care how much he earned for the shareholders. Actually, what it means is that he earned TOO much for the shareholders, the board, AND himself. Feck those people.

 

Common jealousy.

 

Actually, according to filings with the SEC, it's closer to $14.5 million.

http://www1.salary.com/UNITEDHEALTH-GROUP-INC-Executive-Salaries.html

Still, that is ridiculously high, but that is true across the board with US CEOs for the most part.

What it does underscore, however, is that UHC's exiting from the exchanges isn't going to hurt them much. Their biggest client is after all, the US government.

 

$14.5 is probably just his cash take and doesn't include increases in the value of his stock and other perqs, etc. I dunno. What I DO know is these kinds of salaries/packages are unconscionable. Witness the EpiPen 'scandal'. $600 my white arse.

- - - Updated - - -

Jealousy brought about by immoral protections and assaults on the market system.

 

We can only speculate on what he sucks through a garden hose.

http://media.westword.com/6575387.0.pdf

 

Why us thst a surprise ?

 

Taylor Swift earned 2.5 times as much... http://www.forbes.com/celebrities/#105cd0474d32

Who did she earn too much for? What kind of criminal is she? Other than being offensive to anyone with any musical taste?

- - - Updated - - -

Then Taylor Swift's $170M must be unconscionable beyond comprehension.

 

A healthcare company with govt's contracts isn't used by choice, exactly. People willingly pay to hear and see Swift. It's why people don't see Swifts salary as objectionable as a CEO of a healthcare company.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I wonder if they donated millions to Democrats.

 

I'm sure if you ask him nicely, and explain why you deserve it, or in some way are entitled to it, he will send you half.

 

and which candidate do these people support? ;3

 

^ Ridiculous comment.

 

Oh, the $66,000,000 question.

 

John Travolta has a commercial airliner airport for a backyard. Where was your outrage?

 

LeBron, Madonna, Ellen, and Rihanna - no. 11-14 on Forbes highest paid celebrity list - all earn more than this CEO. I think we all know which candidate they support. What's your point?

- - - Updated - - -

But he drives a Prius!

 

that makes him even worse.

 

He didn't earn it. He just warmed a chair while the Fed kited the stock market for him.

 

It's because her salary isn't made up from health insurance denials to people who later died because of it.

 

Indeed. The batteries on those things alone are one of the worst environmental disasters of all time.

 

This is just my opinion, but when most people see the vast amount of profits being made by health insurance companies, they will lose their patience with single payer option not being available. It is also my opinion that people really don't want health insurance. They want affordable health care, but without insurance, that doesn't really exist in the US. People don't want to go bankrupt because they get cancer, are involved in a car wreck, or have a child with major health issues. Things like this being published and the Epipen price hikes are sealing the deal on single payer…. and eventually putting health insurance companies out of business. By then though, the executives will have gotten while the getting was good and will be long gone.

 

You have NO Idea what Knowledge and Value are worth....or you would NOT Bi#*h about the pay.

Kinda funny how Liberals will condemn a CEO for making a deservedly large paycheck for his/her services, but Liberals will not condemn an athlete who is handsomely paid for a purely entertainment service.

 

Once again, where is your outrage over Taylor Swift, Madonna, Ellen, LeBron, Rihanna, et al? They all make more than the CEO's paltry $66M. Why is your enmity reserved only for busines leaders? According to Forbes, the 100 highest-paid celebrities pulled in more than the GDP of Belize, Gambia, and Bhutan combined. And what do they do? They sing songs and play games...

But this CEO is the one that draws your ire? This CEO who employs tens of thousands of people? Seems your outrage is a little misplaced.

 

What an utterly stupid analogy.

While I personally do tend to agree that some of the contracts sports figures garnish are highly over rated, they do have a downside that a CEO may never have to face.

When was the last time a CEO became paralyzed during a hostile takeover? Or risked irrevocable brain damage from crunching numbers?

Like I said, idiotic analogy.

 

Why should you get an answer for a topic that you obviously have no clue about?

 

Want a job where you can fail and still get paid lavishly? Try corporate CEO


[FONT=&amp][FONT=&amp]S[/FONT]pare a thought this Labor Day holiday, when you fire up the barbecue for the last weekend of the summer and raise a beer for the workers in this country, for some of the notable men who have lost their jobs over the past 20 years. I'm thinking of Richard Fuld, Dennis Kozlowski and Eckhard Pfeiffer.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]They aren't union leaders who were fired for organizing for better wages or men who lost their jobs to sweatshop labor in Bangladesh. They aren't even the engineers who have been put out to rust by robot-run assembly lines. They don't really number among the almost 20 million who are estimated to be unemployed or underemployed.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]No, these three names popped up in a review of the "Bailed Out, Booted and Busted" – a study released Wednesday by the Institute of Policy Studies in Washington DC of the 241 people who have ranked as the highest paid CEOs in the US in the past two decades.

An astonishing 38% of these titans of finance and industry have either been kicked out of their jobs, put in jail or had to have their companies be rescued from bankruptcy. Fuld, Kozlowski and Pfeiffer are three that top the list.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Fuld raked in $466.3m in salary and stocks in seven years as CEO of Lehman Brothers, the Wall Street investment bank, before the company collapsed in September 2008, precipitating the last financial crisis. He's just one of 112 such CEOs whose companies were given a total of $258bn in taxpayer bailouts.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Kozlowski ran Tyco, a conglomerate which bought companies that did everything from laying undersea fiber-optic cables to making fire-fighting foam, from 1992 to 2002. He paid himself $170m in 1999 and $125m in 2000. Found guilty of systematically looting the company in 2005, he was sent to jail, and is now serving time at a minimum-security facility near Central Park in Manhattan.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]He joins 18 other top paid CEOs in the past 20 years that have led companies that were "busted" or ordered to pay more than $100m each for fraud-related fines and settlements.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Then there's Pfeiffer, who ran Compaq computer from 1992 to 1999, and was fired when his company lost business to rivals Dell and Gateway. Like 27 other CEOs on the list, he was smart enough to have given himself a generous "golden parachute" contract, allowing him to walk away with $416m in compensation on his final payday.

It's easy to argue that there are a couple of bad apples in every cart, but think of it this way: if two out of every five pieces of fruit in a store were rotten, it would behoove the manager to tell stockers that if they didn't cull the bad ones, customers would take their business elsewhere.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]In other words: shouldn't we be asking companies' boards of directors to tighten the rules on CEOs to make sure they don't fail at such an astounding rate? And what better way than tying it to their pay packets? And if the boards won't do this, could government step in, if only to save the companies from their own CEOs abject levels of failure?

[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]One of the simplest reforms that shareholder activists have lobbied for is a report by companies to shareholders comparing CEO compensation to that of their worst paid worker. This has been mandated by the US Congress under the 2010 Dodd-Frank legislation but companies have fought tooth and nail against this being implemented.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Corporate America has been backed up by business school pundits who say that CEO compensation is not a matter that government should regulate. I asked VG Narayan, who runs the Board of Directors Compensation Committee Executive Education Program of the Harvard Business School what he thought of the IPS findings. "It's terrible when poor performance gets rewarded with a high level of compensation," he said via email.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]But he firmly believes that corporate boards and executives are best placed to fix this. "Governmental and shareholder second-guessing on pay would create an environment of fear in which no board would dare try an approach that's different from the herd's or that is tailored to the company's particular strategy," Narayan wrote in 2009. "For instance, if the maximum ratio of CEO pay to worker pay were mandated, companies might respond by outsourcing the work of the lowest paid workers rather than curbing CEO pay."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]David Larcker, the director of the Corporate Governance Research Program at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, also says that governments should be cautious about scaring away these CEOs.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]"Executive compensation may be the lightning rod for shareholders in the wake of the financial crisis, but the truth about how pay should be structured is clouded by a lot of popular myths," Larcker wrote in 2011. "Boards have to consider thathow much they pay will have an impact on the types of people who want to take the CEO position. You don't want to drive talented CEOs out of public companies so that they can avoid scrutiny over how much they are paid."
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Well, these business schools have had decades to preach about better practices. Workers jobs are being outsourced anyway, and the CEOs are still getting away with outrageous pay packages. And the IPS study shows that these CEOs aren't that talented – since they are failing at an incredibly high rate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]As Anderson says:[/FONT]

Boards of directors are not going to change this. They are mostly made up of other CEOs who says if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Unless regulators, lawmakers or shareholders do something to stop this madness, 20 years from now today's corporate compensation will seem as modest as the pay levels of 1993.


​

[FONT=&amp]The IPS report suggests several additional legal reforms in addition to encouraging narrower CEO-worker pay gaps such as bolstering accountability to shareholders and extending accountability to broader stakeholder groups.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Plus governments can eliminate taxpayer subsidies for excessive executive pay and encourage reasonable limits on total compensation by not giving out contracts to companies who pay excessive CEO salaries (effectively subsidized by the taxpayer) and rewarding those who pay their workers well.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Maybe fewer businesses would fail and more workers would be able to celebrate Labor Day if CEO's had a government-led incentive to do a better job in the first place. Hopefully, the US Congress will get on this when they return from their summer vacations and barbecues.[/FONT]