Bears, Bulls, Chickens and Pigs: wOw’s Wall Street Weekly with Liz Peek (Week of 8/17) 

Editor’s Note: Liz Peek is a financial columnist and the author of wOw’s SHEconomics.

In Washington’s sandboxes, the bullies are gaining the upper hand. This week’s news that Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak of the House Energy and Commerce Committee had written letters to 52 insurance companies demanding reams of information about compensation, client entertainment, executive retreats and other data was so dismaying. Unable to advance health-care legislation or tame an increasingly hostile electorate, Congress has decided to beat up on health insurers – Nancy Pelosi’s favorite "villains."

The letters are, of course, showboating – much of the data sought, such as the compensation for the CEOs of the largest companies, is already in the hands of the SEC. No, Waxman and Stupak aren’t after information. The real play here is to threaten the industry with embarrassing exposure, so as to prevent them from resisting President Obama’s No. 1 agenda item. It’s disturbingly Orwellian. House Democrats have seen how effective it is to loose populist anger against an adversary; who will ever forget the mortifying Congressional assault on poor Ed Liddy, the fellow that stepped in to help sort out AIG and was absolutely excoriated for his troubles.

Ironically, as The New York Times and others have reported, the insurers, led by lobbyist Karen Ignagni, have been on board with reform from day one. Ms. Ignagni, CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, must have been pretty darned surprised to have her industry come under attack. She had already guaranteed the president that the companies would agree to not deny coverage to clients with pre-existing conditions and to discontinue basing premiums on a person’s health status or gender – the two most important concessions that Obama has requested. Presumably the insurers do not welcome a government-run competitor, and will argue against that part of the proposal. Since many of these firms are publicly owned, management could be sued for not attempting to block legislation that would be harmful.

The attack on the insurance industry is worrisome mainly because it is yet another in a series of anti-business outbursts from the Obama camp and its Congressional allies. What is the industry’s crime? The president accuses the industry of being profitable, and indeed "making record profits" – as he stated at a recent press conference. (Actually, profits for the industry are down from the 2006-2007 levels.) What kind of charge is that?

The president and his reform teammates have implied that insurers are earning unconscionable profits on the backs of unfairly treated policyholders. Otherwise, the reasoning goes, how could an industry be so successful? That conclusion mandates the question – just how profitable are insurers? According to Fortune magazine, not as profitable as Internet sales companies, or pharmaceuticals, or railroads or telecommunications companies. In fact, in Fortune’s listing of industry by profitability, health-care insurers and managed-care companies came in 35th with a profit margin of 2.2%. Yes, the top ten companies last year earned $13 billion; it is a huge industry – the aggregate number, often quoted by reformers, doesn’t mean a thing.

For sure, we all have issues with our insurance companies. They are an easy target. But trying to develop important and complex legislation by demonizing companies that employ Americans, pay taxes and provide an important service does not reflect well on either the president or on Congress.

The Obama administration’s desperation to drive through health-care reform may reflect their anxiety about the economy. After all, coming up to the midterm elections, they have to have something to show for their control over all three branches of government. It must be driving them crazy that for every data point showing that a bottom has been reached in housing or manufacturing, there is a little hiccup showing that the consumer remains in lock-down.