You know, I've been pondering this article since it came out. The overall impression I got is that the medical industry is soaking us with high charges and thereby making a hefty profit. As I understand basic accounting and economics, profit comes down to the bottom line on the income statement where it can then be reinvested in the company or paid to the stockholders as dividends. In either case, a growing company or a company paying good dividends would be considered a good investment for a stockholder. I am not seeing that in the stock prices of the health insurance or other medical industries, like hospitals. While big pharma might charge a large amount for drugs, they have to meet rigorous FDA guidelines and have high R+D expenses.
So, if these guys were making big profits, one could become wealthy by investing in their stocks. At least on a relative scale to other industries, that just isn't happening. Back in the day when I invested in individual stocks, I owned one of the big pharma stocks and one of a large hospital corporation. They were both pretty much dogs and I sold them. Insurance companies are basically considered conservative investments and typically known for slow but steady growth.
No doubt there are CEOs with huge salaries, but that is typical for private sector companies. I am still digesting some of this, but I think the article, as well as some general public perceptions, are mislaid and that they are not making undue income. Off course there are other valid reasons for high medical expenses, but I think they are more in the realm of bureaucratic inefficiencies. Least that's where I'm at now.