Big Insurance Profits Expose Obamacare’s Gravy Train

A recent Townhall op-ed by Stephen Moore argues that Republicans can win on healthcare affordability by taking on the interests that profit from a costly and opaque system. That argument deserves attention, especially when paired with fresh evidence showing just how much the biggest health insurers have been making while Washington kept the Obamacare subsidy machine running.

The latest chart on insurer operating profits makes the point clearly. UnitedHealth, CVS/Aetna, Cigna, Elevance, Humana, Molina, and Centene posted enormous profits in recent years, with total operating profits topping $30 billion in 2024 and remaining above $20 billion in 2025 based on the companies’ earnings reports shown in the chart the user provided. That does not look like a system in distress. It looks like a system that has been very good to the largest corporate players.

Big Insurers Had a Reason to Defend the Status Quo

That helps explain why major insurers were so eager to preserve the Covid-era Obamacare super subsidies. More federal subsidy money meant more premium support flowing through a system they already dominate. It also helps explain why efforts to tighten fraud prevention met resistance. When Washington pours more money into a poorly disciplined subsidy structure, the largest incumbents have every reason to protect that arrangement.

Moore’s op-ed makes a broader version of the same point. He argues that Obamacare has made healthcare less affordable, strengthened large insurers and hospital systems, and left patients with higher costs and fewer real choices. He also argues that voters increasingly blame insurers and providers for rising costs.

Affordability Is Not the Same as More Subsidies

Washington often treats healthcare affordability as a matter of sending more taxpayer dollars into the same broken channels. That is not real reform. It is an attempt to mask high costs without addressing what drives them.

If the result is a healthcare sector where giant insurers can still post tens of billions in profits, then the problem is not that the industry lacks government support. The problem is that federal policy has protected middlemen and entrenched a system that insulates large firms from normal price pressure.

That is one reason the debate over fraud prevention matters. Basic program integrity should not be controversial. If subsidies are justified as help for struggling households, then policymakers should be willing to make sure those dollars are going only to eligible recipients and not being used to pad enrollment numbers or protect insurer revenue.

Patients Need a Different Model

Moore’s op-ed calls for a more patient-centered approach, including stronger price transparency, more health savings account flexibility, and insurance options that give families more control over how they spend healthcare dollars. Those ideas move in the right direction because they shift power away from the large institutions that benefit from opacity and toward the people actually paying the bills.

Healthcare affordability will not improve simply because Washington keeps writing larger checks. It will improve when patients can see prices, compare options, and keep more control over their own healthcare spending. It will improve when policymakers stop confusing insurer-friendly subsidies with consumer-friendly reform.

CFE Takeaway

The profit numbers from the biggest health insurers are a reminder that Obamacare’s subsidy structure has created powerful interests with every incentive to keep the money flowing. A healthcare system that produces this level of insurer profit while families still struggle with premiums and out-of-pocket costs is not working the way it should. Real affordability means less protection for the gravy train and more power for patients.