The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Health Reform]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-07-06 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 458 references
[Comments enabled]  

A number of years ago -- roughly eight years ago now -- I decided to take a crack at what I had been told, both by medical professionals and everyone in the media and government, was an intractable and inevitable series of events.

Like most middle-aged men my waistline was expanding as was my body mass.  It was only a few pounds a year that were going on my body mass but over the space of 20 or 30 years it adds up, and the rate was slowly accelerating.  At the time  I was over 200lbs; all one-way  If I exercised at a vigorous and repeated level I could drop about 10lbs, but as soon as I backed off it came right back -- and usually more than went off.  This was a repeated cycle.

I had heard about ketogenic diets but, of course, they were said to be "terrible" for you.  A quick look at the literature and similar all said I'd die if I ate that way -- from kidney failure to heart attack or stroke, you name it, the literature and "professionals" all advised against it in stern, "you're screwed if you do this" sort of language.  Further, every person I spoke with, medical or sports professional or otherwise, said you can't perform athletically while eating this way; indeed, there's an entire damned industry pushing various sugar-laden "performance" foods and beverages, including those specifically intended for on-course, during-competition use.

However, a more-detailed look at the human species found that in point of fact this is pretty-much how humans all used to eat -- out of necessity -- before commercial agriculture came on the scene.

The exception were true peasants; those living in a land where there were feudal lords and similar conditions, under which there was simply no choice beyond eating rice or potatoes other than to starve.  There high-carb but low-volume was the rule rather than the exception and it wasn't voluntary.

I figured a couple of months wouldn't kill me.

A couple of months later, I liked what I saw -- and felt.  So I kept at it.

At six months I was truly impressed and had to toss all of my existing clothes because they looked like refrigerator boxes when I attempted to wear them.

Two months later, or eight in total, this was the difference:


About a month ago this was taken while I was running the Lilac 10k on Mackinaw Island.  Has anything material changed in terms of my body mass and composition in the last roughly eight years?


Remember, I was gaining five to ten pounds a year every year before I undertook this path.  Now, eight years later, I'm pretty darn close to where I was on Thanksgiving of 2011!

I'm not dead.  My blood sugar level is normal.  I wear the same size waist pants now as then, and the same size T-shirt too (medium.)  In early 2011 before I began I used to wear pants six inches larger in the waist and two full sizes larger in a T-shirt.  My time in that race about a month ago was 49:21, a 7:57 official pace, which I considered crappy and it was as there was a MONSTER hill on that course that flat-out tried to kill you -- but the time was good enough to be third in my age division and 68th overall -- out of a field of 736 runners and 18th out of 136 among men 40+.  In other words in the top 20% of all men who ran that day and the top 13% of those over 40.  I'm faster now as a runner, at 55, than I was when I was 17 in High School.  My VO2Max is 49; Garmin rates me as having the fitness age of an excellent 20 year old.  Athlinks, a site that aggregates running generally, says I'm in the top 13% of those (I'm assuming it's sex-specific, so that's men) it has results for.

All the terrible things I was told would happen didn't and all of the good things I was told wouldn't happen did.

I'm not alone.

In fact, I'm not even close to an outlier.

After 150,000 days of actual patient care of Type 2 diabetics eating this way, of which I never was -- that is two years in there have been no bad outcomes that could be attributed to eating a ketogenic diet.

There were instead massive, documented and objective improvements on virtually every metric and by virtually every individual who followed this path.  The cost of this course of action is not only literally zero doing so reduces the amount of money such a person spends on medical care for that condition by an enormous amount, in some cases by almost-literally 100%.

As I pointed out more than a year ago we could take $400 billion a year off Federal spending alone by simply mandating that this be the "standard of care" for people with diabetes and that for those who refuse no other care will be provided by any third party, whether government or otherwise.  This would literally put thousands of doctors and hundreds of hospitals, along with hundreds of thousands of administrative employees out of business for lack of work, save the taxpayer four hundred billion dollars a yeargreatly help the state and local pension fund problems and by cutting the deficit spending nearly in half also improve everyone's standard of living in the country due to reduction in monetary inflation.

At the same time we'd massively improve individual health among those who have this condition.

There is exactly one group of people who are and would be opposed and who have thus far prevented that change from being made: Those in the medical industry, from insurance executives to doctors to pharmaceutical firms to hospitals who both kill you and charge you $400 billion a year to do so.

These people not only are literally killing you with bad advice and drugs they're financially raping everyone in the nation at the same time -- all through a litany of lies.

Instead of resolving this problem we have the entire Democrat party and every individual in that party running for President next year promising free health care for illegal invaders along with turning "all the health care you want that kills you painfully and slowly, along with outrageously stealing all your money" into a human right.

Please explain to me why, given the magnitude of this scam, which I remind you is more than $1,200 per person, per year in this nation for this one disease alone, a sum that is extracted from every one of you in higher health insurance premiums and medical costs, never mind the millions of impacted persons who inevitably go through various and sundry nasty effects of this disease including amputations, blindness, kidney dialysis and death the people of this nation are not building gallows right now on the National Mall and demanding that this crap be stopped, immediately and permanently, or they're going to use said gallows and leave the carcasses it generates for buzzards to consume -- starting with every Democrat Candidate for President, sitting Congressperson, Hospital executive and all the executives in every single pharmaceutical firm in the United States.

PS: Note, I remind you, that this level of savings and superior health outcomes can be had without breaking a single medical monopoly or doing anything about the outrageous, 500% of market-price, systemic financial******as a whole!

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-07-05 11:28 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 290 references
[Comments enabled]  

Well well, look what we have here....

Out of Trump, just now (10:27 CT 7/5): "We're working on a favored nation's clause for drugs; we will pay the amount the lowest-priced nation pays and we're going to do it by executive order."

From here:

Wholesale drug pricing in the United States must be on a "most-favored nation" basis.  The impact of this would be to force a level price across all nations for drugs produced by any pharmaceutical company marketing both in the US and anywhere else in the world.  Violations, including attempts to "offshore" via subsidiaries to evade this requirement are deemed criminal and civil acts.  The civil penalty shall be 300% of the difference paid to the customer who got screwed, and another 300% for each instance of a prescription filled at an inflated price paid as a fine to the government.  This would drive drug prices down by at least half in the United States and for many drugs by 90% or more.  It would instantly and permanently end, for example, the practice of charging someone $100,000 for scorpion antivenom in Arizona when the same drug from the same company is $200 for the same quantity 40 miles to the south and across the Mexican border.  Since all prices must be posted at the retail consumer level for both goods and services controlling the drug pricing problem at a wholesale level is both simpler and sufficient since competition will already exist at the retail pharmacy level.

Now, Mr. President, how about the rest of that bill?

Make it simple: Demand this all be enacted and pass (there's a link at the bottom to what implementation would look like) or you will veto every single bill that comes across your desk until it is.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-07-01 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 202 references
[Comments enabled]  

Watch this one folks.

$400 vials of insulin.

$25 for the very same vial in Canada.

CNN points out that the manufacturers, of which there are three, intentionally do not enter competing lines of business and thus there is no competition between providers.

On purpose.

Intentionally divvying up markets like this is a felony.  It has been a felony since the late 1800s -- more than 100 years.  The Sherman and Clayton acts, known as 15 USC Chapter 1, declare such practices or any attempt to engage in them federal criminal offenses carrying 10 years in prison for each person so-involved.

The number of criminal prosecutions in the medical and drug sector over these obvious, blatant criminal acts number zero.

The media calls this "greedy" as do "activists."

They do not call it what it is under more than 100 year old law: Felonious.

They do not ask: Where are the ******ned handcuffs and why aren't the executives in prison?

They do not call for prison terms -- right now.

They ignore, as do the activists, the clear statement of law found in 15 USC Chapter 1.

There is no "hard" problem here to solve.

You need only jail a few executives and all of this bullcrap will stop across the medical industry instantly.


If the government will not do its job then why do you sit back and whine and run "human interest" stories instead of storming the Halls of Congress and State AG offices, along with demanding that both the FBI and State Cops raid these firms and arrest all of the executives inside, shuttering the buildings and chaining the doors closed until this blatant and obvious lawless behavior stops?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-06-25 10:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 89 references
[Comments enabled]  

So there's the executive order.....which is intentionally weak.

HHS Secretary Alex Azar said the executive order “will go down as one of the most significant steps in the long history of American health care reform” during a Monday phone call with reporters. He outlined five points in the order, which will translate into rules drafted by HHS:

  • To require hospitals to publish prices reflecting what patients and insurers pay.
  • To require health care providers and insurers to tell patients about out-of-pocket costs before they receive services.
  • To simplify how federal health care programs measure quality.
  • To protect patient privacy as the administration examines health care claims data.
  • To direct the Treasury Department to expand how patients can use health savings accounts.

Administration officials couldn’t pinpoint when the rules directed by the executive order will go into effect during a Monday phone call with reporters.

We'll see.

I want to see the rules that HHS puts forward, and how they think they can enforce them.

A simpler, and guaranteed to work model, would have been to tell the entire industry to cut that crap out or people will be indicted and go to prison, starting tomorrow -- much as I document here.

Because there are no handcuffs threatened under more than 100 year old law that says what they're doing is blatantly illegal, and which they've tried to get ruled lawful twice all the way to the Supreme Court and lost both times, I don't think Trump means it.

Second, I know that if he did actually do it the economic impact would be quite-severe.  It would be short and when we recovered it would be an insanely strong recovery too, since the nation would be permanently rendered far more competitive in terms of business costs, but the short term pain would be considerable -- and the lobbyists and other medical folks have Trump, just like the rest of DC, by the balls.

It will only be when the American people decide to demand that it happen "or else" -- and mean it -- that they will stand up and do the right thing -- assuming we find our pitchforks before it all goes to crap in a few years due to fiscal overload.

PS: Note that exactly none of the mainslime media have spent any time on this?  I wonder why.....

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-06-11 07:01 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 317 references
[Comments enabled]  

Well well Justice Roberts, I am writing your obituary right here and now, and should you precede me I'll publish it too, even if it costs me a lot of money to do it.

"Justice Roberts was single-handedly responsible for the destruction of the American Government via its Treasury via his idiotic and legally-infirm contortions in ruling the Affordable Care Act was in fact a tax, rather than a constitutionally impermissible command."

As I wrote at the time Roberts destroyed what little was left of the Supreme Court's legitimacy, putting the final nail into a coffin built since Wickard .v. Filburn.  He justified this in his opinion through what is really called by any means possible I shall torture the law to save it, in that he cited a claim that the Courts are required that any fair means of interpretation exists that leaves a law intact the courts are required to find it.

Of course there was no such "fair means" which he also set forth in his own opinion, stating clearly that the statute reads as a command to buy insurance ("enter into a regulated activity") and that the Constitution prohibits that.

Indeed the Congressional record on the drafting and debate makes clear (if you bother to read it, which Roberts clearly did and then intentionally ignored it, which I also pointed out in a further article) that Congress knew they could not draft the PPACA as a tax because direct taxation on other than strict capitation is unconstitutional.

In other words the US Government can assess a $10 per person tax, per person, but they may not condition the amount of the tax or its imposition on anything other than being a person.  The 16th Amendment makes legal the imposition of taxes on income.  Indeed multiple other attempts to impose such a tax without a Constitutional Amendment had been previously struck as unconstitutional, so there's not only a legislative record but a judicial one as well.

Roberts didn't care.  I've often mused if someone has a video of him buggering a little boy and used it get him to write that "opinion."

But what Roberts didn't have, because he couldn't, is the ability to time travel.  And when Congress passed the TCJA reducing the penalty for not having coverage to zero starting January 1st of next year they destroyed the Constitutionality of both guaranteed issue and community rating, since both were by the Congressional record inextricably tied to the imposition of the penalty and thus are non-severable, as is specifically stated in the Congressional record.

Without the penalty there is no tax since the inherent property of a tax is that it raises revenue.  That's now gone and it was the sole pillar on which the Roberts court decision rested.

The problem is that the rest of the law isn't inseverable and the way law works is that except where severance is specifically declared inapplicable it applies unless the result would be nonsense.

That the result of non-severance will bankrupt you does not enter in the analysis.

Thus the brief referenced herein argues that both community rating and guaranteed issue are Constitutionally infirm and thus void come January 1st.  This is a winning argument, and if there is anything approaching a justice who can actually read it wins by declaratory judgment since the precedent to judge it by is in the original opinion and as a result there is no legal ground to cover in presentation of a case or argument before the court!

But once you do that both Treasury and private industry are irrevocably and instantly ****ed.

Without community rating and guaranteed issue anyone with a pre-existing condition who becomes unemployed becomes permanently unemployable as they are uninsurable without destroying the business they go to work for.  Further, they can't engage in entrepreneurial activity either because there is no possible way for them to buy health insurance.  And finally, since the cost of that care has more than doubled since this problem was allegedly "addressed" by Obamacare they have no other option available.

I have often written about the utter necessity of getting rid of the medical monopolies as a political imperative, and for individuals to do everything in their power to get off the medical teat, which for most people means you damn well better not not be overweight or obese, you better have normal blood sugar which means no damned carbs to any material extent in your diet and it certainly means that intentional high-risk behavior like butt****ing, IV drug use or drinking to excess is an instant economic death sentence.

Of course what has occurred in the decade since Obama came to office and Pelosi and her pals rammed through their "vision" is that all of that has gone downhill in statistical terms for America.  There are more obese and abnormal-insulin and blood-sugar level people in this country than ever before, including a shocking number of teens for whom such was unheard of as recently as 30 years ago.  There has been an explosion of IV drug use including heroin and fentanyl.  And we have removed not just legal strictures but have mandated "tolerance and acceptance" under the law for extraordinarily-high risk social behaviors and in no small part covered that up with expensive, lifetime drug regimes that are utterly dependent on public financing to remain "affordable" for the vast majority of people.

The social issues are real but the cost issues exist only because neither Congress nor any State or Federal executive will take their justice departments and prosecute, throwing in jail, the medical monopolists.  Instead they kowtow to their lobbying, whining and claims of "necessity" to continue the trend of taking medical expense from 4% of GDP to nearly 20% today and beyond into the future.

Well, now the scheme is about to blow up in everyone's face.  As of January 1st those who are healthy do not need to participate and most will not.  I won't.  The "donut hole" where $25,000 - $50,000 in income has an effective tax rate of more than 80% everywhere (and close to 100% in high-tax states) is gone if you simply stick up the middle finger.

But without some means of forcing transfer payments from "someone" (the taxpayer across the entire population) to fork up $900 a month for someone like me, who needs zero routine and chronic medical care so that someone else can run up $5,000 a month prescription drug bills the latter's bill becomes unfundable.

Mr. Roberts will burn in Hell for this, as had he not tortured the Constitution in 2012 Congress would have been forced to deal with the medical monopolists and so would have Obama's administration, saving the US Government and taxpayer several trillion dollars.  You'd also be able to pay cash for virtually any medical situation, save an immediate crisis for which (if you chose to do so) reasonably-priced insurance would be available.  We're talking $100 a month or less here folks, because even the "really awful" stuff would cost one fifth of what it does now.

But all that money has now been stolen and it's gone, while the nuclear fiscal bomb left behind by Robert's outrageous twisting of reality on the back of Obama and Pelosi's intentional set of actions is now about to detonate in his, and everyone else's, face.


View this entry with comments (opens new window)