As the Obama administration’s health overhaul sputters in its opening weeks, insurers and advocacy groups are pursuing a new strategy in the quest to get millions of young people to sign up for health insurance: They’re appealing to their mothers.
In one cheeky campaign, AARP is urging mothers to send e-cards to their children reminding them to sign up. One e-card reads, “As a reward for signing up for health insurance, I’ll defriend you on Facebook.” Another group, Organizing for Action, is seeking to steer holiday conversations toward health care by encouraging parents to have “the talk” with their adult children. And a Colorado group is promoting an ad featuring a hapless young man who calls his mother from the golf course: “Yo, Mom, do I got insurance?”
Here would be my answer if my Mom was to send something like that to me:
And by the way, if you're young and wondering how bad you are about to get cornholed by this crap I'll tell you because I used to insure a lot of young people when I ran my Internet company. It was about $100 a month for a healthy young non-smoking person to buy insurance on the private market prior to Obamacare, or a bit over $1,000 a year. That's even with the insane price increases of late.
All the numbers I'm seeing for Obamacare policies aimed at the young 20-something person are at least double that price and instead of the $1,000 deductible they're $5,000 deductibles in most cases, or five times as much if you actually get sick and need to use the so-called "care."
And don't start this crap about it being a "good deal" to stay on your parent's insurance either. It's not. The same screw job applies there too. It was cheaper for you to buy your own policy all-in and you got better coverage (by far) doing so than to be "covered" under your parent's policy too as theirs is going to be gang*****d just like yours -- if not now, next year when the corporate policies have to comply with Obamacare rules.
Incidentally if you're wondering how bad that's going to be there are estimates that as many as 80 million employees will be thrown off corporate policies. Why? Because they don't cover men for pregnancy among other things. That would be about half of all corporate policies, which would be just about in-line with what I'm expecting to see. That's not a mistake either -- Obama knew damn well at least three years ago that would be the intended outcome of this law and he has lied to you and everyone else about it since.
Never mind that for this exorbitant price they're now "covering" young women for prostate cancer and young men for endometriosis. If you don't understand why that's stupid you failed biology class in 9th grade and should immediately turn into your alleged "diploma."
I'd love to have some sympathy for these staffers, but I do not. Not only do I have no sympathy I will go on record as stating that any attempt to exempt them from the consequences of legislation that they efforted, as employees of Congress, to pass as Democratic staffers should result in their immediate indictment and imprisonment for fraud upon the public and grand theft.
Veteran House Democratic aides are sick over the insurance prices they’ll pay under Obamacare, and they’re scrambling to find a cure.
“In a shock to the system, the older staff in my office (folks over 59) have now found out their personal health insurance costs (even with the government contribution) have gone up 3-4 times what they were paying before,” Minh Ta, chief of staff to Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), wrote to fellow Democratic chiefs of staff in an email message obtained by POLITICO. “Simply unacceptable.”
If it's unacceptable to them and you then repeal the law and instead start cracking down on all the monopolies and anti-competitive practices, charging those entities involved under The Sherman Act.
That would be an actual fix for what's wrong with health care in America.
On CNBS this morning we have the former Medtronic CEO talking about how Obamacare is a train wreck and that we have to "fix it."
But then he offers no actual fixes. Just ways to continue a medical scam machine that his company, of course, has made and will continue to make lots of money from.
Oh sure, he wants to give "discounts" if you're healthier (e.g. if you lose weight, etc.)
But what's missing -- conspicuously so -- is so much as a suggestion that everyone (1) post prices for goods and services and (2) bill everyone the same price for a given thing.
In other words the same model that works in every other area of commerce and in fact is more-or-less mandated by law.
Where's the simple application of the Robinson-Patman Act -- requiring that buyers of like kind and quantity be treated equally? Or how about the Sherman Act and Clayton Acts, making unlawful any sort of act that combines with market power to restrain trade and fix prices?
Conspicuously missing, that's where.
All of these people are part of the problem and have no intention of resolving anything -- indeed, their entire existence relies on being able to find some way, no matter how desperate, to maintain the ability to extract nearly one dollar in five in the economy for themselves.
Say "No" America -- as loudly and forcefully as necessary.
..I parade a woman on national television as an Obamacare -cum- Brosurance -cum- Hosurance "success story" and then it turns out that my signature web site lied and she not only didn't qualify for subsidies the price she was quoted was wrong (and not in her favor either) too.
A woman who President Barack Obama cited in remarks last month as an example of what Obamacare “is all about” says she is now facing repeated problems with her own enrollment.
Jessica Sanford, a Washington state resident and self-employed court reporter, has received numerous letters from her state’s exchange program notifying her of increased costs to her plan and tax credit miscalculations, according to CNN.
“Wow. You guys really screwed me over,” Sanford wrote on a Facebook post about the Washington state exchange website. “Now I have been priced out and will not be able to afford the plans you offer. But, I get to pay $95 and up for not having health insurance. I am so incredibly disappointed and saddened. You majorly screwed up.”
Nobody "screwed up" Jessica.
You were intentionally used and abused by the President.
Just like all the others who supported this abject fraud.
Wake up Jessica. You just got screwed out of your health insurance like nearly 4 million other Americans and what's worse is that in about a year 50 million more will get hosed when their employer-provided insurance becomes illegal since it does not cover prostate cancer in women.
Nobody writes a regulation like that by accident and if you don't understand why I'd like to know how in the hell you got out of Junior High, say much less either High School or College.
Part of the problem with government sponsored and "paid" health care is that it is subject to outright looting. I've made this allegation many times and some have scoffed at it -- but now Obama is coming under fire for cutting off people from their Medicare suppliers in this article from Daily Caller.
The Obama administration implemented a competitive bidding program that causes many Medicare patients to lose their existing health equipment providers, forcing seniors to rely on out-of-state companies that increase their medical costs and keep them waiting for essential services like oxygen.
Between 80 and 90 percent of previously-eligible providers of medical equipment and services are now excluded from serving Medicare patients in bid areas, according to figures compiled by the nonpartisan homecare advocacy group People for Quality Care (PFQC) and provided to The Daily Caller.
That may very well be true. The question is whether the existing system is reasonable.
One of the areas of complaint was related to the provision of supplies for people suffering from COPD. A chronic disease most-often caused by smoking, COPD impacts your ability to exchange oxygen with the air in your lungs, and it is a progressive, irreversible and debilitating disease -- albeit one caused by one's own lifestyle.
The usual treatment involves supplemental oxygen, which has its own set of problems; sufferers usually have an oxygen concentrator in their home that provides oxygen through a hose that is then blown up the nose, along with bottles of compressed oxygen to take with them when away from the house for short periods.
Many of the sufferers of this disease, incidentally, continue to smoke despite the fact that anything burning around an enriched oxygen atmosphere comes with an extremely high risk of uncontrollable fires. More than a few people have burned down their homes this way.
But I wanted to focus on just one area of supplies and show you exactly how badly the monopoly and government "provision" practices are.
See, most people on supplemental oxygen need to check their oxygen saturation on a fairly regular basis. The human body normally maintains this in the upper half of the 90% range; that is, your arterial blood is usually almost-fully saturated with oxygen. If it falls under 90% you're in trouble, and below 80% can be life-threatening over time. Saturation under 60% can lead to immediate loss of consciousness and death.
Fortunately this level is easily checked with a non-invasive device that clips on the finger and also checks your pulse rate at the same time. A specific-frequency LED and photodetector work with the spectral property of hemoglobin to provide a fairly-accurate saturation indication within seconds. Since there is no blood draw required and the device simply slips on the finger and is a couple of inches long, powered by a battery, it's a very cost-effective and simple means of monitoring yourself if you have this condition.
Well, here's the problem -- if you look at common online "medical suppliers" you will find that these devices tend to run about $40-50, with some being $100 or more.
Not bad, right?
Well, maybe. See, Amazon sells them for as little as $18.
So what do you get for 2-3x as much money? Nothing, really. All of these devices work the same way, all are about the same size, they're made by the same companies and all of them are FDA approved and presumably as accurate as one another -- never mind that being off by a percent or two isn't critical.
If you were paying cash for your oximeter would you pay $50 when you can have the same thing for $18? I doubt it. But when you can just have the government pay for it, why not? Who cares if its more expensive -- it doesn't come out of your pocket, right?
Companies with this sort of differential in their price wouldn't remain in business for long if you were paying cash. Likewise the price of oxygen concentrators varies wildly from one firm and model to the next, yet unless it contains a filling facility to refill the portable bottles again the function is essentially identical. Is there a material difference between a $400 unit and a $700 one? Probably not; they all work the same way, by forcing air through a membrane that separates the gases in room air -- but which one does the government buy and what do they pay for it?
We desperately need to return health care to a system where you buy it, you pay for it, and you see all the prices before you buy and are obligated to pay. Oh sure, there are going to be situations where you're not exactly in a condition to consent, but this sort of supply is not one of them. In such a system anyone trying to charge 200, 300 or 500% for the same thing is going to have a very rough time staying in business.
What would happen if we cut the cost of medical care by half -- which doesn't look very hard at first blush, does it? Let's just take the federal side -- Medicare and Medicaid spent $1.113 trillion last fiscal year. Cut that by half and the deficit problem essentially disappears. The same reduction applied to the pension funds and state government medical spending would essentially fix all of their budget problems as well.
And half off, by the way, is probably an under-estimation. An actual free market for drugs, devices, hospitalization and other medical goods and services where any and all trying to restrain trade or otherwise interfere with competition were prosecuted instead of encouraged would be likely to drop cost by 75% or perhaps even more. This would place nearly all care within the realm of being able to be paid for in cash by consumers, with the exceptions being true catastrophic situations. But since that cost would also come down by 3/4 buying true insurance that covers only catastrophes, leaving all else to be paid for in cash, would result in everyone being able to buy such insurance for a few hundred dollars a year should they so choose.
Why are we not doing this? Because there is a tremendous lobby that lies to you every step of the way and enlists you in protecting not your health and access to health care but to their outrageous skimming of funds from everyone -- including you.
But back to our COPD sufferer -- devices such as a oxygen concentrator and pulse oximeter are not very expensive when bought on the open market. They're not something that even a person of modest means cannot afford to pay for out of their own pocket; these are durable devices that last for years, and yet a concentrator costs about as much as a modest flatscreen TV.
Which do you need more, if you suffer from COPD, and why shouldn't you be the one to choose between the TV and being able to breathe, especially when you're in that situation because you decided to smoke for the previous 30 years? Why should society not only buy you those machines but pay 200 or 300% more for them than the market price when it was your choice to engage in the behavior that led to your need for them?
Now there's something to think about....
Where We Are, Where We're Heading (2013) - The annual 2013 Ticker
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.
NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.
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.
Looking for "The Best of Market Ticker"? Check out Ticker Classics.
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 reproduced 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 or for commercial use.
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.