The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Health Reform]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
Delusion Will Not Get You Hired

Display list of topics

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
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.

In the end this is up to you folks.

You're going to have to revolt.  Peacefully and lawfully, hopefully.  But you're going to have to in order to fix the health care scam that causes you to pay ten times what others pay in other parts of the world for drugs, surgeries and other services.

Have a look at this folks.  Health care never lost employmenteven during the recession.

Now consider that at least 10 administrators and other non-care-givers are hired for each doctor or nurse.  Some estimates place the number at 30:1.

Technology always reduces cost and improves efficiency over time in a free market.  The concept of a 24" computer display that can be had for a couple hundred bucks was fantasy 10 or 20 years ago.  Such a display was a CRT and cost thousands.  I know because I owned one -- exactly one, in my office, that was used for graphic arts work.  Nobody else had them on their desk because they cost too much money!

You can buy a 65" TV right now and hang on it on your wall, with 4k resolution, for under a thousand dollars.  That was unthinkable a few years ago.  In 1999 after I sold MCSNet I bought a rear projection TV -- a Mitsubishi -- that was one of the first 1080 sets on the market.  It cost eight grand, consumed five times or more the power of the set I have on my wall now, was several times the weight and roughly eight times the cost yet had a fraction of the resolution and image quality.

We all walk around with a computer in our pocket that cost a few hundred bucks -- and is thousands of times more powerful than the desktop computer that I paid over $2,500 for.  It not only has thousands of times the RAM and storage it runs all day on a tiny little battery where mine required 120V AC power to operate at all.

Health care, as it has become more technologically-based, should have gotten dramatically cheaper.  A simple example is the X-rays in your dental office.  They used to require actual film; you took the image and then had to develop the film.  The film and chemicals to run it cost money and were disposable items; you used them and they were used up.  Today those X-rays are taken with a machine that uses a solid-state imager placed in your mouth (much like the sensor in a digital camera) that lasts effectively forever; the only "consumable" is a plastic-bag like cover placed over it for sterility reasons. The images it produces are higher resolution and the image sensor requires much lower power (meaning less radiation you absorb, but also far cheaper to make the X-ray emitter too.)  Yet the cost of those X-rays has not come down at all -- if anything it has gone up!

Crowns and such used to be made by hand.  Now they're done on a small 5-axis CNC machine that sits in the back room of the dentist's office; they take a picture of your tooth and the computer digitizes that and makes an exact fitting crown from same that requires very little trimming -- if any -- when put in your mouth.  That thing can make a crown in minutes from a solid block of material, and does.  Only the monopoly games the industry plays make that crown cost hundreds or even a thousand dollars instead of the five bucks worth of material and consumption of tooling (which does eventually occur); while the machines are moderately expensive over their useful life the cost-per-crown-made is literally in the single-digit dollar range.  With competition the cost of a crown would be in the tens of dollars (that's still a profit margin of well over 100%!) and another couple hundred worth of work by a dentist to have it put in.  And in fact it is, if you get on a plane and go somewhere all the monopolists cannot set up shop.

The government has all the tools it needs to break all those monopolies right now.  15 USC Chapter 1 makes clear that such actions are illegal.  Not only are they illegal they're felonies, not just civil offenses.  Yet nobody -- literally nobody, whether at the state or federal level will take this on.

The reason is in that chart.  If you put a stop to the monopolies in health care then employment in that sector contracts instantly and by a monstrous amount -- probably by as much as 90%!

The resulting layoffs and recession -- although it would be very short lived as the cost decrease to households and business flowed through the economy and all that money was redirected into productive pursuits -- is why nobody will touch this.

They know that 9 out of 10, or more, of the people employed in "health care" never provide a single second of care to a single person during their entire career.  They are all overhead, those "jobs" are created by the illegal monopolist actions of those in the industry, they could never exist in a free market because someone would employ only the people needed for care and actual cash collection, and thus would destroy the competitors with 10x as many overhead employees in a single day.

As I pointed out in Leverage the first economic principle is that the lowest-cost transaction is always the simplest.  If you want a loan the cheapest way to obtain one with proper price for risk is for you to find someone with money and borrow it from them.  If you want some form of health care the cheapest way to obtain it at an actual fair price for whatever is wrong is to find a person who knows how to fix whatever is wrong with you and pay them in cash.

This is always true because nobody works for free.  The more people who are involved in the transaction the more it costs, always and without exception.  Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or stealing from someone else.

The politicians are never going to voluntarily contract this -- or any other -- segment of the economy, even when it is 10x the size of what it should be due to outright fraud and monopoly behavior that is against the law.  They know that this will immediately cause a very deep and nasty recession if they do, and they'll be blamed for it.

As a result it comes down to you.

Either you -- that is, everyone -- forces this issue and revolts, whether it be through a refusal to earn money and pay taxes, political process or otherwise, or the exponential increase in cost and parasitic employment that helps nobody other than those who draw the checks will continue until the Federal and State governments are unable to fund themselves at which point they will either ration care and if you are dependent on same you will likely die or said governments will collapse.

That point in time, incidentally, is now quite close to being upon us.

Which choice do you make?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Only free-standing ERs?

Lawmakers at the state Capitol appear poised to require free-standing emergency rooms to provide more information to patients regarding costs.

A bill by State Sen. John Kefalos, a Democrat, and State Sen. Jim Smallwood, a Republican, advanced Tuesday in the State Senate Finance Committee.


They also would require the sites to tell the patients the costs of their top 25 most common procedures before going ahead with treatment unless it is classified as a severe emergency.

This would be in Colorado.

So why isn't every medical and other practice required to tell you up front what the treatment and procedure cost will be?

Aren't you required to be given an estimate before the garage works on your car?  You are.

Aren't you required to be given an estimate before the computer guy works on your computer?  You are.

Aren't you required to be given an estimate before your roof is fixed?  You are.

So why not here?

And further, why hasn't the Colorado Hospital Association backed this in a full-throated fashion?

Simple: They are not interested in being unable to rip you off.

That, by the way, should get them -- and all the hospitals and doctors -- charged with Racketeering.

And if they aren't, and if the lawmakers will not fix this and the cops will not enforce said laws then exactly why should you pay any taxes, why should you obey any laws, and why should you so much as be willing to sell such a lawmaker or cop a single gallon of gasoline, a pound of hamburger or a single orange?

The schemes in this space steal over three trillion a year from Americans.

Why do you allow it to continue, America?

Isn't it as simple as "you must post a price, and everyone gets charged the same price"?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2018-02-17 17:00 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 214 references
[Comments enabled]  

Oh Nos, it's all been a lie!

The idea that spending more on preventive care will reduce overall health care spending is widely believed and often promoted as a reason to support reform. It’s thought that too many people with chronic illnesses wait until they are truly ill before seeking care, often in emergency rooms, where it costs more. It should follow then that treating diseases earlier, or screening for them before they become more serious, would wind up saving money in the long run.

Unfortunately, almost none of this is true.

What we've been told is that forcing primary care coverage -- which has resulted in ridiculous ramps in overall cost for same -- would do several things, including less emergency room care (and cost), less catastrophic care (and cost) and better health outcomes.  Oh, and less overall cost.

Unfortunately that is all false.

ER visits didn't go down.  Why?  Because ER visits are covered too and those are expensive.  So, since they're more convenient guess what happens when you don't have to pay out of pocket for them?  Yep.

Alleged "wellness programs", which either provide incentives to do good things (e.g. go to the gym) or penalize you for not, or for doing bad things (e.g. being fat) don't work either.  They don't decrease costs -- unless you start throwing people out entirely, at which point they may decrease cost for the insurance firm (or the employer) but not for the system as a whole.

This doesn't mean that trying to help people be healthier is bad.  But it does mean that doing so doesn't save money.

What would save a lot of money?

Throwing all the monopolists in prison and thus demonstrating to the remainder of those in health care that they can either cut that crap out or they will be joining the first bunch in a nice set of orange striped jumpsuits.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2017-11-01 12:14 by Karl Denninger
in Health Reform , 499 references
[Comments enabled]  

Ok, so I have the APTC for a single person who has reduced income to right near $20,000 a year for 2018.

In Florida it is now $760/month, or $9,120 a year.

This is wildly up from $446 for last year; in fact it's up 70%.

This means I can now have a Silver plan for about $15/month, as opposed to a very low-level Bronze plan for under a buck.  I can also choose virtually all the Bronze plans for zero (since the cost is lower than the APTC), but that would be insane since I'd be leaving a huge amount of your money on the table.

The actuarial value of a "Silver" plan is wildly better than any of the Bronze plans.

There is one "gotcha", which is hospitalization co-insurance that does exist on the Silver plan but not on the Bronze.  But the Silver plan in question has a zero deductible, so even with 20% "coinsurance" you'd have to run a hell of a bill to lose that bet especially considering that you get the insurance-company racketeering-deduction price.

Folks, you have to be flat-out nuts to work harder and run into the subsidy phase-out, especially if you have a spouse, even if you do need routine medical services since you can now buy zero-deductible Silver plans for less than the cost of a burger-and-beer in your local pub!


No, you probably can't do this in high-cost-of-living areas without living in a slum.  Yes, you can make it work perfectly-well in lower-cost-of-living areas and be perfectly fine.  I'm doing it and you can too.  Yes, it means you have to change your lifestyle but I'll be double-******ned if I'm going to go out and earn a six-figure income and then have government thieves not only tax more than half of it away (which they will) but then double-monkey-**** me by extracting approximately $10,000 in after tax money in addition from me for "insurance" that, unless I have some sort of medical catastrophe in the next 12 months in fact provides zero value to me.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Here it is:

"Notwithstanding any other provision in state or federal law, a person who presents themselves while uninsured to any provider of a medical good or service shall not be charged a price greater than that which Medicare pays for the same drug, device, service or combination thereof."

That's it.

One sentence.

If you want to add a penalty clause with it I propose the following:

"Any bill rendered to a person in excess of said amounts shall (1) be deemed void, with all services and goods provided as a gift without charge or taxable consequence to said consumer but not deductible by said physician or facility from any income or occupational tax and (2) is immediately due to the customer in the exact amount presented as liquidated damages for the fraud so-attempted."

It ends the "Chargemaster" ripoff game.

It ends the $150,000 snake bite or the $80,000 scorpion sting.

It ends the $500,000 cancer treatment.

It ends all of that, immediately and instantly.

I remind you that Medicare is required to set pay rates by law at a level that in fact are profitable -- that is, above cost by a modest amount -- for everything it covers.  Further, those pay rates are audited regularly to prove that they in fact are above cost.

Does this solve every problem?  No, and in fact that would leave alone the existing monopolistic pricing systems that many medical providers, whether they be drug makers, device makers, service providers or otherwise have in place.  It would do exactly nothing to get rid of the 10 paper pushers hired for every doctor or nurse, none of whom ever provide one second of care to an actual person through their entire time of employment.

But it would instantly end walking into an emergency room and getting hammered with a $50,000 bill for something that Medicare will pay $5,000 for.

I remind you that even quite poor people can manage to come up with $5,000 in a life-threatening emergency.  Sure, they might wind up paying 25% interest on the credit card, they might have to stop smoking their $5 pack/day cigs, and it might take them three or five years to pay it off, but they can probably do it.

It's not an answer to the problems the mediscam imposes on society, but it would sure as hell bring down costs for people instantly and permanently, and would make the decision to not carry insurance one that people could opt for while having a rational shot at paying cash -- at least for those in the middle class or better, for whom a $5,000 surprise would be bad, but bearable.

More to the point with the crazy deductibles today the $5,000 would actually buy care and eviscerate the insurance ripoff at the same time, because today you get to pay the $5,000 plus another $10k/year in "premiums" -- for exactly nothing.

This matters because most of the argument for so-called "health insurance" is actually about extortion -- either buy the product or be ruined with charges that are 5, 10 or even 100x what someone who has bought the product will pay.

Ending that will force health insurance companies to actually provide a product that is affordable and provides a reasonable set of benefits -- or people can simply stick up the finger and pay cash.

Pass that, which should take no more than 30 seconds to introduce and put on the floor of both the House and Senate and then we can debate this as a permanent solution.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)