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....
Now, the disaster tsunami is engulfing Medicare-covered individuals as Obamacare’s latest scam—long concealed—begins to reveal itself as evidenced by a shocking announcement from health giant UnitedHealth Group. UnitedHealth, AARP’s pet private health insurance carrier, has been busy cutting thousands of doctors from certain of its networks according to a Wall Street Journal report published on November 15.
You know those "death panels"? Well, they were kind of not real. Then again they were kind of real.
Note that AARP was one of the charge-leading groups behind Obamacare's passage and Obama's election, playing the shopworn "scare the senior" card over and over again.
This means they should stand up and own the rat****ing that their membership is now taking as a direct and proximate consequence of their advocacy.
So Seniors..... how 'ya feeling about right now? And how's your stock of KY doing? You're gonna need a lot of it over the coming months and years now that you've been sold out by the very organization you fund and support.
Oh, if you didn't read my previous article about how all of this was not a mistake or oversight but rather an intentional act?
There are times that one asks how and why it is that the so-called "mainstream media" can fail to take an event that goes on for a long time and yet never ask what changed that might be the cause of that phenomena?
"The battle to protect people from diabetes and its disabling, life-threatening complications is being lost," the federation said in the sixth edition of its Diabetes Atlas, noting that deaths from the disease were now running at 5.1 million a year or one every six seconds.
People with diabetes have inadequate blood sugar control, which can lead to a range of dangerous complications, including damage to the eyes, kidneys and heart. If left untreated, it can result in premature death.
Let's talk basic biomechanics. You eat. When you eat foods that contain carbohydrates as they are digested they convert to glucose. Your pancreas secretes insulin to promote the conversion of glucose to glycogen, which is then stored, primarily in the liver. When this storage mechanism is full the energy is diverted to fat.
When you eat a food that contains carbohydrates that are absorbed slowly, that is, you eat things that have a low glycemic index, the response rate of insulin in the body is muted and rises slowly. When you eat something that contains carbohydrates that are absorbed rapidly, such as sugars, your pancreas is called upon to rapidly increase insulin levels so as to prevent the glucose level in your blood from rising to dangerous levels.
Type II diabetes is the condition where either (1) your pancreas fails to respond to high glucose levels adequately with a release of insulin or (2) your body fails to generate glycogen (and ultimately fat if intake continues) despite a relatively high level of insulin. This is generally known as "insulin resistance" or "metabolic syndrome" and is distinct from Type I diabetes where the islet cells in the pancreas are destroyed due to an auto-immune disorder (and thus can't produce insulin at all, or at least not in material amounts.)
So, let's see what we have here.
What if you were to eat a diet with no carbohydrate in it at all -- or, in the alternative, ate only very "slow" carbohydrates with very significant other nutrient value such as leafy green vegetables?
You'd expect that a person with compromised insulin response would find much better blood sugar control -- right?
So why is it that the American Diabetes Association recommends that about 1/4 of your food intake be "starchy foods" that are all moderate to high glycemic index carbohydrates?
You don't need carbohydrates, incidentally; they serve no essential purpose in nutrition. Your body is quite-capable of running on lipids -- that is, fats. You especially don't need them if they spike your blood glucose levels because you're insulin-response compromised!
But the better question is this: How did the compromise happen in the first place, and why does the prevalence continue to expand?
That's pretty easy to figure out -- these foods, by and large, did not exist a hundred or two hundred -- or a thousand years ago.
Oh sure, there were some exceptions -- but the prevalence of these foods is a modern thing.
And so is diabetes, by and large.
Now I'm sure a good part of this is just bad genetics -- that is, a bad draw from the deck. But how much of the rise in Type II diabetes is due to our shift from low-glycemic index carbs and fats as our primary energy sources to fast carbohydrates such as refined sugars and synthetic fats such as hydrogenated oils?
More to the point, why aren't we recommending that people strictly limit high-glycemic index carbohydrates?
You'd have to ask the folks involved that -- and in particular, you'd have to address the "part of your good breakfast" crowd that puts forward prescriptions for everyone from toddlers forward starting their day with a bowl-full of high-glycemic-index carbs.
I wonder if we were to get rid of the cereals and toast, replacing it with omelettes and bacon, if we might not have a lower incidence of Type II diabetes..... and if perhaps those currently suffering from it might not have better blood sugar control and less obesity at the same time.
But that would***** of the agribusiness and pill mill folks mightily, wouldn't it?
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.