Hold the phone...I thought the entire premise behind ObamaCare was that everyone would be covered. Check the defense out in the article here:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/obama-solicitor-general-if-you-dont-mandate-earn-less-money
"I think this paragraph sums up the horrific attempt to defend ObamaCare insurance mandate:
If we’re going to play that game, I think that game can be played here as well, because after all, the minimum coverage provision only kicks in after people have earned a minimum amount of income,” Kaytal said. “So it’s a penalty on earning a certain amount of income and self insuring. It’s not just on self insuring on its own. So I guess one could say, just as the restaurant owner could depart the market in Heart of Atlanta Motel, someone doesn’t need to earn that much income. I think both are kind of fanciful and I think get at"
Wasn't the case made to American public that we'd be insuring everyone so that we'd all say in the burden of the medical expenses. How does this help lower the cost of medical insurance when one does not have to earn enough to qualify? What is that amount? And if you don't qualify, who picks up the tab?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As DnewBlackmessiah,I decree that thee has started to reacheth for straweths,& thy needs to chill out kid...
ReplyDeleteCorey
ReplyDeleteEnlighten us on how the attorney's argument that those below the poverty line will not be mandated to have health insurance as part of the argument for ObamaCare was to cover all 48M people that are not covered right now.
Don't people in poverty get free health insurance anyways???
ReplyDeleteWhy would you mandate people that can't afford health insurance pay it???
Does that make sense????
What makes sense is "FREE SOCIALIZED HEALTHCARE FOR ALL!!!!!!"
But you want to see grandma and the poor children of our nation die,you are sick in the head for that!!!
Corey
ReplyDeleteNo one is making th case to keep the poor and elderly from care. The premise of the mandate was to help bring down costs by getting the 48M unisured into the pipeline. Based on the article that does not appear to be the case.
We can really bring down the cost by having FREE HEALTHCARE FOR ALL.........
ReplyDeleteThen you won't have to worry about the price....
Doesn't that make sense to you????
SPREAD THE WEALTH!!!!
Corey
ReplyDeletePlease enlighten us on how free health care equates to lowering the cost.
Corey
ReplyDeleteWhere did you get your profit margin number? I don't things have changed alot since this article came out. Notice here the health insurance industry falls in comparison to other industries.
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/08/25/why-health-insurers-make-lousy-villains
Something to note there Viper, those numbers are mismatched from what I can tell. They are interchanging Profit Margin (Gross profit after cost but before SG&A and Tax) and Operating Income (profit after cost, SG&A and tax).
ReplyDeleteHaving worked at UHG in the past for 7 years of my career I can tell you that their profit margin is significantly higher than 4%. That's their OI %.
I'm not saying they're a highly profitable business, they're not. But their subscription based model is very reliable in it's revenue stream that is very predictable. This allows them to invest heavily in the business to grow it which reduces their OI %.
Pharma on the other hand, is both highly profitable and highly variable. Discover Viagra, you'll be rich. Don't discover anything and you're out of business. This requires a higher profit margin to weather the low points.
That said, I disagree with Corey in asserting that universal healthcare would lower costs. What would lower costs is universal coverage by reducing the high costs that hospitals incur supporting the uninsured. Those are mutually exclusive concepts though since universal coverage does not require government intervention.
The private sector is capable of delivering this, although it may take some encouragement from government at first.
As to "spreading the wealth", it might be best for those wanting that to happen to go earn some wealth first. It's always easy to advocate pure socialism/communism when you have nothing to lose.
I heard an interesting interaction between Herman Cain and President Clinton when Clinton was President about Hillary Care. Herman Cain mentioned his thin margins and if required to provide health care insurance it would make it difficult to keep Dominoes going. To which President Clinton retorted, "Well just raise the price of pizza by a couple of dollars. I love your pizza's. I'd continue to buy them."
ReplyDeleteFunny a rich person doesn't care about the increase or dare I say inflation caused by a liberal entitlement scheme. That is what we have to look forward to with Obamacare. Higher prices for everything. That money you think you save for not purchasing your own insurance will just be taken from you by higher prices at every place you go.
@Anon,
ReplyDeleteJust an FYI, Cain was CEO of Godfathers, not Domino's. But that's a technicality, I get your point.
So we're clear, what Clinton advocated isn't unique to healthcare in business. Business's pass ALL expenses onto consumers. A corporation generates no value other than the revenue it generates from sales. So in order to cover expenses they charge whatever their costs are + a profit margin.
This fact is one of the reasons healthcare is so expensive. Unlike the pizza business where if you don't pay, you don't eat, people without health insurance still get treated, but their default rate is significantly higher than those who are insured. (Healthcare is the #1 cause of bankruptcy too) But because the hospital has already incurred the expense of service, they must pass that cost along to paying customers (ie. the insured).
This is no different than the Pizza analogy you showed, except it's far more pertinent to the conversation. The reason you pay $75 for a bandage at hospitals isn't because they're price gouging, it's because they're covering the costs of those who don't pay for that bandage.
So how is this about rich vs. poor? The way I see it, it's not. It's simply economics at work.
And to pay for healthcare, a company like Domino's or Walmart would only have to raise prices a few cents per item sold. The reason is that the volume they sell would generate enough revenue to offset the costs at a minimal impact to the consumer.
The problem is that in the case of companies like Walmart, they'd rather raise that price to increase profits than cover their employees.
So who are the rich people really looking out for?
Truman
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that price of "free" emergency care at select hospitals is passed along to those of us who have health insurance. Don't you find it interesting that the health care mandate does not include everyone - so if that is the case and it still allows for "free" emergency care how does it drive down health care costs? I am still trying to determine how many of the 48M uninsured people will be able to be exempt from the mandate thus not lowering our costs. My suspicion is that the majority of the 48M will be in that category.
@Viper,
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit disingenuous to say that this mandate doesn't cover them....because technically if they fall below the poverty line, they already are eligible for coverage through MN Care or Medicare/Medicaid. Though these people should be mandated to apply for that coverage so that the hospitals can get reimbursed at negotiated rates rather than absorbing the costs and passing them to you and I.
And you might be surprised how many of the 48M are young professionals who choose to not get insurance. For most people <35, the primary cause of death will be accident, not medical related. So, in many of those peoples cases, it's cheaper to pay out-of-pocket than pay insurance which can be hundreds a month with no guarantee of a need for it.
Throw on top of that list all the contractors/self-employed professionals out there and I suspect at least 1/3 of that 48M is not in the poverty group.
But a good bit is to be sure.