Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sandintoes who wrote (67905)	11/10/2013 2:10:43 AM
From: greatplains_guy	Respond to of 71588

Republicans insisted that they would submit to the same mess that the rest of the nation was going to suffer. Obama knew that the Washington insiders would never tolerate such bad health care nor the huge price increase.

To: sandintoes who wrote (67905)	11/10/2013 2:11:04 AM
From: greatplains_guy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

How Obamacare Rips Off the "Young Healthies" By Carl Schramm November 7, 2013 When ObamaCare is under attack, its defenders retreat to several well-worn claims. Among them is a provision that compels insurance companies to allow parents to keep their "children" ages of 21 to 26 on their family policies. Yet this part of the Affordable Care Act was not engineered in response to any noticeable interest group. Instead, political considerations are responsible for the provision—which is an unnecessary and a deceptive ripoff of the "young healthies." The first consideration is that young adults facing chronic unemployment—thanks to government policies that have retarded economic growth—commonly return to their parents' home. Understanding that this is what the economic "new normal" looks like, the Obama administration sought to avoid a potential political storm by providing a benefit normally connected to holding a job for one of its most reliable support groups. Second, government's actuaries are well aware that this much-touted benefit basically costs nothing. Actuarial and other research suggests that the average male sees a physician six times between the ages of 21 and 35. The parental coverage provision seemed like a "freebie" for the administration's universal coverage sales pitch. Third, ObamaCare's financing won't work unless "young healthies" (or their parents) pay through the nose for coverage under parental plans or via the individual mandate. The 18-26 age group is the lowest user of care, the least costly to cover and the most profitable of all health-insurance coverage. Yet the group faces extraordinarily high ObamaCare rates. A Manhattan Institute analysis of Health and Human Services numbers notes that a 27-year-old male will pay 99% higher premiums under ObamaCare than he would under previously prevailing market rates. One reason is that the law now limits insurers to charging the sickest seniors no more than three times the amount they charge their youngest customers. Given that 64-year-olds use on average six times as much health care as 19-year-olds, the Affordable Care Act forces young people to pay considerably more than the cost of their own care. Young men and women who pay a fine instead of buying coverage are not making an irrational choice. They know how little care they need and use. They also may be beginning to understand that the high cost of their plans reflects the redistribution of their wealth to older people and a bunch of mandated services that don't make sense for them. Still, young healthies might see it in their interest to purchase a more affordable health policy that provides simple preventive care (check ups) and major medical coverage in the event of an accident or costly (and rare) episode of disease. There is such a cheaper alternative; I helped to devise it. In 1993 I was president of Fortis (now Assurant) Health Care, a major health-insurance company. Sam Shriver, one of our brokers, noted that students graduating from Loyola College in Baltimore (he sold these students their group health-care coverage) were without health insurance before they landed their first jobs. We devised a "transition" product to provide graduates with two years of affordable coverage. The product became very successful because it provided catastrophic coverage, including for things like motorcycle accidents, and was inexpensive. It became one of the company's most popular products and was copied by many carriers in the individual market. Health policies that cover catastrophic care may still be sold to individuals up to age 30—but buyers are likely to be subject to an annual fine for nonconforming coverage. Suppose the federal government simply provided everyone under the age of 26 with a voucher to buy simple primary care/catastrophic plans that many companies could provide tomorrow. The number of uninsured would be greatly reduced at a fraction of the cost of covering them under ObamaCare. A similar approach might have been used for those who do not qualify for Medicaid because they make too much money but not enough to purchase a plan, perhaps because of pre-existing conditions. The government could provide them with a voucher enabling them to buy a private health plan. This approach—coupled with federal legislation limiting medical malpractice claims and permitting carriers to offer more efficient multistate products—would provide health reform without the current drama of incompetency and injustice that will inevitably deny us all affordable care. Mr. Schramm is University Professor at Syracuse University. He was president of Fortis (now Assurant) Health Care Second, government's actuaries are well aware that this much-touted benefit basically costs nothing. Actuarial and other research suggests that the average male sees a physician six times between the ages of 21 and 35. The parental coverage provision seemed like a "freebie" for the administration's universal coverage sales pitch. Third, ObamaCare's financing won't work unless "young healthies" (or their parents) pay through the nose for coverage under parental plans or via the individual mandate. The 18-26 age group is the lowest user of care, the least costly to cover and the most profitable of all health-insurance coverage. Yet the group faces extraordinarily high ObamaCare rates. A Manhattan Institute analysis of Health and Human Services numbers notes that a 27-year-old male will pay 99% higher premiums under ObamaCare than he would under previously prevailing market rates. One reason is that the law now limits insurers to charging the sickest seniors no more than three times the amount they charge their youngest customers. Given that 64-year-olds use on average six times as much health care as 19-year-olds, the Affordable Care Act forces young people to pay considerably more than the cost of their own care. Young men and women who pay a fine instead of buying coverage are not making an irrational choice. They know how little care they need and use. They also may be beginning to understand that the high cost of their plans reflects the redistribution of their wealth to older people and a bunch of mandated services that don't make sense for them. Still, young healthies might see it in their interest to purchase a more affordable health policy that provides simple preventive care (check ups) and major medical coverage in the event of an accident or costly (and rare) episode of disease. There is such a cheaper alternative; I helped to devise it. In 1993 I was president of Fortis (now Assurant AIZ +2.22% Assurant Inc. U.S.: NYSE $59.84 +1.30 +2.22% Nov. 8, 2013 4:00 pm Volume (Delayed 15m) : 423,118 AFTER HOURS $59.84 0.00 0.00% Nov. 8, 2013 4:30 pm Volume (Delayed 15m): 4,989 P/E Ratio 11.51 Market Cap $4.35 Billion Dividend Yield 1.67% Rev. per Employee $601,528 More quote details and news » AIZ in Your Value Your Change Short position ) Health Care, a major health-insurance company. Sam Shriver, one of our brokers, noted that students graduating from Loyola College in Baltimore (he sold these students their group health-care coverage) were without health insurance before they landed their first jobs. We devised a "transition" product to provide graduates with two years of affordable coverage. The product became very successful because it provided catastrophic coverage, including for things like motorcycle accidents, and was inexpensive. It became one of the company's most popular products and was copied by many carriers in the individual market. Health policies that cover catastrophic care may still be sold to individuals up to age 30—but buyers are likely to be subject to an annual fine for nonconforming coverage. Suppose the federal government simply provided everyone under the age of 26 with a voucher to buy simple primary care/catastrophic plans that many companies could provide tomorrow. The number of uninsured would be greatly reduced at a fraction of the cost of covering them under ObamaCare. A similar approach might have been used for those who do not qualify for Medicaid because they make too much money but not enough to purchase a plan, perhaps because of pre-existing conditions. The government could provide them with a voucher enabling them to buy a private health plan. This approach—coupled with federal legislation limiting medical malpractice claims and permitting carriers to offer more efficient multistate products—would provide health reform without the current drama of incompetency and injustice that will inevitably deny us all affordable care. Mr. Schramm is University Professor at Syracuse University. He was president of Fortis (now Assurant) Health Care online.wsj.com

To: sandintoes who wrote (67905)	11/19/2013 10:00:39 PM
From: greatplains_guy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

The War Against Achievement By Thomas Sowell November 19, 2013 A friend recently sent me a link to an inspiring video about an upbeat young black man who was born without arms. It showed him going to work -- unlike the record number of people living on government payments for "disabilities" that are far less serious, if not fictitious. How is this young man getting to work? He gets into his car and drives there -- using controls set up so that he can operate the car with his feet. What kind of work does he do, and how does he do it? He is involved in the design of racing cars. He sits at his computer, looking at the screen, with the keyboard on the floor, where he uses his toes as others use their fingers. His story recalls the story of Helen Keller, who went to an elite college and on to a career, despite being both deaf and blind. Her story was celebrated in books, in television documentaries and in an inspiring movie, "The Miracle Worker." But our culture has changed so much over the years that the young man with no arms is unlikely to get comparable publicity. Helen Keller's achievement was seen as an inspiration for others, but this young man's achievement is more like a threat to the prevailing ideology of our times. The vision on which the all-encompassing and all-controlling welfare state was built is a vision of widespread helplessness, requiring ever more expanding big government. Our "compassionate" statists would probably have wanted to take this young man without arms, early on, and put him in some government institution. But to celebrate him in the mainstream media today would undermine a whole ideological vision of the world -- and of the vast government bureaucracies built on that vision. It might even cause people to think twice about giving money to able-bodied men who are standing on street corners, begging. The last thing the political left needs, or can even afford, are self-reliant individuals. If such people became the norm, that would destroy not only the agenda and the careers of those on the left, but even their flattering image of themselves as saviors of the less fortunate. Victimhood is where it's at. If there are not enough real victims, then fictitious victims must be created -- as with the claim that there is "a war on women." Why anyone would have an incentive or a motivation to create a war on women in the first place is just one of the questions that should be asked of those who promote this political slogan, obviously designed for the gullible. The real war -- which is being waged in our schools, in the media and among the intelligentsia -- is the war on achievement. When President Obama told business owners, "You didn't build that!" this was just one passing skirmish in the war on achievement. The very word "achievement" has been replaced by the word "privilege" in many writings of our times. Individuals or groups that have achieved more than others are called "privileged" individuals or groups, who are to be resented rather than emulated. The length to which this kind of thinking -- or lack of thinking -- can be carried was shown in a report on various ethnic groups in Toronto. It said that people of Japanese ancestry in that city were the most "privileged" group there, because they had the highest average income. What made this claim of "privilege" grotesque was a history of anti-Japanese discrimination in Canada, climaxed by people of Japanese ancestry being interned during World War II longer than Japanese Americans. If the concept of achievement threatens the prevailing ideology, the reality of achievement despite having obstacles to overcome is a deadly threat. That is why the achievements of Asians in general -- and of people like the young black man with no arms -- make those on the left uneasy. And why the achievements of people who created their own businesses have to be undermined by the President of the United States. What would happen if Americans in general, or blacks in particular, started celebrating people like this armless young man, instead of trying to make heroes out of hoodlums? Many of us would find that promising and inspiring. But it would be a political disaster for the left -- which is why it is not likely to happen. realclearpolitics.com