Archive for July 27th, 2009

Timely Reprise: About all those uninsured folks …

July 27, 2009

Ken’s Take: The subject of “covering the uninsureds” drives me nuts.  First, the pol-preachers are either sloppy and /or very disingenuous with the numbers.  Second, they talk about the uninsureds as a homogeneous group – they’re not.  Third, the only prescription is to throw money at them.

Below is a reprised post from June that breaks down the numbers. 

Note that over 20% of the uninsureds aren’t even U.S. citizens. I’ve seen estimates that roughly half of rhis group are illegal aliens.  Covering these non-citizens – i.e making tax payers reward them with free health insurance –- will run about $70 billion annually – that’s $700 billion over 10 years.  Count me out on that one.

Over 1/3 are folks are emplyed and make enough to afford health insurance – most of these folks have access to company plans but choose not to participate.  Why should tax payers have to throw a single dime towards their health insurance.  That’s nuts.  OK, pressure insurance companies to offer coverage for those who don’t have access to plans.  But, don’t reward them for spending on big screens instead of health insurance.

That leaves about 20 million folks. Most are between jobs.  Remember that COBRA provides access to coverage for 18 moths.  I’m OK giving these folks some subsidy since COBRA can be pretty expensive – in essence, an employer’s contribution.goes away. So, beef up unemployment benefits a bit.

The remainder of uninsureds are, I guess, poor folks.  Since they should qualify for Medicaid, I don’t understand why they’re a problem. Make them get off the couch and sign up for the existing benefits.

Why is “covering the uninsureds” the paramount issue of our time?  I don’t get it.

* * * * *

Reprised post from June 18, 2009

Re: Healthcare … How many “uninsured” Americans are there? Answer: Not 47 million.

Ken’s Take: This isn’t new news, but it continues to be overlooked in the press and in Presidential speeches.  About 1/3 of “uninsureds” aren’t US citizens; about 1/3 are young and gainfully employed who choose to self-insure.  That leaves about 15 million who need to be taken care of.  Why aren’t “they” more truthful with the numbers?

* * * * *

Excerpted from IBD, “The Phantom Uninsured”, June 16, 2009

Team Obama uses the “46 million uninsured” as a reason to nationalize health care. But the Census Bureau says about a fifth of those aren’t U.S. citizens. In fact, a goodly number are illegal aliens.

According to “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States,” a Census Bureau report published last August, of the 45.6 million persons in the U.S. that did not have health insurance at some point in 2007, 9.7 million, or about 21%, were not U.S. citizens.

Also among the uninsured are 17 million Americans who live in households where the annual income exceeds $50,000; 7 million of those without coverage have incomes of $75,000 a year or more. Many of the uninsured are young and healthy (40% are between ages 18 and 34) and at this point in their lives, particularly in this economy, choose to put their dollars elsewhere

“Why the lack of insurance (among people who own homes and computers)? One clue is that 60% reported being in excellent health or very good health.”

“For many, being uninsured is a transitory state, since most uninsured Americans are only without coverage for a short time.” In fact, a Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, found  that only 19 million Americans go without insurance for a full year.

Full article:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330042258549199

* * * * *

Posted in Health Care / Medical Insurance | 1 Comment »

Why are Obama’s ratings lower in Rasmussen polls?

July 27, 2009

Ken’s Take: Since Rasmussen was first to report Obama’s approval below 50%, his methodology is being questioned by mainstream media.  Below is a pretty clear explanation. 

Bottom line: Rasmussen samples likely voters instead of all adults and distinguishes between ‘strong’ and ‘somewhat’ approval (and disapproval).

* * * * *
From RCP,Obama Upside Down, July 24th, 2009

Rasmussen officially becomes the first poll to show the President with an upside-down approval rating.  The pollster has him at 49% approve, 51% disapprove today. Rasmussen’s polls are typically spot-on in the end, but he’s been a consistent outlier on the approval rating issue.

Part of this is that Rasmussen samples likely voters, while most pollsters are sampling adults or registered voters right now.  Likely voters typically skew Republican by a few points.  On the one hand, it is difficult to screen for likely voters this early on, but on the other hand, this could be something of a preview of whether things will go when other pollsters begin imposing likely voter screens.

The other thing is that Rasmussen gives for options:  Strongly approve, strongly disapprove, somewhat approve, and somewhat disapprove.  It may well be the case that, given a simple “approve/disapprove” rubric, many people who somewhat disapprove of the job Obama is doing are unwilling to give a complete “disapprove” answer.  By adding the “somewhat” nuance, Rasmussen may be nudging voters into the “disapprove” camp.

One final thought: Rasmussen typically has fewer undecideds than other pollsters.  It may be that people who somewhat approve or somewhat disapprove of the President are more likely to describe themselves as “undecided.”  Pushed away from the “undecided” option, these voters may then choose the “somewhat disapprove” or “somewhat approve” option; it may be that, for now, the undecideds are leaning away from Obama.  This would make sense, given the general sense of approval that has surrounded Obama’s first six months, there may be a large chunk of the populace that simply isn’t willing to voice disapproval of him right now.

At any rate, an unwelcome milestone for the President.

Source article:
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/07/24/obama-upside-down/

* * * * *

Posted in Obama Administration, Polls & Surveys | 1 Comment »

Tough times all over: The days of the $330 Coach purse could be over…

July 27, 2009

Summary: Adapting to a more frugal consumer, Coach has created the less pricey Poppy line, revamping its product mix to lower its average bag price to $290

* * * * *

Excerpted from Business Week, “Coach’s Poppy Line Is Luxury for Recessionary Times”,June 18, 2009

The Coach brand  brand had emerged from its modest origins in the 1940s to become an emblem of the working woman and then, remarkably, a favorite among the fashion-conscious. It had created the very conceit of affordable luxury.

But, even before the recession Coach had become too expensive. “We have a long history of being a very grounded $200 handbag business,” he says. “Beginning around 2001 we started moving up and became a $300 handbag business. Then we reached $330. And the customer came right with us.  Until we reached our natural limits,” .

So began a nearly yearlong quest to design a line of purses and accessories that could be priced to fit the times without cheapening, or otherwise damaging, Coach’s image.

The resulting collection, which will be introduced in late June, is called Poppy. It’s more youthful, eclectic and spontaneous. The average price will be $260, about 20% less than the usual Coach purse.

The main pieces in the Poppy collection were tested in nine Coach stores and 23 department stores in April and May. And for the first time, Coach let people make online purchases through Facebook. Two $198 bags, the Groovy and the Glam, did better than Coach expected. But one didn’t do quite as well: That was the Spotlight, which sells for $298.

* * * *

Factoids

Coach spends about $5 million annually on that customer research.  It frequently surveys customers about their outlook and tastes; it carefully tests new designs; it measures almost everything.   Every three months it surveys some 20,000 women online about the Coach brand as well as about their economic expectations and spending habits.

Coach’s gross margins had been above 75% for the past five years. But during the recession, as the company has lowered prices at its factory stores, its margins have fallen to 72.4%. By comparison, brands such as Polo Ralph Lauren and Tiffany have margins of less than 60%.

Full article:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_26/b4137040272361.htm

* * * * *

Posted in Mktg - Brands, Mktg - Product & Innovation | 1 Comment »