Posts Tagged ‘insurance’

Obama’s favorite book … guaranteed.

February 13, 2012

Gotta admit, I like the tussle between Team O and the Catholic Church.  It’s like watching a Wrestlemania main event.

But, theological and and health issues aside, I’m shocked by Administration’s naiveté re: business and economics.

And, I think I broke the code. 

I’m betting that the only business book Obama and his advisers carry around is Chris Anderson’s 2009 best-seller: Free – The Future of a Radical Price.

Note that I said “carry around” … not “read” … because the book does a nice job of explaining the uses and mis-uses of “free”,

Why do I think so?

Easy, because the cover blurb was written by Google’s Eric Schmidt — the recently canned Google CEO and close buddy of Obama’s … and because of Obama’s penchant for declaring stuff to be “free” whether it is or isn’t.

image

Obviously, Team O doesn’t really get the concept.

Let’s start with the basics: nothing is free

When something (like pills) is produced, delivered and consumed, there are associated  costs.

Yes, pills may be given to the consumer without charge, but somebody has to pick-up the tab.

Since the government has no money of its own, if it nobly declares that it’ll pay for it, it’s really saying that all taxpayers will pay for it — whether they want to or not.

Note that, for obvious reasons,  I said taxpayer, and not citizens. 

Let’s take another variation: consumers don’t have to pay for pills — their insurance companies will be mandated to give them away for free.

Oh really.

One member of the administration said that the money will come straight from the insurance companies reserves — the money set aside to pay claims.

Well, then either other types of claims become unfunded (i.e. can’t be paid), or the insurance  company just rolls over and sacrifices some profits, or premiums go up.

There aren’t any other options, and I’m betting on the last one — raising premiums.

That’s ok — in the mind of the Feds — because employers, not employees have to eat the premium increase.

Well, economists would say that the higher premiums come indirectly out of employees pockets since they will just constrain other parts of workers’ compensation packages.

You can buy into that argument or not … your choice.

Let’s pretend that the insurance company just has to eat the added costs.

Oops.

Team O walked into a logic trap.

Many large organizations self-insure.  That means that insurance companies are just processing agents — the companies pay claims out of their own coffers. 

It was like that at GE and Black & Decker.

And guess what, many large Catholic organizations are self-insured.

So, saying that the Catholic organizations won’t have to pay for pills, etc., — that their insurance companies will have to pay — is complete nonsense.

You see, self-insured organizations are their own insurance companies.

That’s what self-insured means!

So, even the Catholic bishops figured out that Team O’s grand accommodation is not really an accommodation at all.

It’s either the reflection of business ignorance or an intentional ruse.

Hmmm.  Hard to pick.

>> Latest Posts

Why isn’t toothpaste mandated on my health insurance?

February 9, 2012

That question and a few others that cut to the chase on the flap between ObamaCare and the Catholic Church are central to a WSJ op-ed by Univ. of Chicago prof John Cochrane.

Well worth reading in its entirety.

The answer:

Insurance is a bad idea for small, regular and predictable expenses.

There are good reasons that your car insurance company doesn’t add $100 per year to your premium and then cover oil changes, and that your health insurance doesn’t charge $50 more per year and cover toothpaste.

You’d have to fill out mountains of paperwork, the oil-change and toothpaste markets would become much less competitive, and you’d end up spending more.

Every increase in coverage means an increase in premiums.

Another question: What’s the difference between “access” and “cost.”

I have “access” to toothpaste because I have two bucks in my pocket and a competitive supplier.

Anyone who can afford a cell phone can afford toothpaste or pills or condoms.

Poor women who can’t afford birth control are a red herring in this debate.

The very poor typically don’t have employer-provided health insurance in the first place.

But, Americans, when paying even modest co-payments, choose to spend their money on other things.

They prefer a new iPod to a “wellness visit” to the doctor.

Cochrane’s overall conclusion:

It all leads back to the elephant in the room: the tax deductibility of employer-provided group insurance.

If your employer pays you $100 less in salary and buys $100 of group insurance for you, you don’t pay taxes on that amount.

Hence, the more insurance costs and covers, the less in taxes you seem to pay. (Even that savings is an illusion: The government still needs money and raises overall tax rates to make up the difference.)

To add insult to injury, this tax deduction does not apply to portable, guaranteed-renewable individual insurance.

You don’t get the tax break if your employer gives you the $100 and you buy a policy — a policy that will stay with you if you get sick, leave employment or get divorced.

The pre-existing conditions crisis is largely a creature of tax law.

You don’t lose your car insurance when you change jobs.

Again, well worth reading in its entirety ,,,

>> Latest Posts