Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

    there was a time (my childhood) when the family doctor, setting aside any altruistic motives he may have had, scaled his fees to his market niche. Those were the daze . . .




    Mexicali Tour, From Tummy Tuck to Root Canal

    By JENNIFER MEDINA

    MEXICALI, Mexico — Tourists often come to border towns looking for some kind of illicit adventure, trotting among the bars, strip joints and seedy motels that dot the streets. Here, though, the visitors are searching for something more basic: a root canal they can afford or surgery they have been putting off for months.

    Mexicali has adopted medical care as its primary tourist lure, and it has been attracting a growing number of health care commuters from California and other nearby states. Hospitals offer operations for gastric bypass, liposuction and chronic back pain. Dentists promise that extractions, fillings and whitening can all be done for less money. And ophthalmologists advertise laser surgery and routine exams.

    As the United States approaches the climax of a fierce national debate over the Obama administration’s health care law, which would significantly increase the number of people covered by medical insurance, thousands of people are crossing the border in search of care they either cannot afford or wish to get more cheaply. The influx has grown steadily over the last several years, attracting uninsured Mexicans who have made their lives in the United States and desperately need affordable care. But it increasingly includes a smaller but growing group of middle-class patients from all over the country looking for deals on elective surgeries that most medical insurance will not cover.

    “At first, I was like, Mexicali, where is that?” said Stephanie Rusky, a 26-year-old social worker from Perkins, Okla., who paid roughly $8,000 for some liposuction, a breast lift and a tummy tuck (a combination known as a “mommy makeover”) that would have cost about twice that in the United States. “But I asked every question I could think of and eventually felt really comfortable with it.”





    Such sentiments are sweet music to the ears of Omar Dipp, who oversees tourism for the city.

    “There’s a huge market for this,” Mr. Dipp said. “We just have to package it the right way. Everyone benefits: the hotels, the restaurants, the local economy. We give them a reason to come, and they will be here.”

    Last year, more than 150,000 patients came to Mexicali, pumping more than $8 million into the city’s economy, officials said. There are some dozen hospitals that regularly see Americans, and many have a special administrator to coordinate medical and travel plans. With nearly 100 medical offices in a six-block radius, the city hopes to create a special medical zone by improving streets and sidewalks and adding more services for tourists.

    Just across the border in Southern California, the small city of Calexico has struggled for decades. The area has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.

    Many of the residents in the Imperial Valley there rely on seasonal agricultural work and have no insurance. For them, coming to Mexicali for care can seem obvious. A few insurance providers have even expanded some coverage into Mexico, encouraging their customers to seek the less expensive care. A 2010 study showed that roughly 85 percent of those who crossed the border for medical care were Spanish speakers, but Mr. Dipp said he expected more and more “blue-eyed Americans” in the coming years.

    In strip malls and office buildings here, there are far more medical offices than anything else. Hotels offer special rates for patients, and the local tourism office has begun subsidizing van rides from Las Vegas to bring in those who would rather avoid the drive themselves. And this year, the government opened a special lane to allow medical tourists to bypass most of the wait on the Mexican side of the border, which can often take as long as three hours.

    The doctors, with strong support from the local government, are hoping to attract more Americans for elective procedures or more basic care that they may not be able to afford at home. And many here believe that the market will only grow as health care costs continue to rise and more people, particularly low-wage workers along the border, are desperate to find affordable care.

    Juan Salas drove nearly three hours from his home in Desert Hot Springs, Calif., to have his 11-year-old daughter, Abigail, fitted for braces. While he has medical insurance through his job as a restaurant supplier, it does not cover dental work, so he has come here dozens of times. Saving thousands of dollars will make up for the round trip of at least five hours he will soon be making a couple of times a month, he said.

    “Saving the money is as important as the time,” Mr. Salas said as his daughter sat in the chair of the small office, where the orthodontist explained that he was using the same equipment Americans would. Mr. Salas’s wife, Araceli, said that her family had come here for medical care since she was a child.

    When their eldest daughter was struggling with seizures, their local doctor could not see her for weeks. Anxious to get a diagnosis more quickly, they came here to see a doctor who offered not only new medication but also his cellphone number so they could call him for follow-up questions.

    “At that point, paying for the care didn’t really matter,” Ms. Salas said. “We were talking about our daughter’s life, so we wanted help right away and we had it.”

    Here, many Mexicans talk with pride about the easy access they have to their doctors, sending them frequent text messages with questions and expecting calls back within minutes. One oft-repeated anecdote illustrates a sign of more compassionate care: nurses will warm a patient’s hand before sticking him with a needle.

    But there are many other considerations potential patients must take into account. None of the hospitals in Mexicali have been certified by American medical accreditation teams. While the facilities appear clean and modern, there are no published studies monitoring infection rates or other risk factors.

    Still, seemingly comfortable with the information they do have, people from the United States flock here for surgery.

    Carlo Bonfante, an owner of Hospital de la Familia, where Ms. Rusky was a patient, said that the most popular operations were gastric bypass and gastric band surgery (“thanks to all the fries across the border,” he said with a laugh), but that he hoped more people would begin coming for primary care.

    “The people who live a few miles away from here but in another country can’t afford the care,” he said, “so we will provide it for them for less, whatever they need.”

    Since the special medical lane at the border opened at the end of April, doctors have issued roughly 1,600 passes, which are required to use the lane.

    “We want to make it as easy as possible, so that there is no hesitation to come,” said Diana Cota, who oversees international care at Hospital Almater, where roughly 20 percent of patients come from outside Mexico. “Even before the point where someone says they can’t pay for what they want in the U.S., we want them here.”





    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/he...ef=global-home

  • #2
    Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

    Meanwhile, back in the states...

    "Unlike many of America’s 50 million uninsured, who are indigent, careless, or just struggling to pay bills, Evans made his decision to go it alone with deliberation. Not long after deciding to self-insure, in November of 2010, Evans’ wife needed gall bladder surgery, and the bill came to $24,000. Big mistake? Evans says he actually saved about $10,000.

    "Here's how he figures. Evans had paying an $1,800 monthly premium with Blue Cross/Blue Shield, on top of which he was responsible for the first $5,000 of any non-routine procedure. Throughout 2010, as healthcare became a hot-button political issue and providers anticipated new laws by raising rates, his premiums were soaring, eventually topping $3,400 a month, which meant his annual cost, including deductible, was heading toward $45,000. Despite paying for his wife's surgery out-of-pocket, Evans finished out 2011 by spending about $34,000— a whopping $10,000 less than what he would have paid an insurer."

    http://www.readthehook.com/104392/do...ers-check-bill

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

      Originally posted by Thailandnotes View Post
      Meanwhile, back in the states...

      "Unlike many of America’s 50 million uninsured, who are indigent, careless, or just struggling to pay bills, Evans made his decision to go it alone with deliberation. Not long after deciding to self-insure, in November of 2010, Evans’ wife needed gall bladder surgery, and the bill came to $24,000. Big mistake? Evans says he actually saved about $10,000.

      "Here's how he figures. Evans had paying an $1,800 monthly premium with Blue Cross/Blue Shield, on top of which he was responsible for the first $5,000 of any non-routine procedure. Throughout 2010, as healthcare became a hot-button political issue and providers anticipated new laws by raising rates, his premiums were soaring, eventually topping $3,400 a month, which meant his annual cost, including deductible, was heading toward $45,000. Despite paying for his wife's surgery out-of-pocket, Evans finished out 2011 by spending about $34,000— a whopping $10,000 less than what he would have paid an insurer."

      http://www.readthehook.com/104392/do...ers-check-bill
      un-phreakin-believable! (makes my sitch, at 6000/year in prems + 4000 max out of pocket/suppl's - not incl dental - seem like a deal ?)

      tell me the whole med/insurance-industrial complex isnt A SCAM at least as bad/big as the finance-industrial complex is?

      and the beltway bozos keep telling us how much they 'doing for us' ?
      yep - "we're from the .gov and we're here to help" (the lobbyists secure their retirement)

      how in hell can this mean that 'the plan' is better than what was happnin before obama'scare and all that has to be done is 'tweak it' here and there?

      maybe - and only MAYBE, its better for the individual when his employer is paying for such 'coverage' - but when those of us who pay for BOTH sides (prems + copays etc) and then get whacked with $1500 copays when anything happens???

      at this point and at the rate things _aint_ happnin - i will likely be paying more in med ins than in taxes this year.

      not sure whats worse: little to no income but less tax outgo or being hung out and bled dry by 'healthcare'

      sigh....
      Last edited by lektrode; June 28, 2012, 09:01 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

        and TN - can you offer any pointers to dental services (and prices) over your way?
        since i'm 1/2 way there already, it might be cheaper to fly than drive to the dentist....

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

          Outside the Supreme Court. It's hard to imagine what these people are saying.
          Attached Files

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

            Originally posted by Thailandnotes View Post
            Outside the Supreme Court. It's hard to imagine what these people are saying.
            "We're moving to Canada!"

            I am immensely pleased by this. Between this and supreme court's favorable ruling on EPA's regulations, America has actually moved in a positive direction for once.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

              Originally posted by lektrode View Post
              not sure whats worse: little to no income but less tax outgo or being hung out and bled dry by 'healthcare'

              sigh....
              Move to France where medical is free and there is still a pretense of civil rights.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

                Originally posted by BadJuju View Post
                "We're moving to Canada!"

                I am immensely pleased by this. Between this and supreme court's favorable ruling on EPA's regulations, America has actually moved in a positive direction for once.
                Do you understand what this ruling is about? The deal is you are forced to buy a healthcare plan that currently costs ~$12,000. If you refuse to pay you will be fined (taxed) $6,000. Most poor people will choose the fine. How is this fair or good for anybody except a few insurance companies?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

                  I am not sure where you get those figures from, sir. The costs are significantly lower than that and will lead to a reduction in healthcare costs. It has a provision that limits exactly what they can charge you and how much they can profit.

                  You have to have a system that compels people to have health insurance for universal healthcare to function. A single-payer system would have been for the best; however, it probably had a snowball's chance in hell of getting through. This paves the way for one to be implemented in the future. Also, it gives states the ability to implement their own healthcare systems so long as they meet the base requirements of the federal one.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

                    Originally posted by globaleconomicollaps View Post
                    Move to France where medical is free and there is still a pretense of civil rights.
                    The Heritage Foundation/Romney/ObamaCare law is the corporate state's answer to single-payer healthcare, effectively killing the latter . . .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

                      Originally posted by BadJuju View Post
                      I am not sure where you get those figures from, sir. The costs are significantly lower than that and will lead to a reduction in healthcare costs. It has a provision that limits exactly what they can charge you and how much they can profit.

                      You have to have a system that compels people to have health insurance for universal healthcare to function. A single-payer system would have been for the best; however, it probably had a snowball's chance in hell of getting through. This paves the way for one to be implemented in the future. Also, it gives states the ability to implement their own healthcare systems so long as they meet the base requirements of the federal one.
                      This is Denninger writing in 2010, he points out that the "fine" is 2% of Adjusted Gross Income. For me and my wife that would run about $4000, and depending on my circumstances, I might be willing to pay it rather than fork over for the insurance. The actual health care expenses will be radically higher than my estimate. This is what high risk individuals are paying right now: http://www.cciio.cms.gov/resources/f...ual-report.pdf


                      http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2139125



                      Health Care: Arbitrage Obama And The Dems
                      The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets
                      Posted 2010-03-22 13:23
                      by Karl Denninger
                      in Health Reform
                      Health Care: Arbitrage Obama And The Dems


                      Yes, I mean it.

                      And yes, I've read the Health Bill. Both the 2,000+ page original and The House changes as voted upon.

                      Here's the bottom line:

                      If you refuse to buy health insurance, you will be fined on a sliding scale that amounts to 2% of your AGI. So if you make $100,000 a year, you could be fined $2,000 for "refusing" to buy insurance.

                      You cannot buy a catastrophic policy any more. The "cheapest" acceptable policy will cost somewhere around $15,000 for a single person, and over $20,000 for a family. This is, for most people, more than five times the maximum possible fine - each and every year. The law makes it effectively impossible to maintain an existing catastrophic policy as they "renew" every year, and should any change be made you are then forced to buy something "acceptable" in the law (or pay the fine.)

                      When the "pre-existing condition" bar comes down you cannot be charged more or denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.

                      I fully expect 20-50% premium increases immediately, and for the next three years sequentially, in all existing policies. This is precisely what the banks did in front of the CARD act becoming effective, and it will happen here as well. That is the cause of the short-term rocket shot in the health-related stocks this morning.

                      In addition the capital gains tax changes will do severe damage to capital formation immediately, and these changes will become especially severe starting in 2014. The market will anticipate these changes and react accordingly, although you certainly wouldn't know it today.

                      Ok, this one's easy.

                      When the fines and pre-existing coverage "stop-out" go into effect (now for kids, in a couple of years for the rest) drop all coverage for those affected.

                      Why?

                      Because:

                      The fine is 1/5th or less the cost of the "insurance."

                      For routine care, you now can negotiate for your care before it is provided. It will be cheaper to do so than to buy the insurance - for routine events. Don't try to tell me it's not either - I've been carrying a catastrophic-only policy now for more than a decade, and as a consequence I've negotiated these fees and costs for routine things and saved tens of thousands compared to simply "buying a full-boat policy." The only reason for me to carry the "catastrophe" policy - the possibility of being screwed if I developed a serious condition and thus got excluded - has just been erased by this law, effective in a couple of years.

                      If you have a catastrophe of any form, buy the insurance at that point in time. You cannot be turned down or charged more.

                      Screw the government. They are the ones who set the standards - we simply have to live with them, and this is the only logical action to take given what they have just done.

                      Is there a risk in this strategy? Sure. You could have a "zero notice" catastrophe before you (or someone with a power of attorney) could buy a policy. So you have to be able to survive that sort of "short-term" event - but remember, you're going to be banking $10-20k per person during the time you're running "naked." So do exactly that - bank it for a year or two - so you have the ability to cover the instant expense from one of those "aw crap!" catastrophic circumstances. Fact is, they don't happen often and in a year or so you can have a very nice cushion against them.

                      Businesses will be dropping people like flies from business-covered "insurance"; there will be no reason for anyone as an employer to be providing this "benefit" into an environment where insurance prices will double - and probably double twice - in the next four years. If you think not, look at what was done to credit-card holders in front of the provisions of the CARD act going into effect.

                      This, by the way, will bankrupt the insurance companies in the end. Nobody will buy until they have HIV, Cancer or some other serious illness - then they will buy, and the companies will have to pay - with no lifetime caps or exclusions for pre-existing conditions.

                      The health care companies that are getting a rocket shot today in the stock market are being bought by fools.

                      If you have any belief whatsoever in the efficient market hypothesis this is exactly what people will do as the effective dates for these provisions approach, as it will save them ten thousand dollars a year or more - each. The insurance companies will instantaneously lose the "pool" of healthy people who buy against risk - rather, they will have a pool of all sick people who buy against known costs.

                      Forget it folks - this is the end of the health industry in America, and I will be looking for the recognition in the market (as expressed by technical analysis on the stocks in this sector) that the efficient market will come to the fore.

                      The intention of The Democrats (and liberals generally) in this legislation is clear and impossible to hide - they intend to completely destroy private health care in favor of a fully-government-run single-payer system. The efficient market guarantees this outcome given the law they passed, and they know it.

                      I cannot stop this idiocy but I can sure attempt to profit from it.

                      I am looking to establish the largest targeted short positions of my investing career if and when the technicals confirm that this obvious arbitrage is about to, or is, taking place.

                      This is one place where a fistful of PUTs can easily turn thousands into hundreds of thousands, and is an extremely-high probability play.

                      Disclosure: No positions in the sector yet, but as discussed I will have some extremely large ones in the coming months and years!
                      View with responses (registration required to post)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

                        Originally posted by Bad JuJu
                        I am not sure where you get those figures from, sir. The costs are significantly lower than that and will lead to a reduction in healthcare costs. It has a provision that limits exactly what they can charge you and how much they can profit.
                        Perhaps you can list the costs which you say are lower rather than resort again to words.

                        As a young and single individual, which is what I believe you are, the situation you face is far different than most of iTulip. If in fact my characterization of you is correct, your health insurance payments under any circumstances would be low. The same cannot be said for single but older individuals, married couples, or families with children.

                        Originally posted by BadJuJu
                        You have to have a system that compels people to have health insurance for universal healthcare to function. A single-payer system would have been for the best; however, it probably had a snowball's chance in hell of getting through. This paves the way for one to be implemented in the future. Also, it gives states the ability to implement their own healthcare systems so long as they meet the base requirements of the federal one.
                        Wrong.

                        Every single other 1st world and most 2nd world nations have national health care - without health insurance. Health insurance is an American phenomenon, and it clearly is not functioning well either as a financial pool or as an efficient delivery of health care.

                        As for compulsion - that is equally ridiculous because you are focusing on compulsion on the 'customer' side.

                        What about compulsion on the health care insurer side?

                        Compulsion to provide coverage? To limit profits? To reduce unnecessary overhead? To provide portability?

                        Originally posted by GEC
                        I fully expect 20-50% premium increases immediately, and for the next three years sequentially, in all existing policies.
                        The policy increases were very real, and 50% was at the lower end. See other iTulip threads for anecdotes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

                          Originally posted by BadJuju View Post
                          I am not sure where you get those figures from, sir. The costs are significantly lower than that and will lead to a reduction in healthcare costs. It has a provision that limits exactly what they can charge you and how much they can profit.
                          Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                          Perhaps you can list the costs which you say are lower rather than resort again to words.
                          ?????
                          yeah - lets see some evidence of ANYTHING that will cost less for those of us who are ALREADY PAYING THRU THE NOSE.

                          ...
                          .......
                          Every single other 1st world and most 2nd world nations have national health care - without health insurance. Health insurance is an American phenomenon, and it clearly is not functioning well either as a financial pool or as an efficient delivery of health care.

                          As for compulsion - that is equally ridiculous because you are focusing on compulsion on the 'customer' side.

                          What about compulsion on the health care insurer side?

                          Compulsion to provide coverage? To limit profits? To reduce unnecessary overhead? To provide portability?

                          The policy increases were very real, and 50% was at the lower end. See other iTulip threads for anecdotes.
                          +1
                          its a one-way street, and simply ANOTHER TRILLION DOLLAR GIVEAWAY to the FIre brigade, so the current occupants can buy more votes of the welfare class, stuff the pockets of the med ins/drug mob, while they further screw the middle/working class and call it 'helping the little guy' - orwell would be proud!

                          complusory health insurance will do the same as it did to compulsory auto insurance (and it sure as hell did NOT get cheaper) bet on it.

                          and quite ironically, i now agree on 'single payer' - but the liberals tactics are going to cause so much pain in the purse - for those of us already paying - that the entire system will likely collapse before it ever happens - methinks there will be millions (of otherwise healthy premium payers) who will take the gamble, pay the fine and go 'nekkid' vs the certain slow-bleed-dry that is going to occur under the current scam. (which siphons off 400 BILLION/year, while doing not a GD thing 'medically')

                          personally, i dont know what else to do and i think there's millions just like me

                          and good luck trying to actually get any medical service, once them 30million 'uninsured' folks are all standing in line in front of you - since they will likely all show up at the same time, demanding their subsidized 'healthcare' *



                          * just another liberal euphemism for .gov mandated, FIre-admin'd buracracy that does NOTHING to improve or decrease the cost of medical service
                          Last edited by lektrode; June 29, 2012, 07:19 PM. Reason: add what sparked c1ue

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

                            Originally posted by globaleconomicollaps View Post
                            This is Denninger writing in 2010,
                            Originally posted by Denninger
                            The health care companies that are getting a rocket shot today in the stock market are being bought by fools.

                            If you have any belief whatsoever in the efficient market hypothesis this is exactly what people will do as the effective dates for these provisions approach, as it will save them ten thousand dollars a year or more - each. The insurance companies will instantaneously lose the "pool" of healthy people who buy against risk - rather, they will have a pool of all sick people who buy against known costs.

                            Forget it folks - this is the end of the health industry in America, and I will be looking for the recognition in the market (as expressed by technical analysis on the stocks in this sector) that the efficient market will come to the fore.

                            The intention of The Democrats (and liberals generally) in this legislation is clear and impossible to hide - they intend to completely destroy private health care in favor of a fully-government-run single-payer system. The efficient market guarantees this outcome given the law they passed, and they know it.

                            I cannot stop this idiocy but I can sure attempt to profit from it.

                            I am looking to establish the largest targeted short positions of my investing career if and when the technicals confirm that this obvious arbitrage is about to, or is, taking place.

                            This is one place where a fistful of PUTs can easily turn thousands into hundreds of thousands, and is an extremely-high probability play.

                            Disclosure: No positions in the sector yet, but as discussed I will have some extremely large ones in the coming months and years!
                            ok - maybe this is The Answer - another cynical bet that the system will implode - would be VERY interesting to see what has developed here - esp considering that 2 years have passed - has he written anything more about it?

                            and moving to france is one option i guess - or a state like florida, that allows one to keep ones house when forced into bankruptcy (by gov compulsion/mandates)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Healthcare: Oligarchy vs Real Markets

                              or a state like florida, that allows one to keep ones house when forced into bankruptcy (by gov compulsion/mandates)
                              Homesteading here I come . . . giddy-up!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X