Diametrics 101

“Insurance” and “public welfare” really don’t belong in the same sentence.  But this is the sentence that President Obama and his advisors have constructed.  Of course, not all the blame should be directed at Obama.  He was just carrying out the socialized medicine program concept that has been a major plank of the Democratic Party since FDR was in office.  The only difference between him and his Democratic predecessors is that he went ahead and did it.  His predecessors, including Hillary Clinton and Ira Magaziner, just talked about it, which left them, and the American public, in far less vulnerable positions. 

And as we all have come to learn, this (“Obamacare”) is an exercise in self destruction because these are diametrically opposed concepts.  People who set up insurance companies weren’t motivated by public welfare.  On the contrary, their single goal was and is to make money.  If public welfare happened to improve because of their insurance arrangements, so much the better. 

Now insurance companies, being required to enroll people with pre-existing conditions and all sorts of other progressive add-ons, can only make money by charging premiums that are so high people can’t afford them anymore.  Soon people will figure out that it is better to self-insure, pay the penalty (which, for most people, will be less than one monthly premium) and jump back into the exorbitant cost structure only under the direst of circumstances to justify the tremendous monthly premium cost.  Since insurance companies can’t really make money under these kinds of arrangements, you’ll see more and more insurance companies go out of business.  What few that remain will not be encumbered by competition, and the need to provide the best possible service for the most number of customers.  Fortunately, I have experience dealing with monopolies like Cablevision and LIPA, so I am emotionally and spiritually prepared for horrible service and ridiculous rates.  I ask myself what would compel me to even consider paying so much money for so little in return. 

Of course, the state exchange idea would have provided some kind of competitive counterbalance if it had gotten off the ground.  It didn’t.  Only 14 out of the 50 US States have gotten their state exchanges up and running.  And out of those 14, three people leading their states’ exchanges have now left following problem-plagued rollouts of their online marketplaces.  But as bad as this sounds, it’s actually worse.  California, which is one of the 14 states with an operating state exchange, recently learned that 70% of its doctors plan to boycott the California state exchange program. 

This is a case study in putting diametrically opposed concepts together in a room and expecting a harmonious result.  You would have to be high on drugs or lack any understanding of basic business/economics to expect this to work.  Oh, and as far as expecting the 52 million Hispanics in this country to step forward and enroll en masse on the state exchanges to bring more “healthies” into the covered populations to get costs down for everybody?  I wouldn’t hold my breathe waiting for that day.  A better bet would be a high percentage of this population enrolling in Medicaid, which will put an additional strain on Federal and state health care expenditures, leaving even less money available for fledgling exchange infrastructures. 

Idealism has only so much reach.  Maybe it’s time to accept things for what they really are. Insurance companies are designed to make money, and the money isn’t really available for the public welfare vision foisted upon us by the Democratic Party.  Public hospitals will continue to treat uninsured people, and the cost will continue to be passed on to the private insured, whose programs are ridiculously expensive due to the pre-existing proviso and the sundry add-on mandates.  And to whose benefit is this grand experiment?