Why buy coverage?

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Denniger makes a persuasive argument I can get on board with. Simply take the fines and when something happens buy insurance and you can't be denied. Course this will never fly in Zebo house with better half...but If I were single almost anyone would bank a lot and stick gov't for it all when they get sick.

-------------------------------------

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!
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
So you are saying that if I currently own just a "catastrophic" plan I cannot keep it?

but...but...but...
Obama said I could!
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
the fines will never be collected... how can you collect fines from poor people? take it out of their taxes? they ain't paying taxes... out of their refunds? everyone will be claiming 27/m from now on...

this is going to be interesting to watch pan out...

and the fines/premiums will all be in the tax code soon, i'll wager... it will be the only way to ensure compliance...
 
Last edited:

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,136
6,373
136
15 to 20k per year for insurance is extremely high. The Teamsters union package around here is 13k, that includes dental, vision and disability. The policy I carry right now is less than 3k with a 1k yearly deductible.
Where did he come up with those numbers?
 

cubeless

Diamond Member
Sep 17, 2001
4,295
1
81
15 to 20k per year for insurance is extremely high. The Teamsters union package around here is 13k, that includes dental, vision and disability. The policy I carry right now is less than 3k with a 1k yearly deductible.
Where did he come up with those numbers?

ummm, because you have to amortize for 30mm new people with existing conditions and no drop coverage...
 
Last edited:

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
22,136
6,373
136
ummm, because you have to pay for 30mm new people with existing conditions and no drop coverage...

30 million is roughly 10% of the population. How does that equate to a 500% cost increase for the 300 million people that carry coverage?
The numbers don't seem to add up.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
the fines will never be collected... how can you collect fines from poor people? take it out of their taxes? they ain't paying taxes... out of their refunds? everyone will be claiming 27/m from now on...

this is going to be interesting to watch pan out...

and the fines/premiums will all be in the tax code soon, i'll wager... it will be the only way to ensure compliance...

What do you mean they won't be collected? Millions of small business people, contract employees and independently wealthy will do exactly what Denninger describes. Bank 15-20K a year and pay nominal statutory fine and come out far ahead.

They can use that savings to make puts in health insurance stocks for when they go under. win/win.
 
Last edited:

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
15 to 20k per year for insurance is extremely high. The Teamsters union package around here is 13k, that includes dental, vision and disability. The policy I carry right now is less than 3k with a 1k yearly deductible.
Where did he come up with those numbers?

Teamsters is insuring healthy younger people Teamsters negotiates the hell out of rate.

The insurance I carry now CELTIC indemnity any doc you want w/ $5000 deductible is $1000 a month. not far offf and now add everyone in, no preexisting no canceling and rates will shoot up at least 150%. See Mass.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
You know why you buy coverage? For when you have a car accident and don't want to spend the day applying for health insurance before the hospital brings you back to life.

Yes insurance companies will be forced to cover pre-existing conditions, but not pre-existing medical bills.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
"This, by the way, will bankrupt the insurance companies in the end."
Sounds good, then we can finally get down to business of Medicare for all and stop this foolishness.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
You know why you buy coverage? For when you have a car accident and don't want to spend the day applying for health insurance before the hospital brings you back to life.

Yes insurance companies will be forced to cover pre-existing conditions, but not pre-existing medical bills.

Wrong EMTALA covers that already. And the second you have an accident have someone with power of attorney buy you coverage for long term.

Your second point has some merit with high net worth individuals.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
"This, by the way, will bankrupt the insurance companies in the end."
Sounds good, then we can finally get down to business of Medicare for all and stop this foolishness.

Medicare for all and lose all our jobs and doctors to India and China.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Well tell ya what, when my premiums go up to $15k / year, I'm taking the fine over the insurance. Until then, we'll see.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
"This, by the way, will bankrupt the insurance companies in the end."
Sounds good, then we can finally get down to business of Medicare for all and stop this foolishness.

Aye. I am starting to like this bill. Has major built in fail which can only lead to sane UHC.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Well tell ya what, when my premiums go up to $15k / year, I'm taking the fine over the insurance. Until then, we'll see.

Its the government. It'll find a way to increase the fines. Ever wonder why property tax goes up even when the value of property is down? Its because the government likes to suck money, even when the well is dry.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
You know why you buy coverage? For when you have a car accident and don't want to spend the day applying for health insurance before the hospital brings you back to life.

Yes insurance companies will be forced to cover pre-existing conditions, but not pre-existing medical bills.

doesn't your auto ins policy cover medical?
 

nixium

Senior member
Aug 25, 2008
919
3
81
* 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.)

Where does he arrive at this figure from?

Max I've heard is 10-13% (for those not covered by subsidies; i.e., making > 45k a year.)
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Y'know, here are the basics.

We can choose various levels of healthcare for society - different people covered, uncovered, etc. We don't like people losing their lives for lack of healthcare, and choose for everyone to have some available somehow. That costs money. Where does that money come from? The only place it is, the people - as concentrated as it is.

So, the people are going to pay for healthcare for society.

Now, the money is getting taken - what does it matter if it's in the form of higher prices to cover the 'uninsured', or tax dollars put into single payer, or 'pay out of your pocket', the same thing basically happens, the people pay for healthcare. The details run into a lot of ideology and emotion - 'no, he didn't earn something, let him bleed!' But that's a minority sort of nonsense.

It'd help for people to just look at the best way to do this, and not get too caught up in all the partisan politics, the "liberty is gone from our country" paranoia.

For decades, most healthcare has been paid for by a 'stealth' payment, taking it out of your salary but not telling you, exactly, it's called a 'benefit' creating the illusion that it's 'free to you'. People are ok with that, because they never had the money and don't mind nearly as much as it going in their paycheck and then out of their pocket to pay the bill. But it's the same thing.

Thing is, the price for the convenient method that makes it more acceptable is high.

It forces businesses to run healthcare insurance functions not part of the business they're in, it creates inconsistency across employers, it leaves many underinsured or uninsured, and other problems. It's not UHC, oops. It's far more sensible, efficient, humane to have an organization chartered with meeting the healthcare insurance need - ideally, single payer - with consistent coverahe to make sure everyone receives at least a standard.

But knee jerk ideology makes people nuts about the change. Ohmygosh it's Hitlercare destroying what the country's values are.

We are not showing we can much have a rational approach to the policy, but we made a net positive, flawed step with the bill. Why wasn't it better? Look to the people and industries.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
1) The government can build the fine into the tax tables. Then when you provide prrof of coverage when you file, you get the "refund of the fine"

2) What is to stop people from getting coverage after XMAss and then dropping it in January. How long must one maintain coverage to avoid the fine. (How to prove it?)
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Y'know, here are the basics.

We can choose various levels of healthcare for society - different people covered, uncovered, etc. We don't like people losing their lives for lack of healthcare, and choose for everyone to have some available somehow.

There is nothing with that, just don't do it on the taxpayer dime. If it is possible to provide health care for all without using a cent of taxpayer money, I am all for it.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
This article is nonsense.

According to this article . . .

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm

. . . the average cost of a group policy for a family in the U.S. in 2009 was $13,375 (up by 5&#37; from 2008), and the average cost for a group policy for a single person was $4,824. Let's guess that costs went up another 5% in 2010, meaning that the average group policy for a family and single cost about $14,045 and $5065, respectively, in 2010.

The average health "profile" of those individuals and families not covered by group policies (whether they're actually covered by individual policies or aren't covered at all) is almost certainly VERY similar to the profile of those covered by group policies. Meaning that the entire population (excluding those on Medicare) could be covered by premiums of $5000/individual and $14,000/family, and the insurance companies would still make a profit.

So where do you get $15,000/individual and $24,000/family? Magic?
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I think what he's getting at is that healthy people will drop coverage and pay the fine instead, causing fewer subscribers and higher price per subscriber, which then causes more people to drop out and pay the fine instead, eventually bankrupting the insurance companies. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch :)
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,837
2,622
136
A) His costs for buying insurance are absurdly high and don't bear any relation to my real life experience.

b) He blissfully ignores the consequences of a major (or even semi-major) medical event when he is uninsured-he'll be bankrupt and have to pay the fine for not being uninsured-and while I haven't examined the applicable new statutory provisions, I'll bet that fine is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

Heavy on partisanship posturing, very short on real world facts or rational analysis.