HOME ZACKS RESEARCH FUNDS PORTFOLIO BROKER RESEARCH MARKETS SCREENING EDUCATION SERVICES
Zacks Rank    Equity Research    Premium Home    My Account    Help    

PeopleandPicks.com is Zacks' Community Website
Find great stocks and great stock pickers in our online community. It's social, it's profitable and it's Free! Join the fun at PeopleandPicks.com
Quote:
Login Free Membership
Search:

 
Analyst Blog  

The GOP's Health Care Plan

By: Dirk van Dijk, CFA
November 04, 2009 | Comments: 4
Recommended this article (0)
WLP | AET
Print    Share

Recently, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) quipped on the floor of the House that the GOP health care plan amounted to: "1) Don’t get sick, and 2) If you do get sick, die quickly." Yesterday, John Boehner (R-OH), the top GOP man in the House, finally unveiled the official GOP plan...and did little to disprove Rep. Grayson.

The GOP plan would allow firms like WellPoint (WLP - Analyst Report) and Aetna (AET - Analyst Report) to continue to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. It would not offer any subsidies to the working poor to help them get covered, and would not require people to buy health insurance, or for employers to offer it.

It would make it harder for people to sue if they are injured by medical malpractice. The use of contingency fees by lawyers in malpractice suits would be strictly limited. Thus, for example, if the doctor misread your chart and amputated the wrong leg, you would have to be rich enough to pay the $150 an hour than most lawyers charge -- and a case like that would take many hours. After it is all done, damages would be limited to $250,000 for non-economic damages. So a low-wage worker would get far less than someone who has a higher income. Punitive damages would be almost impossible to win.

It would however, allow small businesses to band together to buy health insurance so they could get rates more in line with what large employers pay, which is a useful idea. It would also allow people to buy insurance from companies in other states. These policies would be regulated not in the state where the person lives, but in whatever state the insurance company decides to set up shop in. State insurance commissioners in the states where the policies were sold would have no enforcement power over consumer protection.

Since the credit card industry has done such a bang-up job in consumer protection, the GOP decided that it would apply the same model to health insurance. If in the extremely unlikely chance that this ever became law, look for some small state determined to not regulate the industry at all to become the new insurance capital of the country, just like South Dakota is the leading state when it comes to credit cards.

The plan would offer up to $50 billion in "incentive payments" to states that manage to bring down the number of uninsured, and would offer up to $15 billion to help states establish high risk pools and reinsurance programs. Those figures, however, are not per year, but totals over the next ten years -- or $5 billion a year in incentive payments spread among the 50 states and $1.5 billion per year for support of the high risk pools. With 47 million uninsured people in the country (and rising fast due to lay-offs when most health insurance is employment-based), that is nowhere close to adequate.

It also makes available another area where the wealthy can invest their money tax-free through expanded medical savings accounts. That is not going to help the working poor, the people who might be working two or three jobs, none of which offer health coverage. Few of them are even able to take advantage of the existing tax advantaged savings accounts like IRA’s and 401-k’s. Nice little perk though, for those earning well into the six figures who would like to shelter more of their income.

With health insurance costs rising at well over 2x the rate of inflation over the last 20 years, there is nothing in this bill that would force that to change. The reduction in the number of uninsured people in the country would be minuscule. Recently, a Harvard study estimated that 46,000 Americans die each year because they do not have access to health insurance. That is equal to more than another 9-11 every month.

All in all, this bill would be substantially worse than doing nothing. Doing nothing will bankrupt the country within a few decades.

Email

Print

Share

RSS

Rate Pos

Rate Neg

Comment
Free Stock Analysis From Zacks
  Includes Zacks Long-Term Recommendation and Target Price
Read/Post Comments (4) | Recommended this article (0)
 Posting Comment...
There was a problem posting this this comment. Please try back later.
[CLICK TO CLOSE X]
Comments (Limit 1000 Characters - Used: 0)
Display Name: Email Address:  
 Loading Comments...
15
days
ago
GenX wrote...
Mr. van Dijk seems to have much faith in government control of health care and health insurance. Would he also be intellectually consistent and promote such government control of CFAs or blogging or Zack's or limits on his income or choice of employment or .... Mr. van Dilk brings also brings up interesting points but where are the alternatives or counter-suggestions? It's easy to say
 Loading Report Abuse...
There was a problem reporting abuse for this comment. Please try back later.
[CLICK TO CLOSE X]
Please let us know why you believe this comment is in violation of our community guidelines. Our team will take the appropriate action.
 
95
days
ago
kz wrote...
Yeah, and the more control the Government has over private industry, the more we pay for equal or less benefits. The insurance companies will lose business to the Government, thereby having no choice but to cut their workforce to inflate their bottom line just to stay in business. The Govt. wants us to believe this is Wellcare for all citizens, when, in fact, this is really NO-CARE or HELL-CARE at best!! No thanks, Obama!!
 Loading Report Abuse...
There was a problem reporting abuse for this comment. Please try back later.
[CLICK TO CLOSE X]
Please let us know why you believe this comment is in violation of our community guidelines. Our team will take the appropriate action.
 
96
days
ago
togar wrote...
This isn't an even close to an objective analysis. It's not an analysis at all but opinion and has no place on Zacks.
 Loading Report Abuse...
There was a problem reporting abuse for this comment. Please try back later.
[CLICK TO CLOSE X]
Please let us know why you believe this comment is in violation of our community guidelines. Our team will take the appropriate action.
 
97
days
ago
wrote...
One does not need to read far to learn where van Dijk learned his social economics, who is very comfortable giving government control. I am not comfortable with it. Government already has too much power and practices too much discrimination under the control of liberals like van Dijk. Even as a small business owner with a Sub S I cannot deduct fully my medical expenses but Zacks can. My children and grandchildren have all gone through private schools but I've paid real estate taxes for 40 years. Now van Dijk wants to give the government more control over the capital I earned! No wonder the location of Zacks is in Chicago.
 Loading Report Abuse...
There was a problem reporting abuse for this comment. Please try back later.
[CLICK TO CLOSE X]
Please let us know why you believe this comment is in violation of our community guidelines. Our team will take the appropriate action.
 
<< Previous 5View AllNext 5 >>
Best Stocks. Best Insight. Join Now...it's FREE!
Over 550,000 investors look forward to the timely insights in our email newsletter; Zacks Profit from the Pros. In each daily issue you will find:
  • Free  Four Zacks #1 Rank "Strong Buy" Stocks
  • Free  Timely Market Commentary
  • Free  Wealth Management Tips
  • Free  Profitable Strategy Screens
  • Free  Bull and Bear Stocks of the Day
Zacks FREE Registration

More Zacks Resources

Market Summary Feb 09, 2010 21:18 pm ET
DJIA 10058.64  150.25 1.52%
NASD 2150.87  24.82 1.17%
S&P 500 1070.52  13.78 1.30%