CNN's Gupta -- Once Obama's Candidate for Surgeon General -- Warns of Rising Health Care Costs If Mandate Is Overturned
CNN's chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, was once a serious candidate to be President Obama's surgeon general – and thus a megaphone for ObamaCare – before he turned down the offer. Now he is going on CNN and sounding the alarm that health insurance premiums will probably rise if the ObamaCare mandate is overturned by the Supreme Court.
However, CNN issued no disclosure on Sunday, Monday or Tuesday about Gupta's past relationship with the President. His report on "Obamacare: 60 years in the making" aired multiple times from Sunday through Monday, and he appeared on CNN on Tuesday to explain how health care costs could rise if the law's individual mandate is overturned.
"It would be as if you bought car insurance after you got into an accident. And car insurance companies would have to absorb that cost and pass it on to everybody else. That's what it would look like if there was no mandate," Gupta asserted.
Anchor Carol Costello tossed him this rather loaded question about the public's (lack of) understanding of ObamaCare. "Do you think that many people understand the reason there's a requirement for nearly every American to buy insurance, so the insurance companies can afford to take on people with conditions, preexisting conditions?" she teed up Gupta to explain the law.
Gupta admitted that "I don't think most people understand that." He insisted that it was important to grasp, however. "But if the mandate doesn't go through, there's a good chance that all of our premiums will go up. And that's why people should pay attention to this. I think it's important."
Below is a transcript of a segment that aired on June 26 on CNN Newsroom at 10:42 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
CAROL COSTELLO: So those things cost so much because there are so many uninsured people in the world?
SANJAY GUPTA: Yeah, I mean in part because the needle they use for a biopsy is very different than the needle you'd buy at Home Depot. There's a lot more research and development. But also because people, they go the ER who are uninsured and they get care that they don't pay. That's called uncompensated care, that's how it works at a hospital like Grady. That cost is passed on to the hospital, it's passed on to your premiums, your – my premiums, as people who do have health care insurance. So it comes from somewhere. We did some analysis; you'll find that about half the hospitals in the United States are unprofitable, which I think is surprising to a lot of people. And $56 billion a year roughly is what the price tab is for uncompensated care. So this is part of the impact of all that, the consequences.
COSTELLO: So how does this connect to the health care law the U.S. Supreme Court will make its decision about on Thursday?
GUPTA: Well, the whole thing regarding a mandate, that everyone have healthcare insurance so you're not all of a sudden having this (Inaudible) of uncompensated care, is really what's at issue here. In the past, in this country, at the state level, they've had laws in place where they said look, there's not going to be a mandate, but we're going to require all people to not be discriminated against based on preexisting conditions. They can get healthcare insurance for just the same price as everybody else. And what they find is that eventually, the premiums for everybody goes up. In Kentucky, they went up 40 percent. So in this country, if you passed a healthcare law without a mandate, it's possible that it will affect everybody, not just the people who don't have healthcare insurance, an important point to keep in mind.
COSTELLO: Do you think that many people understand the reason that there's a requirement for nearly every American to buy insurance, is so the insurance companies can afford to take on people with conditions, preexisting conditions?
GUPTA: I don't think most people understand that. But you make a very good point, because in the end, insurance companies actually probably benefit from the mandate more than anybody else, because all of a sudden they're getting a bunch of people into the coffers of the insurance industry, many of whom are young and healthy and aren't using the healthcare system at all. So they're really just getting their premiums for no additional cost. So I don't think most people understand that the insurance companies are using that mandate and all that extra money to help pay for people who are ill, who are being charged way too much for premiums, or who are uninsured.
COSTELLO: Well I will say many Americans probably don't care even if they did understand, because the government's forcing you to do something that you don't need to do.
GUPTA: But if the mandate doesn't go through, there's a good chance that all of our premiums will go up. And that's why people should pay attention to this. I think it's important.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Come on...
Submitted by amlaml on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 5:18pm.
It's not like this could possibly influence his opinion on Obamacare.... what ridiculousness
/sarc
he's right
Submitted by MidAmerica on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 5:31pm.
Insurance premiums WILL RISE if obamacare is overturned.
BUT
Insurance premiums wil rise if obamacare is not overturned.
Healthcare is one of the fastist rising costs and will remain that way.... unless the government takes over and rations healthcare.
So we have to choose. Do we want cheaper but with the potentional of being denied healthcare or readily available but expensive healthcare?
How much do you value your life or that of your loved ones?
Gupta Trying To Dupe-ta Us
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 5:57pm.
As locomotivebreath 1901 says below, premiums have already increased during the initial roll out of ObamaCare.
An inescapable axiom about health care is it can be cheap, fast and good but you can only have two of the three at any one time. Which two do you choose?
Gupta is an elite shill for the Left and Obama. While not as publically death panel-y as Donald Berwick, given the proper nudging he would be equally as destructive of our health care.
Is it necessarily bad?
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 8:01pm.
When I hear a lot of whining about "rising health care costs", I am curious: how much of that is due to people pretty much spending money as they see fit on themselves?
I didn't NEED sealant in my teeth, for instance, but I paid for them anyway, out of my own pocket.
I have had other procedures done that I perhaps do not NEED but nonetheless had done.
Remembering this, I wonder if those who whine the loudest about how we are spending "too much money" on the doc are just nosy busybodies that want to dictate the terms of my budget.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Unsane
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 9:45pm.
As long as the elective sealant procedure did not siphon off men, material,or profit for non-elective health care - then you probably added little if at all to rising health care costs.
However, using the scenarios of privately owned outpatient surgical centers or outpatient diagnostic facilities, where goods/services previously performed by a hospital are now siphoned off by private facilities, the "easy" money and, in the case of privately owned outpatient surgical centers, cherry picked higher reimbursed procedures will cause a loss to the hospital and necessitate the hospital making up the difference somehow, someway.
Regarding your last sentence - YES, nanny-staters want to dictate your life including how you spend your hard earned money.
There is an existing moratorium on physician-owned
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 8:56pm.
hospitals and other health care facilities, at least as I understand it. I defer to you, Strat, if that is not the case. I don't do many referrals to the cutters except the occasional apotheosized neurosurgeon or ENT. Most of the time, I end up cleaning up after they go too far.
After the big decision tomorrow morning, state governments will have to move fast. Many of the state legislatures will not be in session, and their Medicaid other health insurance legislation is built somewhat around the Obamacare plans. Any changes, like drastic increases in enrollment or changes in the reimbursement levels will have to be enacted appropriately. I can imagine it will be another billing mess ala the ICD9 to ICD10 changeover.
I'm having some Scotch tonight.
You Are Correct
Submitted by stratman on Thu, 06/28/2012 - 2:12am.
ObamaCare had an immediate chilling effect on physician-owned hospitals. From an October 2010 article:
Stark Laws have been putting nails in the physician-ownership coffin for years. ObamaCare is the killing cut. No wonder hospitals were giddily getting onboard with ObamaCare. They saw their money train returning to the station.
When Ohio terminated Certificate Of Need regulations, I figured the pendulum would swing to an extreme with an explosion of privately owned outpatient facilities. The competition has been fierce and some facilites that had been profitable turned into money pits resulting in closure. I moonlighted at an excellent Open MRI facility that eventually succumbed to the flood of nearby newer facilities. Of course, it didn't help having an older magnet compared to the new kids on the block - software upgrades can only go so far. Corporate ended up shutting down or selling off facilities in multiple states.
I understand that this is the risk one takes in business in a capitalistic environment. I also understand the risk to hospitals that take all comers losing money to privately owned facilities who "cherry pick" well reimbursing or guaranteed up front self-pay care. But, to place a blanket ban on privately-ownership in America is wrong. That is a required stepping stone to Socialist Medicine and exemplifies soft tyranny in government.
ignorant
Submitted by locomotivebreath1901 on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 5:32pm.
"But if the mandate doesn't go through, there's a good chance that all of our premiums will go up."
Obviously, the good doctor is ignorant of the fact that health insurance premiums have SKYROCKETED since the Pelosi/Reid Congress rammed it down our throats 2 1/2 years agao, claiming they had to pass it in order for us to know what was in that crap sandwich known as obamacare.
Since that time, over 6 million Americans have lost their employer-sponsored insurance, the inverse of what the CBO project back in 2010.
Put down the kool aid and pull your head out, Gupta!
The government is creating an
Submitted by CM on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 7:48pm.
The government is creating an artificial demand for healthcare with this mandate. When there is a higher demand for a product, the price goes up. So this isn't surprising.
Rising healthcare costs if Obamacare is overturned
Submitted by CO2Maker on Tue, 06/26/2012 - 9:00pm.
Oh, God, don't tell me we're going to have to deal with another calamitous effect of Parthenogenic Globular Warming!