Professor of Pain
United States
St. Joseph
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TRyancare is unpopular, more people support Obamacare than don't, and Planned Parenthood is popular, according to new polling by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Lots of interesting stuff here.



6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Amazing. 25 percent of Republicans think the government shouldn't provide funds to low income women for family planning and birth control. I'd seriously love to know what percent of that group also wants to make abortion illegal. I suspect strong overlap there.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Also interesting, 43 percent of Republican females wish PP should stop funding non abortion services for those people on Medicaid. It would be interesting to see a statistic on what percent of that group have ever used PP for a non abortion service of any kind.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The notion that people should be able to just enter into an insurance plan with pre-existing conditions, at the same rates and coverage levels as people who are healthy, is so bizarre to me. At the very least we should stop referring to such a plan as "insurance".

I'm not necessarily against the idea, but it won't work if people are allowed to freely enter and leave the coverage pool for what should be obvious reasons. And it isn't really insurance at that point, anyway, in any traditional sense of the word.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adam Alleman
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
The notion that people should be able to just enter into an insurance plan with pre-existing conditions, at the same rates and coverage levels as people who are healthy, is so bizarre to me. At the very least we should stop referring to such a plan as "insurance".

I'm not necessarily against the idea, but it won't work if people are allowed to freely enter and leave the coverage pool for what should be obvious reasons. And it isn't really insurance at that point, anyway, in any traditional sense of the word.



I agree. "Insurance" is just a fancy way of saying "for profit", which should have nothing to do with health care. Get rid of the leaches and create a single payer system. It would save money in the long run and better care for everyone.
8 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Are these the same polls that said we'd have Hillary for President?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sure, it's really just a half-step to fully socialized medicine.

Here's my hierarchy from most preferred to least preferred:

1. Single payer

2. An insured system with strict regulation on profit taking and forced inclusion of high-risk and preexisting claims, with government subsidies for high risk claims to keep premiums reasonable for those in the system who are not high risk.

3. An insured system where everyone is forced into the pool and high risk individuals cause everyone's premiums to shoot up but at least everyone is insured.

4. An insured system where only some people have to get in the pool, but high risk people CAN get in the pool, thus forcing the insured to pay even more.

5. An insured system where high risk people can't get either coverage or in some cases any insurance at all.

4 and 5 (the old system and the new Trumpcare system) are kind of equally bad. One insures the high risk at the direct expense of the middle class, and the other just lets the high risk die. Both are pretty bad IMO.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tobias Strobe
United States
Oakland
California
flag msg tools
badge
Listen to your sidekick and eat the pennies.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Are these the same polls that said we'd have Hillary for President?


Yes. The Kaiser Family Foundation said Hillary would be president.

Well done.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Are these the same polls that said we'd have Hillary for President?


A) The Kaiser Family Foundation concerns itself with polling about health care. They do ask opinions on presidential candidates, but only within the context of how the public views them in terms of health care.

B) No poll ever has said "X will be President". That's not how polls work.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bartosh

Sunnyvale
California
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Are these the same polls that said we'd have Hillary for President?


8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Brown
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
The notion that people should be able to just enter into an insurance plan with pre-existing conditions, at the same rates and coverage levels as people who are healthy, is so bizarre to me. At the very least we should stop referring to such a plan as "insurance".

I'm not necessarily against the idea, but it won't work if people are allowed to freely enter and leave the coverage pool for what should be obvious reasons. And it isn't really insurance at that point, anyway, in any traditional sense of the word.





The problem is that there are many reasons why someone with pre-existing conditions need to get health coverage that are beyond their control and have nothing to do with freely entering and leaving the coverage pool.

When my wife and I graduated college and could no longer be covered by our college plan my wife was denied any health care coverage because of pre-existing conditions. We were not trying to leave and re-enter we were just trying to continue it in the only way possible.

9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gone C. Profile
msg tools
Avatar
jonb wrote:
Amazing. 25 percent of Republicans think the government shouldn't provide funds to low income women for family planning and birth control.

That may not be true; see the teeny "NOTE: Don't know/Refused responses not shown" bit at the bottom of those graphs (which, to me, seems to make the graphs misleading).

One thing that's confusing to me is that anyone thinks it will increase the number of people who have health insurance. Has anyone claimed that it will? Even looking at Paul Ryan's web site, I'm having trouble finding that claim.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Corey Hopkins
United States
Converse
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeff brown wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
The notion that people should be able to just enter into an insurance plan with pre-existing conditions, at the same rates and coverage levels as people who are healthy, is so bizarre to me. At the very least we should stop referring to such a plan as "insurance".

I'm not necessarily against the idea, but it won't work if people are allowed to freely enter and leave the coverage pool for what should be obvious reasons. And it isn't really insurance at that point, anyway, in any traditional sense of the word.





The problem is that there are many reasons why someone with pre-existing conditions need to get health coverage that are beyond their control and have nothing to do with freely entering and leaving the coverage pool.

When my wife and I graduated college and could no longer be covered by our college plan my wife was denied any health care coverage because of pre-existing conditions. We were not trying to leave and re-enter we were just trying to continue it in the only way possible.



Exactly. My son has CF, meaning he was literally born with a pre-existing condition he will have for his whole life. If he had been born before the ACA, I would have spent most of my time in mortal terror of losing my job, and thus my insurance.
8 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
The notion that people should be able to just enter into an insurance plan with pre-existing conditions, at the same rates and coverage levels as people who are healthy, is so bizarre to me. At the very least we should stop referring to such a plan as "insurance".

I'm not necessarily against the idea, but it won't work if people are allowed to freely enter and leave the coverage pool for what should be obvious reasons. And it isn't really insurance at that point, anyway, in any traditional sense of the word.



That's part of the reason they have the mandate in ACA... the trade-off for covering pre-existing conditions is trying to get healthy people to buy insurance, too.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeff brown wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
The notion that people should be able to just enter into an insurance plan with pre-existing conditions, at the same rates and coverage levels as people who are healthy, is so bizarre to me. At the very least we should stop referring to such a plan as "insurance".

I'm not necessarily against the idea, but it won't work if people are allowed to freely enter and leave the coverage pool for what should be obvious reasons. And it isn't really insurance at that point, anyway, in any traditional sense of the word.





The problem is that there are many reasons why someone with pre-existing conditions need to get health coverage that are beyond their control and have nothing to do with freely entering and leaving the coverage pool.

When my wife and I graduated college and could no longer be covered by our college plan my wife was denied any health care coverage because of pre-existing conditions. We were not trying to leave and re-enter we were just trying to continue it in the only way possible.



It's a sad situation, but suggesting that the insurance companies should be able to make a profit when accepting anyone with any condition, covering them at the same rates and the same coverage, without raising anyone else's rates and without requiring everyone to carry insurance. That's no different than suggesting that a lottery could make money if they allow you to pick your numbers after they announce the winning numbers.

As I said, I think we should make sure that people have affordable health care, your wife included. But trying to make an insurance model work in this way is insane and destined to fail. We would need an entirely different model where everybody pays in, no exceptions, and then the cost is split across everyone.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jon Badolato
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I'm really not getting why democrats would be opposed to the republican plan. And I'm really not convinced that they won't vote for it when given a chance.


Probably because the plan doesn't seem to offer any discernible advantages to what's already in place. Premiums go up, less people get insurance, and the rich get big breaks. It's hard not to see what they don't like about it.

8 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Brown
United States
Colorado Springs
Colorado
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:

As I said, I think we should make sure that people have affordable health care, your wife included. But trying to make an insurance model work in this way is insane and destined to fail. We would need an entirely different model where everybody pays in, no exceptions, and then the cost is split across everyone.


This is what most of us have been saying for years. Many of us call this single payer.
16 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ejmowrer wrote:
The notion that people should be able to just enter into an insurance plan with pre-existing conditions, at the same rates and coverage levels as people who are healthy, is so bizarre to me. At the very least we should stop referring to such a plan as "insurance".

I'm not necessarily against the idea, but it won't work if people are allowed to freely enter and leave the coverage pool for what should be obvious reasons. And it isn't really insurance at that point, anyway, in any traditional sense of the word.



Yes that's a very good point. So what system would you implement? What are you for?

Personally I'd be for Single Payer but what system do you favor?

Given the many other countries have lower Health costs and better outcomes I think there are something badly wrong with the US approach. I suspect that regulatory capture by the health industry is behind it. But the idea that we cover anything in an unlimited fashion is also unsustainable. So I would go with Single Payer combined with the maximum total budget and we would have to work with them that amount. And that amount should be sufficient to cover most of the country's needs.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
ejmowrer wrote:
The notion that people should be able to just enter into an insurance plan with pre-existing conditions, at the same rates and coverage levels as people who are healthy, is so bizarre to me. At the very least we should stop referring to such a plan as "insurance".

I'm not necessarily against the idea, but it won't work if people are allowed to freely enter and leave the coverage pool for what should be obvious reasons. And it isn't really insurance at that point, anyway, in any traditional sense of the word.



Yes that's a very good point. So what system would you implement? What are you for?

Personally I'd be for Single Payer but what system do you favor?

Given the many other countries have lower Health costs and better outcomes I think there are something badly wrong with the US approach. I suspect that regulatory capture by the health industry is behind it. But the idea that we cover anything in an unlimited fashion is also unsustainable. So I would go with Single Payer combined with the maximum total budget and we would have to work with them that amount. And that amount should be sufficient to cover most of the country's needs.



I think the biggest issue is that there is this huge, bloated middle man playing a smoke and mirrors game that hides the true cost of care from the public. "This surgery costs 300,000 dollars, but we'll pay 290,000 for it because we're such good people." When in reality, the surgery actually costs 20,000 dollars and the negotiate to pay the hospital 18,000. I'd support something that got rid of the middle man. It sounds like single payer would do that if I understand correctly. We all pay taxes. We all have the same coverage. It's reasonable coverage.

I don't like the idea of hospitals being for-profit, but at least it would pry health care away from the hands of the insurance industry (in its current form).

The thing that would kill single payer or socialized health care is this irrational insanity that it's worth spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep an elderly person alive for a few short months more. For such a thing to work, we have to spend money wisely, and throwing 300,000 into an operation so an 85 year old lady can live for 6 more months is not wise spending. Death is a fact of life. Death panels are a fact of any health care system that works. I'm calling it that because I know people will get there eventually, so I'm just cutting to the chase and owning the term. Because it has to be done. It simply has to be done. You have to have someone who decides what is reasonable and what is not, and that someone can't be the someone who is irrational and emotional.
8 
 Thumb up
0.10
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sounds like we are pretty close on health care.

As a boomer myself, I don't think it's right that we have system that bankrupts the country to keep us alive a few extra months.

As for the base costs, if we went with single payer then we could start doing case by case cost validation against other countries. If a surgery costs $30,000 in several other 1st world single payer nations, then that surgery shouldn't cost $90,000 here.

If a prescription drug costs $200 a year elsewhere, it shouldn't be $2,000 here (as is apparently the case for Tradjenta). The prohibition against negotiating prices for drugs was one of the most obvious cases of regulatory capture I've ever seen and it was largely backed by the republicans which made it doubly astonishing.

Also, I have a strong opinion that employer provided healthcare strongly incents age discrimination and age related layoffs. If we get employers out of the insurance business then that incentive would go away. Plus having national health care makes it much easier for people to start small businesses which is where most job growth comes from.
8 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.