Red Mosquito

Electromatic wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Electromatic wrote:Health Insurance these days is not insurance, we're paying for buying into a plan in large groups.

Uh, that's exactly what all forms of insurance are, by definition. And the way most forms of insurance are able to work is by managing the risk pools properly, including charging more or denying coverage for the riskiest. That's entirely uncontroversial for most forms of insurance, but with health insurance it creates a terrible moral problem that we generally know as the practice of vetting for pre-existing conditions.

I'm coming to think that the best way to solve the problem is to have the government dedicate part of its budget particularly to serve those with pre-existing conditions. I don't think you need to do single payer to do that--you could simply raise taxes devoted to covering those people. I'd personally prefer a public option so that people could buy in and help reduce the amount of tax revenue that's needed. Once you take care of the riskiest of pools, I think you'd see the private insurance market right its ship.

I was mainly speaking of managed care. I can go to a car mechanic or a roofer without involving my insurance. You cannot do that in the US healthcare system. All prices are obscured and differed on purpose and it costs more because of it, but I like your ideas above. Either way the government is going to have to step in and control drug/medical pricing.

Health Insurance just doesn't provide all that much value for what we pay especially in comparison to the rest of the world.

Yeah the cost issue is a whole 'nother big issue that goes beyond the insurance issue.

Green Habit wrote:

Electromatic wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Electromatic wrote:Health Insurance these days is not insurance, we're paying for buying into a plan in large groups.

Uh, that's exactly what all forms of insurance are, by definition. And the way most forms of insurance are able to work is by managing the risk pools properly, including charging more or denying coverage for the riskiest. That's entirely uncontroversial for most forms of insurance, but with health insurance it creates a terrible moral problem that we generally know as the practice of vetting for pre-existing conditions.

I'm coming to think that the best way to solve the problem is to have the government dedicate part of its budget particularly to serve those with pre-existing conditions. I don't think you need to do single payer to do that--you could simply raise taxes devoted to covering those people. I'd personally prefer a public option so that people could buy in and help reduce the amount of tax revenue that's needed. Once you take care of the riskiest of pools, I think you'd see the private insurance market right its ship.

I was mainly speaking of managed care. I can go to a car mechanic or a roofer without involving my insurance. You cannot do that in the US healthcare system. All prices are obscured and differed on purpose and it costs more because of it, but I like your ideas above. Either way the government is going to have to step in and control drug/medical pricing.

Health Insurance just doesn't provide all that much value for what we pay especially in comparison to the rest of the world.

Yeah the cost issue is a whole 'nother big issue that goes beyond the insurance issue.

Your ideas have made me reconsider my thinking on this so, thanks.

Electromatic wrote:Your ideas have made me reconsider my thinking on this so, thanks.

Thanks. I posted this on the Fuge as my preferred health care policy, might as well do so here as well.

====

Here's what I'd like, and I'd be curious to see what any of you think:
--A government funded catastrophic insurance program (let's call it Medicat). I don't want to see anyone fall into bankruptcy just because they had sudden medical problems that racked up sudden and immense bills. Depending on the ratio of your income to your medical bills, I'm OK with taxpayers picking up some of that when there's no practical way it can be paid.
--A goddamn public option that should have been part of the ACA. Let's call that Medichoice. A Medicare buy-in would also be fine with me but it likely needs to be separate for political reasons, as otherwise it's likely to drive Medicare enrollees irrationally apeshit. Anyone can sign up for it at reasonable, competitive rate with private insurers. You'd likely have to have some taxes to fund this but it doesn't need to be fully tax-funded.

The advantages I see of this is that private insurers are freed from the expenses of covering the "dreaded" pre-existing condition class, as they'll at least have Medichoice as an option where in the past they had none. And by freeing private insurers from that, we don't have to try to offset the costs of that via the individual mandate, of which I still contend is the most immoral part of the ACA to begin with. Younger people generally don't need much more in health insurance than a catastrophic policy (hence, Medicat), although they should be free to buy more if they want. Finally, if Medichoice is done right and competes so well that it becomes a de facto single payer system on its own merits, then that's A-OK with me.

tragabigzanda wrote:what is the fuge? I hear it all the time on RM and don't understand it. I gather it's some sort of message board, but I'm stymied beyond that.

A few of us grizzled old veterans from around a decade ago (god, it's been that long?) spun off a separate board from here. I think spike and I are the only two that still post in both places.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:what is the fuge? I hear it all the time on RM and don't understand it. I gather it's some sort of message board, but I'm stymied beyond that.

A few of us grizzled old veterans from around a decade ago (god, it's been that long?) spun off a separate board from here. I think spike and I are the only two that still post in both places.

How many people are posting regularly over there?

I dunno...maybe a dozen regulars? Not that many.

Even without repeal and replace, this is going down.

Bi_3 wrote:Even without repeal and replace, this is going down.

Well, you had 3 choices (improve, repeal and replace, and do nothing). The first might have fixed this problem. The other two create death spirals.

So what happens if you're in a place with 0 carriers?

Bi_3 wrote:Even without repeal and replace, this is going down.

Weird how well the problems demonstrated in this map coincide with those states that blocked expansion of Medicaid coverage for the poor, erected barriers to enrollment and/or refused to move health plans into the Obamacare marketplace.

I called Richard Burr and Thom Tillis and told them to push Republican leadership for a public hearing so that the public and press can review it and give feedback and so that other lawmakers can offer amendments.

I'm pretty sure we can count on this being a fair process from here on out.

B wrote:I called Richard Burr and Thom Tillis and told them to push Republican leadership for a public hearing so that the public and press can review it and give feedback and so that other lawmakers can offer amendments.

I'm pretty sure we can count on this being a fair process from here on out.

Thanks for doing your part B. The country owes you.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Even without repeal and replace, this is going down.

Weird how well the problems demonstrated in this map coincide with those states that blocked expansion of Medicaid coverage for the poor, erected barriers to enrollment and/or refused to move health plans into the Obamacare marketplace.

...and as usual, Ohio continues to be a bastion of idiocy held back by the areas of the state better sent to Cousinfuck, Alabama.

Eh. It helps his weak chin.

This is going well.

Help a brother out: does Pence still get to cast tie-breaking votes on Reconciliation bills? I've seen conflicting reports saying that either 2 or 3 Republicans need to vote "no" to kill this bill.

Simple Torture wrote:Help a brother out: does Pence still get to cast tie-breaking votes on Reconciliation bills? I've seen conflicting reports saying that either 2 or 3 Republicans need to vote "no" to kill this bill.

Yes. 3 GOP no votes are needed.

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Help a brother out: does Pence still get to cast tie-breaking votes on Reconciliation bills? I've seen conflicting reports saying that either 2 or 3 Republicans need to vote "no" to kill this bill.

Yes. 3 GOP no votes are needed.