Interesting Health Care Poll

[jasonxctf]

after the past election, take polls with a grain of salt, but found this one from the Kaiser Institute interesting.

http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

 

In summary...

- 42% Favorable 40% Unfavorable split on the Health Bill as a whole

- 49% Unfavorable 42% Favorable for those who actually voted in the midterms

- Since April, consistently respondents believe that our country will be better off with the new law. (however it went from +10 in April to +2 today)

- Since April, its been a mixed bag on respondents believing that they will be better off with the new law, personally.

- On individual benefits, most people want things kept in place, except for the law requiring citizens to have insurance. (27% pro 68% against)

[Y2HH]

As people know, I work for a health insurance company, and I can tell you from the inside out how this affected everyone, and it wasn't good. The few good things are already being counter weighted with the bad.

 

Across the board, my benefits have been reduced, and across the board my premiums are up. Keep in mind I work for them, so this will end up being even worse for you.

 

So, what I have now is lower quality health insurance at an even LESS affordable price.

 

Great job.

 

They did do a few good things, but they forgot to look out for the massive cost increases they claimed they looked out for. Fact is premiums can rise so long as it can be shown why, which is really easy since the doctors and hospitals weren't affected, and can continue to raise the cost of care, which the insurance companies have to pay for. Which means you have to pay for, too.

 

My company makes 1.7% profit margin.

 

Meanwhile, Bristol Myers (drug company), their profit margin is nearing 30%.

 

Oh.

 

Told ya so.

 

And as time goes on, it's going to get even worse. Oh well. I guess we will endure, as we usually do.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Y2HH

[lostfan]

My insurance coverage hasn't changed at all except they switched dental coverage for 2011 for basically all the same coverage.

 

This data isn't new btw... if you break it up into individual pieces of things people wanted changed people support all of them by pretty wide margins. Add in the mandate and put them under a banner like "Obamacare" and the favorability goes way down.

Edited November 10, 2010 by lostfan

[Y2HH]

My insurance coverage hasn't changed at all except they switched dental coverage for 2011 for basically all the same coverage.

 

This data isn't new btw... if you break it up into individual pieces of things people wanted changed people support all of them by pretty wide margins. Add in the mandate and put them under a banner like "Obamacare" and the favorability goes way down.

 

Your coverage will eventually change, and sooner rather than later. It's more expensive for insurance companies now, so if you think your rates will remain the same, you're in for a surprise.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Y2HH

[lostfan]

Your coverage will eventually change, and sooner rather than later. It's more expensive for insurance companies now, so if you think your rates will remain the same, you're in for a surprise.

Probably. I dunno. It probably has more to do with the financial shape my firm is in (outstanding) than anything else.

 

OT: I need your e-mail address if you don't mind, I always have little questions that I want to ask someone about investing etc. and you're a pretty sharp dude, but I can't get on ST at work

[Y2HH]

Probably. I dunno. It probably has more to do with the financial shape my firm is in (outstanding) than anything else.

 

OT: I need your e-mail address if you don't mind, I always have little questions that I want to ask someone about investing etc. and you're a pretty sharp dude, but I can't get on ST at work

 

A lot of what will happen with healthcare is unknown right now, which is why the prices are going up. Hospitals/doctors/pharma/insurance companies are not sure what the future holds, so all of them are kind of pricing in the unknown (how they do that, don't ask), much of it seems like greed due to uncertainty, but some of it seems necessary in some ways, as obviously they're on the hook for a lot more now.

 

Anyway, I maintain that something needs to be done about the entire industry. Insurance companies aside, pharma and the industry in general still need reform, because despite a 2000+ page law, they were left untouched.

 

Anyway...email/chat:

 

[email protected]

 

Or you can AIM me at y2hh

Edited November 10, 2010 by Y2HH

[lostfan]

A lot of what will happen with healthcare is unknown right now, which is why the prices are going up. Hospitals/doctors/pharma/insurance companies are not sure what the future holds, so all of them are kind of pricing in the unknown (how they do that, don't ask), much of it seems like greed due to uncertainty, but some of it seems necessary in some ways, as obviously they're on the hook for a lot more now.

 

Anyway, I maintain that something needs to be done about the entire industry. Insurance companies aside, pharma and the industry in general still need reform, because despite a 2000+ page law, they were left untouched.

 

Anyway...email/chat:

 

[email protected]

 

Or you can AIM me at y2hh

It's not really politically correct to say in public that a lot of doctors are full of s***. I can say it and people would probably listen, but a politician can't or he has to beat around the bush because people like doctors and inherently trust them because they went to school for so long and they've been pretty ambitious people most of their lives. Example: a doctor tells a healthy 60-year old woman she needs an MRI for no reason in particular. She doesn't need it, but he knows what he's doing and she's probably oblivious to it and she's thinking "well if my doctor says I need it then it's probably important." Or, something that's probably happened to everyone at some point: you go tell the doctor and complain of some symptoms. The doctor says "oh, ok it sounds like you have xxxx" and runs a test, then writes you a prescription. A week later the prescription hasn't done s*** so you go back and he says "it looked like xxxx but it could also be yyyy. Let's run the test again." Then he gives you another prescription. Viola, it works. But you made a co-pay for both visits. They were both billed to your insurance. You paid for 2 prescriptions. Did the doctor know you didn't really need both prescriptions? Yeah, odds were pretty good that he did. But who do they answer to? Someone that's going to check that? I doubt it.

 

Lawyers go to school for a pretty long time, do we give them this much leeway? Absolutely not.

[EvilMonkey]

My wife works for an insurance company, and our insurance also went down in the quality of what we receive, and costs a little bit more as well. Only good thing is the dental and vision part of it which went untouched in quality or price.

[Texsox]

Our rates dropped slightly for individual, oncreased slightly for family coverage. We also switched providers to Blue Cross Blue Shield. And IIRC this is the first time in years I have not seen an increase in premiums.

[NorthSideSox72]

A lot of what will happen with healthcare is unknown right now, which is why the prices are going up. Hospitals/doctors/pharma/insurance companies are not sure what the future holds, so all of them are kind of pricing in the unknown (how they do that, don't ask), much of it seems like greed due to uncertainty, but some of it seems necessary in some ways, as obviously they're on the hook for a lot more now.

 

Anyway, I maintain that something needs to be done about the entire industry. Insurance companies aside, pharma and the industry in general still need reform, because despite a 2000+ page law, they were left untouched.

 

Anyway...email/chat:

 

[email protected]

 

Or you can AIM me at y2hh

So what you are saying, really, is that everyone is raising prices because they don't know what will happen. To me, that's not a reason to criticize the health care law, that's just being alarmist for no good reason.

 

Just curious... what exactly in the new health care law is it that you think will result in higher costs, long run? I mean, costs were already going up far faster than inflation for some time, and I agree with you that insurance companies aren't the only ones to blame. I don't much like what I've seen of the health care law either, but, could you be more specific as to what problems you think it will cause that will result in insurance costs going up or quality going down?

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

. Add in the mandate and put them under a banner like "Obamacare" and the favorability goes way down.

The GOP has spent the better part of the last 12 months tell out right lies about health care reform (death panels and "grandma's gonna die because she's not important") and using framing like "Obamacare" to try and destroy support for reform.

[Balta1701]

The GOP has spent the better part of the last 12 months tell out right lies about health care reform (death panels and "grandma's gonna die because she's not important") and using framing like "Obamacare" to try and destroy support for reform.

LF is actually right...if you poll on which parts of the ACA do people like/dislike...the "Individual mandate" is by far the least popular part. Things like "pre-existing condition coverage" or "Letting your children stay on your insurance until 25" are strongly popular.

[Y2HH]

So what you are saying, really, is that everyone is raising prices because they don't know what will happen. To me, that's not a reason to criticize the health care law, that's just being alarmist for no good reason.

 

Just curious... what exactly in the new health care law is it that you think will result in higher costs, long run? I mean, costs were already going up far faster than inflation for some time, and I agree with you that insurance companies aren't the only ones to blame. I don't much like what I've seen of the health care law either, but, could you be more specific as to what problems you think it will cause that will result in insurance costs going up or quality going down?

 

Good questions.

 

First, when I speak of "quality" in terms of insurance, I merely mean coverage. What they cover and how much of it they cover. Do you have co-pays for certain services and not for others? How about well and baby care? What about immunizations? What is the deductible for the other services not covered by co-pay? What is the total OOP (out of pocket) you can pay per calendar year? What about prescriptions? There are many factors that go into what they pay and why they pay it depending on the plan. When I speak of "quality" I merely mean how much the insurance company is going to cover.

 

The actual "quality" of that care has nothing to do with the insurance companies. That has everything to do with the hospital and the specific set of surgeons/doctors/nurses you happen to get for emergency care, or the ones you go to for non-emergency care.

 

For example, HMO's usually tend to cover more, however, they usually have a much smaller network. I've often found that almost no doctors I think are really good accept HMO plans. Also, keep in mind that PCP care (primary care physician), a requirement of any HMO, IMO, is a purposefully terrible design and it should have been outlawed in that bill. If my knee hurts because I tore something in it, having to go to my PCP so he can tell me my knee hurts and I have to see a specialist is ridiculous. Some of us have busy lives and we don't have extra time/days to be throwing around having to visit PCP's so they can recommend going to a knee specialist, which we already knew. This is another way the doctors/hospitals spread money through the system, because they know that anyone with an HMO, for any ailment, MUST see a minimum of two doctors, one for the recommendation, another for actual treatment. These were originally created in part by insurance companies to prevent people from seeing 'specialists' they did not need to see, saving them money, time, etc. However, there are times when you KNOW what's wrong without a PCP having to tell you. Also, at the time, family doctors were a norm, today, they are a rarity, making it even harder for this system to work well.

 

Lower quality plans will tend to have higher deductibles and higher maximum out of pocket expenses.

 

The reason why the cost of insurance will rise now is simple. This law did everything to curb any control insurance companies had to defend themselves, but did nothing to those who send the actual bills. Now, you have to consider that the doctors/hospitals are aware of that. They know that insurance companies cannot drop people for any reason, coupled with the fact that they can no longer attach lifetime maximums.

 

That is what a they call a bottomless pit of money.

 

Of course, good doctors wouldn't exploit the reformed system.

 

And after financial reform, good mortgage lenders would never lend people money knowing they won't pay it back.

 

Premiums will continue to rise at exactly the same rate as before, or even faster, counter to what they promised. And this will continue to happen until they reform the people who create the drugs and price them, or perform the services and send the bills.

[Balta1701]

Premiums will continue to rise at exactly the same rate as before, or even faster, counter to what they promised. And this will continue to happen until they reform the people who create the drugs and price them, or perform the services and send the bills.

My point of view continues to be...if we can do exactly what is said here...get premiums to rise at exactly the rate they were beforehand, but also cover 30 million+ additional people...then the bill was a good thing.

 

I think there's more to that as you all know, but I can live with exactly this for now.

[Y2HH]

My point of view continues to be...if we can do exactly what is said here...get premiums to rise at exactly the rate they were beforehand, but also cover 30 million+ additional people...then the bill was a good thing.

 

I think there's more to that as you all know, but I can live with exactly this for now.

 

First, the 30 million haven't been added yet, speculating on what may or may not happen is meaningless until it happens and we see the outcome.

 

I'm not some insurance defender, but I feel that even if you add the 30+M new people, and the cost of care does not go down, this bill has failed. I find it unacceptable that premiums continue to rise, even if they add 30+M people, considering many of them will be massively subsidized. Rising premiums should slow or go down because of this bill, not stay at the same rate.

[Balta1701]

I'm not some insurance defender, but I feel that even if you add the 30+M new people, and the cost of care does not go down, this bill has failed. I find it unacceptable that premiums continue to rise, even if they add 30+M people, considering many of them will be massively subsidized. Rising premiums should slow or go down because of this bill, not stay at the same rate.

Eventually you're right, the cost curve does have to be bent downwards, and there remains a lot of work to do despite this bill. Politically though, we saw how hard it was to even do 1 slice...the insurance slice.

 

You know my feelings already...I think you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[Y2HH]

Eventually you're right, the cost curve does have to be bent downwards, and there remains a lot of work to do despite this bill. Politically though, we saw how hard it was to even do 1 slice...the insurance slice.

 

You know my feelings already...I think you're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

There was, undoubtedly, some good in this law.

 

* Children can stay on insurance until 26. Good.

 

* Cannot be dropped. Good.

 

* High risk pools for those that cannot get accepted will be created. Good after this is created.

 

* No lifetime limits on coverage. Good, so long as hospitals/doctors do not exploit this.

 

Those are the *major* talking points in that bill. Even in extended lawyer speak, that's about 20 pages of text/rules per talking point. That's 80 pages, but let's say 100 for good measure. There are still 2000 something pages of who knows what in that law, which is concerning to me. I know they stuffed things in that bill which have nothing to do with health care, I just don't know what yet, or how it applies.

 

This, to me, is akin to the IRS and the current tax law. It's so big, cumbersome and complex, nobody really understands it, and it's completely exploitable...this monstrosity will be no different.

 

Meanwhile, we didn't even touch the rest of the industry.

 

There is simply too much unknown in this for me to be happy with it right now, and the worst part about it...all we can do is "wait and see."

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

There was, undoubtedly, some good in this law.

 

* Children can stay on insurance until 26. Good.

 

* Cannot be dropped. Good.

 

* High risk pools for those that cannot get accepted will be created. Good after this is created.

 

* No lifetime limits on coverage. Good, so long as hospitals/doctors do not exploit this.

 

Those are the *major* talking points in that bill. Even in extended lawyer speak, that's about 20 pages of text/rules per talking point. That's 80 pages, but let's say 100 for good measure. There are still 2000 something pages of who knows what in that law, which is concerning to me. I know they stuffed things in that bill which have nothing to do with health care, I just don't know what yet, or how it applies.

 

This, to me, is akin to the IRS and the current tax law. It's so big, cumbersome and complex, nobody really understands it, and it's completely exploitable...this monstrosity will be no different.

 

Meanwhile, we didn't even touch the rest of the industry.

 

There is simply too much unknown in this for me to be happy with it right now, and the worst part about it...all we can do is "wait and see."

Thanks for all the info, Y2HH.

 

I'll add one thing that I thought was demonstrably good in the bill - protecting those with pre-existing conditions.

 

[Balta1701]

I'll add one thing that I thought was demonstrably good in the bill - protecting those with pre-existing conditions.

And I continue to note that if you try to do this without all the other things in the bill, the system breaks. The Health insurers know it too.

[NorthSideSox72]

And I continue to note that if you try to do this without all the other things in the bill, the system breaks. The Health insurers know it too.

Not really. You can write the exemptions into the law to protect insurers and still keep people who act in good faith from being screwed. Many people here and elsewhere tried to paint it as absolute - either you mandate coverage or you screw people with pre-existing conditions. I still contend that this could have been done in a way that neither were true.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Thanks for all the info, Y2HH.

 

I'll add one thing that I thought was demonstrably good in the bill - protecting those with pre-existing conditions.

Even before this bill there were some protections for people with pre-existing conditions. If you had insurance for 5 years or more, and needed to switch carriers due to a job or loss thereof, the new company couldn't deny you because of a pre-existing condition. What they could do is say if you were uninsured for 6 years, then developed diabeties and tried to get insurance to cover it, you were screwed. Like trying to buy a bullet proof vest after you have already been shot.

[southsider2k5]

The GOP has spent the better part of the last 12 months tell out right lies about health care reform (death panels and "grandma's gonna die because she's not important") and using framing like "Obamacare" to try and destroy support for reform.

 

Yeah, labeling sucks. Like the Bush tax cuts, right?

[NorthSideSox72]

Even before this bill there were some protections for people with pre-existing conditions. If you had insurance for 5 years or more, and needed to switch carriers due to a job or loss thereof, the new company couldn't deny you because of a pre-existing condition. What they could do is say if you were uninsured for 6 years, then developed diabeties and tried to get insurance to cover it, you were screwed. Like trying to buy a bullet proof vest after you have already been shot.

5 years or more is way too long. What if you start a job and get laid off before 5 years? The protections should be much stronger than they are, and you can do that without the mandate.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Yeah, labeling sucks. Like the Bush tax cuts, right?

what do you mean?

[Texsox]

Thanks for all the info, Y2HH.

 

I'll add one thing that I thought was demonstrably good in the bill - protecting those with pre-existing conditions.

 

 

Like trying to buy a bullet proof vest after you have already been shot.

 

While I like protecting those with preexisting conditions, there must be a provision where you have coverage before an event. I do not want to see people decline coverage when healthy, wait until something happens, then buy insurance. I could see people signing up for insurance as they are beinf wheeled into the ER.