View Poll Results: Would you support such a health insurance policy?

Voters
3. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I am a Conservative and would support it

    0 0%
  • No, I am a Conservative and would not support it

    0 0%
  • Yes, I am a Liberal and would support it

    1 33.33%
  • No, I am a Liberal and would not support it

    0 0%
  • Yes, I am a Centrist and would support it

    1 33.33%
  • No, I am a Centrist and would not support it

    0 0%
  • Yes, I am a Moderate and would support it

    0 0%
  • No, I am a Moderate and would not support it

    1 33.33%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Would you support something like the following bipartisan health insurance plan

  1. #1
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,206

    Would you support something like the following bipartisan health insurance plan

    1. Single payer 100% coverage for catastrophic
    2/everything else cash/charity system


    Catastrophic would cover such things as broken bones, prenatal care. Kids and elderly broader coverage such as must have immunizations, medical prescriptions, etc.

    Cash would be for like visits to family doctors, scratches, bruises, flu, cosmetic surgery for vain purposes, laser eye surgery, abortions, birth control, etc.


    As a Liberal would you support this compromise health bill where there is not full coverage like you may like as you will have to rely on charitable contribution to fund things like Planned Parenthood and for poor people to go on normal doctor visits, with the middle class and rich likely only having access to cosmetic surgery and other non emergency procedures, for exchange of having Conservative support for a single payer that 100% covers everything else.

    As a Conservative would you overlook your abhorrence of government, and accept government health insurance already exists in the military, with politicians, Medicaid and Medicare, and pretty much the rest of the Western world, and this plan at least makes a cash system for non emergency health care so the emergency rooms and medical providers will not be crammed full because of "free" health care. Also you get the following benefits:

    1. A huge cost of health care is the bureaucracy created to deal with myriads of insurance providers each with their own red tape regulations. A doctor posted on DP several years ago that in her clinic 75% of her employees deal solely with this. A single insurer and cash would have allowed her to eliminate a huge percentage of her costs.
    2. A high percentage of health care costs are due to private health insurance companies having to pay shareholders dividends and have large advertising budgets to compete against the myriad of competitors out there. A public single payer does not charge profit or have to advertise.
    3. Private insurers are for profit companies so they will always want to insure the young and healthy who don't really need insurance while those who really need it, they will always try and not cover.
    4. It helps economic growth. Companies will no longer have to waste their time providing health insurance and can concentrate on real growth. Employees will no longer have to work at a job they may not like because that company has a better health care plan. So it adds much more fluidity to someone's career. If you have a pre-existing condition or over weight you will not have to worry about companies not hiring you because of the extra costs to their health care plans.
    5. It helps economic growth part 2. All the employees currently working in the medical providers' bureaucracies that deal with multiple insurers as well as all the employees in the private health insurance industry will be freed up to work at something else which will eliminate inefficient bubbles in the economy and create greater GNP as they will create businesses or work in fields that create real wealth, which will increase gov. revenue as well as increase living standards across the board.
    6. No one will have to worry about a serious illness in the family bankrupting you. There is no copay, no limits you have to worry about, no pre-existing condition worries.
    Last edited by laska; 06-18-13 at 08:57 PM.

  2. #2
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,922

    Re: Would you support something like the following bipartisan health insurance plan

    Quote Originally Posted by laska View Post
    1/ Single payer 100% coverage for catastrophic
    2/ Everything else cash/charity system




    Catastrophic would cover such things as broken bones, prenatal care. Kids and elderly broader coverage such as must have immunizations, medical prescriptions, etc.


    Cash would be for like visits to family doctors, scratches, bruises, flu, cosmetic surgery for vain purposes, laser eye surgery, abortions, birth control, etc.




    As a Liberal would you support this compromise health bill where there is not full coverage like you may like as you will have to rely on charitable contribution to fund things like Planned Parenthood and for poor people to go on normal doctor visits, with the middle class and rich likely only having access to cosmetic surgery and other non emergency procedures, for exchange of having Conservative support for a single payer that 100% covers everything else.


    As a Conservative would you overlook your abhorrence of government, and accept government health insurance already exists in the military, with politicians, Medicaid and Medicare, and pretty much the rest of the Western world, and this plan at least makes a cash system for non emergency health care so the emergency rooms and medical providers will not be crammed full because of "free" health care. Also you get the following benefits:


    1. A huge cost of health care is the bureaucracy created to deal with myriads of insurance providers each with their own red tape regulations. A doctor posted on DP several years ago that in her clinic 75% of her employees deal solely with this. A single insurer and cash would have allowed her to eliminate a huge percentage of her costs.
    2. A high percentage of health care costs are due to private health insurance companies having to pay shareholders dividends and have large advertising budgets to compete against the myriad of competitors out there. A public single payer does not charge profit or have to advertise.
    3. Private insurers are for profit companies so they will always want to insure the young and healthy who don't really need insurance while those who really need it, they will always try and not cover.
    4. It helps economic growth. Companies will no longer have to waste their time providing health insurance and can concentrate on real growth. Employees will no longer have to work at a job they may not like because that company has a better health care plan. So it adds much more fluidity to someone's career. If you have a pre-existing condition or over weight you will not have to worry about companies not hiring you because of the extra costs to their health care plans.
    5. It helps economic growth part 2. All the employees currently working in the medical providers' bureaucracies that deal with multiple insurers as well as all the employees in the private health insurance industry will be freed up to work at something else which will eliminate inefficient bubbles in the economy and create greater GNP as they will create businesses or work in fields that create real wealth, which will increase gov. revenue as well as increase living standards across the board.
    6. No one will have to worry about a serious illness in the family bankrupting you. There is no copay, no limits you have to worry about, no pre-existing condition worries.
    Here's the deal. I am NOT a fan of single payer or government health care of ANY kind. That said we need to be honest with each other and point out that for this to happen it will require an amendment to our constitution. No bare majority votes but a straight up amendment so very few are grumbling like they are now at how they got hosed, because lets face it they and I did get hosed. If its proposed as an amendment then I will consider its merits. If its proposed like the last trash, forget about it.

    On its face there would be some things that need to be worked out like, what is catastrophic? Is there limits, if so who imposes them and how ect. If it gets hashed out so 2/3s of congress and 3/4s of the states can agree on it then it may be something to at least try.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    10-24-13 @ 02:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    913

    Re: Would you support something like the following bipartisan health insurance plan

    How could broken bones, immunization, etc. possibly fall under the heading of "catastrophic"?

  4. #4
    Wee Nyeff
    GottaGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    In the now
    Last Seen
    05-23-17 @ 02:58 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,311

    Re: Would you support something like the following bipartisan health insurance plan

    1. Bureaucracy is the government's middle name. If one can be created, the bureaucratic boondoggle would be astounding.
    2. Eliminating the health insurers will add how many people to the unemployment lines?
    3. Define catastrophic. For some, catastrophic illness IS the flu. Others, the severing of limbs may or may not be.
    4. Ongoing conditions such as diabetes, heart issues, even cholesterol can require ongoing prescriptions that could bankrupt a person.
    5. Low income groups or disable people that can't afford even the most basic insurance premiums would, again, be subsidized by those able to afford premiums.
    6. Government control of healthcare brings up that demon, 'death panels'. Does anyone really want a bureaucrat deciding if they deserve a heart transplant?
    7. HIPPA? What's HIPPA?

    And the list could go on and on.
    Building block or stumbling block.... choose.

  5. #5
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Would you support something like the following bipartisan health insurance plan

    Yes. I would support old-fashioned *insurance*, as we had in the 60's and 70's, as opposed to comprehensive coverage that we've had since the mid-70's, when congress made it mandatory.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  6. #6
    Guru
    Cyrylek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Boston
    Last Seen
    02-05-17 @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,467

    Re: Would you support something like the following bipartisan health insurance plan

    I don't know if I should reply (not being a conservative, a socialist ("liberal"), a moderate, or a centrist). But OK, perhaps I can get away with it, as a moderate libertarian.

    The current situation is pathological, and the Obamacare just made it worse, by deepening the dependence of health care consumers on two giant serf-serving bureaucracies - of the government and of the so-called insurance companies (as if you could "insure" against routine medical expenses or against getting older). The medical market is distorted, cornered ten times over, and underperforming miserably.

    So, having a limited national coverage and expanding, at the same time, the normal no-parasitic-intermediaries cash-based transactions between actual patients and doctors/nurses/drug-makers does sound attractive. But I don't think the acts of Congress and Medicaid panels should decide what is "catastrophic" and what is "mere" manageable diabetes, for example.

    I think another form of "single payer" would be preferable: The government cutting an annual check for medical expenses to every citizen, for a fixed sum (the poor people currently eligible for Medicaid getting more) and otherwise staying the hell out the way. Some restrictions on what is "medical" still would have to apply (no aromatherapy and other such nonsense), but basically the decision-making would be entirely between the patient and the doctor. Money unused should be allowed to accumulate over years and turn into plain cash at some maturation date.

    This would allow us to scrap the parasitic intermediaries, boost the medical markets, and reverse the unnatural tendency of prices in those markets to climb indefinitely. Insurance companies will be still very welcome to offer actual catastrophic insurance (which does make perfect sense) - for accidents, rare infectious diseases, etc.

    (Of course, there is approximately zero chance that either of these plans, or anything similar, will see the light of day in the current political climate).

  7. #7
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Would you support something like the following bipartisan health insurance plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrylek View Post
    I don't know if I should reply (not being a conservative, a socialist ("liberal"), a moderate, or a centrist). But OK, perhaps I can get away with it, as a moderate libertarian.
    I always feel so left out in these poll questions.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  8. #8
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Would you support something like the following bipartisan health insurance plan

    Quote Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
    1. Bureaucracy is the government's middle name. If one can be created, the bureaucratic boondoggle would be astounding.
    2. Eliminating the health insurers will add how many people to the unemployment lines?
    3. Define catastrophic. For some, catastrophic illness IS the flu. Others, the severing of limbs may or may not be.
    4. Ongoing conditions such as diabetes, heart issues, even cholesterol can require ongoing prescriptions that could bankrupt a person.
    5. Low income groups or disable people that can't afford even the most basic insurance premiums would, again, be subsidized by those able to afford premiums.
    6. Government control of healthcare brings up that demon, 'death panels'. Does anyone really want a bureaucrat deciding if they deserve a heart transplant?
    7. HIPPA? What's HIPPA?

    And the list could go on and on.
    With regard to #6, a bureaucrat already DOES decide if you get a new heart or not. It's just that person works for a company whose profits grow if they deny you the new heart.

  9. #9
    Wee Nyeff
    GottaGo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    In the now
    Last Seen
    05-23-17 @ 02:58 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,311

    Re: Would you support something like the following bipartisan health insurance plan

    Quote Originally Posted by FilmFestGuy View Post
    With regard to #6, a bureaucrat already DOES decide if you get a new heart or not. It's just that person works for a company whose profits grow if they deny you the new heart.
    No, he doesn't. Those arrangements are made between me and my doctor. If I had to hock every last thing I owned pay for it, I could get it no matter if the insurance says aye or nay. You get the government involved, and that goes right out the door.

    Insurance is a method of payment, and that is all.
    Building block or stumbling block.... choose.

  10. #10
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Last Seen
    11-21-14 @ 03:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    2,120

    Re: Would you support something like the following bipartisan health insurance plan

    Quote Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
    No, he doesn't. Those arrangements are made between me and my doctor. If I had to hock every last thing I owned pay for it, I could get it no matter if the insurance says aye or nay. You get the government involved, and that goes right out the door.

    Insurance is a method of payment, and that is all.
    Government insurance isn't any different from private insurance. Just because Medicare doesn't cover something, doesn't mean you can't get the procedure done. It's just about whether you could afford it on your own.

    Most people can't afford life-saving procedures, so no matter for whom the bureaucrat works, the bureaucrat still makes life or death decisions.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •