View Poll Results: Republicans/conservatives: Which of these health care reforms would you support?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Banning or limiting discrimination based on preexisting conditions, gender, and age

    6 21.43%
  • Ending the "lifetime maximums" on health insurance policies

    4 14.29%
  • Requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance, with exemptions for the poor

    3 10.71%
  • Increased assistance to help the poor purchase insurance plans

    9 32.14%
  • Eliminating the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies

    10 35.71%
  • Taxing some/all health insurance benefits as regular income

    4 14.29%
  • None of the above

    14 50.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Republicans/conservatives: Which of these health care reforms would you support?

  1. #21
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Republicans/conservatives: Which of these health care reforms would you support?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I honestly haven't seen anything that would indicate that the antitrust exemption is anything other than a tiny issue being hyped to score political points.
    This is one of the biggest drivers of inflated health care costs. In the vast majority of cities, there are no more than 1 or 2 health insurance providers. And unlike, say, utilities, there is no geographical reason why this needs to be the case. As it stands right now, health insurance companies have a special exemption to antitrust laws that don't apply to any other industry. The government can and should change this and bust these monopolies just as they would any other monopoly.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 01-21-10 at 01:58 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #22
    Banned

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    07-11-11 @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,249

    Re: Republicans/conservatives: Which of these health care reforms would you support?

    None of the above, keep the government out of so called "reforming" health care. Too much of their "help" had something to do with where we are at already.

  3. #23
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    12-19-10 @ 09:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    38

    Re: Republicans/conservatives: Which of these health care reforms would you support?

    Eliminating the antitrust exemption for health insurance companies.

    Unless I am misinterpreting this option. It means that the federal government can break up insurance companies that are so large that they can effect health care issues on a national level.

    I don't think this option will do much on it's own. A health care plan to start fixing our nation's health care problems should be a series of small bills that effect a single issue each. At any point in the future the legislative branch finds that any part of these series of bills are not working and needs revision, they can fix the issue on one small bill.

    This would be an easy goal oriented task that you could make progress on and not get bogged down in a single massive unmanageable bill for the entire nation.

  4. #24
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Republicans/conservatives: Which of these health care reforms would you support?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    This is one of the biggest drivers of inflated health care costs. In the vast majority of cities, there are no more than 1 or 2 health insurance providers. And unlike, say, utilities, there is no geographical reason why this needs to be the case. As it stands right now, health insurance companies have a special exemption to antitrust laws that don't apply to any other industry. The government can and should change this and bust these monopolies just as they would any other monopoly.
    I just don't think it has as much of an impact as it's purported to. I've yet to see anything that attributed any specific numbers to the exemption or provided concrete examples of how its harming competition. Unless I'm mistaken, all of the things that could be prosecuted were the exemption repealed are already illegal. The only thing that the repeal would do is make it easier for the government to investigate claims of price fixing and the like, very little of which is happening now as it is.

    Most of the arguments I've heard for repealing the antitrust exemption have focused on three prongs:

    1) They're the only industry to have this (other than baseball), so that's not fair
    2) There is a large amount of concentration in individual markets
    3) Premiums have gone up like crazy

    The first is irrelevant, the second doesn't seem to matter that much either, and the third looks to be unrelated. From here, I don't see much to convince me that it's much more than a political play.

    Finally, the fact that the insurance companies don't really seem to care either way is a huge red flag to me that this is not the big issue that it's being hyped as. Whenever I see people from both parties coming together to bash an unpopular industry, it usually means that the industry is innocent of the charges.

    ThinkProgress says that its impact is minimal, though it wants it repealed because it's important to the public option.

    Finally, the LA Times basically sums up my entire point (I wish I'd seen this before I typed all that out)

    The lack of competition is the rationale, after all, for the "public option" -- "to install a competitor whose incentive is not to go along with the monopolists," in the words of Thomas L. Greaney, a health insurance expert at St. Louis University School of Law. It's also what underlies the rhetoric from lawmakers favoring repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson exemption. "This fixes a mistake sitting on the federal statutes for over 60 years," Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), said a few days ago when the Judiciary Committee he chairs approved a repeal bill.

    Yet the McCarran-Ferguson Act turns out to be a red herring, like the guy fingered as the murderer in the first act of any "Law & Order." As fans of the program know, that doesn't mean no crime has been committed, only that one should look elsewhere for the guilty party. There's plenty of guilt to go around. But the McCarran Act has done almost nothing to foster the consolidation of the health insurance industry. For one thing, health insurers don't typically share data in the manner that the exemption allows. Moreover, the courts have interpreted the law so narrowly that it doesn't exempt insurance mergers from federal scrutiny. The real culprits are federal antitrust authorities, whose approach to health insurance mergers can best be described as supine. In other words, the truly effective antitrust immunity the industry has received has come not from lawmakers but from federal regulators.

    ...

    All this suggests that in focusing on the McCarran-Ferguson exemption, Congress is barking up the wrong tree. Repeal of the measure wouldn't have much effect on health insurers at all, good or bad, though it would permit Congressmen to swank around as though they were courageously lowering the boom on an industry with few fans among the voters. The industry itself has gone along with the joke, informing Congress a week ago that the repeal would "remedy a problem that does not exist" -- a hint that the lawmakers can score anti-industry points without imposing on the insurers. Why would Congress want to hurt them, anyway -- a group that has funneled more than $3 million into congressional campaign coffers via its biggest political action committees over the last three election cycles? That may be why you don't hear much on Capitol Hill about steps that might really affect the insurers -- such as investigating why the Justice Department greenlighted so many anti-competitive mergers in recent years, and putting pressure on the regulators to subject the next big deal to effective scrutiny. Sure, let Congress repeal McCarran-Ferguson -- antitrust experts say it's outdated anyway. But just remember that if the repeal distracts the lawmakers from real antitrust reform, as seems likely, the health insurance industry will be laughing all the way to the bank.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  5. #25
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    12-19-10 @ 09:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    38

    Re: Republicans/conservatives: Which of these health care reforms would you support?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I voted subsidize some of the poor and tax all/some benefits as income.

    I don't see a problem with subsidizing some of the poor, though not as generously as either of the bills being proposed. As a nation, we need to realize that thanks to our abhorrent lifestyle choices and our sense of entitlement in regards to quality of care, health care is expensive as **** and will be that way for the foreseeable future. Rather than act all outraged when they're expected to spend 10% of their income on insurance, people should fully expect to spend 15-20%. I've got no problem helping out people for whom this would be a true burden, but I think it's absolutely absurd to be handing out $10k subsidies to families of 4 making $60k while the family only pays $5k, as would happen under the Senate bill.

    As to taxing the benefits as income, I'm surprised more people didn't pick this. It seems like the most logical way to reduce overall spending while simultaneously getting rid of a tax break that just skews economic incentives.
    If you subsidize something you get more of it. The government can't even pay for my GI Bill for college. States can't pay their local fire and police departments. The nation is broke. This is the framework your going to be in favor of spending federal money on an entitlement for every citizen, or someone skilled enough to pretend to be a citizen of the nation?

  6. #26
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Republicans/conservatives: Which of these health care reforms would you support?

    Quote Originally Posted by Io0011 View Post
    If you subsidize something you get more of it. The government can't even pay for my GI Bill for college. States can't pay their local fire and police departments. The nation is broke. This is the framework your going to be in favor of spending federal money on an entitlement for every citizen, or someone skilled enough to pretend to be a citizen of the nation?
    Where did I say "every citizen" or anything even close to it?

    I would like to give subsidies primarily to the people who are right above the Medicaid threshold. These are the people who would not be able to afford insurance otherwise, and who would be otherwise covered under a Medicaid expansion in any of the Dems proposals. I think giving people a small subsidy to help them pay for insurance themselves is preferable to giving them Medicaid for free.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #27
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    TN
    Last Seen
    12-19-10 @ 09:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    38

    Re: Republicans/conservatives: Which of these health care reforms would you support?

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Where did I say "every citizen" or anything even close to it?
    Ah, I got confused there. Sorry about that.

  8. #28
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Republicans/conservatives: Which of these health care reforms would you support?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I realize that, but I don't see why meds should be any different than any other treatment. Say you get a catastrophic plan that covers 0% of your first $X and everything beyond that. Why not just incorporate both treatment and meds in the same plan?
    Because that won't affect the outrageous costs of medications. One of the reasons medication and physician office visits have gone up so much is because no one has to take responsibility for controlling costs. The doctors can charge what they want, pharmaceutical companies charge what they want, patients don't care because it's covered by insurance, and the insurance companies are having to pay out more and more money because there is no competition in the marketplace. It is more complicated than just this one factor, but it definitely factors in to rising costs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I think mandating a couple free checkups is one area that the government definitely needs to be involved, because the insurance companies will never coordinate this on their own. If they all assume that their customers are likely to be using a different plan with a different company 5-10 years down the road, they don't have any incentive to provide preventative care. It'll result in a continuation of our "sick care" system. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma: All of the health insurance companies would save money if they all offered preventative care...but none of them want to be the sucker that does it on their own.
    .
    I disagree, but not due to your line of reasoning. The reason this won't work is because of the American mindset. Americans don't want to be pro-active and prevent illness. They want to live lives of carelessness, then have someone else pick up the tab when they become ill. Besides that, insurance companies already have what are almost free visits- the consumer pays what is usually a small co-pay out of pocket. This has not contributed to keeping people healthier as far as I can tell.

  9. #29
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Republicans/conservatives: Which of these health care reforms would you support?

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Because that won't affect the outrageous costs of medications. One of the reasons medication and physician office visits have gone up so much is because no one has to take responsibility for controlling costs. The doctors can charge what they want, pharmaceutical companies charge what they want, patients don't care because it's covered by insurance, and the insurance companies are having to pay out more and more money because there is no competition in the marketplace. It is more complicated than just this one factor, but it definitely factors in to rising costs.
    But the same is true of any medical procedure. If I have to get $40,000 in chemotherapy, a catastrophic insurance plan will cover it (as it should). Sure, it might increase the cost but there's no way I'd be able to afford it on my own anyway. But the same is just as true if I have to get $40,000 in medicine. Both of those would fall under the category of "catastrophic" as far as I'm concerned, and the medicine wouldn't be any more or less price-sensitive than an equally-priced medical procedure covered by insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie
    I disagree, but not due to your line of reasoning. The reason this won't work is because of the American mindset. Americans don't want to be pro-active and prevent illness. They want to live lives of carelessness, then have someone else pick up the tab when they become ill. Besides that, insurance companies already have what are almost free visits- the consumer pays what is usually a small co-pay out of pocket. This has not contributed to keeping people healthier as far as I can tell.
    I think offering something for free creates a much stronger incentive for people to take advantage of it than offering it for a $10 or $20 copay. It's not rational, but that's the way the human brain works IMO.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  10. #30
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: Republicans/conservatives: Which of these health care reforms would you support?

    If this is suppose to be a poll for conservatives, then there really should have been a choice about eliminating the tax incentives for healthcare benefits from someone's workplace.

    That would drastically reduce health care spending, so if anything, I don't think anyone should support the tax exempt status of employer provided health care services.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •