• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which Health Insurance Reforms?

Which health care reforms would you like to see before end of 2010?


  • Total voters
    22

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,907
Reaction score
60,363
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Which of the poll options would you like to see passed within the next year or so(by year end 2010)? There are other possibilities which I did not think of, and please list those. Pick as many or as few as you want, or select "No reform" if you don't want any reform.

Edit: Poll options added.
 
Last edited:
No lifetime caps on benefits, no pre-existing conditions exclusions, no 'rating' of those with previous health claims, no 'rating' by gender, some regulation on what they can charge for premiums, and how much of a hike is legal year-to-year .... damn, there's alot I want to see.

Plus I picked some of your options too.
 
No lifetime caps on benefits, no pre-existing conditions exclusions, no 'rating' of those with previous health claims, no 'rating' by gender, some regulation on what they can charge for premiums, and how much of a hike is legal year-to-year .... damn, there's alot I want to see.

Plus I picked some of your options too.

I thought of things like that as "insurance regulation".
 
Ok, RightInNYC...how can you support several options on the poll(well, 3),and also pick "no reform"?
 
I honestly have no idea how anyone who doesn't work for an insurance company could be opposed to this:

Insurance regulations and enforcement to protect the insured

And yet some people aren't voting for it. :doh
 
I honestly have no idea how anyone who doesn't work for an insurance company could be opposed to this:



And yet some people aren't voting for it. :doh

I simply didn't understand what was meant by it.

EDIT: After reading jackalope's post I get the idea.
 
I simply didn't understand what was meant by it.

EDIT: After reading jackalope's post I get the idea.

There is more to it than just what jackalope wrote. Insurance companies use tactics like first denial and slow paying to make money. Basically, that option should be any regulation on the insurance industry to help or protect consumers.

Edit: and some of the things people pick is odd. One person selected both deregulation and regulation.
 
Last edited:
Edit: and some of the things people pick is odd. One person selected both deregulation and regulation.

That makes sense; not all regulation is the same. Maybe they think that some regulation is needed, and some of it which exists is unnecessary.
 
That makes sense; not all regulation is the same. Maybe they think that some regulation is needed, and some of it which exists is unnecessary.

Could be. I just found it odd.
 
Ok, RightInNYC...how can you support several options on the poll(well, 3),and also pick "no reform"?

I like all three of those options, but if we didn't have those things, I'd prefer no reform to some of the other proposals on the board.

I like almost all of the options in some form, but not in the form they're most popularly seen. I think we should subsidize insurance for the poor/disabled, but I dislike the way it's currently implemented, what with programs covering people making $80k+. I would love the idea of a "socialized insurance program," provided that the program was absolutely minimal, covering basic preventative medicine and the most common and cost-effective treatments.
 
I'd propose the following reforms, although this is a somewhat simplified list.

1) No discrimination for age, gender or pre-existing conditions, but backed a government funded risk equalization program.

2) Tort reform.

3) Government negotiated drug prices.

4) Criminal prosecution for giving so much as lollypop to a doctor if you are the Pharmaceutical business.

5) More conflict of interest laws. Notably doctors who refer patients to other businesses they own.

6) Voucher packages to the poor to buy health insurance.

7) Various regulations for allowed insurance, such as preventing in/out of network nonsense or lifetime maximums.

8) A public option isn't inherently required, but providing some competition to get the system rolling would be beneficial.

The primary goals are to get everyone covered, remove incentives for bad behavior and dramatically cut administrative overhead.
 
Regulate the insurance industry to eliminate abuses. Regulations such as:

1) Elimination of all utilization review. Only providers can make decisions on the use of a subscriber's benefits and on treatment allowed.

2) Centralization and uniformity of all billing practices, closing all "loopholes" such as delayed payments, "wrong" addresses, and inconsistent reimbursement of services, both in a fee and service perspective.

3) Legalization of the suing of insurance companies for the denial of benefits for treatment authorized by a provider.

4) Parity for all medical and mental health services.

I'm sure there are more, but these are off the top of my head and the most important ones, I think.
 
I would like the first 3.

I'd be willing to compromise at this time though for Tort reform and allowing the selling of insurance across state lines in exchange for getting on board with some targetted and not too over the top regulation and some kind of aid program for "poor" people/families (with the understanding it actaully remains with "poor" people and families and "poor" isn't 40k a year people like "child" with the CHIPS bill was trying to be 20 something).

That aid program could not be government health insurance. However if it was some kind of tax credit or some kind of voucher to help pay for the insurance, or the government making a deal with some clinics in allowing for free/reduced priced general check ups only for a certain amount of time sper year, I'd agree with it.

Couldn't get behind anything that created a true "public option".
 
I would like the first 3.

I'd be willing to compromise at this time though for Tort reform and allowing the selling of insurance across state lines in exchange for getting on board with some targetted and not too over the top regulation and some kind of aid program for "poor" people/families (with the understanding it actaully remains with "poor" people and families and "poor" isn't 40k a year people like "child" with the CHIPS bill was trying to be 20 something).

That aid program could not be government health insurance. However if it was some kind of tax credit or some kind of voucher to help pay for the insurance, or the government making a deal with some clinics in allowing for free/reduced priced general check ups only for a certain amount of time sper year, I'd agree with it.

Couldn't get behind anything that created a true "public option".

Depending on where you live, 40k is dirt poor.

I suspect we will end up with something like what you suggest this year.
 
Unbelievable.

Do any of you voting for Tort reform understand what a tiny piece of the pie it makes up?

Texas demolished malpractice lawsuits, decreasing the time people have to sue, eliminating punitive damages, and stiffly capping the amount people are allowed to get for injuries sustained due to medical negligance.

Did it bring their costs down? Not a jot. Whatever benefits tort reform might have brought to the system, those were swallowed by the astronomical rise in cost due to issues other than tort reform.

Knowing this do you still think tort reform is the most important issue facing medicine today? If so, why?
 
Depending on where you live, 40k is dirt poor.

I suspect we will end up with something like what you suggest this year.
40k a year, for a family with one or two kids in daycare IS dirt poor most everywhere.
 
Unbelievable.

Do any of you voting for Tort reform understand what a tiny piece of the pie it makes up?

Texas demolished malpractice lawsuits, decreasing the time people have to sue, eliminating punitive damages, and stiffly capping the amount people are allowed to get for injuries sustained due to medical negligance.

Did it bring their costs down? Not a jot. Whatever benefits tort reform might have brought to the system, those were swallowed by the astronomical rise in cost due to issues other than tort reform.

Knowing this do you still think tort reform is the most important issue facing medicine today? If so, why?
they don't.

and many also fail to understand that insurance companies make up for their investment losses by raising premiums, denying care and recission.
 
Do any of you voting for Tort reform understand what a tiny piece of the pie it makes up?

Texas demolished malpractice lawsuits, decreasing the time people have to sue, eliminating punitive damages, and stiffly capping the amount people are allowed to get for injuries sustained due to medical negligance.

Did it bring their costs down? Not a jot. Whatever benefits tort reform might have brought to the system, those were swallowed by the astronomical rise in cost due to issues other than tort reform.

Knowing this do you still think tort reform is the most important issue facing medicine today? If so, why?

Who says its the most important? Tort Reform may not save a huge amount of money, but it is still a good idea. Cutting down on absurd lawsuits is something that everyone except personal injuries lawyers can get behind, and helps boost peoples faith in the system.
 
Depending on where you live, 40k is dirt poor.

I suspect we will end up with something like what you suggest this year.

I wouldn't be too adverse to allowing it to adjust to COL for specific places.

That said...

I live in one a portion of the country with some of the highest costs of living. I've been living here starting at 28k a year and now currently hovering around the 40k range. While I would not call myself solidly middle class up here I would hardly say I'm scrapping by and "dirt poor" either, and that's with close to 50k in college loans I'm still paying off and not exactly living very frugally. I find it hard pressed to think of any place in this country where 40k is "Dirt Poor".
 
Last edited:
Who says its the most important? Tort Reform may not save a huge amount of money, but it is still a good idea. Cutting down on absurd lawsuits is something that everyone except personal injuries lawyers can get behind, and helps boost peoples faith in the system.

THe people who voted it as a priority above all the others said it was the most important by way of their vote. It is to this, which I was responding.
 
Unbelievable.

Do any of you voting for Tort reform understand what a tiny piece of the pie it makes up?

Texas demolished malpractice lawsuits, decreasing the time people have to sue, eliminating punitive damages, and stiffly capping the amount people are allowed to get for injuries sustained due to medical negligance.

Did it bring their costs down? Not a jot. Whatever benefits tort reform might have brought to the system, those were swallowed by the astronomical rise in cost due to issues other than tort reform.

Knowing this do you still think tort reform is the most important issue facing medicine today? If so, why?

Uhh how does voting "Yes, I would support this" equate to it being the most important issue facing medicine today? :confused:

Whether it brings costs down or not, it would discourage needless medical tests and would mean doctors weren't afraid of their patients.
 
I wouldn't be too adverse to allowing it to adjust to COL for specific places.

That said...

I live in one a portion of the country with some of the highest costs of living. I've been living here starting at 28k a year and now currently hovering around the 40k range. While I would not call myself solidly middle class up here I would hardly say I'm scrapping by and "dirt poor" either, and that's with close to 50k in college loans I'm still paying off and not exactly living very frugally. I find it hard pressed to think of any place in this country where 40k is "Dirt Poor".

28k for just you, or for you and a family? I live in rural Michigan, and cost of living here is fairly low, but I would draw the line between poor and middle class at about 30k for a single person.
 
Uhh how does voting "Yes, I would support this" equate to it being the most important issue facing medicine today? :confused:

Whether it brings costs down or not, it would discourage needless medical tests and would mean doctors weren't afraid of their patients.

I am missing something here. How would tort reform reduce the use of needless tests?
 
28k for just you, or for you and a family? I live in rural Michigan, and cost of living here is fairly low, but I would draw the line between poor and middle class at about 30k for a single person.

28k was for me. 34k when it was me and my girlfriend.

And sorry, I don't believe its the government...and thus the tax payers...job to subsidize you if you decide you want a family of 4. That's your choice.

There's a difference between lower middle class and even lower class and "Dirt Poor".

If you have Cable TV, broadband internet, home and cell phone, go out to eat once or twice a week, purchase good cuts of meat, go out drinking often, etc etc etc I'm not going to be crying a river when you tell me you're "poor as dirt".

There's no way I can fathom someone in say, the DC Metro area, making 40k a year and trying to claim they're "Poor as dirt" unless perhaps they're a single parent with 4 kids. In which case you've got to deal with the choices you've made. Call my cynical, but I'm tired of saying "These are bad choices, people need to stop making bad choices" while continually and repeatedly subsidizing those bad choices making any admonishments of it rather hollow and pointless. And maybe we'll have to have a few unfortunante tear jerking situations to occur so that in the long run we have significantly less situations where the possibility for such unfortunante circumstances is present.
 
Back
Top Bottom