What elements of health care reform do you support?

[GoodmanBrown]

It's my personal belief that the Dems boned themselves by giving the big middle finger to the Republicans after the 2008 election. Instead of shoving a huge health care reform bill down their throats, I think smaller, single-issue bills should've been passed that everyone could agree on. You know, work on that whole bipartisanship thingy! So, in the spirit of SDN bipartisanship, I'm wondering what elements of reform we can all get behind.

Please don't check, "Health care doesn't need any reforms." unless you don't check anything else. (Or feel free if you're feeling spiteful and it will make you happy.)

I may double post this in the pre-med forum as I'd be interested in that audience's thoughts too. Though that might be TOS violation, so maybe I won't.

Here is some extra explanation for those interested:

1) Rescission is when someone gets individual health insurance and forgets (purposefully or not) to mention some previous medical issue. After paying premiums for some time, if the person gets a serious illness, the insurance company goes back through health forms and retroactively cancels their insurance because of this.

2) Pretty self explanatory

3) Pool all individuals getting insurance within a state. This would eliminate premium differences due to past medical history

4) A medical cost ratio is the percent of premiums paid to doctors, hospitals, etc. from the premium. So, if you get $100 for a premium, on average, you need to spend $85 paying people for medical care. If it's less, you have to give rebates to your policy holders.

5) This is in both bills, I believe. Basically, it just says that you can only charge 4x for your highest premium that you do for your lowest (assuming coverage is equal). Premium differences depend on age, smoking status, gender, and maybe a few other things.

6 & 7) Pretty self explanatory.

Some of these overlap or cause other issues which I know. I just thought it be interesting to see where general consensus lies. Enjoy!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[racerx]

You forgot to add tort reform. If not limiting punitive damages, then limiting the amount the ambulance chasers can profit. Make it a small percentage up to a certain level, then flat rate if the total damages exceed a certain amount.

Everyday on TV are "attorney" ads practically begging people to call to "right the wrongs," and "get their lives back." Maybe if the attorney's incentive to sue everything that moves for as much money as they can was eliminated, the liability premiums might stabilize.

Again, IMHO.

 

[GoodmanBrown]

You forgot to add tort reform. If not limiting punitive damages, then limiting the amount the ambulance chasers can profit. Make it a small percentage up to a certain level, then flat rate if the total damages exceed a certain amount.

Everyday on TV are "attorney" ads practically begging people to call to "right the wrongs," and "get their lives back." Maybe if the attorney's incentive to sue everything that moves for as much money as they can was eliminated, the liability premiums might stabilize.

Again, IMHO.

That's definitely a solid one. Mostly I was aiming at ones that had been mentioned in the current round of discussions. Since Dems are pretty cozy with lawyers I hadn't heard this mentioned in the current bills. Perhaps I just missed it though.

 

[countingdays]

That's definitely a solid one. Mostly I was aiming at ones that had been mentioned in the current round of discussions. Since Dems are pretty cozy with lawyers I hadn't heard this mentioned in the current bills. Perhaps I just missed it though.

That's a pretty leftist / government control based list.
You also didn't include:
-insurance industry competition
-decreased government mandates
-insurance portability

Most of the options you listed have huge negative consequences / side-effects.

'No change' is not an acceptible alternative. We don't have to chose between bad options or nothing. Just the good stuff would be fine thank you.

 

[racerx]

That's definitely a solid one. Mostly I was aiming at ones that had been mentioned in the current round of discussions. Since Dems are pretty cozy with lawyers I hadn't heard this mentioned in the current bills. Perhaps I just missed it though.

Sorry dude, thought you were referring to general ideas; not necessarily only ones in that abomination currently in the fictitious "conference."