Posted on 06/13/2019 4:54:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
Seven out of 10 voters rate their health insurance coverage and the medical care they receive as good or excellent. Despite that, only 34% give our nation's health care system positive reviews. Not surprisingly, therefore, health care reform has consistently been a top voter concern election after election.
Broadly speaking, voters have two concerns. Defensively, they want to make sure that Congress doesn't make a bad situation worse. That's why 78% of voters want any reform to specifically provide protection for people with preexisting conditions. Beyond that, however, voters want more control over their own health care decisions. And in practical terms, that means they need more choices. Seventy-four percent would like the option of buying into the health insurance plan offered government employees.
On a broader basis, 65% think health insurance companies should be required to offer a variety of health insurance options. Those options would include more expensive plans with comprehensive coverage and less expensive plans that cover only basic health care needs.
The desire for choice is also highlighted by the strong opposition to banning private insurance companies and requiring everybody to get their medical coverage through the federal government. Eighty-two percent oppose that provision in Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for All" plan.
This desire for both protection and choice was highlighted in a ScottRasmussen.com survey exploring what voters consider to be junk insurance.
Not surprisingly, 76% believe "health insurance that fails to pay for its promised coverage" is junk. Just about any product or service that fails to deliver as promised ranks pretty low in the world of consumer choice.
Perhaps more interesting are five other forms of health insurance that most voters see as junk:
-- Seventy-two percent believe the term "junk insurance" applies to "health insurance with so much red tape that people have to wait a long time for surgery." Just 14% disagree.
-- Sixty-nine percent believe "health insurance that forces people to pay for coverage of medical procedures they don't need" is junk. Only 18% disagree.
-- Sixty-eight percent believe "junk" is the appropriate description for "health insurance that places a limit on care for items such as cancer treatments." Nineteen percent disagree.
-- Sixty-two percent consider "health insurance that won't let you choose your own doctor" to be junk insurance. Only 23% disagree.
-- A bare majority -- 51% -- think "junk" is the right description for "health insurance that requires young people to subsidize the premiums of older people."
Highlighting a gap between the political world and the rest of the nation, just 41% believe "health insurance with low premiums that covers only major medical expenses and emergencies" is junk. On that point, 38% disagree.
Just 28% think "health insurance that is expensive but covers virtually every medical emergency" should be considered junk. Most (52%) disagree. This makes clear that voters don't have a problem with expensive health insurance; they just don't like the idea of being forced to buy it.
Put it all together and the twin pillars of successful health care reform are pretty clear. First, do no harm. Second, empower Americans to make their own health care choices.
That's one way to put it, or you could ask if spreading the cost of a procedure across everyone who purchased the insurance makes it "junk".
Depends on what answer you're fishing for.
They are going for Medicare for ALL. And that is a BIG DISASTER. We have Medicare/Tricare Life, both are Dictatorships. With a allusion of choice in doctors/hospitals, but test, lab work, meds are totally controlled by DoD. When they change out formulary you best hope there is a replacement for your med. If not, TOUGH you can’t appeal it doesn’t matter if it’s a life and death issue.
I’m fighting with Express Scripts over covering my Linzess, they required a Prior Authorization letter, which the Gastro sent them, it was insufficient, they need more info, What more do you need than the Colon is Paralyzed from Gastropresis and Linzess has the least side effects comes in more strengths? I’ve taken it over 2+ yrs to dump the colon that doesn’t work. Now you want a Prior Authorization you are just going to TURN DOWN ANYWAY? If my colon doesn’t empty it will RUPTURE. Then you have ER surgery, Sepsis, or death. If it would do any good to CALL Kustoff’s office I’d have done it, he’s to busy with PHOTO OPS. Lamar is retiring, Blackburn worthless. Calling TRICARE LIFE IS NOT AN OPTION.
I remember the OLD health ins, that didn’t pay doc office visits, scripts. Just OB, ER with co-pays unless you were admitted.
This is the latest from Fox https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/alfredo-ortiz-house-ways-and-means-single-payer-health-care-democrats?fbclid=IwAR2hP8l9OJrE07bqlatOEOc2piJ5GjgeoprKG6w0kheb9O8WINwJ1pOi_bQ
I can tell you most Canadian’s who can afford health care come to the USA. Those who can’t only the fairly healthy get treated. I’ve a 50 yr old friend who’s DYING of an Incurable disease, he can’t find a doctor to treat him, he’s given under mg pain meds, he turns 50 on the 16th, if he lives another month it will be in NAZI TORTURE THAT WOULD MAKE Dr. Josef Mengele PROUD. Glace Bay man with incurable condition can’t find a doctor
Nikki Sullivan (nicole.sullivan@cbpost.com) https://www.cumberlandnewsnow.com/news/regional/glace-bay-man-with-incurable-condition-cant-find-a-doctor-174052/?fbclid=IwAR0FsZW4Hbuc204-lGH8G_BGEdLgpwStg8vq67d-GB9FEKhTjRNOjXZqfKI
Cape Breton man can’t find family doctor despite pain he calls ‘living hell’
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/find-doctor-pain-man-adhesive-arachnoiditis-referral-medical-health-1.4471666?fbclid=IwAR2fySFzgVJP6nd7w-GtGb2CppCDmBDRSZHL3tQXAmSkY7bLQdnbKBPua7c
16 Key Findings about Arachnoiditis
https://www.painnewsnetwork.org/stories/2019/6/7/16-key-findings-about-arachnoiditis
Who pays the jackpot settlements? WE DO. Through a combination of higher insurance rates, increased drug costs, and charges for procedures. Who wins? The lawyers. And the gubermint from the taxes on the settlement. Corporations don't pay taxes and penalties, the customers do. It's all pass-through. Back when the ACA was in the news, there was an item that said 10% of healthcare costs was related to malpractice premiums.
You watch the TV commercials and you realize the final step in the life-cycle of a drug is a lawsuit. When there's foul play, definitely punish those responsible. But also factor in there's risk for cutting-edge treatments. Did that stent give you 10 more years? Was its breaking free something that could have come out in clinical trials or was it something that could not be known at the time? Should any settlement amount go to fill someone's pocket or set up a fund for corrective surgery. If we wait for everything to be proven to the nth degree, how many don't get those extra years from the best technological advancements available. We, through Congress, push for fast-track availability of the latest cure but then turn around and sue, sue, sue around when something goes wrong. There has to be a balance and a recognition that there are risks and trade-offs.
You say lawyers will only take the lucrative cases? Well, there's a reason for reform right there. What percentage of the victims go unrepresented? Hardly seems a fair or just system. No, I don't have the answers but I can recognize a system that isn't working.
The system is not fair, but, the usual reforms offered usually protect everyone but patients. Take experimental drugs, treatments, but with full disclosure, which would eliminate a lot of suits. The drug companies and doctors need to quit hiding info.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
