If eliminating risk-based pricing (pricing based on health status, pre-existing conditions, etc.) will raise prices across the board for everybody if its implemented without a mandate is it still a good idea?

Yes, Damn the math. Obama is a magician. He can pull those billions of dollars out of our hats.   2 votes - 15 %
NO, However, Hillary's plan - which does, will work, because simply adding a mandate and a premium cap (with subsidies) based on income will balance it - That will bring healthy people in like the majority of younger Americans and then the government will   11 votes - 84 %
We need to preserve profits. Lets go with Obama-care. Additionally, Suicide is painless, we should encourage it by opening a chain of purple roofed suicide parlors next to orange roofed McDonalds. And offer free last meals.   0 votes - 0 %
 
13 Total Votes
Display:
Return to Entry :: 30 Comments :: Post a Comment


I wouldn't worry about it (2.00 / 1)

Given that Clinton will be in the Senate on the comittee that passes health care, I'm sure it will meet your requirements in the end.  


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:37:44 AM EST

Re: I wouldn't worry about it (2.00 / 1)

What if McCain vetoes it?


by gaf on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:24:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unintended Consequences of Obama Halfway Healt (2.00 / 1)

you didn't give us a loaded poll option?
how is anyone suppose to vote?

but you do realize that this point you aren't actually doing anything anymore to advanced the Health care debate right?


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:38:14 AM EST

Re: Unintended Consequences of Obama Halfway Healt (none / 0)

This is all masturbation. It isn't meant for Obama supporters to care about, it's just rallying Clinton supporters in a place where they know Obama supporters can be riled up. We're long past the point of actual debate.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:24:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unintended Consequences of Obama Halfway Healt (none / 0)

I hope they don't think we get riled up, because they are wasting their times if that is their objective


Dream for tomorrow but fight for it today.
by TruthMatters on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:39:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't that scary that you feel we're past (none / 0)

a place for debate?  

Dear God, what is happening to half of the Democratic Party - anything BO says is wonderful and there is no need for debate?

Even with Jim Cooper driving this truck over the cliff for us?


by CoyoteCreek on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:49:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't that scary that you feel we're past (none / 0)

I guess you believe the poll questions were objective and neutral.

If you indeed believe that, there's nothing to debate with a person such as yourself, or a person such as the diarist. Because it's you people that don't want to debate anything.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:55:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Your comment said nothing about (2.00 / 2)

debating a poll.  You said we're long past the time for debate - which scares me to death if you really believe that!


by CoyoteCreek on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:00:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Your comment said nothing about (none / 0)

You guys are the greatest at putting words in peoples' mouths. The point isn't that legitimate debate is unwelcome, but rather that Architek isn't looking for debate, he's looking to demagogue.


by amiches on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:45:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You didn't even notice (none / 0)

You didn't even notice that I'm not vcalzone.

Anyway, as I said there's no possibility of discussion with people like the diarist or anyone else who thinks his "poll" was unbiased.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:28:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't that scary that you feel we're past (none / 0)

No, we're into the portion where we need to be debating what Obama should be running on and reexamining his positions. We are past debating which candidate in the primary has a better position on the issues. That argument has been made and a winner has emerged, even if only by a slim margin.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:36:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isn't that scary that you feel we're past (none / 0)

I absolutely think that Obama's platform needs a little bit of shaping going forward. So on that, I think we agree. Obama will adopt some of Clinton's policies, just as if Clinton had won, she'd have taken some ideas from Obama. While this isn't always the case, when the election is this close, the differences in policy must be paid attention to.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:39:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama isn't the nominee yet (none / 0)

I personally don't think he's the strongest candidate.

Even if you completely ignore the incredible dishonesty of his healthcare 'plan'.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:33:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know.. (2.00 / 1)

HOW IS HE GETTING AWAY WITH THIS? Does anybody know how.
It's a trick question based on a strawman, that's how.  You've imposed your interpretation on Obama's plan, presented speculative consequences as facts, then asked us to explain your conclusions.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:43:07 AM EST

What is a 'strawman'? (2.00 / 1)

How is it a trick question?


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:53:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What is a 'strawman'? (2.00 / 1)

It's your inference that what he's saying is a pretense.
It's your assertion that pure risk-based pricing is inherent in his model.
It's your assertion that it would raise prices.
You are the one making judgments as to his intent.
It's your assertion that fairness equals profit to insurers.
You assert that Obama doesn't understand 3rd grade math.
You don't understand how he could have gone to Harvard.

Something is wrong, alright.  Based on all of your assertions, misunderstandings, and conclusions, you expect others to explain Obama's healthcare plan to you.


Nos causidicus Obama , ergo nos non suadeo
by rb608 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:08:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

they have, many times. They say Obamas can't work (2.00 / 2)

They all say it can't work. The mandate is an essential part of getting the price down. And as I pointed out, risk based pricing does lower rices for 80% of the customers, so eliminating it could easily double or triple prices for the healthy if there isn't also a mandate.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:24:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Mandates and universal, affordable health ins (2.00 / 1)

Full disclosure: I'm a Hillary supporter. That being said, I have every intention of supporting Obama in the GE.

But, really, everyone, you would have to have your head buried deep in the Sahara not to understand that a healthcare plan that relies on voluntary participation isn't going to work for the people who need it most. Personally, I favor a single-payer government run plan, but, of the two plans we have before us, Hillary's is the only one that has a chance of actually accomplishing the goal of near-universal, affordable coverage (neither plan is true universal coverage, in my opinion).

I work for one of the largest health insurance companies in the country(in the clinical research division, not the insurance division), and I know what people are saying around here. My company would, of course, just like to leave things the way they are, but, if forced to a choice, they would much prefer Obama's plan because it will allow them to continue to price the elderly, the very young and those with pre-existing conditions out of the individual policy market. The only way we can approach a sensible way to cover everyone is with mandates. Everyone - young, old, healthy, sick - must participate. This is simple actuarial truth, not politics. The whole idea of insurance is spreading the risk. The larger the pool of participants, the lower the average cost.

As for the politics of the two plans, I don't buy the argument that we should go for Obama's plan because it is more likely to pass. Even if one were to conceded the point, it's still not a good idea. If we pass this kind of plan, we will lose any momentum we might have to get true universal, affordable coverage. Politicians are congenital cowards (too bad we don't have a clinical trial to find a cure for that condition). Once they have passed something they can point to as (sort of) addressing the problem, they will breathe a sigh of relief and drop the whole subject. If we are really going to push for change, now is the time to go for broke. To quote the man himself, "Yes, we can."

Peace.


Rules for Life: Do not annoy others; Do not be too easily annoyed.
by Not the only Dem in KS on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:52:10 AM EST

Is there some way I could get in touch with you? (none / 0)

I have a question I'd like to ask someone like you about how to get some research done. I have an idea that I think could help a lot of people heath-wise and save almost everyone a lot of money.

I want to bounce it off a sympathetic soul who knows the inside of how health insurers work. Basically there is a huge, seemingly obvious health problem that is getting ignored for political reasons.

Thanks.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:37:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hate this type of "polls" (2.00 / 1)

I am so sick and tired of these bullshit polls that instead of clear simple choices, try to put words in people's mouth.

Yeah, we get it, you're cute. You're also scared enough that your poll won't give you the result you desire, that you are making a mockery of the whole affair.

All this merely translates to "dishonest debate tactics" for me.


by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:52:37 AM EST

Re: Unintended Consequences of Obama Halfway Healt (none / 0)

What can I say? Obama's plan isn't ideal. But healthcare isn't among my most important issues, and since legislation is a collaborative process I have little doubt that improvements will be made. And I'm sure Senator Clinton will be leading the charge from the Senate.  


by amiches on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:49:00 AM EST

Re: Unintended Consequences of Obama Halfway Healt (2.00 / 1)


Neither plan excites me.  Neither candidate has offered any hard figures on what "affordable" means for my situation.

I'll take Obama's plan for now so I at least have the option to buy into it or not, vs the mandates without any specifics on what "affordable" means or how much $ help in tax credits I'd be entitled to.

I know Obama favors single-payer, but we can't get there in one giant leap.
 


by neonplaque on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:44:50 AM EST

Re: Unintended Consequences of Obama Halfway Healt (2.00 / 1)

I know Obama favors single-payer, but we can't get there in one giant leap.

I call BS on that. He talked in favor of single-payer back when he was a state senator in a very progressive district, but now he has completely run away from that position, even to the extent of falsely denying that he ever did support single payer as a viable approach to health-care reform.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

HR 676 (none / 0)

we can get there in one single leap, we already have 78 sponsors.


by Alice Marshall on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:16:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: HR 676 (2.00 / 1)

Which means that we are only 140 votes shy.

I'm all in favor of single-payer, but it's never going to pass in our lifetimes -- and certainly not if Obama is President since he will do nothing to advocate it, or even genuine UHC.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:21:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then a LOT of people are going to have to move (none / 0)

out of the country. Because they can't afford to live here anymore.

Maybe that's what they want.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:05:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unintended Consequences of Obama (none / 0)

We can't win in the general on mandated coverage.  The Republicans would destroy us on that issue.

Hell, I know people who despise mandatory auto insurance!  They're out of their minds, but they actually oppose it.

If we want to tweak the proposal in the Congress, that's great, but whatever it is we propose has to clear through the Senate with 60 votes in order to happen.  Mandated coverage won't happen.  I wish it would, I really do, but politics is the art of the possible.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:46:36 AM EST

I hated it (none / 0)

I live in California and here we were one of the first to mandate car insurance.  Do you know what happens when the insurance companies know you have to buy their product and can not, in fact legally drive without it?  They raise their prices...significantly.

It turns out that mandating car insurance did not increase the number of insured drivers in California, but it did change who was insured.  Poor people just drive illegally.


accepting McLettuce is like being 9 years old and forced to eat your own cooking
by Sychotic1 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reason prices will go up under Obama's new plan (none / 0)

Every heathcare expert I have seen thinks there is a huge difference between Hillary's and Obama's plan.

One of the biggest differences is that the very poor and the unemplooyed will pay NOTHING under Hillary and they will receive COMPREHENSIVE coverage.

Almost EVERYONE will pay less under Hillary than under Obama.

Obama's plan recently changed. (with the ban on pricing insurance by risk) If he does that, without ALSO having a mandate (to reduce the unit cost) there will be an outcry because that heathcare per person will probably be substantially more expensive than healthcare is now.

Again, this text below is a good explanation of why. Insurance companies are NOT welfare agencies.
They can't operate at a loss. Someone has to make up that difference.

Read this carefully, its very important:

http://www.economist.com/research/Econom ics/alphabetic.cfm?LETTER=A


Adverse selection

When you do business with people you would be better off avoiding. This is one of two main sorts of market failure often associated with insurance. The other is moral hazard.

Adverse selection can be a problem when there is asymmetric information between the seller of insurance and the buyer; in particular, insurance will often not be profitable when buyers have better information about their risk of claiming than does the seller. Ideally, insurance premiums should be set according to the risk of a randomly selected person in the insured slice of the population (55-year-old male smokers, say). In practice, this means the average risk of that group. When there is adverse selection, people who know they have a higher risk of claiming than the average of the group will buy the insurance, whereas those who have a below-average risk may decide it is too expensive to be worth buying. In this case, premiums set according to the average risk will not be sufficient to cover the claims that eventually arise, because among the people who have bought the policy more will have above-average risk than below-average risk.

Putting up the premium will not solve this problem, for as the premium rises the insurance policy will become unattractive to more of the people who know they have a lower risk of claiming.

One way to reduce adverse selection is to make the purchase of insurance compulsory, so that those for whom insurance priced for average risk is unattractive are not able to opt out.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Presidents are not the only ones with a say (none / 0)

There are 78 cosponsors of HR 676, or medicare for all. If we keep asking out Congressional and Senate candidates to support this, we can win.


by Alice Marshall on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:05:10 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: