Health Care for America NOW - "Support increases when they find out what's in the bill"

[TomCADem]

Here is a nice bit of data from Health Care for America NOW, which is a coalition of groups and unions supporting health care reform:

BTW The Kaiser Family Foundation is not associated with Kaiser Permanente.

http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2010/03/12/polling-on-health-care-americans-closely-divided-support-increases-when-they-find-out-whats-in-the-bill/

The polling on health reform has long been scattered and misunderstood. The issue is so complex that it's very hard to boil down into a few yes or no questions. And because the issue is so hot, every pollster and their mother wants to grab a headline with new poll results.

There are a few things that can be teased out, however. First, for the most part, people like what's in the health care bills.

Poll after poll finds support for banning denial of care based on pre-existing conditions, creating the Exchanges as a marketplace for health care, requiring business to pitch in for health care costs with tax credits to small business, closing the Medicare donut hole, and helping people afford insurance.

Newsweek's latest poll, taken in mid-February, backs up the assertion that people like the main components of the health care bill. Of course, some things aren't as popular - an individual mandate without a public option or the excise tax, for example - but Newsweek's poll has another finding that is noteworthy.

Second, when people find out what's in the bill, support for it rises. Newsweek's latest poll in mid-February found that while initial support for "Obama's health reform plan" were 40% favor to 49% opposed, once people learn what's in the bill - both the good and the bad - 48% support and 43% oppose. Kaiser tracking polls, among others, have had similar findings.

Third, people want to see reform passed more than they want Congress to fail or "start over."

<>

[Cha]

1. Thanks Tom~

[eridani]

2. Funny how they never ask if people support taxes on existing benefits

--because they sure the hell don't.

[TomCADem]

3. They Didn't Ask People If They Support Getting Subsidies for Health Coverage

--because they sure as heck do.

[eridani]

4. Except that people don't get subsidies. Insuance companies do.

And thay are not required to honor specific claims, either.

[TomCADem]

5. Actually, The Bill Has An Immediate Impact On Claims...

Here is a nice article by Ezra Klein covering just some of the benefits of the bill that are immediately available:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/what_happens_before_2014.html

1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.

2) No more rescissions.

3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.

5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.

6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.

...

#1, 2 and 5 would appear to immediately require coverage for many claims that would not currently be covered.

[eridani]

6. That is ridiculous. An insurance company can deny a claim for any reason that they can imagine

That, and ending recissions is meaningless, because the way they use denials and recissions insures that they win no matter what happens.

1. Claim denied, or policy rescinded.
2. You complain to the appropriate regulatory agency, and the claim wends its way through the process.
3. You die.
4. Wonderful! You had a good case and the regulatory agency states that they must reinstate the policy and pay for treatment. The insurance company wins anyway.

[TomCADem]

7. I Guess Your Point Is Why Have Laws since everyone breaks them anyways, right?

However, if we naively assume that laws will generally be enforced, we should note the following expanded coverage, which is Ezra Klein lists:

6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.

7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 percent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.

8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.

9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.

10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.

11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.

12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage.

[eridani]

8. An appeals process is worthless. Insurance companies win even if they lose

They'll turn down a claim and rescind a policy, and during the appeals process the victims are likely to die.

MLR regulation is TOTALLY WORTHLESS!!!!!!!! 15 states have tried regulation of insurance this way and have totally failed.