Who would consider a public health plan?

[Scanner]

If the public plan goes through and it is an option, how many of you would at least consider joining the public plan for your health coverage? I am going to say for pollster sake the public plan resembles Medicare vs. the Federal Health Benefits program (the FEB is actually probably slightly better so we'll say the choice you have is a little worse).

[neatdesign]

Not sure if this was intended, but you've equated the public plan listed in your poll with Medicare (which is fine, because it put the public plan into context) and then gone on to say that it's "worse" than something else. By describing the public plan as something "worse" than something else, you've already "tainted" the poll, so to speak, because you've opined on the quality of something that doesn't exist yet.

~ Jenney

[snafu]

I can't imagine anyone choosing one plan over another without v/specific details. What is covered? Will my condition be triaged? Do you get the same policy as your State Senator? Do you get $6M, $12M or without limit annual coverage? Is the coverage local, regional, national? What is the premium for my family? Is there any subsidy? Who makes the decision for procedures? A gov't clerk/doctor/medical practioner? What needs pre approval/by who? Can I go to Mayo Clinic [place of choice] if I need surgery and am scared?
Will I need to sign a document limiting how much I can sue for error, perceived error or frivolous

Current insurers can deny claims, deny insurance for pre existing, deny and hope the client won't press the issue.

[GREENBACK]

I will say I reject based on the fact that the gov't mismanages things like this horribly. They have no track record of doing anything efficiently when it involves large amounts of money. I think it will be another failed goverment program that will all get the short end of the stick on.

[Scanner]

Everyone,

YOu are asking me to summarize a 1000 page document into a savingadvice poll. . .it's not going to happen.

Yet, this is what it comes down to, doesn't it? You have 1000's of decisions to make everyday and you proceed with what you have.

If I had said the public plan looks like the FEB program, it would have biased it slightly towards getting it (FEB are aweseom health benefits). . .if I say it's like Medicare, maybe I bias it away from selecting it. Actually, I don't think Medicare is that bad - it's kind of like the "Vanilla" of health plans - it covers a lot but not everything. I personally would rather a public plan resemble vanilla vs. chocolate marshmellow so it's not meant as a "slight" on the public plan.

This isn't meant to be scientific - just satisfy curiousity.

I fall into the "maybe" category. I wouldn't exclude it on principle but I wouldn't necessarily pick it over private health insurance either.

I am trying to unscientifically measure the "aversion" to a public plan, if any (which so far there is significant aversion I would say).

[asmom]

I chose maybe because I like to keep an open mind. Of course, I would have to analyze all the options carefully before I make a decision because that is what I do anyway.

[Seeker]

Scanner, nobody can answer the poll. Nobody knows anything about their options until they are presented.

The most basic one will be this:

How many employers will continue to support the plans that they currently (in some varying proportion) pay toward, if their employees were able to get their own plans?

If any public plan goes into effect, many employers may make the choice to not continue their current practices.

[Seeker]

I just realized that you are talking about private plans.... but I guess the numbers are such that most people whom have health insurance, do so because their employers pay for it in some form. I'd be interested in knowing how many of the common people have "private health insurance" that they themselves pay for, because they have choosen too, because they work for a company that either does not provide, or they wish to supplement their company's insurance (or avoid it entirely)?

Those that have private insurance, in my view, are "insurable" privately.

For instance some people would pay more privately (assuming that they CAN get any coverage) because of current health issues (be it because of accident, self-inflicted -- or controllable issues, or non-controllable issues -- like type 1 diabetic) that are easily covered, with semi-controlled costs, with employer coverage that is equivalent across the employer pool.

My view also being that many of these employee health benefits would just suddendly evaporate or disappear, given a public health insurance option or provision.

[Scanner]

Seeker,

Again, I am not a pollster and I realize only so much can be read into any poll.

For instance, I could poll people, "Would you ever consider using a chiropractor?" And if there was a top orthopedist from the U of Penn in that sample, he may respond, "Never in a million years. I hate those quacks." (just to give an example, not all orthopods are that vehemently opposed to chiropractic)

I guarantee you though that he gets a nasty case of facet syndrome that prevents him from doing his job, and can't find a good osteopath or PT to accomplish in resolving it, he'd go. People will do anything under the direst of circumstance.

But a poll like that (and this) assesses attitudes. For instance, the people who pick the 4rth choice are expressing offense at the idea of a public plan and they have the right to be offended. In the end, they may actually sign up if their circumstances (a bankruptcy) mandated it but I can appreciate the sentiment in responding to #4.

Conversely, nobody has picked 1 yet but there may be people out there who are waiting for this, who have a pre-existing condition and they think this is the answer but then only to realize it wasn't cracked up to what they thought it might be.

Again, to me, it's just an unscientific gauge.

I frankly haven't seen any scientific polls on this subject yet - how many are in the "sign me up" category, how many are in the "maybe" category" and how many are the "never in a million years" category.

[markusk]

I just realized that you are talking about private plans.... but I guess the numbers are such that most people whom have health insurance, do so because their employers pay for it in some form. I'd be interested in knowing how many of the common people have "private health insurance" that they themselves pay for, because they have choosen too, because they work for a company that either does not provide, or they wish to supplement their company's insurance (or avoid it entirely)?

Those that have private insurance, in my view, are "insurable" privately.

For instance some people would pay more privately (assuming that they CAN get any coverage) because of current health issues (be it because of accident, self-inflicted -- or controllable issues, or non-controllable issues -- like type 1 diabetic) that are easily covered, with semi-controlled costs, with employer coverage that is equivalent across the employer pool.

My view also being that many of these employee health benefits would just suddendly evaporate or disappear, given a public health insurance option or provision.

Got some numbers off of CNN's website entitled "Health reform follies: How to keep up."
146 M - insurance thru work
81 M - Medicare or Medicaid
49 M - no insurance
14 M - buy policies on their own.

Also, if employee health benefits are taken away by employers due to a pubic health insurance option or provision, then I would suspect the employer will have to give a pay raise to compensate. We are so used to considering the "total compensation package" of a job offer, if a company did not offer any health coverage "due to the public option," then salaries must increase, that is, if employers want to attract and keep good employees.

[Bimmer]

I have a problem with the choices. I would not consider the public plan right now purely because I have good healthcare benefits, not because the public plan is bad (the whole "desperate" thing).

[Seeker]

Got some numbers off of CNN's website entitled "Health reform follies: How to keep up."
146 M - insurance thru work
81 M - Medicare or Medicaid
49 M - no insurance
14 M - buy policies on their own.

Also, if employee health benefits are taken away by employers due to a pubic health insurance option or provision, then I would suspect the employer will have to give a pay raise to compensate. We are so used to considering the "total compensation package" of a job offer, if a company did not offer any health coverage "due to the public option," then salaries must increase, that is, if employers want to attract and keep good employees.

I'm not so sure that that would happen (portion bolded above). Many employers' health plans in the last few years have been reduced in coverage, or increased in co-pays, etc. Heathcare prices have increased across the board, both on employee (choosing their plans) and on employer (making available plans for different types of healthcare "needs").

Heathcare costs changes yearly, and rather stealthily sometimes. Whether or not employers pass that change onto their employees is another matter. If a public paid option becomes available for healthcare/insurance, who can definitely say that their employer will still provide? Unions probably (because that's part of the contract and they'd not vote out such an intention)... not many others will have another option if public healthcare becomes viable.


Scanner said:

But a poll like that (and this) assesses attitudes. For instance, the people who pick the 4rth choice are expressing offense at the idea of a public plan and they have the right to be offended. In the end, they may actually sign up if their circumstances (a bankruptcy) mandated it but I can appreciate the sentiment in responding to #4.

Conversely, nobody has picked 1 yet but there may be people out there who are waiting for this, who have a pre-existing condition and they think this is the answer but then only to realize it wasn't cracked up to what they thought it might be.

Again, to me, it's just an unscientific gauge.

I understand what you are saying.... but to me, asking questions like the above doesn't really portray an "unscientific gauge" even.

If healthcare is required to be paid for by an individual, then that individual will choose the least costly option. Unless, of course, they need a more costly option.

Are we measuring their attitudes by your poll, or are we measuring differing needs?

[Seeker]

The problem being that nobody knows their "need" until they have it. If they have it at all. The problem is that insurance as a whole is not predictable; we can only make assumptions on our needs.

My attempt at answering the poll:

If my employer continues current coverage, then I'd stay there.

If my employer disolves current coverage and a public plan were available at reasonable costs, I'd choose it.

COBRA is massively overpriced and the unemployed cannot afford it. If I were unemployed, the best option for me then, would be for my hubby to call-in and have me included on his health coverage, assuming of course that his employer also provides healthcare options for thier employees. Otherwise, we'd both be on a public plan.

Neither he nor I "plan" to be without healthcare options. No one truely knows their "needs" until they have a need. When or if they do have a major healthcare need, we all hope that insurance will not suddenly fail us.

The problem is that there are 49 million people without healthcare insurance. 49 million people without any options whatsoever.

America in action?

[maat55]

No on principle. I believe in the free market with reasonable regulation. I see two problems with the current system:

Not enough competition and pre-existing health issues.

Competition could be expanded by allowing individuals and providers to make arrangments around the ins. industry as well as allow shopping for catastrophic ins. nation-wide.

Pre-existing should br treated equally with non to the extent of no fault(victoms of others etc.). Those who do not take care of themselves(smokers, obese etc.) should pay more.

Neither can be fixed by a public plan.

[Scanner]

Related to that Maat, I plan to meet with my representative this month and talk about VAT with regards to funding healthcare.

He wrote an eloquent essay on why he's not supporting healthcare reform/overhaul but offered no reasonable alternative. I think Republicans are missing a golden opportunity in seizing an idea who's time has come - abolishing income tax and replacing it with VAT/consumption tax.

VAT could be constructed to actually change behavior.

I'll plead my case to my heavily Republican-district representative.

EDIT: related to abolishing income tax. . .I guess it couldn't be totally abolished but it could be eliminated on the middle class and lower/upper class and reduced on the upper class to something reasonable, like 25%.

Point is we should be taxing vices, not virtues (working)