Health Care Reform Polling data

[MichaelB]

The KFF has released a summary of their latest polling data (December polling). While the general public seems split regarding the health reform act as a whole, it seems most people favor all the components except one – the individual mandate. This is much different than the impression found in the media.

In other words, there is substantial public support for 5 of 6 key reform components.

Surveys also suggest that observers use caution in interpreting what Americans mean when they say they favor repeal. As was true in December, Kaiser’s November Health Tracking Poll found roughly half the public in favor of repealing at least parts of the health reform law. But asked to say whether each of six specific provisions should be repealed, majorities wanted to keep five of them. For example, more than seven in ten said lawmakers should keep provisions that provide tax credits to small businesses (78 percent), gradually close the Medicare doughnut hole (72 percent), prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre‐existing conditions (71 percent), and provide financial help to lower‐income Americans to help them purchase coverage (71 percent). Fewer, but still more than half (54 percent), supported keeping increases in the Medicare payroll tax on upper income Americans. The only exception among the provisions considered: the individual mandate, which two‐thirds of Americans (68 percent) wanted to see repealed.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8131.pdf

 

[Westernskies]

The KFF has released a summary of their latest polling data (December polling). While the general public seems split regarding the health reform act as a whole, it seems most people favor all the components except one – the individual mandate. This is much different than the impression found in the media.

In other words, there is substantial public support for 5 of 6 key reform components.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8131.pdf

Pick any poll you want...

Rasmussen... 60 percent want health care reform repealed

 

[DblDoc]

Pick any poll you want...

Rasmussen... 60 percent want health care reform repealed

And read the poll questions. This one does not ask specifically about components. Just the bill in its entirety. The results MB posted have been fairly consistent. There are components that people like. Lets not throw the baby out with the wash water...

DD

 

[Peter]

Without the individual mandate, it's hard to see how the other provisions would work.

Peter

 

[dgoldenz]

Let's see how the poll looks in 2014 when people's rates double or triple.

 

[wanaberetiree]

Let's see how the poll looks in 2014 when people's rates double or triple.

Then we will get rid of insurance companies and implement gov health care

 

[eridanus]

Let's see how the poll looks in 2014 when people's rates double or triple.

My rates have been going up 10-20%/year for about a decade.

 

[M Paquette]

Let's see how the poll looks in 2014 when people's rates double or triple.

And this is unexpected or different from what's been happening how?

I budgeted for a 12%/year hike in health insurance premiums. When I become Medicare eligible (under current law; subject to change) my annual premiums will be somewhere around $42K, the majority of my annual budget. If/when Medicare is cancelled, at that annual rate of increase at age 80 the annual premium will be $230K. (Something tells me this model isn't sustainable...)

Hey, I may have overestimated, or something utterly unprecedented may happen, and I'll have a happy surprise. I've learned that is something that shouldn't be planned for, however.

 

[Independent]

I like Kaiser's poll because it focuses on individual elements of the bill.

Unfortunately, we get the typical public response:

An average of 73% support the first three items which all increase gov't spending. Only 54% support the tax increase which might pay for that additional spending.

71% want to prohibit insurers from denying coverage based on existing health conditions. But only 27% want to mandate that people actually buy insurance before those health conditions show up.
(Kind of like saying a fire insurance company has to insure your home even if there is smoke coming out, and also saying that nobody needs to buy insurance until after the house is smoking.)

 

[dgoldenz]

And this is unexpected or different from what's been happening how?

I budgeted for a 12%/year hike in health insurance premiums. When I become Medicare eligible (under current law; subject to change) my annual premiums will be somewhere around $42K, the majority of my annual budget. If/when Medicare is cancelled, at that annual rate of increase at age 80 the annual premium will be $230K. (Something tells me this model isn't sustainable...)

Hey, I may have overestimated, or something utterly unprecedented may happen, and I'll have a happy surprise. I've learned that is something that shouldn't be planned for, however.

Because in 2014, those that have been paying lower individual market premiums will be subject to a massive increase when all pricing goes to that of the group model. Then the increases will be 10-20% of a much higher number. Example - 45 year old family of 4 in VA can get a good co-pay plan from BCBS for about $400/month. A group plan for that family (based on today's rates) would be more like $1000-1500/month. No way they will be able to come anywhere close to that $400/month again in a guaranteed-issue scenario without subsidies, but that still doesn't lower the total cost and I have a lot of clients making over the 4x income threshhold that wouldn't get a subsidy who are paying those low premiums.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Pick any poll you want...

Rasmussen... 60 percent want health care reform repealed

True in some cases, though the KFF has wide recognition for objectivity and rigor. Not perfect, but one of the better ones in health care.

 

[haha]

I like Kaiser's poll because it focuses on individual elements of the bill.

Unfortunately, we get the typical public response:

An average of 73% support the first three items which all increase gov't spending. Only 54% support the tax increase which might pay for that additional spending.

71% want to prohibit insurers from denying coverage based on existing health conditions. But only 27% want to mandate that people actually buy insurance before those health conditions show up.
(Kind of like saying a fire insurance company has to insure your home even if there is smoke coming out, and also saying that nobody needs to buy insurance until after the house is smoking.)

If we didn't know before, we now know why a democracy in a country full of stupid people is so hilarious.

Ha

 

[MichaelB]

Pick any poll you want...

Rasmussen... 60 percent want health care reform repealed

It’s not “pick the poll you like” but instead “let’s understand what people specifically do and don’t like”.

Let's see how the poll looks in 2014 when people's rates double or triple.

By 2014 total health care expenses will total 197% of GDP (just joking everyone!). There is so much cost shifting and cross subsidy right now, very few have any idea what healthcare really costs. I’d wager the majority of people that want to revoke the reform have subsidized plans at large group rates. If everyone paid a non-underwritten non-subsidized rate today there would be universal clamor for change.

Without the individual mandate, it's hard to see how the other provisions would work.

Peter

IIRC the original Kennedy (QEPD) proposal dealt with that by charging or reimbursing the insurance companies based on how their risk profiles differed from the national averages.

Major public support (>70%) for some provisions show there is opportunity to improve the reform.

 

[dgoldenz]

By 2014 total health care expenses will total 197% of GDP (just joking everyone!). There is so much cost shifting and cross subsidy right now, very few have any idea what healthcare really costs. I’d wager the majority of people that want to revoke the reform have subsidized plans at large group rates. If everyone paid a non-underwritten non-subsidized rate today there would be universal clamor for change.

Which is exactly my point. A non-underwritten, non-subsidized rate is what people will pay in 2014 if they make over 4x the poverty limit. We'll see how many people change their mind when they get the bill.

 

[huusom]

Rasmussen who?? It depends on who you ask and the questions asked. I certainly go with the KFF study anytime.

The study we have here on ERF clearly shows much more support for reform than the status quo. The current reform is not anywhere perfect but it's good start. I'd like see what the pro-repeal groups have to offer in place of the current reform. Doing nothing is certainly not a solution with the problem we're facing.

 

[dgoldenz]

Rasmussen who?? It depends on who you ask and the questions asked. I certainly go with the KFF study anytime.

The study we have here on ERF clearly shows much more support for reform than the status quo. The current reform is not anywhere perfect but it's good start. I'd like see what the pro-repeal groups have to offer in place of the current reform. Doing nothing is certainly not a solution with the problem we're facing.

The KFF report doesn't show anything surprising. It's basically "Americans want stuff, don't want to pay for stuff." If you asked me if I'd like to eat dinner at Ruth's Chris every night I'd say yes, but if you asked me I wanted to pay to eat at Ruth's Chris every night (and maybe pay for a few of my buddies while I'm at it), I'd say no. Nothing out of the ordinary there...

 

[ERD50]

Without the individual mandate, it's hard to see how the other provisions would work.

Peter

Agreed. Specifically, how do you allow previous conditions w/o universal mandate? You will raise rates on the people who buy ins, to the point they might drop it until they need it - rinse/repeat in a downward spiral.

I didn't dig through the details of the poll, but I could construct all sorts of polls that would have people say they support a particular something, and that 'something' might be counter-productive to what they want to achieve in the end. So do we do it, because it is the people's 'will'?

In theory, I think we structured our Govt to be representative, because (again, in theory), those reps should be informed enough to enact legislation designed to achieve goals that meet the people's will. If not, let's just eliminate Congress and we will pass laws based on American-Idol style phone in votes.

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

One of the problems with a survey like this is the question...

I am one that would like to repeal the law in total...

But I also do not like an insurance company denying pre-existing conditions.... but only in certain cases... so if they had said only denying pre-existing conditions I would have said 'keep it'... but know that this allows people to not get covered and then buy when they need... I would want someone to be able to move from one company to another without this pre-existing condition... not go naked for years and then buy...


When on vacation... I saw a Judge Judy that made me laugh... there was one guy who had a car towed by his AAA account... Judy asked 'can you have someone else's car towed?'.... her bailif said 'yes'.... she said something like 'then why would anybody have a account... just one person in America can have an account and everybody can use it'....


I feel that so many people want to have one account and use it... but they do not want to pay...

 

[MichaelB]

The KFF report doesn't show anything surprising. It's basically "Americans want stuff, don't want to pay for stuff." If you asked me if I'd like to eat dinner at Ruth's Chris every night I'd say yes, but if you asked me I wanted to pay to eat at Ruth's Chris every night (and maybe pay for a few of my buddies while I'm at it), I'd say no. Nothing out of the ordinary there...

The KFF poll makes no mention of people not wanting to pay.

 

[MichaelB]

Take out employer subsidy – make health care benefits taxable income. Eliminate provider multiple tier pricing – just one price. Do away with insurance group pricing differences. Just price for admin cost differences. That will substantially level the playing field.

Then we have to address a basic social inconsistency. Very poor people with no assets are eligible for publicly paid healthcare – Medicaid. Lower income people get no public assistance but cannot pay for healthcare so they get little or none. This is a perverse incentive. So, extend Medicaid into lower income people.

Then we can expect service providers to stop cost shifting.

The gov’t can act to reinsure catastrophic coverage. That substantially reduces the risk to intermediators.

 

[snodog]

I don't understand whats so important about the mandate. I mean you can't sign up for insurance while on the way to the hospital while having a heart attack or any number of accidents. Your still taking a huge risk going without IMO. I'm sure I must be missing something?

 

[Westernskies]

I don't understand whats so important about the mandate. I mean you can't sign up for insurance while on the way to the hospital while having a heart attack or any number of accidents. Your still taking a huge risk going without IMO. I'm sure I must be missing something?

The insurance mandate is a bit like the concept of gun control, IMO. Well-intentioned, but it assumes everyone participates. Well, guess what- lawbreakers don't participate, and the system doesn't work. The criminals keep their guns in their pockets in one instance and their insurance premiums in their pockets in the other, in both examples gaining an unfair advantage over those who follow the rules.

 

[observer]

The mandate makes sure no one abuses the system. What's been happening is that people choosing not to insure themselves get injured or have a heart attack, then show up at the hospital for treatment. Medical facilities are obligated to treat sick arrivals, whether they can pay or not. Many if not most of these people either cannot or won't pay. Those costs get passed on to the rest of us in higher premiums. Not a fair or practical system... hence mandate.

I'm fully in favor of the new healthcare system kicking in in 2014. The insurance industry has ripped us off long enough to maintain their profit margins...pre-existing condition denials, arbitrary rate increases, suddenly dropping coverage, dropping people altogether when they get sick. This is no way to run a civilized and humane health care system. For us planning early retirement, it'll take that last finacial risk out of the equation. No other advanced country in the world runs such a dysfunctional system like we have now.

 

[dgoldenz]

The mandate makes sure no one abuses the system

I guess you missed all of the people in Massachusetts that abuse the system by jumping on and off insurance policies when they need a procedure done. They have a mandate, they have guaranteed coverage, it gets abused.

The insurance industry has ripped us off long enough to maintain their profit margins.

You may have also missed the story today that Blue Shield of CA is raising rates up to 59% for some policyholders because of new state mandated laws. This is their third rate increase in six months - one in October 2010, one in January 2011, and another for March 2011. Blue Shield is non-profit.

 

[lets-retire]

Either way the system is going to be abused. With the current law, I just get to pay more for those who are abusing the system.