|
NBC/WSJ/Marist did some polling. Iowa: Cruz 28 Trump 24 Rubio 13 Carson 11 Paul 5 Bush 4 Christie 3 Fiorina 3 Clinton 48 Sanders 45 O'Malley 5 General Clinton 48 - 40 Trump Sanders 51 - 38 Trump New Hampshire: Trump 30 Rubio 14 Christie 12 Cruz 10 Kasich 9 Bush 9 Paul 5 Carson 4 Sanders 50 Clinton 46 O'Malley 1 General Clinton 45 - 44 Trump Sanders 56 - 37 Trump Interesting how much Sanders outperforms Hillary in a Trump matchup though of course any general election polling this far out is meaningless.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
Xae posted:If you mix a pool with less risk with a pool with more risk you blend the cost. Of course you blend the costs, that is precisely the point of health insurance from the customer's perspective, to pay a little bit over a long period rather than maybe pay a lot over some short period in the future. The problem you bring up here is one of managing the market for insurance rather than the risk of insuring people. Since larger pools beget lower relative variance in claims and thus easier to manage finances, it seems like a straightforward reform to the market for insurance would be to require each insurer to create one big pool of each of their customers, that way no one can segregate the lower cost people (either because they are showing up in big groups or because they are actually healthier) from the higher cost people. That should require insurers to compete on price by offering better overall service rather than attempting to poach cheap customers from each other, no?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Of course you blend the costs, that is precisely the point of health insurance from the customer's perspective, to pay a little bit over a long period rather than maybe pay a lot over some short period in the future. The problem you bring up here is one of managing the market for insurance rather than the risk of insuring people. Since larger pools beget lower relative variance in claims and thus easier to manage finances, it seems like a straightforward reform to the market for insurance would be to require each insurer to create one big pool of each of their customers, that way no one can segregate the lower cost people (either because they are showing up in big groups or because they are actually healthier) from the higher cost people. That should require insurers to compete on price by offering better overall service rather than attempting to poach cheap customers from each other, no? But then how could insurance companies shake down big employers for profit? How could accountants squeeze money out of every healthcare transaction?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 15:55
|
|
|
Why would that disincentivize them from eliminating the higher adverse risk individual market?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:NBC/WSJ/Marist did some polling. Wow, didn't realize Sanders was that close in Iowa. Me may yet get an interesting Dem primary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:Why would that disincentivize them from eliminating the higher adverse risk individual market? I don't think it would either. Even if insurance companies were forced, for rate purposes, to treat every human as one unit of risk they would still have the claims data which they would use to target people who cost more. As long as the market is allowed to be carved up insurance companies will always try to grab the healthy people and let the sick be someone else's problem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:I don't think it would either. Even if insurance companies were forced, for rate purposes, to treat every human as one unit of risk they would still have the claims data which they would use to target people who cost more. As long as the market is allowed to be carved up insurance companies will always try to grab the healthy people and let the sick be someone else's problem. This. There has even been cases where hospitals dump patients with little/no insurance at the front doors of OTHER hospitals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:This. There has even been cases where hospitals dump patients with little/no insurance at the front doors of OTHER hospitals. That pretty crazy -- do you have a reference?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:Wow, didn't realize Sanders was that close in Iowa. Me may yet get an interesting Dem primary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:That pretty crazy -- do you have a reference? How about deporting patients who are immigrants with little/no insurance?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Close, but not quite. Definitely interested in the hospital-swapping.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:Why would that disincentivize them from eliminating the higher adverse risk individual market? I'm not sure that it will. But, the idea behind forcing an insurer wide risk pool is that there is less incentive for people to get insurance through work because there is no cost advantage versus individual coverage. It assumes that community pricing is working and that the employee can taxlessly convert the employer's fraction of insurance payments in to cash to pay for insurance outside of work, neither of which are the case. However, I'm trying to figure out the underlying model for insurance. What little I know about the math and statistics that apply in this area tells me that the goal of every insurance company should be to have the largest risk pools possible (in terms of total number of insured) to both reduce the variance in payments from (say) year to year and allow more reliable optimization of the risk versus reward algorithm. But insurance companies clearly are not doing that. The most recent example is the market forces that Xae brought up that distorts the process. Quite frankly, I find answers from someone who works in the industry fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I think this is a recent gain They haven't run a Democratic Iowa poll since before Christmas, and they're all over the place. According to RealClearPolitics, Clinton's lead is either slowly shrinking in Iowa or it's yooj.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:NBC/WSJ/Marist did some polling. The KILL YOUR PARENTS Sanders supporters won't vote for Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Interesting how much Sanders outperforms Hillary in a Trump matchup though of course any general election polling this far out is meaningless. There's a substantial set of voters whose only opinion is "gently caress regular politicians", and they love Trump and Bernie as non-regular politicians. In Bernie vs. Trump, they split that section; in Hillary vs. Trump, they mostly go for Trump because Hillary is such a Washington insider. Now, you may ask, "but don't these voters actually care about issues? Don't they actually care about immigration or taxes or not being nazis?" Maybe some of them do, but they won't actually really care about those things until closer to the election, which is why polls this far out are so terrible. Edit: ^^^^^^ Yeah, the Paulites pretty much fall into what I described. They, like a lot of others, see Washington as broken and corrupted by shadowy interests, and only a clean outsider who has railed against the system can fix it. Whether that results in laissez-fairs plutocracy, fascism, or socialism, eh, who cares? All that matters is that the broken stuff needs to be gotten rid of! Eschers Basement fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Jan 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
edit: Wronnnng thread. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jan 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:That pretty crazy -- do you have a reference? I don't have a reference, but my wife works at the only public hospital in our city, one that is full of private hospitals serving the large upper class around here, and the public hospital has a policy about serving the indigent population. This causes the other hospitals to ship patients to them and refuse ambulances that try to drop off patients. The result here is that EMTs responding to calls in certain neighborhoods will pass a private hospital to take the patient to the public one knowing they'll actually get treatment there. Another interesting result is that since the public hospital is a level 1 trauma center, the surrounding private hospitals have failed to officially become a level 1 provider despite having the facilities, space, and personnel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:The KILL YOUR PARENTS Sanders supporters won't vote for Hillary. On a slightly related note, do you think Hillary would choose Sanders as her running mate? I assumed she'd pick Julian Castro, Elizabeth Warren or maybe Maggie Hassan (Governor of NH). However, if she feels she's weak with the Sanders crowd going into the General, would she tap him for VP? One of the strangest theories I've heard so far regarding VP pick is that come the General Election, she'll swing Left but pick a Moderate running mate, possibly even Republican Colin Powell. Thoughts? Edit: Cory Booker would also make a good choice for Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:But insurance companies clearly are not doing that. The most recent example is the market forces that Xae brought up that distorts the process. Quite frankly, I find answers from someone who works in the industry fascinating. It's been a few years since I coded claim adjudication software, but part of the limitation is provider networks. Pretend you are Dr. Jane Q Public. You have a family practice on Main Street of Springfield. Which insurers do you accept? If there was a single payment portal to accept claims you could accept any of them. But there isn't. Each insurer has its own rules and processes. Even worse, since they are all desperately trying to wiggle out of payment, you need a financial ninja secretary to get any of them to pay up - but each individual secretary has only mastered the black magic to extract money reliably from a small number of insurers. A hospital can devote an entire floor to accountants with many such individuals whose expertise overlaps to cover all the insurers ... And who don't also do secretarial work ... But you can't. So which ones? The ones the employers around you offer. They will also be the ones the local medical secretaries are familiar with. These leads to a patchwork of regional monopolies. Denver is kaiser territory with Cigna nipping at its heels. Horizon is big in New Jersey. Blue Cross is more a southern thing. Etc. the ACA is increasing the pain of these regional insurer monopolies because it's giving people the opportunity to buy insurance in a location where few/no independent doctors accept it. I've written recommendations to the folks who were looking at setting up a Colorado-care exchange that they should require all insurers who seek to advertise in their exchange integrate with a generic provider payment portal. The goal being to make claim submission to any Colorado insurer identical from the provider side so all doctors can accept any insurance. Also when you have to adjudicate a claim in a few seconds there is little room for payment refusal shenanigans and no way to hide such shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:We could get rid of child labor laws for children of poverty. They'd be too busy working 18hr shifts to do meth. Mr Hootington posted:We should get rid of all child labor laws so children can help support their families. We complain that mothers and fathers have to work 2 jobs, but it would be easier on the family if a child had a job. They should also have the choice of attending school. Jrodefeld alt accounts spotted!  Fox Ironic posted:On a slightly related note, do you think Hillary would choose Sanders as her running mate? I assumed she'd pick Julian Castro, Elizabeth Warren or maybe Maggie Hassan (Governor of NH). However, if she feels she's weak with the Sanders crowd going into the General, would she tap him for VP? I'd be exceptionally surprised if she tried to bring Sanders in as VP. Campaign-wise he doesn't really bring much she can't get herself (the minority of Sanders voters who won't vote for her in the general won't be swayed by him being on the bottom of the ticket).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:Interesting how much Sanders outperforms Hillary in a Trump matchup though of course any general election polling this far out is meaningless. In NH yes, in Iowa it looks like margin of error.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Clinton will never take Sanders as her VP and Sanders would never accept if offered. Look forward to VP Castro.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Fox Ironic posted:On a slightly related note, do you think Hillary would choose Sanders as her running mate? No, because doing so achieves nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Fox Ironic posted:On a slightly related note, do you think Hillary would choose Sanders as her running mate? I assumed she'd pick Julian Castro, Elizabeth Warren or maybe Maggie Hassan (Governor of NH). However, if she feels she's weak with the Sanders crowd going into the General, would she tap him for VP? VP is a do nothing post, you don't remove someone who's doing good things from their position to put them there if you don't have a serious need. That means neither Sanders nor Warren nor Booker will be a VP pick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
My guess is Terry McAuliffe as Clinton's VP. He's term-limited out of running for VA Governor again, and he's a known Clinton loyalist. Seems like an obvious pick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
McAlister posted:I'veritten recommendations to the folks who were looking at setting up a Colorado-care exchange that they should require all insurers who seek to advertise in their exchange integrate with a generic provider payment portal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:In NH yes, in Iowa it looks like margin of error. Yeah, I meant in NH but that's to be expected, really. In Iowa it's well within the margin of error. Fox Ironic posted:On a slightly related note, do you think Hillary would choose Sanders as her running mate? I assumed she'd pick Julian Castro, Elizabeth Warren or maybe Maggie Hassan (Governor of NH). However, if she feels she's weak with the Sanders crowd going into the General, would she tap him for VP No, there's no benefit to her from it and the Paulite-style Bernouts still wouldn't vote for her.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:My guess is Terry McAuliffe as Clinton's VP. He's term-limited out of running for VA Governor again, and he's a known Clinton loyalist. Seems like an obvious pick. I doubt it. She's already popular in Virginia, he has like another year, and I think the Democrats will want to run at least one minority on the ticket from here on out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Everyone wants to guess it'll be someone other than Castro because a Clinton/ Warren or Clinton/ Sanders ticket seems much more interesting but it's clearly going to be Castro
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:This is a good idea that would help a lot of people but hurt a lot of numbers, so thankfully America is the land of the free market. As long as you have enough numbers to throw around to outweigh those other numbers that would be hurt we might be able to get around to helping those people. Even if you made it non-mandatory the first insurer to integrate would have an advantage over the other insurers in the individual market. Cue radio adds, unlike those other insurers, foo is accepted by every doctor in Colorado. Unless they decide they don't want people in the individual market, someone would go after it eventually. If you could make the case to providers they could exert coordinated pressure as well. The ones I've spoken to like the idea a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Everyone wants to guess it'll be someone other than Castro because a Clinton/ Warren or Clinton/ Sanders ticket seems much more interesting but it's clearly going to be Castro Clinton/Castro seems like a much more interesting ticket to me. Urban politics hasn't been a part of the Presidential election since the 70s (and a brief week in '96 when they let Kemp run wild). It'll be interesting to see how Clinton navigates the desire to impose policy on mayors who oversee the majority of the party base and who'd prefer to be left to their own devices.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Riptor posted:Everyone wants to guess it'll be someone other than Castro because a Clinton/ Warren or Clinton/ Sanders ticket seems much more interesting but it's clearly going to be Castro If its anyone but Castro then everyone in the Clinton/DNC camp has lost their drat minds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:If its anyone but Castro then everyone in the Clinton/DNC camp has lost their drat minds. Considering Hillary is still running, I thought that was a given 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Interesting words. Edit: you answered my question already. Never mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Edit: you answered my question already. Never mind. Curious as to what it was now. Anywho, when I was in the industry it was on the drug coverage side and pharmaceutical benefits managers (PBMs) already do this. It's why the clerk at Walgreens instantly knows how much of your Rx is patient out of pocket and how much is plan pay even though your doctor has no idea what your care will cost for a month. Drug claim formats are a government mandated industry standard with a government mandated coding structure for each drug. Not just each drug, but each standard dose size of each drug has a distinct NDC-11 number honored by every manufacturer, hospital, and pharmacy. Thanks to the ACA enforcing the same standardization for coding of conditions and treatments ( for interoperability of emr systems ) it is now realistically possible to do this for medical claims too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Clinton/Castro seems like a much more interesting ticket to me. Urban politics hasn't been a part of the Presidential election since the 70s (and a brief week in '96 when they let Kemp run wild). It'll be interesting to see how Clinton navigates the desire to impose policy on mayors who oversee the majority of the party base and who'd prefer to be left to their own devices. Oh i agree i just mean interesting in the sense that everyone's been assuming Castro for a while now and there are folks who want someone else just for the relative novelty of it
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
That discussion about why the Republicans still want to repeal Obamacare got me to thinking about the reaction to TPP. I remember there was a while there where a few Republicans (of the Ted Cruz/Donald Trump persuasion) were calling it Obamatrade and trying to stir up some outrage in the same way, but the Republican establishment was actually in favor of the trade deal on its own merits and wanted it implemented quickly and quietly. Did the "Obamatrade" thing go anywhere? Did it just drop out of the news cycle so everyone lost interest in talking about it or did the Republican party successfully get people to fall in line for it since it serves their interests? At the very least, it seemed like another instance where the rhetoric they've primed their base on coming back to bite them in the rear end, since "Thing Obama wants = bad" and "Repeal and Replace always answer even if no Replace plan suggested" are easily manipulated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Dolash posted:That discussion about why the Republicans still want to repeal Obamacare got me to thinking about the reaction to TPP. I remember there was a while there where a few Republicans (of the Ted Cruz/Donald Trump persuasion) were calling it Obamatrade and trying to stir up some outrage in the same way, but the Republican establishment was actually in favor of the trade deal on its own merits and wanted it implemented quickly and quietly. The TPP in general fell out of the news cycle because the most controversial aspect is "this secret cabal is making an international plan that you can't see!" And then we actually could see it, and it was mostly uncontroversial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Clinton/Castro seems like a much more interesting ticket to me. Urban politics hasn't been a part of the Presidential election since the 70s (and a brief week in '96 when they let Kemp run wild). It'll be interesting to see how Clinton navigates the desire to impose policy on mayors who oversee the majority of the party base and who'd prefer to be left to their own devices. Clinton/Castro would also shore up support among Hispanics. Thing is, Castro is a relatively unknown figure to most Americans, and I feel like Clinton will need a somewhat well-known populist Democrat to shore up the base so we don't have a repeat of 2000. I could see progressives jumping ship for Jill Stein if Clinton can't motivate the Left wing of the party. Hell, I've considered voting Green since I live in Oregon and there's no risk of Oregon turning Red. Would a Castro VP pick motivate Progressives? Probably a bit, but the real question is are there any stronger choices for Clinton? Edit: I'd definitely vote for a Clinton/Castro ticket, but if she picked a more moderate running mate I might vote Green instead. Fox Ironic fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Jan 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:10 |
|
|
Fox Ironic posted:Clinton/Castro would also shore up support among Hispanics. Nobody actually cares who the VP pick is. Progressives will be way more motivated to beat whoever the GOP nominee is than by anybody Clinton picks for VP. Edit: I should qualify that a bit...nobody cares who she picks unless she does something as spectacularly stupid as Al Gore did in 2000. smg77 fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Jan 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2016 19:44
|
|