Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Single payer system would boost Colorado's health

This Web only Speakout has not been edited.

Othman Ouenes

Published May 30, 2008 at midnight

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

We Coloradans have got it really well. And not just well—really well.

We rank 10th in the nation with total yearly income, we have the lowest state levels of cardiovascular disease, and we’re continually ranked as one of the healthiest states in America. In fact, as of 2007, we’re also the leanest state in America— with only 17.6 of the adult population classified as clinically obese. Our healthy habits also reflect in the percentage that have healthcare; a recent poll indicates that roughly 84% of residents are covered either by private health insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid.

But there are still a few problems that we need to fix. First, our healthcare system isn’t as equitable as it seems. According to report on chronic disease in Colorado, African Americans, Hispanics, and AI/AN’s are disproportionately affected by disease, injury, disability, and death. The Colorado Health Report Card of 2007 also ranked Colorado 44th, 41st, and 33rd in the nation with regards to percent of children not covered by health insurance, percent of adolescents not covered, and percent of adults not covered by health insurance respectively. Colorado also received a “C-” grade for both early infant and maternal health as well as the state of children’s health. Could this be a predictor for later state health outcomes?

Coloradans who are already covered also face a number of problems ( since full coverage does not equate to full access). High co-pays and deductibles related to income lead to deferment of care as providers are still unwilling to accept a number of patients with certain types of coverage. A lack of providers in rural areas has also forced a number of rural Coloradans to overcome inequitable geographical barriers for access to care under similar types of plans held by Coloradans living in non-rural areas. For those on Medicare and Medicaid, recent cuts from the Bush administration will cost Colorado as much as $200 million in federal healthcare funding and will also directly affect children with developmental disabilities, foster children, kids who access health care at school and individuals transitioning back to the community from institutional care.

For those waiting or expecting something soon from the next Presidential candidates—don’t expect too much. Of the three possible candidates, none of the candidates’ plans are politically feasible, given the current climate. There’s a clear difference between campaign rhetoric (the candidates’ stated positions) and what they’ll actually do if elected. “None revolutionize the system,” says Roger Feldman, a professor at the University of Minnesota who specializes in health insurance. “They’ve kept all from system redesign for the most part.” Drew Altman, president of the health-care policy group Kaiser Family Foundation notes that “Plan may be too big a word for them,” with regards to the candidates’ proposals.

And that’s not even the worst part for federal healthcare reform— The American public always underestimated the power of the healthcare lobby in the United States. Currently, the healthcare sector (HMO’s, Insurance Corporations, AMA, etc) represents the second largest lobby group in the U.S., spending roughly 351.1 million on just lobbying in a typical year. According also to recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, there’s also been a significant shift in lobbying and campaign contributions to the Democratic candidates—for the first time in over 10 years. Coincidence? I think not.

Although the private health sector can’t exactly stop any reforms from taking place following the election—they can certainly slow down any progress. And that’s precisely where State-led reform and a switch to a single payer system are needed.

In such a system, healthcare financing would only come from one source and would result in reduced overhead costs and administrative simplicity for patients. Based on the report of the Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform and the Lewin group ,the Colorado Health Services Single Payer Proposal is the only reform proposal that demonstrated any savings for the state—$1.4 billion— and also the only one capable of providing comprehensive health care for all. Recently, state Legislators supported the FAIR Act which aims to drive down health insurance companies’ rising rates. These reforms only address a small component of the problems with our healthcare system however—instead of taking minor steps we need to assume our role as healthcare leaders and institute comprehensive reform.

As a state that already ranks high on a number of health indicators, Colorado has the ability—if not the obligation—to set a model for other states, and perhaps even the federal government. The single payer system would both streamline and eliminate any overhead costs incurred by the state healthcare system while still providing the same level of superior of healthcare to an already healthy population. The reforms for a state wide universal healthcare system would also resolve any problems of equity by insuring that all residents are given the opportunity to receive, at the least, the same basic level of care.

Othman Ouenes is a resident of Centennial.

Comments

  • May 30, 2008

    6:42 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

    Single-payer systems are government run and therefor doomed to be more expensive and provide less. You want to take public money (taxes) to pay for everyone to be insured. That's socialism.

  • May 30, 2008

    8:03 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BrianSchwartz writes:

    If single-payer health insurance is so good, what else should be single payer? How about food? We all hand over our money to the government, and if we want to eat, we need to ask the authorities if they can pay for our food. Got a problem with that?

    The author talks about the current amount of lobbying by health insurance companies. Why would this be less when government is the single payer? As P.J. O'Rourke has written: "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

    Also, what's so good about universal coverage? In countries with "single payer," people die waiting for care. Read about that at www.PatientPowerNow.org ("Universal Health Care Kills")

    http://www.patientpowernow.org/2008/0...

  • May 30, 2008

    8:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Lin writes:

    "In such a system, healthcare financing would only come from one source..." and that source is taxes from every single taxpayer, not necessarily every single resident. This forced funding of medical care would place all medical care in the hands of the government.

    Under a single payer system, a government agency would decide which practitioners were allowed (would it include only medical doctors, or would others such as chiropractors or naturopaths be allowed?) and which treatments would be provided. In countries with single payer systems, people over a certain age, say 70 or 75, don't get certain treatments, such as knee replacements or kidney dialysis, because the expense is measured against that person's life expectancy. In America, each person has the ability to choose their quality of life because we each get to decide whether we get treatment and when. And Americans believe each individual should be able to decide that issue for himself.

    Single payer places an individual's two most important assets -- his or her own mind and body -- at the mercy and in the hands of the government, to be disposed of according to the wishes of the entire community as decided by some bureaucratic, government agency. Single payer is Un-American. It denies freedom of choice and violates the rights to one's own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Lin Zinser
    Executive Director
    Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine
    www.WeStandFIRM.org

  • May 30, 2008

    9:58 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    paulhsiehmd writes:

    Canadian-style single-payer systems result in rationing, causing tremendous harm to patients and doctors alike. A Canadian woman who feels a lump in her breast may wait months before getting the necessary surgery and chemotherapy she needs, with tumor cells multiplying each week. The government decides when and what kind of treatment she can get, not the doctor and the patient. In contrast, a woman in Colorado can get seen and properly treated in a few days.

    Do we really want that kind of system in America?

    Lin Zinser and I have written an article detailing the moral and practical problems with any kind of system of so-called "universal health care". It appeared recently in the journal "The Objective Standard" and can be found online at:

    "Moral Health Care Vs. 'Universal Health Care'"
    http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/i...

    If Americans value their lives and their health, they'll avoid "single-payer health care" like the plague.

    Paul Hsieh, MD
    Sedalia, CO

  • May 30, 2008

    10:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Roader writes:

    Yes, please look at the Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform cost report, specifically the Colorado Health Services Single Payer Proposal costs. The Commission estimates that the single payer plan would require $15 billion in new state revenues. That's billion with a "B"! Divide that up by the State's 4.75 million residents and you get $3,160 in new state spending per person. You can talk about nebulous savings all you like, but if the Taxachusetts single payer plan is any indicator, costs will be high and benefits will be scarce. Better yet, move to Boston for a few years, doubling your overall tax burden from the 5% we pay in Colorado to their 10%, and come back to tell us how wonderful and efficient their single payer health care plan really is.

  • May 30, 2008

    11:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    Hsieh, it's a little late for you to suddenly pretend concern for Colorado patients.

    Your "Moral" health care paper largely gripes about a law that requires hospitals to treat emergency room patients. Your argument: "That means any bum off the street can get a free meal and a place to sleep!"

    To pose that as a "moral" argument against socialized health care is repugnant and indecent.

    I'd go to a "socialized" doctor any day before allowing someone with your kind of "morals" treat me. You are a living example of the mentality behind some hospitals in this country known to dump critically ill, homeless patients out into the street.

    When you meet your Maker one day, I hope you have a good explanation for why you think this is "moral."

  • May 30, 2008

    11:41 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    BrianSchwartz, the second half of the two-headed propaganda monster on this thread: "In countries with "single payer," people die waiting for care."

    If you're not the coward of truth I think you are, you'll follow up right now by adding "of course, people die in this country too if their health care insurer denies certain treatments. Many who are uninsured also die because they don't have access to care."

  • May 30, 2008

    11:47 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mytwosense writes:

    Lin Zinzer: "Single payer is Un-American. It denies freedom of choice and violates the rights to one's own life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

    Single-payer doesn't deny the freedom of choice. But not having the money to choose from a handful of expensive choices does.

    In Canada, citizens can go to any hospital, any clinic, and any doctor they choose.

    In the US, citizens can only go to the hospital, clinic, or doctor in their health plan's network. And if they don't have the money to buy a health care plan, their choices just dropped to zero.

    Hsieh, Lin, Schwarts...you are the "You're on your own!" contingent of this country. I bet not a single one of you has ever viewed your citizenship in this country as "We're in this together!"

    Don't you dare call supporters of single-payer Un-American.

  • May 30, 2008

    6:53 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    paulhsiehmd writes:

    Those who are interested in an moral defense of the free market for health insurance can also find more information here.

    The following FAQ explains why a free market in health insurance with voluntary charity is the ethically right system, and any sort of an alleged "right" to health care is based on immoral premises:

    "FAQ on Free Market Health Insurance"
    http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2008/...

  • June 2, 2008

    7:24 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gary writes:

    In such a system, healthcare financing would only come from one source and would result in reduced overhead costs and administrative simplicity for patients. Based on the report of the Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform and the Lewin group ,the Colorado Health Services Single Payer Proposal is the only reform proposal that demonstrated any savings for the state—$1.4 billion—

    Yes, mytwosense...."only come from one source" that one source is the employed, working, taxpayer.

    "any savings for the state"...the state...not taxpayers.

    Show me "right now" any state run program that demostrates any savings for the taxpayers of this state!

    Yes "single payer systems" are "Un-American"

    We live in a country founded on freedom and freedom of choice.

    Just like the gays that have "the right to marry", we Americans have the "right to choose our health care provider".

    We do not want a "single provider" provided us by the State of Colorado or the government of the United States!

    mytwosense... you are the "socialism for everyone", take away the money from those that work hard and earn it and divide it among those that believe they are "entitled" to everything free and have it provided by the government.

    Your twosense is nonsense!

    Nuff Said

  • June 2, 2008

    8:09 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gary writes:

    Single-payer doesn't deny the freedom of choice. But not having the money to choose from a handful of expensive choices does.
    by mytwosense

    It denies my freedom of choice when it does not allow me to have the choice of whom I want to send my money to. I can change my health plan company if I so choose to do so. I can also choose not to have a health plan if I want. Under a single payer system, there is no choice. You pay the taxes...at whatever rate they want and you go to their clinics..period. If that is the choice for you.. then go to Cuba or Russia. Hmmm....they are un-American you should fit right in with them.

    Single payer health care is "socialism" not freedom of choice.

    I decided a couple of years ago that the dental insurance plans were no good. So, I dropped that coverage. My choice and it was a good choice for me. I may want to drop health insurance sometime in the near future also. So I want my choices to remain, my choice.
    I was able to live more than 39 years without health insurance and both of my parents never ever had any at all.

    It is my money...not yours or the governments!

    Nuff Said!

  • June 5, 2008

    11:57 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    fatheromalley writes:

    How is less than 10% of our population MORE important than the 90%?

    When a government mandated program negatively impacts 90% of the population how is it defensible to support it because we "feel" good about ourselves "helping" the poor. I don't recall anyone, including illegal aliens, being denied access to healthcare.

    When the author talks of "equal" access, he completely disregards the lack of access in other countries now stuggling under the anvil of "universal healthcare". Thousands of people come to this country EVERY YEAR to get the healthcare they DO NOT HAVE ACCESS to in their own country. If access is indeed better elsewhere, why do we not see the opposite flow of patients?

    For 40 years we've been treated to the same logic and the same outcomes.. war on poverty, education "reform", and every other "feel good" program out there has done nothing but raise taxes, increased litigation and denied people their choices.

    The socialists are quick to point out Bush's cuts, which were not "cuts" in spending at all. They were cuts in the increase of spending.

    England now passes a mandate that emergency rooms MUST TREAT PATIENTS WITHIN 4 HOURS.. that is after a 5 hour allowed waiting time outside of the emergency room in an ambulance. Average U.S. wait time urban 21 minutes, rural 16 minutes.. how is that access to healthcare compared to "universal healthcare".

    Has anyone investigated the extra costs associated with private healthcare that can be traced to government mirco management and or taxes on profits, Employer matching funds, capital investments, and capital gains? These are all overheads that must be recaptured by any insurer before survival can be assured. It seems that there is fertile ground there that could solve our problems, but the answer from the socialists has always been MORE government intrusion, not less.

    I guess after the socialists micro manage the healthcare industry by raising it's costs, it can just sit back and wait for everyone to throw up their hands and turn if over to government.

    The exact same thing can be said for "nationalizing" big oil.
    They've mucked it up with the same self defeating corporate taxes, 19 different blends of gasoline so that they(the socialist government) can take over..

    What makes "political success" any more virtuous than "economic success"?

    For me "big government" has caused more problems than it has solved (Ethanol or mercury filled light bulbs anyone?).

    I don't see these questions and facts anywhere in these types of articles.

    There is healthcare rationing in every single "universal healthcare system".

    Remember dear reader, YOU ARE "THE MAN", SO WHEN YOU STICK IT TO THE MAN, WHO ARE YOU STICKING IT TOO?
    go to www.fatheromalley.com

    Do you want change? Real change, or the same old socialist class warfare mindset? www.fatheromalley.com

    May God Bless,
    Father O'Malley