Road map for health reform
By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 01:30 p.m., January 31, 2008
Updated 01:30 p.m., January 31, 2008
The Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform this afternoon is presenting to lawmakers its $1 billion plan to cover an estimated 88 percent of the state's 792,000 uninsured.
The commission convened its much-anticipated meeting with the joint House and Senate Health and Human Services Committee in the Capitol's Old Supreme Court chamber at 1:30 p.m.
Commission leaders are calling their plan a road map for tackling one of the state's most important issues. They are suggesting that the cash-strapped state implement the group's comprehensive, integrated package in stages, "increasing efficiency and assuring access before expanding coverage," according to an executive summary.
The legislature's leadership has signaled they are a long way from selling a health care tax hike to voters in time for the 2008 ballot.
Gov. Bill Ritter has echoed their sentiment, saying the state ought to focus on making small, incremental progress on health care reform, including improving efficiencies and expanding coverage for 17,000 of the state's poorest children who don't have insurance but are eligible.
Key features of the commission's recommendations include:
Requiring all legal Colorado residents to have basic health insurance coverage.
Facilitating employee health insurance purchases by requiring employers to offer them pre-tax premium-only plans.
Creating a "connector" that helps employees and small employers to choose insurance options.
Expanding and reforming eligibility for Medicaid and the state's Child Health Plan Plus.
Streamlining the system to reduce administrative costs.
Improving access to quality and cost information.
Enhancing quality and improving care coordination.
Encouraging people to take responsibility for their health.
Expand programs to improve services to vulnerable and underserved populations
Appropriately fund public health delivery systems and safety net providers.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
January 31, 2008
2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
jscou writes:
So, in short, this panel is saying 88% of the uninsured is "good enough". That the remaining 12%, likely the poorest of the poor, can still go whither w/ no care. Interesting moral choice.
And, the panel's BEST idea for helping people get insurance is to FORCE them to purchase it. This, you've got to be kidding! Like Senator Obama has said over and over and over -- the issue is not that people don't want health insurance. They can't afford health insurance. Forcing them to purchase it is a lazy, cheap political out that will likely come with "penalties" to help fill government coffers.
Come on, Ritter and you state legislators. YOU CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS!
January 31, 2008
2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
SASQUATCH writes:
That $1 billion annually is about $1,2600 per year per head. And if that 792,000 uninsured total includes some 200,000 illegals, then we have a nice fat $250 million annual healthcare subsidy for Mexico, compliments of Colorado tax payers. $250 million a year is peanuts....we can afford that, right?
RECALL RITTER!
January 31, 2008
3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Equus256 writes:
I have heard people saying that MANDATING is the way to go - that we MANDATE auto insurance so why not health insurance.
Well for a couple of good reasons.
You can choose not to drive and therefore to not have to purchase auto insurance. You cannot choose whether you are living (unless you want to take suicide into consideration) Therefore MANDATED health insurance becomes a "being alive" penalty.
Second of the auto insurance industry has been behind many of the requirements that are now law in order to drive such as seat belts, car seats, bumper requirements, etc. So if we have MANDATED health, will the health insurers mandate no smoking, no overweight, no alcohol, no extreme sports, no motorcycles, no rock climbing, no skiing, etc. While I will agree that all citizens of the US should have access to affordable health care, I do not agree that mandates are the way to go.
We need to reform not only the ever escalating hospital costs but also what kind of insurance you should be able to buy. HMO's were supposed to save this country but have added the the out of control cost escalation.
January 31, 2008
3:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
SASQUATCH writes:
Achtung, achtung...it looks like the HEALTCARE NAZIS are finally crawling out from under their Gestapo Head Quarters.
The next thing that this HEALTHCARE NAZI crowd will do after they make it mandatory is to ration the program, making it esentially worthhless, in order to keep THEIR costs down.
Achtung...achtung!
January 31, 2008
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
One of the largest groups without health care insurance is the working poor.
One of the major reasons they don't have insurance is they can't afford it.
Therefore the high cost of insurance is to blame for the lack of proper health care for the working poor.
Some of the major contributors to the high cost of insurance are:
Greed by the Insurance companies, the doctors, the lawyers who sue the doctors for malpractice at every opportunity, the insurance companies that sell malpractice insurance, the politicians that get mega bucks in campaign contributions from said lawyers and insurance companies, all of the deadbeats that won't work and sponge off society leaving countless unpaid medical bills (whose cost has to be recouped by the hospitals and doctors), all the illegal aliens who use the emergency room as their primary care provider and let the tax payer pick up the bill.
So the working poor are paying the physical price for all of the above mentioned greedy bastards. And the working tax paying citizens (which include the working poor) get the bill. Talk about getting screwed twice!
The politicians understand this but to come up with a real solution would be political suicide, it would stop their gravy train in it's tracks.
And no socialized health care is not the answer, despite it's cost (not because of it) we have the best health care already we just need to make it affordable!
January 31, 2008
4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
DougH writes:
The people of Colorado elected Bill Ritter to deal with problems that effect the state, not just ignore them they way Owens, Andrews and the Libertarians did for too long.
The plan put forth by the commission of Health Care reform is one of several plans being considered. See this morning’s Rocky Mountain News for a very good summary of these proposals. And mandatory health coverage is part of three of these proposals.
So, it is time to face the music and grow up a little. The cost of health care and health insurance is a major and urgent problem that needs to be addressed.
Just doing nothing is no longer an option and ranting on about Recalling Ritter is not going to accomplish anything positive at all.
January 31, 2008
4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
MRumery writes:
I think some things need to be clarified here.
First of all, the Blue Ribbon Commission is NOT composed of legislators nor does it reflect Gov. Ritter's personal views. In fact out of the 27 members, only 3 were chosen by Ritter, the rest were chosen by Gov. Owens and consist of various people involved in health care from across the state. Placing the blame on Ritter or the legislature at this point is unwarranted and unfounded.
Second of all, the nearly 800,000 uninsured in Colorado does not include illegal immigrants nor does the Commission's plan include ANY benefits for illegal immigrants.
Third, although the Commission recommends a mandate, they do so with full comprehension that most uninsured individuals cannot afford health insurance. That is why their recommendations include provisions to increase public coverage and subsidies to health care needs.
Although the plan may not be perfect, a fact that most of the commissioners will admit, it is a step in the right direction. Health care reform is not an easy or quick fix. Of course 88% is not the 100% that we would like to see, but that will come after that 88% get covered first. Again, reform needs to be an incremental and deliberate process. We should not dismiss the proposal because it doesn't cover everyone, otherwise we will end up in the same place we have been previously - nowhere.
January 31, 2008
4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
DougH
I am all grown up thank you. I've been paying taxes since long before I was 18 and I've never missed an election since turning 18 either. Dealing with problems does not always have to involve throwing hard earned money down the well. Fixing a problem means finding a cure, not merely treating the symptoms. Bringing the cost of good health care down to a reasonable price is a responsible action and a worthy goal. Just taking more of the tax payers money to purchase Band-Aids, is outright dishonest and lazy.
Our fat lazy government needs to learn to live within a reasonable budget. And our fat and lazy leaches need to get jobs and pay taxes, there by providing larger coffers for the government to do an adequate job. And the non-tax-paying illegal aliens need to go home and quit sucking the system dry.
The problems are easily identified the solutions are not, but the solutions must be sought out anyway. And the tough decisions need to be made by those with the good of our country at heart. Not by politicians with their precious hides foremost in their thoughts.
January 31, 2008
4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Devil_Dog writes:
MRumery
That is all well and good... Problem is it is just a Band-Aid, nothing there address the cause of the problem, the outrageous costs of health care and insurance. Throwing more money at it is not the solution, lowering the cost is. Asking the health care system to come up with solutions to the problem is like asking the inmates to guard the asylum, of course they think more money is the answer.
January 31, 2008
5:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
DougH writes:
MRumery - Thanks for the clarification,well thought out points,and civil discussion of this topic. I do agree with Devil_Dog that the real issue is the general high cost of health care. There are many studies that show we pay close to 19 % of our GNP for Health care but are not really better off than countries that pay much less.
So, what is being done, are we turning out more doctors and nurses from med school to increase the supply ?. Don't we have a medical school at the Univ of Colorado? Are we getting the best competitive prices on drugs and equipment ? Who really pays for sub-contract workers who do not have health insurnace.
I am also one that would like to see a study and resolution of the cost of providing health care.