Lawmakers aim for single-payer legislation by 2011
By Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News
Published February 5, 2009 at 5:54 p.m.
A plan to lay the groundwork for a Canadian-style, single-payer universal health care system in Colorado has been introduced by a group of Democrats.
House Bill 1273, sponsored by Rep. John Kefalas, of Fort Collins, and co-sponsored by 18 legislators, would create a privately funded commission to study how a government-funded health care system could work. The goal is to send a single-payer bill to the General Assembly in 2011, he said.
The idea, once considered a fringe proposal, has picked up support as the number of uninsured Coloradans has jumped to more than 800,000. But few ideas stir as much animosity among free-market supporters.
Kefalas' plan is likely to get some Democratic resistance, too. House Speaker Terrance Carroll, D-Denver, replaced the Health and Human Services Committee chairwoman last year after saying he wanted the health care discussion to include several options - not just universal. And Carroll sent the bill to the Business Affairs and Labor Committee rather than to HHS.
Still, Kefalas wants to turn the conversation from reducing the ranks of the uninsured to eliminating them.
"There's a lot of interest, support, enthusiasm. But I want to make sure we do this right, because it's a project of great magnitude," he said. "Across the spectrum, there's agreement that the current system isn't working."
The 'building block'
The bill comes after a group of legislators met between sessions to discuss a system in which government covers all health care, eliminating the private health insurance system. Another commission determined that while the plan could cost $26 billion - less than the $30 billion Coloradans pay for public and private health care - it was not the best option.
The health care authority that Kefalas would create would look at how a single-payer program would be financed and what it would take to get the federal Medicaid waivers to operate such a system. Then it would recommend how to transition to the new system, said Irene Aguilar, a doctor at Denver Health's Westside clinic.
"This is the single-payer building block," said Aguilar, a bill supporter.
The new study would occur at the same time the state is examining Centennial Care Choices, a program that would allow private insurers to offer more low-cost plans to the uninsured.
Swalm skeptical
Rep. Spencer Swalm, an insurance broker specializing in employee benefit programs, questioned how the government could improve health care.
He said Medicaid, the government program for the low-income, has such low reimbursement rates that many doctors don't take it and others who do have long waits to see them.
"In a universal program, they're going to do the same thing," Swalm said. "They're going to have low reimbursement rates. . . . There's a good likelihood you're not going to get to see the doctor you want to see."
No date has been scheduled to hear the bill.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
February 5, 2009
6:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
tim4me2 writes:
It really is hard to imagine, given the events of the past week in Congress, how government can adequately/cost effectively manage health care. Maybe the state legislature can invite Tom Daschle in for a symposium on single-payer health care provision. Of course, the "speaker's fee" would be $40,000 - $50,000, but I'm sure the legislature could convince Leo Hindry to provide the car service that would be required for a man of Mr. Daschle's stature.
February 5, 2009
6:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
Health care should be a basic human right... This is the 12st Century, not the 1600s! Have any of you out there known someone that has passed on that could have been saved, but didn't have insurance or couldn't afford it? Untill it happens to you I guess you can continue to rationalize it's OK to let good people die when they didn't need to. It's classic conservative idiology that everyone should take care of them selves and tuff luck for those that can't... then they go to church on Sunday and pretend they are perfect! I say conservatives should be careful what they wish for, they might have to live (or die) with the consequences of their actions. Just like the free market, no rules, no regulation mess we have now with the economy.
February 5, 2009
6:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
DavidDinosaur writes:
I think people think too highly of "single payer" health care systems. I worked at a small engineering firm in Germany for three years in the early 90s. There were a fairly large number of insurers that were certified to provide health insurance. The fees were similar for the not-for-profits (with oversight from the 16 individual German states). Commercial insurance companies were also involved as an option for individuals earning over ~$2500/month and offered some substantial variety in coverage. Not a perfect system but better than Canada's. Competition among payers is needed as much as it is among providers.
February 5, 2009
6:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
KarlCheney writes:
Make sure republicans shoot it down asap, don't wait for the study. After all if it is by dem's it is socialism, marxism, communism etc. Make sure we all don't work together and for each other.
February 5, 2009
6:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
RegLib writes:
Republicans will of course begin screaming Socialism, but in fact such a system could have employers flocking to Colorado.
February 5, 2009
7:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Government-run, single payer health care only works for politicians, government employees, the military, the poor and the elderly. It could never work for the rest of us who pay for that for all those others.
February 5, 2009
7:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
There are too many freeloaders around here to make any sensible universal health care workable. Also, this would only further punish the middle-class, already strained. Deeper the government gets involved with something the more it costs.
February 5, 2009
8:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
RainbowWarrior,
If health care was a human right, then someone else would have the obligation to provide it.
You have no right to make someone else your slave.
February 5, 2009
8:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
SYB
You and others speculate on what it is like to be uninsured and seriously ill. I am both.
I see exactly how bad the government run health care can be. It resulted in a six month wait for my husband to be examined by a doctor for severe pain in an injured (service connected) shoulder that the original doctor declared in need of emergency care. he then waited five more months for the surgery because the surgeon was so busy she was only in town for a limited time and there weren't enough beds in VA hospital so they scheduled the surgery at an nearby hospital. Took 8 weeks to get a paper signed authorizing the treatment. He is still waiting for his disability payment that was approved as automatically allowed. Four months and still waiting.
Single payer here would include many different people. European countries tend to have homogenized populations that have one set of "normal" diseases and conditions. Americans have just about every disease or condition known to man.
The goal of those who want the government in charge of health care is to help. Want to hear how it would work or how it should work? Neither even approaches the perfect place the sponsors of this envision.
What WOULD happen is the same thing that happens when you offer anything for free. The greedy and the lazy rush to the front of the line. Imagine that all people would be covered so they could be able to go to doctors. About 25% of the doctors currently accept Medicaid. How many would reject such patients? How many people, after coming against such a lack of supply of medical care would choose to keep private insurance? How many doctors would take a very few clients for the system and concentrate on those who would keep private insurance?
I'd change the present state system to one where each client has a HSA with a set amount of money deposited to the fund. Any medical treatment will come out of that fund, but the doctors won't be restricted in their payments and will have, as a great incentive, the availability of care will increase, the lines and delays will decrease and it will encourage people to use their shopping skills.
This proposal is merely a "test the water" study. I hope it's too hot for the socialists. But, to be reasonable, let's do an experiment. Give the government the responsibility to both pay for and manage all immunizations. Let them set up the how and where and when. Give the program three years and see how much they are paying per flu shot. They cost 20 dollars at most places. Let's see how much good they can do at what cost.
February 5, 2009
8:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
RainbowWarrior,
You and other lefties are confused about rights. Health care cannot be a human right. It is a product that is subject to economic laws. Unless you can force providers to offer health at the desired levels and price, health care cannot be a right.
Universal health care is just an elaborate system of price controls and rationing. I admit that no one has anxiety about paying for health care in this approach. However, people will have lots of anxiety about obtaining quality treatment. Price controls will lower the supply of health. The illusion of free health care will increase demand. The combination of lower supply and increased demand will lead to lower quality care under universal health care than the mixed system we have now. Health care will be rationed especially for high tech procedures and certain population groups (especially the elderly).
The wild card in universal health care US styly will be medical malpractice. How will the Democrats react to their trial lawyer friends when the trial lawyers take the life out of universal health care? No other country with with universal health care has the out of control medical tort system that we have. The combination of universal health care with explosive medical malpractice will be disaster.
Another wild card for US style universal health care is the illegal immigrant population. The Democrats are set to pass an amnesty that will effectively open the southern borders. We will have tens of millions of poor immigrants demanding free health care.
The bottom line: in 10 to 20 years, you will look back nostaligically at this time to recall excellent health care quality.
February 5, 2009
9:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
candigrl writes:
As a working woman with a disabled husband half of my gross income each month goes to health insurance! This would certainly help me out! Although he qualifies for medicare and medicaid, since my employer has over 100 employees that is his primary carrier. So have of my paycheck each month goes to paying premiums! It leaves little for the other necessities of life. Forbid that we should become ill with $40 doctor copays, and $40 Rx copays, we are pretty broke!
February 5, 2009
9:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
bobdylanindenver writes:
The government can't balance a check book and they want to manage something as important as health care?
Please, that's all we need, government fixing something until it's more broken.
Besides, is this the role of the federal government?
No.
They need to stick with defending our country from invasion, coining money, establishing post offices, and running courts.
Foesn't anybody read and/or pay attention to our Constitution anymore?
February 5, 2009
9:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Timberline writes:
Rainbowbrite writes:
"This is the 12st Century, not the 1600s! Have any of you out there known someone that has passed on that could have been saved,"
First of all I'll let you figure out what century it is, 2nd, healthcare is currently available to everyone (by law) regardless of race, income level, or citizenship status.
February 5, 2009
9:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
global writes:
mmannino writes:
"You and other lefties are confused about rights. Health care cannot be a human right."
You are absolutly wrong. No one should have to be sick, in pain, and die because they can not afford healthcare.
What conservatives fail to realize is that everyone is paying for the care of people when they have to go to the ER when they are sick. I have worked my entire life and had good jobs with insurance. I lost my job and insurance. I then got very sick and was in and out of the hospital over a 6 month period. The cost of all that emergency care was over 78k (which resulted in me filing bk). However, if I could have afforded medication that cost $800 per month, I would have never had to go to the hospital in the first place. Plus, the pain and suffering I went through was horrible.
This is all a matter of reallocation of the resources the people of the US are already paying directly and indirectly for healthcare today.
February 5, 2009
10:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
KarlCheney writes:
We have no health care in this country, we can't call it health care if it doesn't cover pre existing conditions. A for profit is just that, for profit. Cost and the bottom line trump everything else. We are, or used to be an inventive people but now it seems we can't solve any problems at all. There has to be something that can be done besides shooting down every idea and suggestion because of political party. Sickness doesn't care about your political affiliation....
February 5, 2009
10:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"It really is hard to imagine, given the events of the past week in Congress, how government can adequately/cost effectively manage health care."
there's no need to use your "imagination". your brain should do nicely.
folks educated on this issue have long ago come to terms with the fact that many of our global peers provide better, cheaper healthcare than seen in the united states.
February 5, 2009
10:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
global,
You are just proposing price controls, rationing, and cost shifting. Politicians cannot make health care available. They can decree price controls, rationing, and tax increases. However, these decrees will not make health care available.
There is no free lunch. The price for relieving anxiety about payment will be lower quality health care. The economic laws and experiences with universal health care are crystal clear. Please be honest about the choice that you are making. You cannot guarantee the availability of quality health care. You can only guarantee price controls, rationing, and tax increases.
February 5, 2009
10:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
dragonfly writes:
Socialism on the march!
February 5, 2009
11:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
since you brought it up, mmanny, can you tell us what information you used to determine that our global peers don't have comparable wait times for healthcare?
since the year 2000, the number of uninsured has grown by 7.2 million.
premiums doubled over the last 8 years.
the area of healthcare costs rising the fastest?
insurance companies administrative costs.
insurance companies' profits increased almost 200% during the last 8 years.
you have to ask yourself...if we're paying more for lower quality care than many of our global peers....why defend failed policies?
surely not because of political loyalties.
surely not.
February 6, 2009
1:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
SteveM writes:
To find yourself 100% behind universal health care in Colorado, one need only look at who's against it. Truthfully, this is one of the most compelling ways to test the validity of any new or recycled ideas. Who is against the idea of Universal Health Care in Colorado even though it would have several dynamic and unexpected impacts such as the immediate relocation of dozens of companies that would save hundreds of millions in health care premiums for their employees? Well, let's see...
(a) The Health Insurance Companies--they absolutely never want ot see universal health care because they're out of a job,
(b) Ambulance-Chasing Lawyers--they don't want this because it limits their ability to exact huge settlements designed to cover the cost of health care,
(c) Pharmaceutical Companies--if there's no insurance to bilk, then there's far less profit to be had.
The biggest obstacles to the implementation is convincing people to surrender physician choice. But, those of us without insurance can say we'd rather have care than to be able to choose, and the rest must really sit down and examine the concept of choice. Do you really have as much choice as you think and, moreover, are you really qualified to make a choice.
February 6, 2009
3:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
44roger writes:
all you have to do is look at Rocky flats workers and see how the Government health care works. What would help is if this state and federal government would go into work places and make them safe, I worked for one company that paid OSHA $15,000 in fines and still was unsafe.
February 6, 2009
6:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
the republicans continue to be "anti-social".
February 6, 2009
7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
denverinfidel writes:
Rainbow warrior - Goods and services, no matter how important they may be, cannot be rights as they are only provided by other human beings.
Forcing another human to provide "rights", as you choose to define them, is called indentured servitude, or to make it even easier for you fools, slavery.
The government cannot magically provide more of a service just because they demand it. Dr's will not suddenly work harder for less money. They will have to ration care. That is how it works in every socialized system (see wait times in the UK & Canada).
Our system has plenty of problems, and there are ways to address them. But it still provides more and better care to 300mm + people than anywhere else.
February 6, 2009
8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
I love all the wing nuts that claim that a single payer system will not work. These tired old arguments are all they have. Ask just one of them to come up with a better alternative and all they do is go back to their talking points memos. Not one has ever offered a better way to take care of sick human being, not one! They claim falsely that the systems of foreign governments are incapable of quality care. When ask why every and I mean every other country in the world has this type of system and America doesn't, their answer is we're better than them. This line of though is nothing more than BS! The fact is that in all other country's, quality, affordable health care is either an governmental or quasi governmental system. The reason is that it works. Is it perfect, no but there is no such thing as a perfect system. Now wing nuts, insurance companies will do everything possible to get out of payments because it adds to the bottom line. I know this personally because I owned an insurance agency for 10 year and saw it first hand. They work the insured to death with contract details. They know time is on their side and with every denial, they wear you down. Even though you payed for coverage that you are entitled to, they will always try and deny coverage. There will always be a percentage of people that will take the insurance companies word and go along with it. Guess what, that's instant profit! Bonuses are payed to the top executives based on a profit growth. Where do you thing that profit growth comes from? You & me! Insurance companies spend millions of your premium dollars on lobbying law makers to keep the system just the way it is. Believe me, they are scared that President Obama is here now. They will lie, cheat and steal to do anything to keep things just as they are.
So the next time you have a person argue with you about health care, call them out. Tell them to come up with a better way of doing and you see their mouth drop open without a word coming out. Wing nuts I dare you to debate...
February 6, 2009
8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
chartguy writes:
When government runs health care, they set prices. When they set prices, they ration health care. Look at Canada. Patients die waiting for treatment up there. Everybody gets it EVENTUALLY, if they don't die first. If you're in the early stages of a cancer, waiting six months for a CAT scan can be a death sentence, but Canada does not have enough scanners, because they set the price too low.
Do you really want the people who run the Post Office to deliver health care?
February 6, 2009
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
chartguy writes:
When government runs health care, they set prices. When they set prices, they ration health care. Look at Canada. Patients die waiting for treatment up there. Everybody gets it EVENTUALLY, if they don't die first. If you're in the early stages of a cancer, waiting six months for a CAT scan can be a death sentence, but Canada does not have enough scanners, because they set the price too low.
Do you really want the people who run the Post Office to deliver health care?
Wing Nut argument.... No proof and no alternative! Next...
February 6, 2009
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
WiseFool writes:
Modern day private health insurance is run by pick-pockets and thieves. Parasites hogging our hard earned money. Universal Healthcare is the way of the future.
February 6, 2009
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
FRN4U writes:
Prime Minister Obama, Minister of Health and Human Services...
Minister of the Treasury Geithner, Deputy Prime Minister of ICE,
Wing Nut Talking Points Memo, Nothing new and no alternative! Next!
February 6, 2009
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
WiseFool writes:
"Modern day private health insurance is run by pick-pockets and thieves. Parasites hogging our hard earned money. Universal Healthcare is the way of the future."
Right, so the government pick-pockets can take our hard-earned money like they do in Britain, resulting in British doctors leaving the country to work elsewhere where the pay is better and regulations fewer.
February 6, 2009
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
Yeah there will be a wait for health care once this mess of a system is cleaned up...
Behind all the republicans with their hangnails, Warts and Hemorrhoids.
February 6, 2009
9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
RainbowWarrior writes:
"Health care should be a basic human right... This is the 12st Century, not the 1600s!...then they go to church on Sunday and pretend they are perfect!"
Our Founding Fathers believed rights to be inalienable and bestowed upon us by our Creator. What say you? If the government can take one person's money involuntarily, and give it to another, is that predicated upon some form of "rights" in your mind? What you're talking about is power and arbitrary government, not "rights".
Regarding your other comment, people go to church because they know they are imperfect.
February 6, 2009
9:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
MBR693 writes:
Right, so the government pick-pockets can take our hard-earned money like they do in Britain, resulting in British doctors leaving the country to work elsewhere where the pay is better and regulations fewer.
And -- Regarding your other comment, people go to church because they know they are imperfect.
Great examples of wing nut arguments but no proof and no alternative! Next...
February 6, 2009
9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
MBR693 writes: "people go to church because they know they are imperfect."
then why do republicans never admit it? they certainly are not perfect. Just look at the abysmal excuse of government they run.
February 6, 2009
9:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
INC writes:
MBR693 writes: "people go to church because they know they are imperfect."
then why do republicans never admit it? they certainly are not perfect. Just look at the abysmal excuse of government they run.
INC they have no argument, just a lot hot air and no factual basis for their Talking Points Memo... Conservatives hate facts!
February 6, 2009
9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
coskibum writes:
chartguy writes:
>When government runs health care, they set prices. When they set prices, they ration health care. Look at Canada. Patients die waiting for treatment up there.
>>Wing Nut argument.... No proof and no alternative! Next...
In other words, "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts". What Chartguy says is absolutely true and verifiable. I've said many times on RMN forums in the past that I have personally known a great many people who came to the US from Canada because health care is so strictly rationed there that they could not obtain health care. Some of my friends have brought there parents here to the US where they would otherwise be left to die in Canada. Furthermore, a black market exists where you can pay to have your name moved up on the list.
But feel free to live with your ignorance and stupidity.
The perfect alternative is for patients to discuss the terms of their health care directly with their doctor without either an insurance company or the government rationing or setting the price of health care. But as liberals detest the free market and have a predisposition to regulate anything and everything, and as there is a great deal of profit motive in insurance industry, a truly free market solution will never emerge.
February 6, 2009
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Woogford writes:
I'm guessing that those who are in favor of a government run healthcare system are happy with the evenhanded way the IRS is run.
February 6, 2009
9:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
MBR693 writes:"I have personally known a great many people who came to the US from Canada because health care is so strictly rationed there that they could not obtain health care."
ahhh yes the "they travel here excuse"
Well yes they do travel here for procedures... Then they go home without having to worry about bankruptcy, feeding themselves or loosing their home. They have no bill. as the Canadian government picks up the tab.
Insofar as they "can not obtain health care" is utter Bull...
As the U.S. System is now... the INSURANCE company denies medical services as it is cheaper/less expensive to fight you till you literally drop dead, than pay for the life saving procedure.
February 6, 2009
10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Iron writes:
INC writes: "the republicans continue to be "anti-social"."
Finally, inc admits he's a socialist.
February 6, 2009
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
MBR693 writes:
But feel free to live with your ignorance and stupidity.
The perfect alternative is for patients to discuss the terms of their health care directly with their doctor without either an insurance company or the government rationing or setting the price of health care. But as liberals detest the free market and have a predisposition to regulate anything and everything, and as there is a great deal of profit motive in insurance industry, a truly free market solution will never emerge.
Proof is in the puttying... Just because you heard another wing nut say it doesn't make it true. Poll after poll in Canada shows that they would much rather have their health care system than one from the US.
You said: the perfect alternative is for patients to discuss the terms of their health care directly with their doctor without either an insurance company or the government rationing or setting the price of health care.
Another myth, Insurance companies always have a say so in a patients care as long as we keep the current system. A single payer system would not only fix this but there would be no in network or out of network doctors. You claim of rationing is just that a claim and nothing more. Where are your facts???? I know, I heard it from another wing nut friend of mine and if he said it, it must be true. Repeating something over and over does not make it true.
You said: But feel free to live with your ignorance and stupidity.
Typical wing nut response. When you have no factual argumentative position, start calling people names and distract the debate. Do you or have ever worked in the healthcare or insurance field? If not, where has this pool of knowledge come from??? I have over 20 years in the insurance business, what's you qualifications?
You said: But as liberals detest the free market and have a predisposition to regulate anything and everything, and as there is a great deal of profit motive in insurance industry, a truly free market solution will never emerge.
That's right blame it on liberals... The fact is if had some regulation in wall street we would have never been in this position we're in now. Cry all you want, but thanks Bush and his kind, we are in deep trouble. I do like your very last end of your sentence,"But as liberals detest the free market and have a predisposition to regulate anything and everything, and as there is a great deal of profit motive in insurance industry, a truly free market solution will never emerge". I agree, there must be a some form of governmental regulation taken that will level the playing field for the consumer...
Still you haven't given any real alternative for health care, remember that was the subject not liberalism... Next!
February 6, 2009
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
Woogford writes:
I'm guessing that those who are in favor of a government run healthcare system are happy with the evenhanded way the IRS is run.
Iron writes:
INC writes: "the republicans continue to be "anti-social"."
Finally, inc admits he's a socialist.
Two more wing nuts without any factual data... Boy when are you going to step up with some real debating points??? I know, you don't have any!
February 6, 2009
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
GenBalthus writes:
DISGUSTING.
Socialism on the march, Comrade Lenin!
Get ready for a 3-month waiting list for an MRI...
Wow is that all you got??? Really well thought out and great presentation of the facts... Conservatives hate facts! Next!
February 6, 2009
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
tjpatriot writes:
Communism is a good idea too. Problem is, it doesn't work.
It can be shown pretty clearly that private companies can do this more efficiently and effectively by looking at the Medicare Supplement market. The government gave private insurance companies an opportunity to see if they could provide the exact same (or better) benefits as the government and still make a profit. Check the Medicare Supplement market. Companies are falling all over themselves to try and get your business. They can do it better than the government. That's pretty clear.
"Medicaid for Everyone". Ever been to a Medicaid waiting room? It's characterized by crying babies, long waits, and lots of people with unusual dress who you probably couldn't hold a conversation with because you don't speak the same language. Many of the Dr.s are good because they are genuinely trying to help people. But if you think that's the best way to deliver services for the average person, then you're high as a kite.
If you're relatively young and healthy, you can look for your Health Insurance costs (in a different form, i.e. taxes) to approximately double. As someone once said, "If you think Health Insurance is expensive now, wait 'till it's free".
For a few with pre-existing conditions or low income, it's possible there would be some improvement. But please do some research. There are MANY safety-nets already in place for those people. Basically, anyone who doesn't qualify for Medicaid, CHIP, CICP, or CoverColorado, in fact CAN afford Health Insurance, but simply choose to not get it. They now want to be carried by everyone else.
I'm not convinced that part of the reason Daschle withdrew isn't because he thought about what a mess this is going to be. Why would he subject himself to that at this stage in his career/life? As a Broker, I'm looking to do something different. It's become clear that this state is anti-broker and anti-insurance company. For Individual insurance, you haven't seen much negative change yet, but look for that in the next couple years as our lovely legislature has it's way. For Group insurance, it's already started. As part of your research you may want to ask any business owners how their Group rates are doing. As for the argument that it will attract more businesses, that's a false argument. If the "state" is paying for everyone's Health Insurance, that just means taxes are going to be (more) astronomical. Businesses will not be exempted from that, and in fact will produce products that are less competitive because the cost of doing business in Colorado will be higher. So what's the next step, protectionism? "Buy Colorado"? That's a characteristic of a state that can't compete.
February 6, 2009
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Elwood writes:
Who would you rather have making your health care decisions, an insurance company who has doctors on staff, or some gov't employee just warming a chair till his pension kicks in?
Don't worry coskibum,
there's enough intelligence still in the state to prevent gov't provided health care.
February 6, 2009
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
chartguy writes:
GenBalthus writes:
Woogford writes:
MBR693 writes:
FRN4U writes:
dragonfly writes:
Take a good look folks, the above posters are really nothing but hot air. They provide no facts but instead cry wolf...
My work is done here... Next!
February 6, 2009
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
theguyoverthere writes:
And of course no one seems to be mentioning the hundreds of thousands to millions of jobs that would be lost if we went to a national unified health care system. They also seem to fail to mention that in Canada it takes a person FOREVER to get surgery appointments unless it is life threatining.
February 6, 2009
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
theguyoverthere writes:
Let also not forget that taxes would be increased to cover the cost of the unified health care system. So for all of you whining about how this would save you money, it might save you a little, but you are going to be paying more since not everyone in America pays taxes.
February 6, 2009
10:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
ILoveChipotle writes:
"would create a privately funded commission to study how a government-funded health care system could work." - Let me save you some time. It WON'T!
Goverment has bankrupt medicare, medicade, social security, etc... Why do we want these morons running our healthcare?
February 6, 2009
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
This is the best way to handle the health care crisis in America. I have experienced the private health care system where, bean counters make medical decisions, NOT doctors. I want a system where I am more important than profits. I want a system like Medicare where administrative costs are less than ten per cent, and not over twenty per cent like they are for private insurers.
February 6, 2009
10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
IRUNMAN writes:
One can't argue that coskibum does prove his point!!!
No alternatives offered, just hot air.
February 6, 2009
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
tromiano writes:
Again, the irony: so many people readily complain about government waste and inefficiencies. They go haywire when the city is caught off guard by the rogue snow storm. They shake their heads in disgust when they hear about how millions of dollars went to fund a study regarding the mating habits of cockroaches. And yet, more than half of them apparently continue to vote for lawmakers whose agenda includes making government bigger! Where is the disconnect here??!! When it comes to government, bigger most definately isn't better!! The more we depend on it, the less liberties we have!
Healthcare is certainly a problem, and some solutions need to be brought fourth on how to fix it. But government is the mechanism by which these ideas are discussed, not the institution that should be obligated to fix it! This is a classic case of 'the grass is always greaner': we continually hear about how the US is the only industrialized country that doesn't have state-run health care. There seems to be this push to minimalize the horror stories of waiting lists, of lower quality care, and corruption within these systems. Are we to have the same people (regardless of political party) who apparently cheat on their taxes, who accept donations from lobbyists, and whose main motivation is not what's best for the people, but what is most likely to get them re-elected be in charge of funding our health care?
February 6, 2009
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
theguyoverthere writes:
It's funny how everyone blames the health insurance companies. Sorry to burst your bubbles there folks but there a plethora of reasons why health care is so high. Let's start with the fact that people sue doctors left and right, some legitimate, most are not. This causes doctors to have to have hugely high premiums on their malpractice insurance. My friend is interning to be a doctor right now and he has to pay $125,000 a year in malpractice insurance. Then you have all the jerks out there that are falsifying claims, patients and doctors, to get more money. That money to pay them has to come from somewhere. The cost of medical equipment is insanely outrageous. Something as simple as a knife in the surgery room costs somewhere around $500, just for the knife. If the US would do something about all the gold digging, ambulance chasers, and the companies that have enormously over inflated the prices of medical equipment, our Insurance premiums would go down by a lot. This would be because the Insurance companies have to negotiate with Doctors and Hospitals on the pricing of different procedures and surgeries. Health Insurance companies are there to negotiate lower prices for us, they do the best they can. They sometime have to drop hospitals and physicians because they are asking for too much money. It all comes full circle here folks.
February 6, 2009
11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
IRUN You want alternatives? Here you go. But can you explain how the ideas you support will affect the % GDP that healthcare provides? Can you also provide information on the Primary, secondary and tertiary job losses around this industry and how we keep a Recession/Depression turning into more of a disaster?
Remove Employer based healthcare model
1. Eliminate need for employers to hire specialized Benefit HR resources
2. Eliminate need for Benefit Brokerages (middlemen) that main purpose is to connect Employer groups with HC Insurance companies. They make a very nice commission
3. Eliminate the Employer based Sales agents that sell to Employer Groups and receive a commission also. **That is 2 groups that receive a commission before a person even gets a Plan #**
4. Govt commission set up to evaluate Employer groups and the dollar amounts covered by the employer group explicitly used for HC costs.
a. Total amount of premiums paid by employer group that paid above the amount paid by employee. This amount added directly to employee paycheck each month. This is a significant amount
b. Percentage of cost savings from Item #1 given to Govt agency to initially fund oversight. Percentage lowered each year and eliminated after 5 yrs. ***Optional component could be that a percentage of this savings could be divided into employee paycheck. This would be for a set period of time also as the model changes so do the experience levels of both employee and employer groups.
c. Set up Pre-Tax HC premium spending account that can be adjusted to account for life issues. This account would be similar to an escrow account. This allows for minimal management.
d. Cost savings from Items 3# and #4 to be adjusted so that this cost savings is 100% used to lowering HC premiums for consumers.
Align, merge and eliminate redundant Government oversight. Approximately 1/3 of HC costs are attributed to Government mandates. While we can mostly agree that Government oversight is needed in this industry, the wastes and redundancy needs to be eliminated wherever possible. Set goal of reducing overhead costs from approx. 33% down to 20%-25%. Using 1 persons estimate of $12,106 and a reduction down to 25%. That is a potential savings of 8% or $968.48.
February 6, 2009
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
coloradoborn56 writes:
Maybe we should fix our medical crisis by,drowning all trial lawyers, that's a good start. Then, quit giving free care to all illegal immigrants. Believe me the lawsuits and free medical care have driven the price of medicine three times the amount it could be. I know for a fact that the cost of medical malpractice insurance, and the free medical care given away is costing every American citizen more. Until these two issues are resolved even socialized medicine is not the answer.
February 6, 2009
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
coskibum writes:
>>Proof is in the puttying... Just because you heard another wing nut say it doesn't make it true. Poll after poll in Canada shows that they would much rather have their health care system than one from the US.
Actually, it's "the proof is in the pudding". But owing to your genius you are no doubt attempting to start a new catch phrase. Hey, here's an idea. Take a poll of welfare recipients and ask them if they would rather have that system or another. Or ask a college student receiving free state aid if she would prefer another system. Once you give people handouts they will resist efforts to change. That is one important element of gradual socialism against which conservatives and libertarians alike need be on guard. Once people get used to government handouts, they will resist any attempts to reverse the policy. It is always easy to expand government and give up our liberty for comfort. Efforts to the reverse generally do not occur.
>>Another myth, Insurance companies always have a say so in a patients care as long as we keep the current system. A single payer system would not only fix this but there would be no in network or out of network doctors.
You are not adequately engaged in thought. Clearly, a perfect single-payer system, which I advocate, precludes even any form of insurance except that which is not mandated or sponsored even by corporations.
>>Do you or have ever worked in the healthcare or insurance field? If not, where has this pool of knowledge come from??? I have over 20 years in the insurance business, what's you qualifications?
Acquaintances with many doctors. They will tell you BOTH that insurance companies are a pain and add cost to their practice, and that it is difficult to receive reimbursement from the government in the case of Medicaid, etc.
>>That's right blame it on liberals... The fact is if had some regulation in wall street we would have never been in this position we're in now. Cry all you want, but thanks Bush and his kind, we are in deep trouble.
You're changing the subject. However, there is adequate proof of the hand Democrats had in the recent failings of the housing industry. However, from your attempt to find one area of failed regulation, it does not logically follow that all facets of life must be regulated.
>>Next!
I fail to find consensus that you have won any debate.
February 6, 2009
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
I'm back and still no real alternatives... Just this mess:
tjpatriot writes:
Communism is a good idea too. Problem is, it doesn't work.
Wow now that statement says it all... Glad to see you are on topic and not wandering down a crazy road of unreal thoughts! This is just another wing nut! Gee I guess your name makes you more patriotic than me...
I will give you one point, you talk about the safety net programs which all could be eliminated do to the fact everyone has coverage... Still you have all hot air and no facts on your side!
Next!
February 6, 2009
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
MBR693 writes:
INC writes:
"They have no bill. as the Canadian government picks up the tab."
This just illustrates the extraordinary ignorance of so many on the Left. The government doesn't "pick up the tab". The government passes the cost on to taxpayers in the form of higher taxation. And since the government operates on a budget, it must and does ration health care.
February 6, 2009
12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
tjpatriot writes:
coskibum - I guess your name makes you more of a BUM than me. I can believe that. Let me guess, if you really are a ski bum, you work part-time in a restaurant with no benefits, and even though you could get pretty good insurance for less than $100 per month you don't have it because you are too lazy, cheap, and/or ignorant to get it yourself. You would rather b1tch about how the "state" isn't diapering your a$$ and instead spend your money on lift tickets. Your contribution to this discussion is only notable because you illustrate the typical ignorance that drives your side of the argument. Here's the good news for you (seriously): you probably qualify for CICP, which is a state-funded program helping thousands of people, including lackeys like you.
February 6, 2009
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
MBR693 writes:
You said: Actually, it's "the proof is in the pudding". But owing to your genius you are no doubt attempting to start a new catch phrase. Hey, here's an idea. Take a poll of welfare recipients and ask them if they would rather have that system or another. Or ask a college student receiving free state aid if she would prefer another system. Once you give people handouts they will resist efforts to change. That is one important element of gradual socialism against which conservatives and libertarians alike need be on guard. Once people get used to government handouts, they will resist any attempts to reverse the policy. It is always easy to expand government and give up our liberty for comfort. Efforts to the reverse generally do not occur
First off I never called myself a Genius but I take that as a complement... Now you're talking about Welfare and State aid. Health coverage whether its from an insurance company or a governmental body is not a handout, it's a right. I know you want to debate that too but the fact is that when you pay for anything you have the right to receive it.
You are not adequately engaged in thought. Clearly, a perfect single-payer system, which I advocate, precludes even any form of insurance except that which is not mandated or sponsored even by corporations.
Wow finally engaging in good debate. I'm glad to see that you agree with an single-payer system! I'm not the bad guy but when crazy remarks are made, I will call them out!
Acquaintances with many doctors. They will tell you BOTH that insurance companies are a pain and add cost to their practice, and that it is difficult to receive reimbursement from the government in the case of Medicaid, etc.
I agree that the insurance companies will do everything in their power to delay payments to doctors. If we put substantial penalties (maybe even compounding)on late reimbursements to doctor from both insurance and the government, I'm willing to bet that would change quickly! Or better yet, they must first reimburse doctors before they can submit a disputed cost. That way everyone would be paid and if there was a disputed item, it be the governments or the insurance companies burden to show proof... Wow now there is change I can believe in!
However, from your attempt to find one area of failed regulation, it does not logically follow that all facets of life must be regulated.
I agree with you... Not everything must be regulated, but those things are most important to the welfare of an individuals health must be for the good of all of us! My point with regards to wall street was to prove that unregulated industries will more than likely bite you in the back!
I also find it hard to believe that nobody else is really engaging in debate. Let's all stop the BS and get down to the facts! Great post MBR693!
February 6, 2009
12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
tjpatriot writes:
coskibum - I guess your name makes you more of a BUM than me. I can believe that. Let me guess, if you really are a ski bum, you work part-time in a restaurant with no benefits, and even though you could get pretty good insurance for less than $100 per month you don't have it because you are too lazy, cheap, and/or ignorant to get it yourself. You would rather b1tch about how the "state" isn't diapering your a$$ and instead spend your money on lift tickets. Your contribution to this discussion is only notable because you illustrate the typical ignorance that drives your side of the argument. Here's the good news for you (seriously): you probably qualify for CICP, which is a state-funded program helping thousands of people, including lackeys like you.
Great post, just shows crazy you really are... get real! Next!
February 6, 2009
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
robbyr2 writes:
"Government-run, single payer health care only works for politicians, government employees, the military, the poor and the elderly. It could never work for the rest of us who pay for that for all those others."
Guess what? You already do pay. And quite well. John McCain has had socialized medicine all of his life.
Medicare and Medicaid both pay medical providers far better than most private insurers. They do pay less than the uninsured but insurers like Anthem Colorado pay less than half as much as Medicare.
February 6, 2009
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
robbyr2 writes:
Good point, our politicians are sitting on a wonderful health policy FROM THE GOVERNMENT! If it's good enough for them, we should have it too! The problem is that the conservative politicians are mostly funded (eer... sorry campaign contributions) by the heath care companies, be it an insurance or pharmacological...
It's time to write you're congress person and tell them to get to work on universal health care...
February 6, 2009
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
coskibum,
Yes there are alternatives. You look at costs but do not identify the true sources of those costs. Nor do you look at the GDP and the affects of GDP from Primary, secondary or tertiary points of view of businesses.
February 6, 2009
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
COLibertarian writes:
You're right there are cost that we will incur from anything that we do. The fact is our system is broken. We must do better for all Americans, not just some.
Being a Libertarian I know you expect everyone to take care of themselves but, that is just not realistic. Some will not be able too and that is where governmental programs help.
Regarding your reference to GDP there will definitely be a hit to some industries and their supplies. I'm a realist too, but the road we are on now is not working. Like I said in my first post, every other country in the world has a government or a quasi governmental program that deals with health coverage. We are the only one who doesn't! Our path has been to put the burden on the individual to provide their own care. Last statistic I saw 62% of all bankruptcies involve medical issues. Just think of how that would improve our GDP if people didn't have to go bankrupt from health related issues? If they were able to pay their bills because they were not over inflated from hospitals who must pass on the cost of uninsured or under insured individual's who goes to the emergency room to treat a nose bleeds or the flu...
February 6, 2009
1:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Again Skibum you did not read my post on how to look at fixing some of the problems associated with costs.....Hell even put up ways to finance it. Govt will not fix this. They helped CREATE this. Up to a third of Admin costs are due to Govt regulations. Some good, some redundant but yet worse some contradictory to each other.
You say a hit to the GDP is needed? What is an acceptable %? At what point does unemployment in these ranks put us completely over the edge? We have been given costs for financing, but not for changing, building the infrastructure needed.
You and I BOTH agree that it is broken, but I am looking at internal changes that have definate benefits, but lower risk to the overall country. Why can we not look at that first???
Other countries.......Yea I hear that alot......... Some of it valid. But what if I told you that some of the countries that are being held up as positive role models are looking to the US and US healthcare industry experts for help?
February 6, 2009
1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
Sorry COLibertarian I'm home today with my little one who is sick... She needs me now so I will come back later to address your questions... Promise!
February 6, 2009
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Also skibum thanks for categorizing me based upon screen name and then making assumptions based upon that. Cant just be 2 guys having an honest and sincere dialogue?
February 6, 2009
2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Sorry to hear that coskibum. If we dont get a chance to chat we can at another time. This is just dialogue......your little one is way more important than that.............best wishes to you and the little one getting better soon.
February 6, 2009
2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
robbyr2,
You are wrong about medicare and medicaid. Many physicians do not accept medicare and medicaid patients because of reimbursement rates, regulations, payment policies, and so on. Many physicians disdain the administration of medicare and medicaid as worse than private insurers.
February 6, 2009
2:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
SteveM
reconsider choice.
I see, if you don't have a choice, no one else should have a choice.
The liberal viewpoint in a nutshell.
Let's try a simple example. I'll use water.
Imagine that the government declared that water would be distributed by their rules and suppliers because some people aren't getting their "fair share." The government is going to drive large tanker trucks of water into all neighborhoods.
People come up and ask for water. The government truck is there to help. All who ask get a gallon. Some of those paying for water decide to get the free government water instead. Now the government can only give a quart of water to each. Even more people come asking for water. Many of these are not thirsty, but they get the water anyway. Many could pump the water from their own wells, but it is much easier to get it from the government. The government sends in two trucks to maintain the lower limit of a quart a day. Even this is not possible and the ration is down to a pint of water per person. Finally the government is able to only give each person half a cup of water a day even with their increased supply from four trucks.
Now the government is faced with a new choice. It must decide whether or not to ration the water by need or by number. By need means that each person must submit a reason why he needs to get water from the government. A decision will be made on each case. This means that some will not get the water. It means that some will lie to get water they don't need.
By number means that the government will measure how much water they have and then divide it equally among all who ask. That was what failed the first time, but government always attributes failure of any project to be the fault of insufficient funding or lack of time to make it work. They will try again then go back and say that so long as anyone has private water, the system will be unfair to those who don't have it.
Only solution is to take the government out of the picture and let the people provide for themselves and their neighbors. Now the thirsty might not all be taken care of, but more will have water and the greedy won't be at the front of the line crowding out those with real needs.
If you doubt that the greedy exist, or that they are a big enough factor in this, turn on your TV. Within a few hours, probably a few minutes, you will see a commercial for "FREE" powered wheelchairs, glucose meters, medications or medical supplies. The one requirement for all of these freebies? Medicare. Our government will provide these free gifts at our expense.
Point of this is that the government is about as successful at any social project as the average person would be at trying to knit a sweater while wearing boxing gloves. Add in the multiple complications of health care and our knitter is still wearing the boxing gloves. Now he/she also has both arms handcuffed behind his/her back.
February 6, 2009
3:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Debunkin8tor writes:
If it is true that the majority of people in Canada support government-run health care, there are two obvious reasons for that:
1) At any given time most people are not seriously ill or in need of a major surgical procedure. Thus the majority of people at any given time do not see a problem. Because government-run health care inevitably leads to rationing, you will see the problem only when you need care. It is well documented that those in need of a bone marrow transplant or knee replacement, for example, must deal with much longer wait times and lesser care in Canada and England than the U.S.
2) Those who are well off in Canada, England, and elsewhere can always go to the U.S. when they need urgent care.
Therefore, if you don't ever need major care, you'll love government-run health care. Just as we all love the DMV.
February 6, 2009
3:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
I do recognize that the right to have medical care should and MUST be a basic human right in the western world (in Islamic nations your rights are only professed by the level of **compassion** under Shariah law) but debating a federal system of healthcare is a step I'm concerned to go to.
I think government regulation in terms of astronamical costs control and federal funds to maintain offered secondary clinics to the poor must increase to help make easier dispersement of medical care more equally.
But forcing a government healthcare on us all will create an enormous welfare state that would be obligated to also take in and care for illegals and also be open to substantial abuse. I'm very concerned. I recognize the idea is in all good, but like Communism....Good in principle but bad in practice.
This is getting freaky.
I.
February 6, 2009
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
SheikYurBooty writes:
Government-run, single payer health care only works for politicians, government employees, the military, the poor and the elderly. It could never work for the rest of us who pay for that for all those others.
Sheik,
The most thoughtful and well worded arguement against this bill I've seen so far. When your paying for SSI your needing about eight working bodies to pay for every single retired body. How to you pay for us all? I'd imagine the full scope of all federal spending in the current Fiscal year would be eclipsed if such a system came into force. Pay for the poor, the elderly, and stick with what we have.
Let's use better government oversight to control the outragious costs for medical help. Not cosmetic, as thats a choice, but basic needed medical care shouldn't cost a weeks paycheck.
I.
February 6, 2009
3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
COLibertarian writes:
Also skibum thanks for categorizing me based upon screen name and then making assumptions based upon that. Cant just be 2 guys having an honest and sincere dialogue?
Sorry my apologizes, just everyone spouting off about Socialism and Communism just makes me mad that they can't hold a real conversation on a very important topic. Most right leaning people will never have a good honest debate. It's more about their talking points memos than reality...
February 6, 2009
4:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Skibum,
I brought up communism in my post earlier (i your referring to that*) because frankly........Communism in principle is a fantastic method of government where all parties are (theoritically speaking) merely the 'people' and thus, equal.
Human greed destroys it's foundations. Call it what you will, traitor, capilists, dems, libs, or what not, it bears down to simple greed.
I hope you and I may share an intelligent, open and civilised exchanged based on this indeed important and public priority topic.
Let me know your side I believe ours are likely similiar on principle views.
Hope to hear back.
I.
February 6, 2009
5:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
NotUrFriend writes:
I would love to debate anyone who can bring up realistic ideas to the health care problem... I just don't want to try and debate someone who only pulls talking points from a memo and can not back up their point of view with facts... And no I wasn't referring to you concerning your previous post, I understand what you're saying... Remember we all are American's and this effects all of us!
February 6, 2009
5:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
COLibertarian writes:
Sorry to hear that coskibum. If we dont get a chance to chat we can at another time. This is just dialogue......your little one is way more important than that.............best wishes to you and the little one getting better soon.
Thank you for your sincere concern, I appreciate it...
February 6, 2009
5:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Skibum,
I have a few items of contestment with your earlier post, which I only now reviewed. First I do take offense to your wording that all (or almost all*) nations on the planet earth currently fund comprehensive or bare boned essential medical care for national citizenship. This is wrong. Actually, with the exception of Europe and a few nations scattered through Latin America and some Communist led (or close too) nations in Asia there aren’t that many. Actually in basic number’s that’d put the high number at around 1 to 7 nations on earth. Remember, Europe houses only about 29 nations, and it’s essentially the western welfare states that have state funded medical services for all (which explains why so many illegal and legal immigrants from almost the entire Mid East and virtually ALL of Africa desperately move there to milk the system.).
SO let’s not put America as the great evil now, ok? Let’s set silly liberal, conservative, and bare back non-essential politic-ing about the medical issue aside ok?
Your also flat out wrong about their system of medical being idealist or perfect by any shard of the word. They are heavily taxed (far more than here as in Germany and Poland’s case) and its already abundantly obvious that its an unsustainable problem that has only two solutions: End it or import foreign immigrants who refuse and continue to refuse to accept their values and ideals. Why do you think France has so many Islamic uprising’s demanded higher status and that Islam be recognized as untouchable for debate or ridicule? There’s no way of sustaining a welfare state where you have only 3 working bodies for every 1 retired dying body. It just doesn’t happen. Doing basic math is mind boggling in that it’s lasted this long. Even here where our system only really benefits the elderly, the poor, the young, and our military, its already having an enormous and unsustainable developing problem.
...Continued below
February 6, 2009
5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
You know the military? Covers all illness? Guess what? You typically can be expected to wait two plus months prior to being seen. In Canada it’s the same. The difference is that we have about 14 million vet’s (all of whom deserve this benefit) out of a population 310. Canada has a bit over 50 million and it covers them all. Again, it’s not sustainable.
I’d like to say this is wrong and this is right and all that. But it’s reality. The government can’t hold your hand and walk you through this. WHAT it can do is control cost over runs and price inflations when it comes to medical necessity. This doesn’t mean walking down to get a pimple popped or get plastic surgery….Those are operations of a cosmetic nature and free market SHOULD control that. What government can do is keep an office visit to your doctor from NOT costing you your whole weeks paycheck. That is just simply greedy and un ethical. Purely greedy.
I hope I was able to make my point. I like your passion here, I wish you the best of luck in figuring your way on from here. I wish you the best.
Your friend,
I.
February 6, 2009
6:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
NotUrFriend writes:
Ok thank you in advance for a well though out response.
Your point about all nations is right, I should have said all industrial nations. Let me explain to you I am well versed in the "European Health Programs". My ex is from the Netherlands, when my children were first born we were able to purchase a health policy for my ex and my children through The Netherlands. I was then an owner of an insurance agency and could have added them through my policy at work for less. Their premiums were $100 for each child per month. The Netherlands policy came with no deductibles and no co-pays and included all prescriptions. The only issue was if there was elective surgery, that would have to be done in The Netherlands. Sorry, let get to my point... We had this policy for 4 years at which time the insurance company in the The Netherlands stop all coverage for US due to the over whelming cost of health care in the States. My son had to have emergency surgery for his ear and we went round and round with the hospital's insurance person because she could not only believe that we didn't need prior approval for the surgery or it was covered 100% with no deductible. So when I hear everyone claim that coverage can not be good or there are long waiting lines, that is just not true! Our health care system charges more than any other nation for the same care... That's a fact! The same Lipitor that I take here in the states cost $56 after a $500 deductible, cost only $17... Why you ask, The Netherlands doesn't allow for pharmaceutical company's to over price their products. Prices are negotiated nationally before they are sold to the public. Something that needs to be done here. Now let's address the wait time issue. When was the last time you went to the doctor's office and didn't wait?? It doesn't matter where you live or under what system you're in, you're gonna wait! Here at home we wait because the poor doctor is under 40lbs of paperwork for each patient. They have to see so many patients a day just to break even. Are wait times in other country s, oh yeah... But that is a fact of life anywhere! Now on two your Military topic, if we had given the health care system the money we spent in Iraq, we would never had any of veterans wanting for anything. Our problem was the last administrations policy of spend anything and everything on the war machine and neglecting the veteran health care... Remember Walter Reed Hospital, yet we needed more bombs for the war... Incompetence and crazy war mongering policy are directly responsible for veteran poor health care in the US!
Hey I have to go again, my little one needs me -- In the famous words of the terminator, I'll Be Back!
February 6, 2009
7:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Skibum,
You hit the nail on the head. You repeated what I've repeated time and time again through every response I've given regarding medical care and government involvement. You and your young one experienced exactly what I've been talking about since moment one. Not a controlled unsustainable government sponsored program but a government mechanism in place to protect us, the people, from over inflated medical costs.
Cosmetic is one thing. NOT EVERYONE needs it and thus, the cost is market controlled. But a child going in for a quarterly check? 500 deductable? some as high as over 2500, LIKE MYSLEF FOR INSTANCE? No, this is unexceptable and its purely inhumane, unethical, and morally bankrupt greed that leads good people to pay out of pocket prices for this.
I hate this. I am a fellow comrade in this fight, shoulder to shoulder with you and your child. This is wrong. You don't need to break it down into a 2000 page book (as some have, and sold in successive numbers) to explain to you, a mother, or me, a single adult. Like you I'm scared to get sick and do everything I can to fool myself when I am.
This is wrong. Pure and simple. Like some abusive coward beating on a chained dog who has no hope of escape. Well, this is one dog that has some teeth and its high time we used them.
The government must fulfill it's purpose and protect the people. What can effect us more greatly than the hard choice of milk in our child's bottle or a life or death shot that can save his life?
Its time to step in and force this to be corrected.
Your friend,
Isaac
February 6, 2009
7:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
NotUrFriend writes:
Ok just back for a minute, lets recap-- I was wrong on all nations but, your claim of me calling the US bad for not having a universal health care in place is wrong... In my opinion, We pay way too much for simply everyday health care items... ie prescriptions, no where else in the world are pharmaceutical companies allowed to advertise their products directly to the consumer... This is ludicrous! All it does is increase profits at the detriment of the consumer!
With regards to wait times, most European's go twice a year to the doctor. This is preventive health care and cuts down on running to the doctors for every so called pimple. If they are really sick they can get into see a doctor. You are mistaken if you think they wait for months to see a doctor.
You said: "Your also flat out wrong about their system of medical being idealist or perfect by any shard of the word".
First I never said that, I said no system is perfect -- read what I said!
You said: "You know the military? Covers all illness? Guess what? You typically can be expected to wait two plus months prior to being seen. In Canada it’s the same. The difference is that we have about 14 million vet’s (all of whom deserve this benefit) out of a population 310. Canada has a bit over 50 million and it covers them all. Again, it’s not sustainable".
This is a very tired argument, You have no proof of it! This same argument has been propagated for over thirty years and you know what, their still doing it! So you're wrong.
You said: I’d like to say this is wrong and this is right and all that. But it’s reality. The government can’t hold your hand and walk you through this. WHAT it can do is control cost over runs and price inflations when it comes to medical necessity. This doesn’t mean walking down to get a pimple popped or get plastic surgery….Those are operations of a cosmetic nature and free market SHOULD control that. What government can do is keep an office visit to your doctor from NOT costing you your whole weeks paycheck. That is just simply greedy and un ethical. Purely greedy.
Guess what I agree! Any elective surgery should come out of the consumers pocket. The money we could save on paperwork alone is unbelievable... If we only had to fill out one form at the doctors office and every doctor was mandated to use this form think how much simpler and efficient that would be?
Now with that said, as I have said many times over, What Is Your Alternative Plan?
February 6, 2009
7:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Skibum,
As for the war machine....I could talk to you about that but it'd need to be somewhere less public as the matter's involved typically are issues that strike at the very core and spirit of the nutty concepts called "political correctness.''
Something we might, to a degree, need but something in the long run that will destroy us. For you to understand this you must first recognize the scope, depth, and lengthy of the history of the aggression we are in the midsts of engaging an unsuccessful and misguided war on. Sadly scholars with backbone and necks of steel who once challenged the very core of our own misguided and wrong societal views are gone. Those champions that pioneered a world without slavory, of equality of the genders, or the equality of man in general are ashes of a fire that has long since been extinguished.
Today we enjoy the hard, tough road they fought and died for. But whom among us are ready to die for the cause of tomorrow? I see no one ready to take the lead we so very sincerely need RIGHT now.
Your right. War mongering without an achievable and sustained goal is a war we are bound to lose. We will lose. History dictates that we will. It's not for lack of power, for at no time in the long story of man has the free people of any free society held such an offsetting scope of wealth, power (military and economic), and intellectually strength against any aggressor.
Yet, for all our strength we will lose. For when you accept that which is wrong, barbaric, backwards, midevil and regressive rather than progressive and tell yourself that it's your equal.....You have seeded the harvest of your own destruction and damned your children to a war that they were born losing.
I'll go no further.
I.
February 6, 2009
8:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
NotUrFriend writes:
Well said, thank you for an engaging and intelligent debate!
February 6, 2009
8:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Skibum,
The alternative plan is government oversight and price regulations on all non cosmetic medical care. From child to elderly. Visits should have a standardized fee to simple checks, regulated at a price thats sustainable for the medical establishment but also sustainable for the consumer/patiant. Created a government welfare state regulating all medical purposes isn't the answer. I agree for children and elderly, or other minority groups that require or earned it, yes.
Europe has proven the model of regulated price is sustainable for the medical establishment. I may be a bit off in numbers but I recall reading that Europe has 1 in every 20 persons living there somehow involved in the health care system, so its a workable system. I do not want to wake up tomorrow to find myself receiving another twenty percent tax to help everyone, as I myself may or may not use it. This does not mean that I would not willingly pay equal payment with everyone else if it were regulated and everyone was fairly placed.
I guess, in the end....You've got me. I'll admit it. I have no alternative plan aside from not wanting to make government larger and more powerful than it already is. There's something terrible that always occurs when a government outgrows its purpose and becomes the absolute. It's always a stepping stone.
It always looks fine at first but slowly turns sour and bad. Keep it within its established constituitional limits, of which regulating the medical prices for the benefit of the people does fall within that scope.
I.
February 6, 2009
8:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
NotUrFriend writes:
You need to join up to thinkprogress.org -- Great blog!
Peace out...
coskibum
February 6, 2009
8:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Skibum,
No, thank you for appreciating an open and honest discussion in a mature and adult forum. It's rare to find a person ready to exchange views, of which we are lucky. Our views, at least the end results, are very very similiar. Our children deserve better, and god help me, my niece will have better.
I'd love to chat more but my dog, who is my child (god she's got a cute nose), is demanding a visit to Petsmart and a walk around Washington. Contact me via email anytime!
Your wonderful and thank you for forcing me to concede I was wrong, its refreshing to realize I'm still just human. I do not have an alternative plan but I'm sure two heads with similiar ends and different roads are been than just one road.
Let's work together as American's. What is more American than that? :)
TheDarque1@gmail.com
I.
February 7, 2009
7:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
lastcowboy writes:
State Comp is the reason I do not want the state having control of my health ins. I cannot have workers comp because I am an officer in a corp and they have a set price for premiums. You may think all such types make millions, but a family ranch corp is the same as any family ranch. So, in order to have state comp on myself, my Wife, or my Son we would be required to pay the state more than we can afford to pay ourselves. At the same time the guy who earns a million dollar salary pays the same price as me. Also, they send to school to be their policemen and learn how to talk our employees out of making aclaim. Our private insurance will not pay for job-related injuries or across a stateline.
If our communist governor really wants to help he needs to work on ins. price and require them to accept people, cross state lines and most importantly, make them pay the claims. Because they will deny every claim if they can.
Both sides of the argument needs only to look at state comp. to see how great state run insurance is.
February 7, 2009
7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
lastcowboy writes:
You bring up another great point...
Worker's Compensation is for only work related injury and payroll income. All states set premiums based on payroll. Some states cap executive or corporate officers payroll at a set amount. Their are several factors that change ones premium and coverage. Your loss record, payroll amounts and the job that you do. Your policy is only for that state, travel out of state requires that you have coverage in that state too. Your company should have coverage for both states not just one if your working in both. Also rates will vary in each state. Some states set the rate and other are open to free market. So do not blame Colorado Worker Comp for rates say in Wyoming.
That said, insurance companies will always try to get out of payments of any claim. That is how they make money! Is it right? No. Your so called policemen or as the industry likes to call them, risk management people are there for one purpose only, stopping the claim. In a perfect world we would have a universal health care that wouldn't care if you were hurt on the job or if it was off. We then only need to have coverage for your income lost from an injury on the job. But we live in the real world now and until we put this all up for debate, we are at the mercy of both insurance companies, multiple state laws and regulations that often conflict against one another.
Your "communist" governor (Please) didn't set these regulations up, insurance companies did! That's why the system is so difficult. They make sure you jump through hoop after hoop just to get what is rightfully yours. Trying to wear you down and make your claim go away!
Remember if you got a beef, try coming up with an alternative plan!
February 7, 2009
7:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Singlepayer health care=Government sponsered euthanasia!
Count on it!
More Obama trauma coming our way!
February 7, 2009
8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
coskibum writes:
T1anda writes:
Singlepayer health care=Government sponsered euthanasia!
Count on it!
More Obama trauma coming our way!
Another wing nut gets their wings... Crazy thoughts come from crazy people... Nothing new and no alternative plan, just hot!
Next!
February 10, 2009
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Debunkin8tor writes:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12341...