U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-07-2016, 01:46 PM
 
1,561 posts, read 2,817,479 times
Reputation: 1994

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coloradomom22 View Post
This is what many Americans do not understand will happen with a single-payer system. I have relatives in other countries who have been denied care because they are too old, in fact they came here and paid their own money to be treated. If I go through the list of older people I know I can count dozens of expensive procedures and surgeries that are considered routine--heart stents, heart valve replacement surgeries, knee replacements, rotator cuff surgeries, diabetes treatments, kidney dialysis,kidney transplant, cancer treatments etc, plus the physical therapies and MRI's, CAT scans that go along with all of those. In a single payer system an uncle who was diagnosed with stage 3 cancer was denied immediate treatment because of his age. Also, with obesity rates skyrocketing I wonder if care will also be rationed along lines of personal-responsibility. Should we pay hundreds of thousands of dollar for surgeries and medications for someone who doesn't exercise and overeats to a point where they are 300 pounds? Will a slim person who exercises and eats right get preferential cancer treatment over another less fit person?Everyone wants these benefits and maybe in theory would be ok with rations until it affected them or someone they loved.
Very well said!

 
Old 05-08-2016, 11:14 AM
 
93 posts, read 53,152 times
Reputation: 92
This is what many Americans do not understand will happen with a single-payer system. I have relatives in other countries who have been denied care because they are too old, in fact they came here and paid their own money to be treated.

And I have had older friends who have gone to single-payer nations to be treated because they could not afford the treatments here, due to the insurance complexities, problems, and costs even with Medicare. I have known people who have gone overseas to single-payer nations for treatments because the insurer denied theirs or that it was cheaper for them to pay the flight to go to some other country than pay the deductibles here.

"Also, with obesity rates skyrocketing I wonder if care will also be rationed along lines of personal-responsibility."

I am curious about what exactly this is. I hear it a lot. Does this also mean the corporations who make the junk food that gets people up to 300lbs or higher should also be responsible? Does it mean that the tobacco companies that deliberately add the nicotine to get their customers hooked on cigarettes and causing the smoking related diseases that cost us billions, not to mention the deaths, are personally responsible as well? I agree with the premise here; the problem that I see so far is that it only applies to one side of the equation.
 
Old 05-08-2016, 12:23 PM
 
285 posts, read 272,447 times
Reputation: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by asusual View Post
And I have had older friends who have gone to single-payer nations to be treated because they could not afford the treatments here, due to the insurance complexities, problems, and costs even with Medicare. I have known people who have gone overseas to single-payer nations for treatments because the insurer denied theirs or that it was cheaper for them to pay the flight to go to some other country than pay the deductibles here.

"Also, with obesity rates skyrocketing I wonder if care will also be rationed along lines of personal-responsibility."

I am curious about what exactly this is. I hear it a lot. Does this also mean the corporations who make the junk food that gets people up to 300lbs or higher should also be responsible? Does it mean that the tobacco companies that deliberately add the nicotine to get their customers hooked on cigarettes and causing the smoking related diseases that cost us billions, not to mention the deaths, are personally responsible as well? I agree with the premise here; the problem that I see so far is that it only applies to one side of the equation.
Again, you make my point - there ARE varying notions of what "personal responsibility," "corporate responsibility," and "societal responsibility" are. We have not sorted that out. We have not tried to have a calm discussion where we create space for people to discuss their various views, to find common ground where it might exist, to acknowledge differences where they most certainly exist.

I'm certain (and this may be a false assumption on my point) that there are many people in the US who genuinely care about the poor, about their country, about their neighborhoods and communities, but differ significantly on their views of human flourishing, and what it takes to get human thriving, in terms of economics, amount of government involvement in individuals' lives, and what areas of individuals' lives. That plays itself out in the examples you and others have provided. different people value different things. For most, people want really good medical care for low cost. That's why medical tourism exists. You can get quite good care in other countries for less than it costs here. Granted, there are other risks involved in doing that sort of thing, but the people who do it find that the cost-benefit analysis eventually falls in their favor, so they do it.

there are also people, as mentioned by others on this thread, that live in single payor systems, and in their analysis of the situation, their cost-benefit analysis says that they should ditch their system and come to the US.

That is the reality - there are different people in the world and in this country doing some sort of cost-benefit analysis, based on very different notions of what is an acceptable cost, and what is an acceptable benefit, when it comes to things like paying more taxes (clearly a cost to everyone paying taxes - so what are the benefits that are worth paying more taxes - that varies a lot between people, for legitimate reasons), or flying to Goa, India for a joint replacement.

Simply invoking some injustice in the present system (and there are many) but not admitting that there will then be other potential injustices in a different system is a problem. I understand that not everyone cares about ethical and moral justifications for decisions, but a case must still be made on the level of how it will affect real people at the very point when they will need health care. That's why the details matter.

Amendment 69 doesn't do anything in that regard. It tells us that a board of various people (without even listing possible qualifications - doctors? lawyers? ethicists? MPHs? MPPs? economists? academics? private industry? nurses? administrators of some stripe?) will determine all sorts of things (sections 5 and 6) including what will be paid for and what won't, and how to handle out of state coverage, etc. but doesn't tell us what moral reasoning/justification will be used. Any decisions about health care in that regard are fundamentally moral in nature. If some health care is a positive right that the state is/ought to be obligated to provide for its citizens (and it might well be - but you must make the argument), then the very next question that must be answered thoughtfully is "How much health care is a right and who gets to decide that and why them?"
 
Old 05-11-2016, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,886 posts, read 102,281,764 times
Reputation: 32946
^^I doubt they'll include nurses. Most admins, etc think of nurses as "useful idiots" and nothing more.
 
Old 05-11-2016, 11:09 AM
 
1,246 posts, read 919,200 times
Reputation: 1433
The Gov't thinks Pizza is a vegetable.....why not let them run health care?
 
Old 05-12-2016, 08:24 PM
 
Location: Denver
3,181 posts, read 2,620,552 times
Reputation: 2206
I'd be willing to give it a shot if it doesn't sound set up too badly.

It would get rid of a lot of insurance crap, and they would lose jobs, which would be good (efficiency). It would help small businesses more quickly hire on and terminate employees as they wouldn't have to navigate through a health plan. The cost of an additional employee would go down since healthcare would be on profit vs labor only...

Also now is a great time to try it with the Colorado craze. If they are worried about losing people, the best time to try something out is when people are moving in by the droves.

The current system is crap, and a move towards single payer is a good move IMO.
 
Old 05-13-2016, 12:45 AM
 
93 posts, read 53,152 times
Reputation: 92
"It could be argued that no single system can "work for all" if only because there are so many different types of people out there wanting to live life (and therefore health care) in so many different ways."

If this were true, then why does Medicare work (more or less) for all that it covers? Medicare is a single-payer health care system and it crosses all manner of classes, creeds, races, religions, and so on. Why does it work in nations with single-payer systems across diverse elements of populations?


"It's just disingenuous to say that it would be a system that would "work for all" if you are not clear what exactly that means and you can actually make the case that enough people think that is "working."

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Two of the most chronic problems of our health care system in America is that it costs way to much and that this costs works to prevent access. A third chronic problem could be added as well is that our health care system is not a system. In any case, the health care that we have here does not work for so many because they cannot get to it because of no insurance, high deductibles -- which is a way of rationing access -- and passing the costs and how the costs are so crazy. Single-payer systems work as a system, which is like our medicare. They cover all their citizens and do not bankrupt them if they need medical care; they are also far less costly than our non-system. Doctors and hospitals do not have to hire platoons of accounts receivable people to pry money for claims out of insurers who want to keep it from them because it affects their bottom line. We could go on for as long as it took the US non-system to be so screwed up in the first place.

There will always be those who are dissatisfied with anything no matter how good it is for them or how it works for all in a given state or nation. This is the nature of humanity as it has always been since our forebears lived in caves. Yet, those who complain of Medicare, for example, are probably not too eager to return to the world high deductibles and premiums, eligibility requirements to qualify for plans or subsidies, and all the rest of it. They will still use the system and partake of its benefits, even though they complain about them.
 
Old 05-13-2016, 12:54 AM
 
93 posts, read 53,152 times
Reputation: 92
"It would get rid of a lot of insurance crap, and they would lose jobs, which would be good (efficiency). It would help small businesses more quickly hire on and terminate employees as they wouldn't have to navigate through a health plan. The cost of an additional employee would go down since healthcare would be on profit vs labor only..."

ColoradoCare would help businesses, whether small or large. For one, the businesses would not have to worry about health insurance for employees. You're right when you said that they wouldn't have to navigate through a health plan. This is a major burden. Larger employers can pass these costs onto customers in the form of higher prices for their goods or services, but smaller businesses cannot do this as easily and they end up paying more for health insurance. ColoradoCare would also eliminate so much of the redundancy of how we pay for health care.


"The current system is crap, and a move towards single payer is a good move IMO."

Agreed.
 
Old 05-13-2016, 12:59 AM
 
93 posts, read 53,152 times
Reputation: 92
"The Gov't thinks Pizza is a vegetable.....why not let them run health care?"

Well, despite the attempts by the Republican party to do their best to make sure that the government does not run, they still run the nation's true single-payer system: Medicare. Ask anyone who is on Medicare if they want to return to private health insurance and see what they tell you. And who is more accountable to the people of Colorado? Some insurance CEO sitting in their gilded towers in another state or a board chosen by the people of Colorado.
 
Old 05-13-2016, 01:15 AM
 
93 posts, read 53,152 times
Reputation: 92
"Most admins, etc think of nurses as "useful idiots" and nothing more."

Unfortunately, I think you're right. I have had the misfortune to have to be in the hospital as a patient and have seen what they do to those nurses, running them almost like fiends to keep cranking out of patients. I sometimes wondered how those nurses stand it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:27 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top