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 05-13-2016, 08:46 AM
 
1,246 posts, read 919,712 times
Reputation: 1433

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by asusual View Post
"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.
You are incredibly naive if you think that any politician L or R has your best interest in mind. They will sell you whatever they can to buy your vote.

Anonymous congressman writes tell-all book and admits he never reads bills he votes on | Daily Mail Online

While I think health care/insurance needs reform. The last people I want in control of it are politicians with no medical/business background.

 
Old 05-13-2016, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Eastern Colorado
3,768 posts, read 4,620,844 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by asusual View Post
"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.
You mean the government insurance that requires people to buy possibly 2 or 3 private plans just to get close to the same coverage as those with private insurance get with their plans?
 
Old 05-13-2016, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,889 posts, read 102,319,187 times
Reputation: 32951
Quote:
Originally Posted by asusual View Post
"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.
I read that most leave the hospital employ, or at least direct-care floor nursing, by age 40. Of course, I can't find this now. I may have read it in a nursing magazine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwiley View Post
You mean the government insurance that requires people to buy possibly 2 or 3 private plans just to get close to the same coverage as those with private insurance get with their plans?
Yes, it's a pain. (Just joined that demographic.) However, before Medicare, many elderly could not get any insurance at all. The private carriers do not want to be the primary for people who will have a lot of claims.
 
Old 05-13-2016, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Aurora, CO
6,530 posts, read 10,200,595 times
Reputation: 9757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
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.
I have a problem with that particular line. The "they" you speak of consists mainly of middle-class folks and small business owners who'll get the rug yanked out from under them if we tell the carriers to pound sand.

Insurance companies are more than the reviled billionaire CEOs. There are claims processors, CSRs, underwriters, actuaries, project managers, business analysts, software engineers, DBAs, etc, etc, etc. Then there are the ancillary actors - namely brokers, agents and their support folks whose livelihoods depend on the ability to sell the products the carriers are offering (primarily to small businesses).

I've worked as a software engineer in both sides of the insurance biz - carrier and agency - and I have a healthy respect for the rank-and-file folks who do all the work so the CEOs can get all the credit.

I agree that something needs to change, but this scheme is not the answer. No state should go it alone with something this big. It needs to be all-or-nothing at the Federal level or I guarantee you we'll be subsidizing a boatload of people who come looking for a handout with inadequate means to properly offset the cost of the new "free" service they've acquired. The ColoradoCare folks know this, too. From their literature -

"*If there were a financial strain on ColoradoCare as a result of people with high cost health care needs moving to Colorado for
affordable health care, ColoradoCare could establish one-year pre-existing condition limits for new residents. Such limits would
need to be in compliance with Medicaid and Affordable Care Act waivers."


Now wait...pre-existing condition limits? Those are supposedly evil. I mean we told the big bad insurers they couldn't do that, but it's ok for the government to do it? Hypocrisy.
 
Old 05-13-2016, 12:48 PM
 
1,246 posts, read 919,712 times
Reputation: 1433
^The idea of losing admin level jobs from the private insurance when switching to to single payer is hilarious. You will still need the same level of beaurcracy as private if not more. There would be 0 savings and it wouldn't be free. You would just be taxed more. Yeah health care is free in Europe but you are in a 50% tax bracket. Still paying for it. Nothing the govt does is cheap or efficient. I still dont know why we have a post office anymore.
 
Old 05-13-2016, 03:27 PM
 
285 posts, read 272,554 times
Reputation: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by asusual View Post
[color="DarkGreen"]
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?
Defines "works."

There is plenty of dissatisfaction about medicare, both from people who think it does too little (and think it should do more) and it does too much. It depends on who you ask. As mentioned before, it is still a restricted program. You still have to work a certain amount in your life (or be married to someone who has worked a certain amount) to qualify for it. That's less of the "rights" model of health care and more of a "must work enought to qualify" sort of justice.

As for "works" in other countries, I've already given you examples of dissatisfaction, limits to care, etc. Others have mentioned how some people leave single payor systems to seek care here in the US. Some people would find that evidence of it not working in those countries.

Quote:
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.
That's not taking those who disagree with you seriously. Is it possible that there are people with well-reasoned notions of why a single payor system is undesirable because of the way they rank certain "goods" in their life?

For example, there are very smart, thoughtful, academic folks (philosophers/physicians/nurses/etc.) who have put in lots of theoretical and practical effort into understanding and thinking about medicine, how to deliver it, etc. who come down on both sides of the single payor issue. Some people think that the infringement on certain freedoms (such as how to live their life - taking risks like riding fast motorcycles without helmets, drinking/eating things that are not good for them, smoking things that alter their levels of consciousness, paying less taxes so that they can spend it on other things, etc.) that a higher taxation/single payor system would bring to pass is not acceptable, even for the common goods that higher taxes might bring about. Others are very happy to pay more taxes to bring those other common good things.

Could it be that those two sides (and there are other sides not mentioned) both have legitimate perspectives that conceive of justice differently? Perhaps one side thinks that it is unjust for those who live dangerously to have health care they didn't pay for, and another side (or maybe the same one) thinks that those who are born with genetic conditions that lead to a lifetime of chronic illness should get health care since it was not something they did to themselves? and another side conceives of health care as a right that all people should get (citizen or not) and as much as they can get the system to pay for? And in our liberal (in the classical sense) pluralistic western society, how do we work out those different perspectives?

That's the question that needs to be answered, and we haven't actually tried to have a real discussion about this in our society. We get all tribalistic in our entrenched camps and throw bogus buckets of mud at the other side as I mentioned before. Unrealistic/false buckets that are/have been shown to be simply untrue. And so we never make progress.

Again, maybe we will one day do single payor, but before we do, we need to work out a lot about what sort of common notions of justice and health we might hold, or else it will become rather authoritarian, which most people find problematic, especially for those who have the least power/ability to speak up for themselves. And when it comes to health/medicine, there are many who may fall into those categories for any number of reasons, not merely because they can't pay for it. (e.g. ethnic minorities, immigrants, disabled, chronically ill, etc.).
 
Old 05-14-2016, 10:25 AM
 
93 posts, read 53,185 times
Reputation: 92
"You mean the government insurance that requires people to buy possibly 2 or 3 private plans just to get close to the same coverage as those with private insurance get with their plans?"

What "government insurance" is that?
 
Old 05-14-2016, 10:49 AM
 
93 posts, read 53,185 times
Reputation: 92
"There is plenty of dissatisfaction about medicare, both from people who think it does too little (and think it should do more) and it does too much. It depends on who you ask. As mentioned before, it is still a restricted program. You still have to work a certain amount in your life (or be married to someone who has worked a certain amount) to qualify for it. That's less of the "rights" model of health care and more of a "must work enough to qualify" sort of justice."

Thanks much. I understand this. Do not forget that Medicare itself has been diluted by intrusions of the private market into it looking for a share of those luscious Medicare dollars. This is what the Plan D was all about and the link below is about the rip-off of the advantage plans in which, with Federal collusion thanks to the armies of well-paid lobbyists, seem to go on unimpeded and directly impacts the quality of care and the dissatisfaction among Medicare recipients.

Yet, despite its imperfections, I am always hearing that refrain,"can't wait until I am 65." Most I know who are on it, would not give it up to return to the crazy costs, limits, and restrictions of the free-market health care

I agree with you on the "rights" versus "must work enough," etc. As Bernie says, Medicare should be for all. There is no reason why it should not be for all and get rid of the private components of it that are trying to divide up Medicare for their profitable advantage.



Insurers Are Fleecing Us Out of Billions While Congress Looks the Other Way
 
Old 05-14-2016, 11:10 AM
 
285 posts, read 272,554 times
Reputation: 286
You still don't answer the question. Define "works". What is a successful health care system and how do you pay for it and how do you prevent costs from skyrocketing as people age and we get more people using the system? How do you justify limiting care wherever you choose to draw that line? How much health care is a right? Cosmetic surgery? Transplants? Elective ampuatatikns for body dysmoprhic disorder? Botox injections for crow's feet?

Who gets to decide those things and on what moral authority do they have the right to decide what health care would be covered?
 
Old 05-14-2016, 11:14 AM
 
93 posts, read 53,185 times
Reputation: 92
"The idea of losing admin level jobs from the private insurance when switching to to single payer is hilarious. You will still need the same level of beaurcracy as private if not more."

Absolutely no one has said that health care is for free. What we have said is that it would be free at the point of delivery. In other words, when you go to the doctor, you would not walk out of there owing thousands of dollars because of a deductible. It is not that it is free; you have been paying for it all along and when you need it, there it is for you. This is what happens with Medicare.

"There would be 0 savings and it wouldn't be free. You would just be taxed more. Yeah health care is free in Europe but you are in a 50% tax bracket. Still paying for it. Nothing the govt does is cheap or efficient. I still don't know why we have a post office anymore."

If there were zero savings then why is it that nations with universal type systems pay less than us? You say you would be taxed more, but add up the premiums, the co-pays, the deductibles, and then compare the total to what someone in a universal system pays in their system through taxes, and you probably would see how we pay more overall to get less. Also, you are subjected to losing your health insurance for whatever reason, whereas in a universal care system, no one loses their health insurance. You are also not subjected to yearly raises in premiums and deductibles, or sudden cancellation of plans, for example, and more.

I hope that when you say that "nothing the government does is cheap or efficient" you includes things like how much our government does it this way for the benefit of private enterprise, which is not always cheaper or more efficient. Think of the military-industrial establishment. And ColoradoCare would not be just another "government bureaucracy," but a separate entity run more like a co-op.

I think a post office is vital and necessary, despite how the net has changed its functions so dramatically as it is altering so many other traditional bulwarks like the music industry, to pick one at random, and how companies like Fed Ex would like to see it disappear so that they could take over its business and charge you more for the same things. Think of that.

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 09:52 AM.

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