Your thoughts on Colorado Care (Colorado Springs: co-ops, transfer, roofing)

[asusual]

"I dont think colorado care would change that at all."

ColoradoCare would change this in a big way. I have had the same problem you talked about, never knowing the prices and the $350 for 20 minutes. I once had a bill for $1500 for 15 minutes. The insurer refused to pay the claim from the hospital, though the medical people were "networked" providers. I fought with them for a year before they finally paid the claim. With ColoradoCare I would not have had to do this.

The reason, though, for this madness is that each health insurer pays a different rate for the same procedure. The hospitals negotiate with each insurer for prices that the insurer will reimburse for this or that procedure. They do not just throw money around. If an insurer is larger, for instance, they can wangle to pay lower prices because they have a greater volume of customers that they can steer through the hospital if it is "networked" with them. So, anyway, the costs are shifted around to cover these discrepancies as well as the uninsured. You with your insurance are paying for those without insurance and you do not even know it.

A universal care like ColoradoCare would be does not do this. They would negotiate a price of this or that with the hospitals and they would have the entire state as subscribers. Plus, the insured would not be footing the bill for the uninsured, like those who are insured do now, as every citizen is insured. This is one reason why nations have adopted universal care systems

[asusual]

"Colorado isn't paying for most people's insurance."

What about for municipal workers, state workers, schools, etc? Colorado...i.e...us...is paying for their health insurance through our taxes. And if the premiums, deductibles, etc. keep going up like they are there is going to be a time when the state -- meaning us -- can no longer afford it anymore and then what while happen?

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by asusual

"I wish they were proposing something a little more modest, sort of like Medicare, which has Part A (hospitalization) for everyone who paid into it, and Part B (major medical) for those who elect to pay a premium. Both of these Medicare programs have deductibles and co-pays as well. They are promising the stars and not asking for enough money to pay for the moon."

I am sure that they would have loved to have proposed something like expanding Medicare A/B to all, which would have been so simple, as you say, but that would require the political and legislative will in Colorado and nationally that is not there yet and will not be for many a decade. So I suspect that they had to go for this way.

I'm glad you can read minds. What I proposed is far more modest than what they've put on the ballot, and they're not asking for enough money.

[eatsDEN]

Originally Posted by asusual

.

A universal care like ColoradoCare would be does not do this. They would negotiate a price of this or that with the hospitals and they would have the entire state as subscribers. Plus, the insured would not be footing the bill for the uninsured, like those who are insured do now, as every citizen is insured. This is one reason why nations have adopted universal care systems

A resounding "no" on Amendment 69: Voters should reject ColoradoCare


Amendment 69: ColoradoCare: Vote no | The Pueblo Chieftain

"Amendment 69 is written in such a way that it has got a lot baked into it that you can't untangle if it were to get into the constitution," said Ian Silverii, the head of the liberal group Progress Now.


Many on the left, from labor unions to the Bell Policy Center, oppose the measure. Silverii worries voters won't approve future tax increases to keep up with healthcare costs, and that could cause the state to make deep budget cuts.


"It breaks my heart that we had to come out against ColoradoCare," Silverii said.

[bluescreen73]

Originally Posted by asusual

A universal care like ColoradoCare would be does not do this. They would negotiate a price of this or that with the hospitals and they would have the entire state as subscribers. Plus, the insured would not be footing the bill for the uninsured, like those who are insured do now, as every citizen is insured. This is one reason why nations have adopted universal care systems

ROFLMAO. Instead of paying for "the uninsured," I'll be paying for someone who has an insurance policy that they paid next to nothing for, and I'll be paying to cover their medical costs because they'll get treatment for free. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pick up the tab, and because I "make too much money" in the mind of collectivists (aka closet communists) it'll be people like me.

[djkms]

asusual what is your invested interest in this bill? And please dont just say something like concerned citizen or something like that.

I ask because you only created your account here after this thread started. You have only posted in this thread. You seem to want to only counter those against it with vague generalizations and pie in the sky conjecture.

Are you a sponsor of the bill? Did you help write the bill? I would imagine if you have any part of this bill - even a person who collected votes for the ballot measure you would be proud to say so. Just by your staunch defense of the bill leads me to believe you are invested in it.

I get it, we need our health care system fixed (Obamacare was and is a disaster by the way) but the issues the citizens have raised in this thread are by and large not addressed in this bill. There are too many what ifs and "just trust us to do the right thing" for any sane person to just hand over our health care.

Fact is this is a very poorly written constitutional amendment which frankly does not address even a fraction of the holes this bill possess. Even the liberal/democrat party who champions bigger government and more regulation and laws by in large doesn't even stand behind it. That should tell you something.

I will let the facts speak for themselves though. Just compare those apposed to those for. Just compare the amount of money of those for and against....

https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_Cre...ment_69_(2016)

The opinionated "news" articles can say whatever they want and try to sway opinion however they want but facts dont care about your feelings

[freewest]

Originally Posted by asusual

The reason, though, for this madness is that each health insurer pays a different rate for the same procedure. The hospitals negotiate with each insurer for prices that the insurer will reimburse for this or that procedure. They do not just throw money around. If an insurer is larger, for instance, they can wangle to pay lower prices because they have a greater volume of customers that they can steer through the hospital if it is "networked" with them. So, anyway, the costs are shifted around to cover these discrepancies as well as the uninsured...

Mom&Pop cupcake maker pays more for sugar than Duncan Donuts. Duncan can negotiate lower prices because they have more volume. That's called competition. But if the only user of sugar was Duncan Donuts (single payer), they can then dictate what the price of sugar is going to be. If the price is not enough to cover costs, the sugar providers will go out of business (Obamacare). You do not seem to understand that there are 2 sides to any economic transaction.

[asusual]

"No, but when private plans compete against subsidized plans, we all lose. what is needed is more competition in the market place,"

This would be true in theory, but in fact, competition usually turns into monopolies. Look at the airline industry. Since it has been deregulated, what has happened to it? There are fewer and fewer carriers now. And look what's happening in the health insurance industry. They are all turning into gigantic monopolies; if you think prices are high now, just wait until these hit you.

[asusual]

"Mom&Pop cupcake maker pays more for sugar than Duncan Donuts. Duncan can negotiate lower prices because they have more volume. That's called competition. "

I think you and I have different definitions of competition. To me, this is bullying. Duncan Donuts is a huge corporation and, because of their clout, they can force the lower prices for the cheap sugar that they fill their donuts with. The Mom and Pop cupcake maker does not have this power. If the sugar distributor does not want Duncan's prices, Duncan can always get it somewhere else, so the sugar distributor has no choice. The Mom and Pop does not have this muscle so the sugar distributors know that they can bilk them all they want to. In the end, the Mom and Pop, unable to afford the much higher prices that the sugar distributor is charging them versus Duncan, will probably accept Duncan's offer to buy them out.

It is the same with hospital prices. The uninsured pay a higher hospital rate than the insured. The hospitals know that they can also charge what they want, especially in rural areas, especially as they know that they have cornered that market. The health insurers are not pulling out of Obamacare because it is a failure, but as a way to show that Obamacare has no choice but to accept their prices and they want more profits from the ACA than we have already given them.

There are two sides to any economic transaction, but there is often more behind them than just the two sides. I look at what is behind these two sides.

[iknowftbll]

I am a military officer and Colorado resident stationed outside the state. Coloradocare is ZERO value added to me because my occupation provides healthcare for me and my family. If this bill passes I will be changing my residence to another state because I have no intention of taking a tax hike for a "benefit" that 1) I already have covered and 2) cannot use anyway because I'm not physically in CO.

I'll also be altering my post-military career plans if this passes and likely won't be returning to CO. The bill looks like a long shot at this point, so hopefully this won't be an issue for me.