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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-31-2016, 08:33 AM
 
28 posts, read 31,276 times
Reputation: 95

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by asusual View Post


"Stupid us, because my great great great great grandpappy and grandmammy came over here illegally lets just give illegals everything for FREE..."


So it's ok for you and yours to come over here for free without legal documentation, but not for anyone else?
My response was to your stupid generalization that we should give free healthcare to all illegal immigrants because Europe colonized North America starting in 1492!!!!

If you want to make this personal then we can. Actually my family immigrated to the USA 4 generations ago LEGALLY. Your point holds no water with me in that regard. Try again.

 
Old 10-31-2016, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Colorado
896 posts, read 482,598 times
Reputation: 973
Quote:
Originally Posted by zortation View Post
Whatever your doctor deems medically necessary to get you as close to a full recovery as possible. No more, no less. Healthcare isn't cheap and it only gets more expensive. The goal of universal health insurance is have healthy people who can be productive and happy and less of a health LIABILITY.
Whatever your doctor deems necessary is what we have now and we can't afford that. No other country provides unlimited health care.
 
Old 10-31-2016, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Colorado
896 posts, read 482,598 times
Reputation: 973
Quote:
Originally Posted by asusual View Post
Please tell me, if this law is not solvent in the future what safeguards are put in place to prevent my taxes going up even further? A simple question you have previously failed to answer.

For one, ColoradoCare will replace the health care premiums and deductibles, which are simply a tax by another name. I do not know what health insurance you have, but the tax of ColoradoCare will never be as much as the premiums and deductibles you pay now. Secondly, with ColoradoCare, you get to vote for whatever raises ColoradoCare must institute along the way. In other words, ColoradoCare has to put it to a vote. Insurance companies do not have to do this. They just crank them up when the spirit moves them.
For me, if Colorado care went into effect my health care cost would go up 10 fold. So in my case you are completely wrong.
 
Old 10-31-2016, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,886 posts, read 102,281,764 times
Reputation: 32946
Quote:
Originally Posted by asusual View Post
Please tell me, if this law is not solvent in the future what safeguards are put in place to prevent my taxes going up even further? A simple question you have previously failed to answer.

For one, ColoradoCare will replace the health care premiums and deductibles, which are simply a tax by another name. I do not know what health insurance you have, but the tax of ColoradoCare will never be as much as the premiums and deductibles you pay now. Secondly, with ColoradoCare, you get to vote for whatever raises ColoradoCare must institute along the way. In other words, ColoradoCare has to put it to a vote. Insurance companies do not have to do this. They just crank them up when the spirit moves them.
Yes, and they want you to believe that the $25 Bil they say will be collected will supplant the $30 Bil in premiums alone, let alone the deductibles and co-pays! All this will be saved through "efficiency" and elimination of "waste, fraud and abuse". What is the last government program you heard of that was efficient. Let's look at the VA hospital for example. "Waste, fraud and abuse" is trite. You can make arguments for unnecessary testing, all kinds of things really. You can point to cases of fraud, but what percentage is that and how is Colorado Care going to stop it? I'm not sure what the difference is between "fraud" and "abuse" as used in this phrase. Someone is still going to have to administer this program.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDog View Post
Whatever your doctor deems necessary is what we have now and we can't afford that. No other country provides unlimited health care.
We don't provide it here, either. Are you unfamiliar with "prior authorization"? We're more generous than a lot of countries, yes.
 
Old 10-31-2016, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
1,421 posts, read 1,196,978 times
Reputation: 1751
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkms View Post
What part of health care should be non profit? The Dr who spent 12+ years in college? The insurance companies who assume all the risk for 1-2% profit margins? The hospitals? Please elaborate.
The issue is that these services are for basic purposes, monopolies.

As an employee with health insurance, I don't get the option of BCBS, United or anyone else. I only get to choose Plan A or Plan B. If I don't chose an employer plan, it's not like they're going to give me their contribution portion of it so I can find my own plan. If you're buying insurance out of pocket, due to the limitations of states, there's only a handful of companies I can choose from, since BCBS Colorado is separate from BCBS Alabama and BCBS Oregon and I can't purchase insurance from them.

Then the hospitals. If I'm in an accident, it's not like I can go shopping around for the best costs. Most of the times, the costs aren't even published anywhere so it can be impossible to find out the costs until you're there. On elective procedures, you may be able to shop around, but you have to make sure that the doctors are "in network" and you lose the convenience factor. Most people aren't going to travel 2 states over for a knee replacement.

Finally, most drug research is funded by public taxpayers during university research or by donations. Hell, you could find the cure for cancer tomorrow that was 100% funded by donations to various charities. Yet the price for that drug would be astronomical. Yes, there's testing and everything. But as we've seen time and time again, drugs are significantly cheaper in Europe and Canada. How is it that they can have a drug for $30 and in the US, the same drug is $800?

I'd also like to point out the extreme level of corruption in the system.

Look at Luxottica -- in the eyewear industry.

They own the following stores: Sunglass Hut, Pearl Vision, Lenscrafters, Target Optical, Sears Optical and Glasses.com

They also own: Ray Ban, Oakley, Chanel, Burberry, Coach, Dolce & Gabbana, and other brands

They also own one of the largest eyecare insurance providers: EyeMed.

Because of them, there is little competition in retail eyecare. You pay for their insurance that is only really usable at one of their branded stores that only sell their branded frames.
 
Old 10-31-2016, 09:11 PM
 
147 posts, read 187,643 times
Reputation: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by caverunner17 View Post
...Finally, most drug research is funded by public taxpayers during university research or by donations. Hell, you could find the cure for cancer tomorrow that was 100% funded by donations to various charities. Yet the price for that drug would be astronomical. Yes, there's testing and everything. But as we've seen time and time again, drugs are significantly cheaper in Europe and Canada. How is it that they can have a drug for $30 and in the US, the same drug is $800?...
Completely false. Most drug discovery is performed by pharmaceutical and biotech companies using their own money. Very few academic institutions have the infrastructure to do it. NIH has some. Most people have no idea what is involved in drug discovery and development. Tens of billions of dollars in equipment, facilities, personnel, etc. I do have an idea. Did it for 25+ years. Very few drugs are discovered/developed at universities. They are not tasked to do this, it is not their societal responsibility. When Europe and Canada adopt a US style drug litigation system, their costs will go up 30 fold too. I'd rather adopt their drug litigation system and have our drug costs drop 30 fold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zortation View Post
If your house catches fire and the fire dept puts it out, why should taxpayers bail YOU out? For every excuse someone gives against public insurance, I can give one for:
Traffic accident
Sudden illness
Genetic disease
Workplace injury
It's called ESSENTIAL SERVICES. Healthcare is an essential service in every modern democracy except yours. Stop being so thickheaded.
Bad analogy. If a house burns down, the taxpayers do not bail anyone out. The homowners' insurance company pays. You know, the private one. If we don't like the insurance company, we can choose from a thousand others. One of the problems with US health insurance is that those choices have been removed or severely reduced. And in single payer? No choices.
Thickheaded? Hey, tell your ruling class to stop coming to the US for their health care (50,000 last year). Use their own.

Last edited by freewest; 10-31-2016 at 09:27 PM..
 
Old 10-31-2016, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
1,421 posts, read 1,196,978 times
Reputation: 1751
Quote:
Originally Posted by freewest View Post
Completely false. Most drug discovery is performed by pharmaceutical and biotech companies using their own money. Very few academic institutions have the infrastructure to do it. NIH has some. Most people have no idea what is involved in drug discovery and development. Tens of billions of dollars in equipment, facilities, personnel, etc. I do have an idea. Did it for 25+ years. Very few drugs are discovered/developed at universities. They are not tasked to do this, it is not their societal responsibility. When Europe and Canada adopt a US style drug litigation system, their costs will go up 30 fold too. I'd rather adopt their drug litigation system and have our drug costs drop 30 fold.
The discovery of the actual drug itself might be by big pharm, but some research leading up to that can be done by universities. I've had two friends, one at University of Chicago, the other at Rice working on projects dealing with cancer and various chemical reactions.

Of course, none of this explains the blatant highway robbery of the EpiPen that was completely funded by taxpayer dollars -- Big Pharma's dirty secret: EpiPen was developed entirely with taxpayer money

The whole med and pharma industry is corrupt and full of lobbyists with corporate interests at hand. That's what needs to change.
 
Old 11-01-2016, 08:45 AM
 
147 posts, read 187,643 times
Reputation: 291
Quote:
Originally Posted by caverunner17 View Post
Of course, none of this explains the blatant highway robbery of the EpiPen that was completely funded by taxpayer dollars -- Big Pharma's dirty secret: EpiPen was developed entirely with taxpayer money
Wow. I am old enough to remember when journalism was an endeavor for intellectuals. This article is titled as a taxpayer funded product, but then never talks about where taxpayer money was actually used to discover, develop, and market the product. Apparently, the author does not intellectually understand the difference between private investors (Survival Technology) and a paying customer, like the Department of Defense (DOD). Let me help you by summarizing this.

Survival Technology was a private company funded with money from private investors looking to make money (that's what businesses do). The EpiPen inventor, Sheldon Kaplan, worked there. His salary, equipment, facilities, etc., were all paid for by private investors. One of their customers was DOD. This is what the author considers "developed entirely with taxpayer money", having a taxpayer customer buy something that was, in reality, completely developed with private money. I think the author has an IQ below Forest Gump.

And why are EpiPens more expensive in the US than France? Because the device was developed in the US. That was a billion dollars invested in the US before even getting the product approved. They have about 12 years to recover that billion dollars before the EpiPen goes off patent (17 year patent life minus 5 years FDA approval). And France does not have the legal costs we have here in the US. They are the benefactors of American entrepreneurs. You're welcome.

The pharma industry has certainly had some issues that were rightfully punished (billions in fines). But overall, they have improved our health care exponentially. They are the most highly regulated industry there is. You people can buy into the evil pharma narrative if you like. The reality is much different.

Last edited by freewest; 11-01-2016 at 09:14 AM..
 
Old 11-01-2016, 09:19 AM
 
147 posts, read 187,643 times
Reputation: 291
And this is something I just don't get....

Why do you people who are always complaining about government waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption, now screaming for that same government to take over someting as important as health care? I just don't get this.
 
Old 11-01-2016, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
1,421 posts, read 1,196,978 times
Reputation: 1751
Quote:
Originally Posted by freewest View Post
Wow. I am old enough to remember when journalism was an endeavor for intellectuals. This article is titled as a taxpayer funded product, but then never talks about where taxpayer money was actually used to discover, develop, and market the product. Apparently, the author does not intellectually understand the difference between private investors (Survival Technology) and a paying customer, like the Department of Defense (DOD). Let me help you by summarizing this.

Survival Technology was a private company funded with money from private investors looking to make money (that's what businesses do). The EpiPen inventor, Sheldon Kaplan, worked there. His salary, equipment, facilities, etc., were all paid for by private investors. One of their customers was DOD. This is what the author considers "developed entirely with taxpayer money", having a taxpayer customer buy something that was, in reality, completely developed with private money. I think the author has an IQ below Forest Gump.
You're trying to separate product development costs and purchasing costs, which in reality, aren't separate.

Let me summarize this for you: The F-35 fighter jet is designed and built by Lockheed Martin, a private corporation. The jet would have never been built if it were not for the hundreds of billions of US dollars backing the program from the DoD (along with other nations who have ordered the fighter jet)

Lockheed Martin wouldn't have designed and built the jet if it were't for the DoD funding the costs of the development via purchasing the aircraft.

The point is that the cost of development might not be upfront and directly funded, but is rolled into the purchase price of the item.

Based on that article, the DoD was looking for a way to inject an antidote, approached the inventor of the EpiPen who was still designing his product and then essentially gave him a contract to design the product. So while the DoD may have not given cash to the inventor for the product, they did give him a contract to finalize his design and to produce the injector.



Quote:
Originally Posted by freewest View Post
And this is something I just don't get....

Why do you people who are always complaining about government waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption, now screaming for that same government to take over someting as important as health care? I just don't get this.
From Reddit:

I think the bigger issue is that we need to just accept the fact that the insurance model does NOT work for paying for healthcare.

Insurance is supposed to distribute risk among a large group of people. That's how it works.
But in order for the insurance model to work, the costs have to be relatively low and the risk has to be relatively low.

There's a reason why flood insurance is now through the federal government: It just reach a point where it was not profitable for the insurance companies to provide it anymore.
Healthcare is facing a similar problem.

Healthcare isn't like say fire insurance. With fire insurance, the overall risk is very low and when something does happen, the costs is relatively very little.

But with health insurance, neither of these things are true.

EVERYONE is eventually going to get old and sick and frail and some of us are going to be struck down with debilitating illnesses at a young age that we will need lifetime care for.

And healthcare costs are out of this world. Yes, insurance companies negotiate them down, but they're still incredibly high and god help you if you go out of network.

The only way that insurance companies can do this is just to charge people an arm and a leg for insurance, and we have the choice of either not paying and relying on ER care and bankruptcy or paying it and putting a huge portion of our income in a ****ty system.

Personally, I think the answer is obvious: Single payer system that can strong arm costs down to a manageable point.

You just need someone who can go "$40,000 for a surgery? Hahahaha, that's cute. You'll get $4,000 and you'll thank me for it."And only the government can do 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 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