George Hresko

George Hresko 1 day, 9 hours ago on Debate on Amendment 69 healthcare proposal continues

Dan K and Scott-- What about 71? If there was a needed reason for voting for it, both 69 and 70 are two! And, they, together signal that the front range left has gone much too far and needs to be reeled in. Notice that none of the Dems are saying they are Dems in their ads, and if you didn't know better you would believe that MB had not voted almost 100% with Harry Reid--sounds like a real reach across the aisle kinda guy.

0

George Hresko 5 days, 7 hours ago on Paul Hebert: Financial boon possible with Amendment 69

Dan--No, Scott didn't answer my question. He wrote about a way that insurance could be structured to provide for lower costs in Denver for a person living up here. I asked you if there were any reasons medical care costs (not insurance) of the providers might be greater here than down on the front range. That has not been answered but I will save you the effort. Of course costs up here are higher, why would they not be? Our population is de minimis compared to the front range while we have at least as effective access to medical care as a person living in Denver or Boulder etc. Obviously, such care spread over a smaller population base is going to be more costly. This is the downside of living where we do. WRT Scott's response to Carl, the ACA is in a death spiral, period. One only needs to look at the the co-op failures. The exchanges are being abandoned. The only way one will be able to salvage ACA is by gigantic taxpayer bailouts.

It would have been more simple then, and is more simple now, to address the specific medical issues that insurance is not addressing, rather than throw everything out. Medical care is much too complex to throw all into on giant garbage can and stir it up. Logic says address the individual issues, one-by-one, and fix them. Find ways to insure those with preexisting conditions without destroying coverage for the majority. ETC. 69 is going to cost a heck of a lot more than is being predicted, will not prevent medical providers from creating concierge-like practices, will not prevent folks from coming here from elsewhere with preexisting conditions, will cause folks to leave CO, will cause companies to not build, hire here. And the affront to place this as a constitutional amendment is simply the icing on the cake! Ask yourself where are all the usual elected suspects hiding on this issue?

0

George Hresko 5 days, 21 hours ago on Paul Hebert: Financial boon possible with Amendment 69

Scott, two points. My question was to Dan S. because he raised the issue of paying more for procedures in SS than in Denver. And, my question was about costs, not insurance cost or insurance coverage, but the cost that the provider incurs. I am still waiting for Dan S to reply, though Carl has done a very admirable job on debunking. I am expecting no response from him because most of this issue is simply about transferring costs to higher income persons, not about either reducing medical care costs or about improving medical care!

0

George Hresko 1 week ago on Paul Hebert: Financial boon possible with Amendment 69

Paul--Thus, if I understand, the savings you are mentioning are gross, they do not include the incremental costs outside the entities themselves. Is that right?

0

George Hresko 1 week ago on Paul Hebert: Financial boon possible with Amendment 69

Paul--It would assist understanding if you publish not only the results of your survey, but the calculations themselves. Perhaps you can post a link to them, or lacking that, the newspaper would publish an article with the details. Thank you.

0

George Hresko 1 week, 3 days ago on Residents divided over universal health care proposal

I would definitely like to know which of our state elected officials are supporting and / or endorsing Amendment 69. I have heard that the Governor is not. Are our two US Senators? What about our Congressmen? And our state elected officials? How many of them are supporting the passing of this Constitutional Amendment? I have looked but the information isn't readily apparent. You would think that if this is a good idea, there would be "well-known names" attached to it.

0

George Hresko 3 weeks ago on Residents divided over universal health care proposal

Ms. Spillane--Thank you for the information. As I read what you have written I find myself feeling there is a great deal more growing every larger government bureauacracy making decisions, and very little true competition. Competition--the route to improvement and lower costs--is what happens when she who spends the bucks has real choices in what to spend those on. Many thanks. Have a great weekend.

0

George Hresko 3 weeks ago on Residents divided over universal health care proposal

Neil--Nothing to do with due diligence. We are a small town where all of us are likely to bump into each other in the course of shopping at City Market, Safeway, up on the hill, or along the core trail, so I see that we should not behave like the folks in DC on the tube or even in Denver. We can talk fairly straight with each other, with respect, eliminate the talking points and do our best to understand the issues. That's it, nothing more. Have a great Labor Day weekend!

0

George Hresko 3 weeks, 1 day ago on Residents divided over universal health care proposal

Neil Pls chronicle the countries you are referring to. To my knowledge all--with the possible exception of Australia--are in significant flux, costs increasing and care being reduced from what is already less than ours. Compare five year survival rates for prostate cancer, wait times for MRI's, wait time for hip replacements, wait time for specialists. I think that this medical nirvana that folks dream about, independent of economic reality just does not exist. If you have actual experience in these countries I am certainly ready to hear about it. Thank you.

0

Prev