Jump to content
Lets say that you are right about Colorado Care costing the residents less, in Colorado. What happens to a resident who goes out of state is there insurance policy null and void? Do we get to pay our bills that accrue when we travel out of state? If Colorado Care is required to cover the Colorado Resident when they go out of state, by federal law, does Colorado Care then get to pay the walk in rates at all hospitals, negating any potential savings within the State of Colorado.
How about travelers to our state? Does their insurer then pull out of covering people who visit the state of Colorado - it seems like a reasonable assumption as foreigners are not eligible for health care in the US under their plans.
Their are so many unseen question, that writing this into the constitution is dumb. There are so many better ways of trying to enact this that could be addressed by the legislature, when a problem arises.
The system still is a sick care system and really does not address preventative care... which is good nutrition, exercise, lower stress and the like. You are simply applying a different set of band aids to the same underlying problem that will continue to grow. Executive pay can not be blamed for 17% of the cost of the current system. I would guess that if you reviewed their financial statements that it still is only 1-2% of the cost of the $30 billion that is being paid in Colorado.
What happens when the next flood of migrants come to Colorado in order to get their long term health care issues covered that are costing them an arm and a leg elsewhere? There has been a migration of people to the state for Pot related health benefits. That is also a very real potential problem that you are taking a major risk on in this issue.
Nancy, so this is a constitutional amendment, meaning that if problems within it and it's language are discovered a new vote is required to amend the constitution and that may not pass to correct the situation. Being a constitutional amendment is not the way to go.
Toss in that Colorado care will only contract with Colorado providers, then if on vacation and I get sick out of state break a leg, this that or the other do I get to pay the whole bill? Does Colorado care pick up the tab at walk in rates at said hospital 1.5 times normal insurance rate?
Yep let's take the risk because the current system is not working and yet you fail to look at the root causes of the problems and address those. Without doing so you are simply treating symptoms of problems and will have a far more costly solution. But i guess that creates more tax revenue.
Sure, redundant insurance administration. Well there are only 5-10 insurers nationally, so we are increasing the number of insurance agencies. Decreasing paperwork in providers offices how, the system seems to be the same wheel, with the same federal paperwork requirements, so call me a skeptic.
Throw out numbers without how it is proposed that it is going to work and you have a man behind the curtain simply trying to pull the wool over the people's eyes. So pray tell how are all of these savings going to be achieved, as I fail to see it and I think that if the Hospital association is so against it, then the plan is not very well thought out and simply is smoke and mirrors and we will get to deal with the aftermath once it happens.
Will the elected 21 person board receive a salary commensurate to a county commissioner? If so then the executive pay statement is moot as you will have 21 pay checks as opposed to one. I doubt that those board members will want to put in the massive amount of time trying to recreate the wheel without compensation.
Toss in the CEOs, CFOs and all other admin staff the entity will have and you'll probably have higher wages, especially when you throw in the Colorado public employee retirement plan.
Same type of system, run by some new created entity that is not going to have major start up issues. Simply doing what some primary care doctors did and charged an annual fee for all visits and not dealing with the reimbursement paperwork makes a lot of sense.
Keeping the same style of system and thinking that somehow the "profits" will realize massive savings is fallacy as every non-profit realizes that they have to profit from donations in order to keep the lights on. My favorite ex-bureaucrat called out profits and yet fails to comprehend that his pension and wages were the "PROFITS" of his labor. unfortunately common sense seems to have been left out of the discussion.
Why not make HSA's the rule of the land then. Put $5,000 into a medical savings account for all members of the state to cover their annual expenses, for them to manage, if their expenses go over, then have a catastrophic coverage insurance plan managed by an insurer. Allow them to keep 25% of whatever is left annually and the rest stays in a catastrophic health insurance pool to cover those big unexpected problems? With the state putting $2500/resident into the catastrophic insurance plan.
It seems to me that we fail to give credit to the individual for being able to control the problem will lead to a more sound system.
Oh well, that is the individualist in me versus the collectivist.
The current system is a sick care system and not working towards health, which is the ultimate solution, better health, through nutrition - which might cost more and should be rewarded as exercise should and anything that keeps one in good health.
By the way, even though it is non-profit it still needs to be profitable to pay wages of all staff. Those government officials that think profit is an evil word fail to realize that their pay represents profit for their labor. Profit for the labor of the admins, which will probably be paid more than the school super here, with lots of benefits, and who knows how much support staff as there will be little oversight.
Any studies you suggest are simply that studies, that can be massaged to present an outcome in whatever favorable way that is desired.
Look at the systems that seemed to be moving the needle in the right direction prior to Obamacare for solutions. Primary care Doctors that did not need to deal with insurance carriers as their patients payed an annual fee to them and had no deductible for any number of visits, coupled with a catastrophic plan. All I see is a system that is more of the same and might reduce the rate of increase of costs, but really does not work at reversing the underlying causes of excessive costs in the health care realm.
Scott I was not talking of Hospitals, I was speaking of insurance companies basing premiums upon what claim history is and if those costs go up, then there rates also do. They do need to try and control their payouts a bit, but rising costs benefit their bottom line.
Kaiser is a good model, so is the model where primary doctors charge a monthly fee for all services and require a catastrophic plan. That is not what is being proposed, nor does the plan really work at reducing any of the real costs, they can claim all these admin costs are going to go down, if they fundamentally change how doctors are paid based on the easier model, a standard fee per client per month and no paperwork is needed, then maybe it will go down. But I do not believe that is what is proposed.
Because Scott, they don't have a vested interest in keeping costs down just as Colorado cares won't care much. The insurers, don't mind costs going up, as in general that their premiums will follow.
The only real way to control costs is to have the insured become part of the equation where possible, giving them a portion of whatever premium that would be paid for "good behavior" when they fall below annual expense amounts. Have primary care doctors get a flat fee for patients they see annually no matter the number of visits and have them work towards better health with the patient and offer rewards for reducing annual costs of ongoing care and so on and so forth. Just having universal care paid by wage taxes, isn't going to change much. Have the primary care doc and patient be a part of the solution towards reducing costs
Nancy, this legislation is focusing on one variable, the cost of healthcare and really insurance. That is really the end result or target on the horizon. We/You/this legislation are striving to hit the bullseye by moving the target to end up where the arrow is going to hit/we hope. That requires a lot of effort, that by examining the whole of the system you could probably come closer by making smaller changes to the variables (root causes) of what pushes the arrow closer to or further from the bulls eye.
The complexity of the system requires that one try and make small/easy changes to the system and hope that those changes do not adversely effect the broader goals we hold as a society. Leaving the world better for future generations.
The most basic component of our health is the food we put into our bodies. Farm subsidies skew how food is grown towards systems that work for the commodity markets, tractor, fertilizer dealers and so on. Those subsidies were set up to help with cheap food and yet it is very expensive when one considers the added health care expenses of eating food(primarily wheat) that was harvested using roundup to kill it so that the seed was ready for harvest when the $500,000 combine arrives as those need to run nearly 24-7 to justify the expense.
I could talk for days if not weeks on our food system, why I have tried fighting the "system" and have grown tired of trying to make a difference on my own. Really want someone to invest in my operation today so I am no longer paying to work sometimes 80 hours a week in the hope that I am making a positive difference for the world while foregoing things that I hold important in my life.
Oh well the point is quit trying to treat symptoms and address the root causes of our problems.
Peace and out
Last login: Thursday, July 28, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |