Jump to content
Kaisers self interest couldn't be stated more clearly then by using their own statement taken from your post above.
" Our goal is to continue to deliver care in the communities we serve for years to come and this may not be possible under the new system.
We also believe that this amendment undermines the significant progress that has been made in Colorado through the implementation of health care reform and the Affordable Care Act. Following major accomplishments in reducing the number of uninsured, eliminating pre-existing conditions, establishing our state based marketplace for health insurance options, and creating essential health benefits that must be covered in all cases, Kaiser Permanente has supported health care reform every step of the way. Amendment 69 would undo these achievements, placing significant risk on our members during a lengthy and complicated transition to a new government-managed health care entity. The disruption to the system as a whole might be devastating."
Progress in the ACA that is laughable, the ones benefiting the most from ACA are the insurance companies and hydras like Kaiser, IMHO!h
Another useful and informative link from Phsicians for a National Health Program
Scott, here is the counter argument to your putting up Kaiser and their lack of support of CC who many see as a multi headed, administratively bloated behemoth who's real interest is in maintaining the status quo. In my mind the physicians themselves are where the rubber meets the road and on the front lines of the realities of our current system and can speak first hand on what universal healthcare has to offer. Maybe Dr. Iverson can add to this. Physicians for a National Health Program is listed below
Do you own due diligence George and as I said no one has a perfect system but at least they are not purely driven by $$$ and greed and help far more than they hinder. Remember; "Minds are like parachutes and work best when open."
Correct Scott it has not been done here but has been successfull in over a dozen industrialized countries around the world and although not perfect they have far fewer issues than our current system. So is it really that difficult to project a similar model onto a single state of 6 million residents, I think not. Colorado would make the perfect incubator/test case for just what you are proposing by evolving this from a single state to an eventual nationwide single payer system that many have wanted for years.
Besides, where would this country be if in our brief history we never stepped out and forged something new and innovative? After all the American entrepreneurial spirit thrives on risk thrives on "going where no man has gone before." So your argument that we can't possibly do this because it hasn't been done before flies in the face of all that we stand for and all that we have accomplished. That's my stump speech and now it's time to stand down. GOD BLESS AMERICA AND TINY TIM TOO!
I humbly stand corrected, it would in fact be mandatory and replace our broken free market system for affordable health care. Colorado has led the way in the past in spite of all the "sky is falling predictions" regarding the legalization of pot and this may well be the next Colorado innovation being a purple state and all. In the end I don't see how our current healthcare system with its profit driven motives can ever succeed at being available and affordable for all. How many seniors complain about their Medicare coverage, very few yet it was supposedly doomed from the start. The ACA is an abomination because it was a sell out to the insurance industry, the number one question should be is affordable healthcare a right or a privelage? I know where I stand, how about you?
Aguilar: Rocky Mountain Health Plans, at the end of the day, is still an insurer. In ColoradoCare, we’re all putting our money in, so in some ways it’s a cooperative. But it’s different from a cooperative because you don’t have to put money in if you don’t have a lot of money. The pure cooperative people tell us to stop calling it a cooperative, both because it’s mandatory and everybody doesn’t pay the same. But we like to call it a cooperative because the board is accountable to and elected by the people in the state.
Schneider: Tell me about where that money comes from.
Aguilar: You collect the funds through a premium tax—a 6.6 percent employer tax across the board and a 3.3 percent individual tax. If you’re self-employed, it’s the whole 10 percent, but because it’s tax deductible it ends up being less than that. The funds are collected through our taxes, but they’re transferred into a separate authority that is run by its own elected board of directors.
Schneider: What does that revenue buy?
Aguilar: We had a fiscal analysis done by Gerald Friedman, an economist at UMass, Amherst. He anticipated that with the Affordable Care Act, health care would be about 19.4 percent of the gross state product, and if we were to switch to this model, it would be closer to 15 percent. By Obamacare standards, the level of care would be the very top—Platinum Plus—covering 90 percent of your total health costs. We added in no copay for primary care and low copayments that the primary-care provider can waive if necessary to prevent longer-term costs. We also had it priced for everyone in state, regardless of documentation status, under the knowledge that we would not be turning people away for emergency care, so it made more sense to have up-front preventative care available for all the people who lived in the state. Vermont’s single-payer policy imploded because it was way too expensive for them. It’s a small state. But we have the numbers.
Everything I have heard and read to date does not indicate that this will be mandatory for all residents and if so then I apologies for any misleading statements. Ken I don't think that nebulous section you quoted clearly defends either of our positions. Time for everyone to do their own due diligence on this and report back, I for one may be less supportive if it is in fact a mandatory tax for all residents, but how else could they estimate $25 billion in funding.
Ken, please point out where it says that participation is mandatory and that all Colorado residents and businesses will be taxed regardless of usage?
I know facts can be very difficult to grasp especially for those that get caught up in political ideologies but how about just for a minute everyone put down their assumptions, agendas, ideologies and cynical expectations and look at this with open objective eyes. Mike you need to get your facts straight about what the ACA is and isn't before you start making assumptions about CC and then turn off the TV, take a deep breath and get some fresh air. The sooner everyone acknowledges that change is inevitable and all things are impermanent the happier everyone will be. Just my two cents for what it's worth.
Larry, if you don't use it you won't be taxed, I'm not sure why you would choose to use it instead of your supplemental insurance to Medicare. In all likelihood it would be more expensive than your supplemental insurance because it iwould likely be duplicating much of your Medicare coverage. I am not a representative of CC just a proponent. Hoping that as this moves forward answers to questions like yours will be forthcoming. In the meantime an accountant or financial advisor may be able to help you with the tax nuances/implications.
Larry that's what you have a financial advisor for and frankly CC's pros and cons probably have the lowest impact on seniors due to Medicare than any other demographic group.
Last login: Thursday, January 19, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |