Colorado May Replace Obamacare with Single Payer

[Wheel Gun]

See, here's why single payer state plans will always struggle. At the federal level, socialized medicine can hide its true costs. Governments can print money and pay for it in many sneaky ways. They can always make it look cheaper than it really is, just by backdoor funding. States, on the other hand, can't do that easily. They can't print money. They'll have to find actual money somehow to pay for it.

Oh, and it will be much more expensive than now. When you put all people in one big pool, it is no longer "insurance". It's just healthcare financing. There are many public interest groups out there that are getting their "causes" included in the benefit packages (i.e., hospice, mental healthcare, elective procedures, etc.). When government agencies try to limit costs or exclude expensive procedures/drugs, public advocacy groups sue and judges always rule against the agency. So, costs climb and climb. Sure, it's fun to blame big pharma and big business, but the real costs come through advocates and courtrooms.

 

[dennishoddy]

The whole purpose of ostupid care was for it to fail and force a single payer system. Its currently doing just that.

 

[loudshirt]

I don't really have a problem with a single payer system. At least some problems would be fixed.

Almost anything is better than our current health "insurance" system.

 

[JD8]

Not that "single payer" is the answer, the U.S has too many diet related issues to even begin about single payer being feasible.

 

[_CY_]

See, here's why single payer state plans will always struggle. At the federal level, socialized medicine can hide its true costs. Governments can print money and pay for it in many sneaky ways. They can always make it look cheaper than it really is, just by backdoor funding. States, on the other hand, can't do that easily. They can't print money. They'll have to find actual money somehow to pay for it.

Oh, and it will be much more expensive than now. When you put all people in one big pool, it is no longer "insurance". It's just healthcare financing. There are many public interest groups out there that are getting their "causes" included in the benefit packages (i.e., hospice, mental healthcare, elective procedures, etc.). When government agencies try to limit costs or exclude expensive procedures/drugs, public advocacy groups sue and judges always rule against the agency. So, costs climb and climb. Sure, it's fun to blame big pharma and big business, but the real costs come through advocates and courtrooms.

you must be talking about Obama care which is NOT single payer .. if you think big pharma and big business IE healtcare chains are not part of the problem .. then their propaganda machine must be doing an excellent job .. wake up .. big business' entire mission is to make profits, as much profits as the market will bear.

Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. on Jan 1 raised the price of its new drug Hetlioz, which treats a sleep disorder in blind people, by 10%, to $148,000 a year, a spokeswoman said. Piper Jaffray analysts say the price of the once-daily capsule is now 76% higher than when it was introduced in 2014.

Martin Shkreli, former chief of Turing Pharmaceuticals, said in an email released by a House panel that raising a pill’s price 5,000 percent would produce “a very handsome investment.”

Martin Shkreli-style drug price hikes are everywhere

Shkreli Was Right: Everyone's Hiking Drug Prices

LOTS more examples ... Turing Pharmaceuticals increased the price of an older antimicrobial medicine by more than 5,000 percent.

now tell me how big pharma is not part of the problem of skyrocketing healthcare costs ... single payer would take control of costs!!

 

[OKCHunter]

Opening-up capitalism seems like a better answer to me - allow consumers to purchase medication from anywhere in the world and allow the purchase of insurance across state lines.

 

[Wheel Gun]

now tell me how big pharma is not part of the problem of skyrocketing healthcare costs ... single payer would take control of costs!!

Well, this kind of makes my case. In private, market-driven health insurance, insurers have complete control over their offered drug formulary and can control those costs. Now, there will always be members upset that their drug is not on the list, but by and large payers have some chance at containing costs. (BTW, as someone in that business, some outfits do a terrible job at that.) However, single-payer government plans create somewhat of a moral hazard here. Suddenly, there is one panel in charge of the formulary and pharmas can focus all their attention on selling to one buyer. This even includes helping advocacy groups to sue to get frighteningly expensive drugs added to the forumulary. Governments rarely win this battle and costs climb and climb. As you pointed out, pharmas are very effective at selling products to big plans with deep pockets and many of these drugs would never be tolerated by private insurers that are trying to hold down costs for members. (One exception: public/private drug rebate programs have done a decent job in tackling this problem in many areas.)

If you want to see how well a single-payer system would contain costs, look to the history of costs with Medicare. That's what this would look like.

Good discussion, CY. You brought up some good points. Thanks!

 

[Biggsly]

Opening-up capitalism seems like a better answer to me - allow consumers to purchase medication from anywhere in the world and allow the purchase of insurance across state lines.

That would have been too easy and would not have given more power to the government. Obama and the IRS is the only good solution for Americans.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

Down with capitalism!

Funny thing, 10 years ago, most people that were willing to work and wanted health insurance had health insurance, good health insurance. Today, not so much.

 

[4play]

So do some people think pharmaceutical companies should be part of this deal, what about all the OTC drugs, do they fall under this umbrella too? Will we still be able to buy OTC's and will they be regulated too? It was already mentioned about marketing these kinds of things but if you take away the payers/buyers (however you want to look at it) then where does all the competition go? If all these companies don't have to compete anymore then what is the use of all of them to be here.

A lot of profits from hospitals and specialists practices are used for research and development, same goes for pharmaceutical companies. If you start taking away their profits with reduced costs then who is going to pay for that?