Colorado May Replace Obamacare with Single Payer

[_CY_]

Canada is not fully single-payer. It varies by province. Last I heard from my Canadian colleagues, Ontario was not, but Quebec was. Tons of patients wait months or even years for approval for simple diagnostics like an MRI.

Unlike many folks who advocate single-payer systems, I have actually worked and practiced in a socialized medicine system. While it wasn't gov't-mandated single-payer, there were definitely mind-boggling delays in care as well as flat-out denial of treatment for some serious conditions for those who were beneficiaries of the state-run system. It's no utopia, let me tell you, and the things I saw and dealt with every single day would have modern-day Americans nearly rioting in the street with the limitations imposed. There were good aspects and bad aspects of the system - just like everywhere else. Including here.

was hoping you'd weight in .. no question there are bad along with the good. what worries me the most are non-sustainable runaway costs of healthcare in America. everything is designed to maximize (virtually unlimited) profits by all the major parties involved with the insurance companies adding some 40% to overhead alone.

there's LOTS of fat to trim from America's healthcare system which without doubt single payer would reduce and/or eliminate.

=======

Health care overhead is costing us big bucks
Sept. 16, 2014

WASHINGTON — Americans spend more than $9,000 apiece on health care every year. Ouch, you say. But how does it feel to know that more than $1,000 of that sum goes to administrative costs? Or that Americans spend more than $210 billion a year on the health insurance claims system?

Needless back-office spending is one of the biggest sources of waste in health care, according to health insurers, providers and academics alike.

In a recent Health Affairs article, the authors estimated that administrative expenditures account for 25.3 percent of the average American hospital’s annual spending. No other developed nation comes close.

Health care overhead is costing us big bucks | Physicians for a National Health Program

 

[JD8]

Yeah...... hand it over to the government. There's no wasteful spending and redundancy there LOL.

I still have to ask how anyone can believe that somehow magically the government will become streamlined and efficient when it comes to healthcare? CY are you putting any sort of critical thinking into this? or do you just google an article till it somewhat relays a point you agree with?

 

[OKCHunter]

it's just as insane to think that it cannot be done .. as pretty much the rest of the modern world already operates with a single payer system at a fraction of the costs and with much better results.

for instance Canada has a single payer system .. are you saying we cannot do what the Canadians are already doing?

I've talked with several people from Canada who say the healthcare system there sucks. They come to the US for significant issues; especially issues that need quick attention.

 

[_CY_]

Yeah...... hand it over to the government. There's no wasteful spending and redundancy there LOL.

I still have to ask how anyone can believe that somehow magically the government will become streamlined and efficient when it comes to healthcare? CY are you putting any sort of critical thinking into this? or do you just google an article till it somewhat relays a point you agree with?

again .. it's not a perfect solution as no solution is perfect. it's just not possible .. yes there are tons of negatives and loads of good.
no this topic didn't just come out of the clear blue sky .. have been worried about our healthcare system which is currently designed to bankrupt.
with just one major illness, medical bills even with insurance has the potential to wipe out a lifetime worth of savings/investments.

if you care to actually read any of my links .. those are carefully chosen to backup that particular point I'm focusing in on. anyone can allege anything on OSA, but backing it up by referencing articles from legit sources defends your point.

Obamacare has added $billions and $billions of costs overhead, which IHMO are not sustainable. yes it's added coverage to millions of people, but due to the fact that Obama didn't address the fundamental issue of runaway costs. but instead made runaway costs even worst. Obamacare is simply NOT sustainable.

whereas single payer while far, far from perfect does indeed address the problem of runaway costs. it's not by accident single payer countries costs 1/2 or less per capita and deliver a healthier population. single payer does this in large part by eliminating insurance companies' 40% overhead burden, controlling drug costs and less maintenance overhead.

Obamacare to add billions in insurance overhead costs, study says

May 27, 2015 12:47 p.m. ET

Single-payer system would save on administrative costs

Obamacare will cost insurers more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in additional administrative costs by 2022, a new study released Wednesday says.

The findings published in Health Affairs magazine call for a universal single-payer system because it would reduce, rather than add, to administrative costs.

The report says that over the eight years through 2022, the Affordable Care Act will tack on $273.6 billion in overhead. Some of that will be added to Medicare and Medicaid programs, but the bulk of it — $172.2 billion — will be borne by private insurance. That total increase, in both government and private insurance programs, amounts to $1,375 for each newly insured person a year, or roughly 22.5% of total government expenditures.

“Insuring 25 million additional Americans, as the [Congressional Budget Office] projects the ACA will do, is surely worthwhile. But the administrative cost of doing so seems awfully steep, particularly when much cheaper alternatives are available,” the report says.

It goes on to say: “Traditional Medicare runs for 2% overhead, somewhat higher than insurance overhead in universal single-payer systems like Taiwan’s or Canada’s. Yet traditional Medicare is a bargain compared to the ACA strategy of filtering most of the new dollars through private insurers and private HMOs that subcontract for much of the new Medicaid coverage.”

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

Saying that single payer is better than obamacare is like saying that getting shot in the ass is better than getting shot in the toe. How about we just not get shot at all???

The government is the reason that healthcare and healthcare insurance is unaffordable. Their stupid negotiated rates for Medicare patients are not negotiated to a fair rate, they are negotiated to a percent less than non-medicare patients are billed....and that right there is what it cost eleventy-billion dollars to treat the common cold.

 

[_CY_]

I've talked with several people from Canada who say the healthcare system there sucks. They come to the US for significant issues; especially issues that need quick attention.

yes waiting in line sucks .. but there's only so much resources to go around. just like emergency room triage, folks with a nasty cut in need of stitches has to wait for hours in line while folks with say heart failure that needs medical attention right NOW gets treatment first.

meanwhile the person in need of stitches is seething for having to wait for say 4 hours while seeing others that came in after him gets treated first. the same thing is happening in Canada. having to wait say 6 months to get your knee taken care of indeed would suck. but if they had a actual emergency they would move to head of the line.

a perfect example is Chainsaw injuries in Canada vs in USA. loggers/arborist are not the highest paid folks with some of the most dangerous work anywhere. a chainsaw kickback can cause life threatening injuries. a chainsaw injury in USA will all but financially bankrupt vs in Canada almost all bills are taken care of and probably life-flighted out of remote areas. arborist/loggers in Canada rave about the medical care after a major chainsaw accident. for proof visit Arboristsite ... took a chainsaw to the face

 

[JD8]

again .. it's not a perfect solution as no solution is perfect. it's just not possible .. yes there are tons of negatives and loads of good.
no this topic didn't just come out of the clear blue sky .. have been worried about our healthcare system which is currently designed to bankrupt.
with just one major illness, medical bills even with insurance has the potential to wipe out a lifetime worth of savings/investments.

if you care to actually read any of my links .. those are carefully chosen to backup that particular point I'm focusing in on. anyone can allege anything on OSA, but backing it up by referencing articles from legit sources defends your point.

Obamacare has added $billions and $billions of costs overhead, which IHMO are not sustainable. yes it's added coverage to millions of people, but due to the fact that Obama didn't address the fundamental issue of runaway costs. but instead made runaway costs even worst. Obamacare is simply NOT sustainable.

whereas single payer while far, far from perfect does indeed address the problem of runaway costs. it's not by accident single payer countries costs 1/2 or less per capita and deliver a healthier population. single payer does this in large part by eliminating insurance companies' 40% overhead burden, controlling drug costs and less maintenance overhead.

Obamacare to add billions in insurance overhead costs, study says

May 27, 2015 12:47 p.m. ET

Single-payer system would save on administrative costs

Obamacare will cost insurers more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in additional administrative costs by 2022, a new study released Wednesday says.

The findings published in Health Affairs magazine call for a universal single-payer system because it would reduce, rather than add, to administrative costs.

The report says that over the eight years through 2022, the Affordable Care Act will tack on $273.6 billion in overhead. Some of that will be added to Medicare and Medicaid programs, but the bulk of it — $172.2 billion — will be borne by private insurance. That total increase, in both government and private insurance programs, unts to $1,375 for each newly insured person a year, or roughly 22.5% of total government expenditures.

“Insuring 25 million additional Americans, as the [Congressional Budget Office] projects the ACA will do, is surely worthwhile. But the administrative cost of doing so seems awfully steep, particularly when much cheaper alternatives are available,” the report says.

It goes on to say: “Traditional Medicare runs for 2% overhead, somewhat higher than insurance overhead in universal single-payer systems like Taiwan’s or Canada’s. Yet traditional Medicare is a bargain compared to the ACA strategy of filtering most of the new dollars through private insurers and private HMOs that subcontract for much of the new Medicaid coverage.”

I read your links. I'm just not swallowing the koolaid, although the ACA costs prove my point about the government not being efficient. I remember all the crap that was thrown out there before the ACA, people with your mentality bought it. Then you had Obama claiming victory with 7 Million enrollees (which was a boldfaced lie because 80% of them were refugees kicked off ancillary plans), touting how much it will save is in the end.

Now you have reality..... Oklahoma for example has been turned into a BCBS monopoly for individuals, several small business plans have been cancelled, premiums have gone up at least on average ~20% per year, networks have contracted, and coverages has dropped significantly across the board.


Now again, since you refuse to answer my questions either out of ignorance of the subject, or it just migh compromise the single payer fairy tale. What do you think medicare costs the average individual? Do you somehow believe it's free? Why don't you take a poll here and see what the out of pocket cost is? Make sure you include part D.

 

[JD8]

a perfect example is Chainsaw injuries in Canada vs in USA. loggers/arborist are not the highest paid folks with some of the most dangerous work anywhere. a chainsaw kickback can cause life threatening injuries. a chainsaw injury in USA will all but financially bankrupt vs in Canada almost all bills are taken care of and probably life-flighted out of remote areas. arborist/loggers in Canada rave about the medical care after a major chainsaw accident. for proof visit Arboristsite ... took a chainsaw to the face

How about heart valve defects?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/cn-prime-minister-my-heart-my-choice

I'm sure it would all be better under Single Payer....... Bernie done promised me so.

 

[MadDogs]

Sorry whiny socialist underachievers, those who are progressively challenged in math, failed high school civics … and/or support Trump, Clinton or Sanders.

The math for single payer does not work out. Our scale of healthcare would require revenue beyond the reach of taxes. This is due in part to the fact that our Constitution does not allow for differentiation of social benefits based on alienage. Remember when Joe Wilson rudely but accurately said that Obama “lied” about illegal aliens being eligible for healthcare benefits? Under a national single payer/government plan they would be.

Again … cheese wieners like Trump (he is kind of orange), Sanders and Clinton will make statements that are key points to certain demographics who want free shit. But they have no ****ing way of paying for it. Just more “hope and change” being sold to stupid people that due to some freak act of nature missed the memo from Darwin.

 

[_CY_]

I read your links. I'm just not swallowing the koolaid, although the ACA costs prove my point about the government not being efficient. I remember all the crap that was thrown out there before the ACA, people with your mentality bought it. Then you had Obama claiming victory with 7 Million enrollees (which was a boldfaced lie because 80% of them were refugees kicked off ancillary plans), touting how much it will save is in the end.

Now you have reality..... Oklahoma for example has been turned into a BCBS monopoly for individuals, several small business plans have been cancelled, premiums have gone up at least on average ~20% per year, networks have contracted, and coverages has dropped significantly across the board.


Now again, since you refuse to answer my questions either out of ignorance of the subject, or it just migh compromise the single payer fairy tale. What do you think medicare costs the average individual? Do you somehow believe it's free? Why don't you take a poll here and see what the out of pocket cost is? Make sure you include part D.

calling data koolaid, that's from Physicians for a National Health Program "Physicians for a National Health Program is a non-profit research and education organization of 20,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals who support single-payer national health insurance", is certainly your prerogative.

Oklahoma has politicized acceptance of Obamacare in Okla. by refusing to accept federal funds for Medicaid. effectively locking out any new possible Medicaid enrollees, regardless if they qualify or not. where in the world do you get that I think Medicare costs are free? I've been maintaining costs for Obamacare and our current healthcare systems are unsustainable due to runaway costs.

these runaway costs are caused by: government regulations like laws preventing competition for drug prices .. massive 40% overhead added by insurance companies, big pharma charging exorbitant prices for drugs firmly into gouging territory because they can, prevention of insurance from competing across state lines, etc. etc.

every single point I've made has been backup by hard data from reputable sources. what else do you want me to do? I don't see you putting up supporting documents for your point of view. I certainly recognize you've got a right to see things as you see fit.

why don't you put up a poll, it's your idea? now what question have I refused to answer?