PDA

View Full Version : New health care is good economics



sinner
02-24-2011, 09:07 PM
This study was just published by the Colorado Trust, a non partisan Health foundation.
ABSTRACT
The Future of Colorado Health Care: An Economic Analysis of Health Care Reform and the Impact on Colorado’s Economy projected that health care cost growth will be between 5.5% and 17% lower in Colorado than it would have been without reform. This translates into premiums for employer-sponsored insurance in 2019 that are between 10% and 25% lower due to lower overall cost growth. This means that families and businesses in Colorado could expect premiums for employer-sponsored insurance to be $1,962 less per year for individual coverage and $3,917 less per year for family coverage in 2019 than they would have been without federal health care reform.
The study also projects that increasing health insurance coverage in Colorado will spur increased economic activity and create more jobs, even after accounting for the costs of financing reform. In 2019, state economic output should be nearly 1% higher than it would be without reform and there will be roughly 19,000 new jobs as a result of the coverage expansion.
Key reasons for these savings include: EXPAND COVERAGE AND LOWER UNCOMPENSATED CARE COSTS. It is estimated that uncompensated care would have cost Coloradans $1.8 billion dollars in 2019 without federal health care reform. The ACA calls for expanded coverage, equalization of Medicaid reimbursement levels and for private payers to hold down their cost increases.
MAKE THE MEDICAL SYSTEM MORE EFFICIENT. The ACA encourages health system reforms such as paying health care providers for value rather than for volume and the expansion of programs like medical homes, accountable care organizations and health information technology.
INCREASE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND NEW JOBS. As more Coloradans obtain health insurance and seek medical care, there will be an increased demand for health care workers. In turn, this increased demand will lead to more health care-related job opportunities in Colorado, resulting in more individuals with disposable income to buy other consumer goods from Colorado businesses.
IMPROVE PRODUCTIVITY WITH IMPROVED HEALTH. The economic losses from the uninsured are between $1.82 billion and $3.87 billion in Colorado per year.1 At least some of this value could be recouped through healthier, more productive workers who would earn more income and thereby increase the state’s tax base.

Thought some of you basher of the new health care might like Colorado research facts.

BrianW
02-25-2011, 09:44 AM
Thought some of you basher of the new health care might like Colorado research facts.

Regardless of good intentions, positive economic impact etc, the real fact, not research, is that an unconstitutional law is void.

Julie R.
02-25-2011, 09:51 AM
This study was just published by the Colorado Trust, a non partisan Health foundation.

Non partisan? Who hired them? Sounds like a bunch of rosy projections cooked up as PR to me.



Thought some of you basher of the new health care might like Colorado research facts.

Since when did projected figures and assumptions that all fraud will disappear in 8 years become "research facts"? I'd call this entire abstract a hypothesis, and a not-very-realistic one at that. The same liberals that probably imposed these "reforms" on the citizenry probably dangled a lucrative grant to some of their liberal pals to come up with that biased report. :::::eyeroll::::::::

sinner
02-25-2011, 07:28 PM
Regardless of good intentions, positive economic impact etc, the real fact, not research, is that an unconstitutional law is void.

I understand that only part of the bill was "found" uncosnstitunal. You might want to check that out. Also you can research more about the Colorado Trust @ www.coloradotrust.org rather than "shoot" from your biasis opinion on every thing!

sinner
02-25-2011, 07:31 PM
Non partisan? Who hired them? Sounds like a bunch of rosy projections cooked up as PR to me.



Since when did projected figures and assumptions that all fraud will disappear in 8 years become "research facts"? I'd call this entire abstract a hypothesis, and a not-very-realistic one at that. The same liberals that probably imposed these "reforms" on the citizenry probably dangled a lucrative grant to some of their liberal pals to come up with that biased report. :::::eyeroll::::::::

Some where I missed your crenditials as a health economist!
Everything and every one who does not see the world as you see it must be wrong. Buy the way is Ducks Unlimited also wrong about their predictions?

dnf777
02-25-2011, 07:41 PM
Non partisan? Who hired them? Sounds like a bunch of rosy projections cooked up as PR to me.



Since when did projected figures and assumptions that all fraud will disappear in 8 years become "research facts"? I'd call this entire abstract a hypothesis, and a not-very-realistic one at that. The same liberals that probably imposed these "reforms" on the citizenry probably dangled a lucrative grant to some of their liberal pals to come up with that biased report. :::::eyeroll::::::::

Actually, I sort of agree with you on that. It reminds me a lot of another prediction that abjectly failed to live up to its promise:

Tax cuts for the richest Americans will stimulate the economy and create job growth!

One is doubtful, the other has been proven false.

sinner
02-25-2011, 08:39 PM
Colorado moves forward on health care: Our governor Owens (very conservate Republican) had established a blue ribbon pannel to study Colorado's health care issues. He was far right and from Colorado Springs (and believe me very right of center) The pannels findings support much of the federal plan as need in Colorado. Below is a recent articel in the Springs paper .
BARA COTTER
The Gazette
A federal judge’s ruling in January that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional was enough to convince the governor of Alaska that he would have no part of the controversial health care reform law.

“The state of Alaska will not pursue unlawful activity to implement a federal health care regime that has been declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” Gov. Sean Parnell announced last week.

Don’t expect the same response in Colorado. With a boost from federal grants, the state has been steadily moving ahead on health care reform, and there are no plans to stop, even though Colorado and Alaska were party to the legal challenge in Florida.

“It’s the federal law, and until it’s changed, it’s our duty to implement it,” says Lorez Meinhold, director of health reform implementation for the governor’s office. “It’s not like the court decision in Florida is the final word. It’s destined to be appealed to the higher court.”

Already, Meinhold says, the law has had what she called “real benefits” in Colorado. Since July, more than 600 long-term uninsured Coloradans with pre-existing conditions have gotten coverage through a federal high-risk pool, and there are projections that up to 4,000 people in the state will eventually be part of the GettingUSCovered program.

Colorado received a $90 million grant to fund GettingUSCovered, which also receives money through member premiums that, in El Paso County, can range from $116 a month for a young nonsmoker to $642 a month for a smoker age 65 or older.

“It’s not cheap, but for folks who need insurance, they can now obtain it,” Meinhold says.

GettingUSCovered is considered a “bridge” program that will run through Dec. 31, 2013. After that, assuming the law is upheld after its inevitable trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, the health care reform law will allow people with pre-existing conditions to purchase coverage through health insurance exchanges, described as a virtual marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to easily compare plans offered by participating insurers and pick one that’s best for them. The exchanges also will be an avenue for people to get subsidies for premiums, if they qualify based on their income.

Other work that’s underway in Colorado includes:

• Planning for the state’s health insurance exchange. A federal grant of about $1 million is being used to pay for consultants, statewide community outreach meetings and data analysis to determine who might use the exchange and how it should work, says Joan Henneberry, director of health insurance exchange for the state. A data advisory work group is already meeting, and another that will enlist small employers to address their needs is being formed.
Officials also are working with lawmakers on enabling legislation to create an organization to run the exchange.
“We have two years to build what is essentially a start-up company that creates this marketplace for consumers to come,” Henneberry says. “In the next two years, we have to do everything that any other small business would do: develop operations plans, work out functions, IT and infrastructure, build a budget.”

• Enhancement of insurance rate oversight. The state Division of Insurance received a $1 million federal grant to review insurance rates, oversee premium increases and take action against insurers who are going after “unreasonable” rate hikes. “It ensures that increases are justified,” Meinhold says.

• Participation in the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. The Affordable Care Act created the program to help employers and unions maintain coverage for retirees who are at least 55 years old but not yet eligible for Medicare. The program has about $5 billion available to reimburse participating employers and unions for medical claims for early retirees, their spouses and their dependents. The reimbursements can be used to reduce employer health care costs, lower premiums for the retirees, or both. Meinhold says about 40 employers and unions in Colorado have been accepted into the program, including El Paso County, with about 5,000 participants nationwide.

Meinhold says the state also has received a grant to figure out how to add more primary care doctors, physicians’ assistants and other front-line providers to the workforce.

“I think we have seen positive impacts in the state,” Meinhold says.

County officials also are being brought into discussions on implementation of the new law to ensure that “what we do moves Colorado forward,” Meinhold says. “We see counties as our partners.”

Even as Meinhold and Henneberry plow ahead with health care reform, the Colorado Attorney General’s office is continuing to fight it, but isn’t ready to go to the mat over the Florida judge’s ruling.

“Basically, the federal government still has time to appeal the ruling and get a stay, so we’re still in that period of time right now, so there’s no contradiction in what Colorado is doing and the judge’s order,” says Mike Saccone, spokesman for the attorney general’s office. “If the federal government declines to appeal, the there could be an issue with Colorado implementing the health care reform law.”

But with three federal judges ruling in favor of the law and two against so far, almost everyone expects the law to eventually wend its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the meantime, Meinhold and Henneberry say, Colorado needs to press on with health care reform.

“I’d say most states feel we should proceed with our planning until we’re told otherwise,” Henneberry says. “We don’t think it’s wise to just bring everything to a screeching halt and then get a year behind.”

Henneberry also says the people who attended the 10 community meetings held across the state last year were in favor of having the state in charge of its exchange. States that don’t create their own face the prospect of the federal government stepping in and doing it for them.

“We do not want to default to the federal government and have them do this for us,” Henneberry says.

And should the U.S. Supreme Court strike down all or parts of the law?

“There’s a lot we can continue to do, even without the federal law,” Henneberry says, “but without the federal financing, it will be hard to cover all our uninsured, and we’ve heard loud and clear in Colorado that people expect us to do something about the uninsured.”

State officials working to implement the new law say that more than 500,000 uninsured Coloradans will get coverage when it’s in full effect in 2014.



Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/health-113539-judge-ahead.html#ixzz1F1a82uTX

caryalsobrook
02-25-2011, 08:55 PM
Colorado moves forward on health care: Our governor Owens (very conservate Republican) had established a blue ribbon pannel to study Colorado's health care issues. He was far right and from Colorado Springs (and believe me very right of center) The pannels findings support much of the federal plan as need in Colorado. Below is a recent articel in the Springs paper .
BARA COTTER
The Gazette
A federal judge’s ruling in January that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional was enough to convince the governor of Alaska that he would have no part of the controversial health care reform law.

“The state of Alaska will not pursue unlawful activity to implement a federal health care regime that has been declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” Gov. Sean Parnell announced last week.

Don’t expect the same response in Colorado. With a boost from federal grants, the state has been steadily moving ahead on health care reform, and there are no plans to stop, even though Colorado and Alaska were party to the legal challenge in Florida.

“It’s the federal law, and until it’s changed, it’s our duty to implement it,” says Lorez Meinhold, director of health reform implementation for the governor’s office. “It’s not like the court decision in Florida is the final word. It’s destined to be appealed to the higher court.”

Already, Meinhold says, the law has had what she called “real benefits” in Colorado. Since July, more than 600 long-term uninsured Coloradans with pre-existing conditions have gotten coverage through a federal high-risk pool, and there are projections that up to 4,000 people in the state will eventually be part of the GettingUSCovered program.

Colorado received a $90 million grant to fund GettingUSCovered, which also receives money through member premiums that, in El Paso County, can range from $116 a month for a young nonsmoker to $642 a month for a smoker age 65 or older.

“It’s not cheap, but for folks who need insurance, they can now obtain it,” Meinhold says.

GettingUSCovered is considered a “bridge” program that will run through Dec. 31, 2013. After that, assuming the law is upheld after its inevitable trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, the health care reform law will allow people with pre-existing conditions to purchase coverage through health insurance exchanges, described as a virtual marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to easily compare plans offered by participating insurers and pick one that’s best for them. The exchanges also will be an avenue for people to get subsidies for premiums, if they qualify based on their income.

Other work that’s underway in Colorado includes:

• Planning for the state’s health insurance exchange. A federal grant of about $1 million is being used to pay for consultants, statewide community outreach meetings and data analysis to determine who might use the exchange and how it should work, says Joan Henneberry, director of health insurance exchange for the state. A data advisory work group is already meeting, and another that will enlist small employers to address their needs is being formed.
Officials also are working with lawmakers on enabling legislation to create an organization to run the exchange.
“We have two years to build what is essentially a start-up company that creates this marketplace for consumers to come,” Henneberry says. “In the next two years, we have to do everything that any other small business would do: develop operations plans, work out functions, IT and infrastructure, build a budget.”

• Enhancement of insurance rate oversight. The state Division of Insurance received a $1 million federal grant to review insurance rates, oversee premium increases and take action against insurers who are going after “unreasonable” rate hikes. “It ensures that increases are justified,” Meinhold says.

• Participation in the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. The Affordable Care Act created the program to help employers and unions maintain coverage for retirees who are at least 55 years old but not yet eligible for Medicare. The program has about $5 billion available to reimburse participating employers and unions for medical claims for early retirees, their spouses and their dependents. The reimbursements can be used to reduce employer health care costs, lower premiums for the retirees, or both. Meinhold says about 40 employers and unions in Colorado have been accepted into the program, including El Paso County, with about 5,000 participants nationwide.

Meinhold says the state also has received a grant to figure out how to add more primary care doctors, physicians’ assistants and other front-line providers to the workforce.

“I think we have seen positive impacts in the state,” Meinhold says.

County officials also are being brought into discussions on implementation of the new law to ensure that “what we do moves Colorado forward,” Meinhold says. “We see counties as our partners.”

Even as Meinhold and Henneberry plow ahead with health care reform, the Colorado Attorney General’s office is continuing to fight it, but isn’t ready to go to the mat over the Florida judge’s ruling.

“Basically, the federal government still has time to appeal the ruling and get a stay, so we’re still in that period of time right now, so there’s no contradiction in what Colorado is doing and the judge’s order,” says Mike Saccone, spokesman for the attorney general’s office. “If the federal government declines to appeal, the there could be an issue with Colorado implementing the health care reform law.”

But with three federal judges ruling in favor of the law and two against so far, almost everyone expects the law to eventually wend its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the meantime, Meinhold and Henneberry say, Colorado needs to press on with health care reform.

“I’d say most states feel we should proceed with our planning until we’re told otherwise,” Henneberry says. “We don’t think it’s wise to just bring everything to a screeching halt and then get a year behind.”

Henneberry also says the people who attended the 10 community meetings held across the state last year were in favor of having the state in charge of its exchange. States that don’t create their own face the prospect of the federal government stepping in and doing it for them.

“We do not want to default to the federal government and have them do this for us,” Henneberry says.

And should the U.S. Supreme Court strike down all or parts of the law?

“There’s a lot we can continue to do, even without the federal law,” Henneberry says, “but without the federal financing, it will be hard to cover all our uninsured, and we’ve heard loud and clear in Colorado that people expect us to do something about the uninsured.”

State officials working to implement the new law say that more than 500,000 uninsured Coloradans will get coverage when it’s in full effect in 2014.



Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/health-113539-judge-ahead.html#ixzz1F1a82uTX

Did you ever wonder where all this federal money comes from. Tell your story to all those who had their health insurance premiums go up as much as 30% last year. Do you think that when the federal Gov. put 15 million more people on medicaid immediately after passage of the bill (they will now pay nothing for all treatment and those insured will have to make up the cost) might be the reason for such an increase in premiums?

sinner
02-25-2011, 09:32 PM
You have been paying for them for years! Cost shifting by the health care industry is alive and well.
Those that can have been paying for the cost of health care at least after WWII.
How much profit did your health insurance company have the last 5-10 years?

Julie R.
02-25-2011, 10:29 PM
Some where I missed your crenditials as a health economist!
Everything and every one who does not see the world as you see it must be wrong. Buy the way is Ducks Unlimited also wrong about their predictions?


Where did I say I was a health care economist? :rolleyes: I simply pointed out that just because someone puts in writing a bunch of rosy projections and hypothetical numbers for what things might be like 8 years down the road doesn't exactly meet my idea of factual. I'd probably feel the same way if DU published a study of projected habitat gain 8 years in the future. However, if said study was commissioned in order to solicit donations for purchasing said habitat, I'd understand why it was done. Gnome sane? ;-)

BrianW
02-25-2011, 11:44 PM
I understand that only part of the bill was "found" uncosnstitunal. You might want to check that out.

Really? Only one part? YOU might want to check that out. http://www.healthcarelawyerblog.com/2011/01/florida_judge_declares_ppaca_u.html

A federal district court judge in Pensacola, Florida dealt the controversial Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (http://www.healthcarelawyerblog.com/ppaca/) another blow today by holding the entire Act to be void because a key provision - the individual mandate - does not pass constitutional muster.

And if "your" state wants to move ahead on HCR, implementation of PPACA, that's fine by me.
But as of right now, from a constitutional basis, there's no requirement to do so. It's not my "bias" it's well established legal precedent. Otherwise PBO's Justice Dept wouldn't have to request "clarification of the judge's ruling", ie an order to for states to continue implementation during the appeals process.
Also, through nullification, the state(s) can refuse to enforce the law even if the SCOTUS rules in the Admin's favor. IE, medical marijuana.
And I hope Idaho does just that, if it comes down to it.


Also you can research more about the Colorado Trust @ www.coloradotrust.org (http://www.coloradotrust.org/) rather than "shoot" from your biasis opinion on every thing!No, I don't need to look at your ref'd website to know that "expert projections' are only right on one thing,
- that they are consistently wrong!
Ie, today headlines that contrary to "forecasts" the 4th quarter GDP was only + 2.8% as opposed to "estimates" of 3.2. When you're talking B's of $'s, that's a huge amount.
How many times have we heard "Unemployment unexpectedly rose to ... " or "Despite previous growth indicators/forecasts the "X" quarter "Y" market fell "Z" % ..."
That's fine, trust your sources.


BTW, please don't clutter the O-care issue by dragging DU into this. That's a whole 'nother issue by itself.

sinner
02-26-2011, 11:45 AM
"BTW, please don't clutter the O-care issue by dragging DU into this. That's a whole 'nother issue by itself."
__________________

Just a comparison to demonstrate a mind set.

Roger Perry
02-26-2011, 12:44 PM
I understand that only part of the bill was "found" uncosnstitunal. You might want to check that out. Also you can research more about the Colorado Trust @ www.coloradotrust.org (http://www.coloradotrust.org) rather than "shoot" from your biasis opinion on every thing!

Sinner, if you are not "one of them" you will get attacked. The right --ies agree only on their points of views. If you do not agree with them you are wrong period.

sinner
02-26-2011, 01:33 PM
Sinner, if you are not "one of them" you will get attacked. The right --ies agree only on their points of views. If you do not agree with them you are wrong period.

Amen!
I apprecate a "closed mind". I live among 'em in Colorado Springs but I do like to agitate them.

Roger Perry
02-26-2011, 02:06 PM
Amen!
I aprecate a "closed mind". I live among 'em in Colorado Springs but I do like to agitate them.

Uh Oh, looks like I have competition. :lol:

BrianW
02-26-2011, 06:25 PM
I apprecate a "closed mind".

Then I guess you appreciate the Founder's "closed minds" as well, as to the "effect" of an unconstitutional law.
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it it exercised is void.
NO legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution is valid. "
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78

Federal actions taken outside the scope of federal power are not laws, they are acts of usurpation. In other words, an unconstitutional federal “law” is no law at all, and the states and their people are not bound to obey them.

Have fun down there with your O-care, or "CO-care" as the case may be. :D

BrianW
02-27-2011, 01:39 PM
The town hall/Tea Party event I attended yesterday AM was with local State Representatives/Senators, as opposed to Congressional, but I heard a lot of good info about what's happening in Boise this session.

For instance, the Legislature is trying to pass "Any Willing Provider" legislation that would end managed care organizations (MCO) practice "to selectively contract with only those providers necessary to enable the organization to provide patients with adequate access to services, and quality, cost-effective health care."

This proposal would also require health care providers such as hospitals to fully disclose the cost of procedures before the service(s) is provided.

For example that Dr. "D" ;) has privileges at "ABC Medical Center" & "XYZ Hospital" and gets the same fee. Both are rated as high quality facilities and XYZ actually has a lower incidence rate of cross infection mainly since it's a smaller hospital. A colonoscopy costs say $4400 at ABC but XXZ charges only $1100. However, Brian's MCO, Blue Cross of ID, has selected ABC as it's sole in-network provider. At an 80/20, Brian will pay $880 out of pocket for his procedure as opposed to $220 if it were done at XYZ, (after meeting the annual deductible).
Yes, Brian still has his "freedom of choice" and cam elect to go to XYZ but at a higher cost

This is the kind of HCR & "good economics" I "think" we need.
What say you, Grandpa et al?

sinner
02-27-2011, 04:03 PM
The town hall/Tea Party event I attended yesterday AM was with local State Representatives/Senators, as opposed to Congressional, but I heard a lot of good info about what's happening in Boise this session.

For instance, the Legislature is trying to pass "Any Willing Provider" legislation that would end managed care organizations (MCO) practice "to selectively contract with only those providers necessary to enable the organization to provide patients with adequate access to services, and quality, cost-effective health care."

This proposal would also require health care providers such as hospitals to fully disclose the cost of procedures before the service(s) is provided.

For example that Dr. "D" ;) has privileges at "ABC Medical Center" & "XYZ Hospital" and gets the same fee. Both are rated as high quality facilities and XYZ actually has a lower incidence rate of cross infection mainly since it's a smaller hospital. A colonoscopy costs say $4400 at ABC but XXZ charges only $1100. However, Brian's MCO, Blue Cross of ID, has selected ABC as it's sole in-network provider. At an 80/20, Brian will pay $880 out of pocket for his procedure as opposed to $220 if it were done at XYZ, (after meeting the annual deductible).
Yes, Brian still has his "freedom of choice" and cam elect to go to XYZ but at a higher cost

This is the kind of HCR & "good economics" I "think" we need.
What say you, Grandpa et al?

Well this Obama care is creating change in the health care system which is badly need. It will occur slowly but as I suggested sometime ago it must change. When the cost of health care is greater than our GNP we all lose.
I hope Idaho can reach a model or for that matter any state can develop a new model that will impove our health care system.
For your information a friend of mine in Pocatello just got his bill for a heart value replacement $145,000. He is very thankful for Medicare!
Here is a question that I have debated with my right wing friends: The fact that if you don't have health care insurance you face imprisonment or a fine. How is that different that if you don't have auto insurance you face the same results at least here in Coloraado?

TxHillHunter
02-27-2011, 04:43 PM
Well this Obama care is creating change in the health care system which is badly need. It will occur slowly but as I suggested sometime ago it must change. When the cost of health care is greater than our GNP we all lose.
I hope Idaho can reach a model or for that matter any state can develop a new model that will impove our health care system.
For your information a friend of mine in Pocatello just got his bill for a heart value replacement $145,000. He is very thankful for Medicare!
Here is a question that I have debated with my right wing friends: The fact that if you don't have health care insurance you face imprisonment or a fine. How is that different that if you don't have auto insurance you face the same results at least here in Coloraado?

Simple, there is no government requirement to own a vehicle as a taxpayer and it's a STATE law that requires car insurance - likely not against the constitution of the state of Colorado.

OTOH - Obamacare is a FEDERAL requirement, and if you pay taxes (are here legally and breathe) and choose not to purchase insurance, you will pay a fine....and that' is what the judge has found unconstitutional.

BrianW
02-27-2011, 04:57 PM
For your information a friend of mine in Pocatello just got his bill for a heart value replacement $145,000. He is very thankful for Medicare!
I think you meant "valve". Whatever. I''m sure he is thanful, but how much of that total might be reduced in the future, if true "reform" had addressed some of the very real issues of malpractice insurance/tort awards reform that O-care ignores? PBO "promises to cut waste & fraud in Medicare, but he also "promised" to follow the Debt Commission recommendations, that HE appointed
And we see how well that's going. :rolleyes:
So if Medicare worked so well for your Pocatello friend, why do we need a whole new federal health bureaucracy, with all it's resultant administrative costs and delegation of authority to an unelected (and therefore unaccountable) SecHHS? Why not just tweak Medicare?
Anwer: Because O-care is about power and federal control over the most private part of your life - your health!
"Ask not, what your country can do for you..." but rather, what will it do TO you!

Here is a question that ... (t)he fact that if you don't have health care insurance you face imprisonment or a fine. How is that different that if you don't have auto insurance you face the same results at least here in Coloraado?Because it's NOT the Federal government's charter!
The rights not delegated to the United States (read the Federal government)... are reserved to the States and to the people through the 10th Amendment. That is what the judge is saying in the lawsuits by the several States, that PBO & the Congress don't have the constitutional authority to force you to buy insurance by threat of fines/prison.
If CO wants to pass an "individual mandate" , woo hoo, you guys go for it!
Enjoy your CO-care!!!
Anybody that doesn't like it is free to "opt out" and move to ID or some other state.

caryalsobrook
02-27-2011, 05:34 PM
Well this Obama care is creating change in the health care system which is badly need. It will occur slowly but as I suggested sometime ago it must change. When the cost of health care is greater than our GNP we all lose.
I hope Idaho can reach a model or for that matter any state can develop a new model that will impove our health care system.
For your information a friend of mine in Pocatello just got his bill for a heart value replacement $145,000. He is very thankful for Medicare!
Here is a question that I have debated with my right wing friends: The fact that if you don't have health care insurance you face imprisonment or a fine. How is that different that if you don't have auto insurance you face the same results at least here in Coloraado?

I think tht I have heard your example claiming that requiring auto insurance was the same as the health insurance mandate. Not only is it increditable that so many cite this but it is more incredible that it is believed.
Leet me make it as PLAIN as possible. YOUR ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE AUTOMOBLIE INSURANCE JUST BECAUSE YOU OWN ONE. A simple example is a truck that is used on PRIVATE LAND ONLY, such as a farm. States can reequire you to maintain auto insurance as well as license tags if they choose by law. If you don't use the government roads then you don't have to have insurance. Let's take another example. Say you own a restaurant and you require all men to wear a coat and tie(there are some restaurants that do), then you must wear a coat and tie to be served in that restaurant. That doesn't mean that you can't choose another restaurant.

Take a look at your state's laws to drive on the roads. I think that you will see not only the requirement of insurance but other regulations such as weight, length, maybe emissions inspection ect. All of these do not apply unless you WANT THE USE THE ROADS. nOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE??

dnf777
02-27-2011, 05:55 PM
I think tht I have heard your example claiming that requiring auto insurance was the same as the health insurance mandate. Not only is it increditable that so many cite this but it is more incredible that it is believed.
Leet me make it as PLAIN as possible. YOUR ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE AUTOMOBLIE INSURANCE JUST BECAUSE YOU OWN ONE. A simple example is a truck that is used on PRIVATE LAND ONLY, such as a farm. States can reequire you to maintain auto insurance as well as license tags if they choose by law. If you don't use the government roads then you don't have to have insurance. Let's take another example. Say you own a restaurant and you require all men to wear a coat and tie(there are some restaurants that do), then you must wear a coat and tie to be served in that restaurant. That doesn't mean that you can't choose another restaurant.

Take a look at your state's laws to drive on the roads. I think that you will see not only the requirement of insurance but other regulations such as weight, length, maybe emissions inspection ect. All of these do not apply unless you WANT THE USE THE ROADS. nOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE??

You're implying that if you don't want to use the health system, then you shouldn't be required to buy insurance. This means we as society and as individuals must be willing to "stay off the road" of life, if you don't want to have health insurance? So should we turn away people who can't show a card or cash? Let people die on the doorsteps of hospitals?

I know you're not saying that, and I'll stop putting words in your mouth...but it serves to highlight the question......what should we do?

I don't think comparing auto insurance to health insurance is valid on either side of the debate. Yes, you can choose not to drive on public roads. But you can't always choose not to get sick or injured. Driving a car, you can inflict much pain and suffering on others, that you can be held liable for. Getting yourself sick likely won't affect others...at least financially....unless you ask them to pay for your bills. ;)

caryalsobrook
02-27-2011, 06:09 PM
You're implying that if you don't want to use the health system, then you shouldn't be required to buy insurance. This means we as society and as individuals must be willing to "stay off the road" of life, if you don't want to have health insurance? So should we turn away people who can't show a card or cash? Let people die on the doorsteps of hospitals?

I know you're not saying that, and I'll stop putting words in your mouth...but it serves to highlight the question......what should we do?

I don't think comparing auto insurance to health insurance is valid on either side of the debate. Yes, you can choose not to drive on public roads. But you can't always choose not to get sick or injured. Driving a car, you can inflict much pain and suffering on others, that you can be held liable for. Getting yourself sick likely won't affect others...at least financially....unless you ask them to pay for your bills. ;)
His question was not on healthcare but asked the DIFFERENCE between requining health insurance and auto insurance. That is what I answered. Previously I offered to discuss healthcare issues both form the practical effects of govern controled healthcare and also healthcare ethics. Each time you refused giving me reasons privately. Whether I agreed with you or not, they were your reasons and they were private. That is the way I left it>

dnf777
02-27-2011, 06:14 PM
[QUOTE=caryalsobrook;758996]His question was not on healthcare but asked the DIFFERENCE between requining health insurance and auto insurance.

Right. Perhaps we agree?

I don't think its valid to compare auto insurance to health insurance, especially in regards to mandating participation, as the two root activities are vastly different.

caryalsobrook
02-27-2011, 06:43 PM
[QUOTE=caryalsobrook;758996]His question was not on healthcare but asked the DIFFERENCE between requining health insurance and auto insurance.

Right. Perhaps we agree?

I don't think its valid to compare auto insurance to health insurance, especially in regards to mandating participation, as the two root activities are vastly different.

I offered to discuss government effects of healthcare and healthcare ethics you chose not to do so. Yet you interject these issues but preclude a response and discussion. Reminds me of my sister who I dearly love who is a retired college economics professor, and tries to set the same ground rules. No discussion of her "facts", just listen to her lectures.

dnf777
02-27-2011, 06:49 PM
[QUOTE=dnf777;759001]

I offered to discuss government effects of healthcare and healthcare ethics you chose not to do so. Yet you interject these issues but preclude a response and discussion. Reminds me of my sister who I dearly love who is a retired college economics professor, and tries to set the same ground rules. No discussion of her "facts", just listen to her lectures.

I don't know why you keep harping on that. It is an entirely different discussion, not even remotely related to this issue.

First of all, I have contractual limitations and HIPAA regulations that I do not feel comfortable pressing up against by discussing specifics of physician credentialling. And, in my professional judgement, I just don't think its a good idea.

I am not pressing the issue by discussing auto vs. health insurance, so why are you? You seem to be intent on mandating that I participate in a discussion of YOUR choosing. I don't want to, for the reasons above. I'm not setting any "ground rules" other than for myself. Is that ok with you?

respectfully,
Dave F

caryalsobrook
02-27-2011, 07:13 PM
[QUOTE=caryalsobrook;759015]

I don't know why you keep harping on that. It is an entirely different discussion, not even remotely related to this issue.

First of all, I have contractual limitations and HIPAA regulations that I do not feel comfortable pressing up against by discussing specifics of physician credentialling. And, in my professional judgement, I just don't think its a good idea.

I am not pressing the issue by discussing auto vs. health insurance, so why are you? You seem to be intent on mandating that I participate in a discussion of YOUR choosing. I don't want to, for the reasons above. I'm not setting any "ground rules" other than for myself. Is that ok with you?

respectfully,
Dave F

I answered his question stating the diffeerence between healthcare insurance and auto insurance. YOU BROUGHT UP HEALTHCARE ETHICS NOT I. You are the one who started talking about ethics of treating or not treating patients who may not have insurance. NOT I! You are the one who asked the question as to the ethics of letting one die if they had no insurance. NOT I! Then when pressed as a result you hide behind excuses. I won't say with absolute certainty that HIPPI restricts discussion concerning credentialling of doctors but I am sure that the HIPPA regulations apply the same to me as they do to you. My first reaction was that that statement was so much BS. Both your and my credentials are open to the public.

sinner
02-27-2011, 07:21 PM
His question was not on healthcare but asked the DIFFERENCE between requining health insurance and auto insurance. That is what I answered. Previously I offered to discuss healthcare issues both form the practical effects of govern controled healthcare and also healthcare ethics. Each time you refused giving me reasons privately. Whether I agreed with you or not, they were your reasons and they were private. That is the way I left it>

I don't disagree about the two insurance issues but the mandated auto insurance vs health care insurance is a philosophical issue.
Ethics in medicine is a totally different topic. I have been health care for over 50 years and if the medical industry would police the bad apples our torte system would have less impact on the economics.
Now on this same "channel” the carry permits has come up. The right leaning folks want a “universal” law to allow state permits to be accepted across the nation but don’t want universal health care law.
Yea, I know tow difference issues don’t confuse them but philosophically they are similar to me.
Our country needs health care change or its cost will impact our ability to compete international.
It is a crazy world!.

dnf777
02-27-2011, 07:22 PM
[QUOTE=dnf777;759023]

I answered his question stating the diffeerence between healthcare insurance and auto insurance. YOU BROUGHT UP HEALTHCARE ETHICS NOT I. You are the one who started talking about ethics of treating or not treating patients who may not have insurance. NOT I! You are the one who asked the question as to the ethics of letting one die if they had no insurance. NOT I! Then when pressed as a result you hide behind excuses. I won't say with absolute certainty that HIPPI restricts discussion concerning credentialling of doctors but I am sure that the HIPPA regulations apply the same to me as they do to you. My first reaction was that that statement was so much BS. Both your and my credentials are open to the public.

Sorry Cary, that was not the discussion I was referring to. I have no problem discussing insurance issues or ethics in general. I have no issues discussing my credentials either. Again, that was not the discussion that I respectfully declined to participate in.

Moving on....

Granddaddy
02-27-2011, 07:50 PM
Any time you use statistics to "prove" a position, the statistical assumptions have to be evaluated very closely. In the CO study, like virtually every such study on health care, the result is always that the insurance premium goes down. In the case of MA, where Romney presided over implimentation, the premiums or rates also went down for those who previously had insurance but also the actual coverages were diminished when the find print was analyzed. Coverages for procedures and medicines that were not board certifed became unavailable over night - just to name one important change in available coverage. Next, & most important from a total cost prospective, when the previously uninsured were added to the rolls, the total costs to the MA gov (& ultimately the taxpayer/premium payer) went up directly proportional to the percentage of previously uninsured in MA. The same will apply in CO or anywhere else where approximately 40% of the population is uninsured & not paying. Someone will have to pay for the coverage now extended to those 40%. And as is always the case, it will eventually be those who already pay the bill, the taxpayers. The Obamacare proponents know this & that is why the mandated insurance coverage is the key provision to the plan. They must dramtically expand the number of payers to make the plan even closely conceivable in terms of financing. They also must cut medicare funding dramatically to help pay for Obamacare. But the numbers don't work because they never include the uninsured whose costs will drive the plan & the country to bankruptcy. Instead the gov statistics include the taxpayer payments in over the next 10 yrs but don't include the costs for those same taypayers (who already have coverage) until some 14 yrs after implimentation. So the numbers, as presented seem reasonable. But reality doesn't change, just like in MA & now CO, someone has to pay for those 40% who don't presently have coverage & who won't have to pay.

sinner
02-27-2011, 09:23 PM
I don't disagree but the Colorado Trust is a quality group here in our state. Vist their web site and check them out.
After having been a researcer for 25 years I do understand models and statistics.
I hope we can move health care along to the point we don't leave people out and we get costs under control. At this time it is a hidden tax and a profit generator for the share holders of national insurance companies and their management. I do not beleive that the current model is good for our citzens, business or our general productivity.
I have studied health care in 5 nations while I was with Coors Brewery at the request of Bill Coors CEO at that time. I have my opinions but I'm sure most of the folks on this site are not interested in any thing that does not support their basic political bias.