Colorado is trying for Single-Payer

[SHRED]

People are trying but the forces against us are big.

Like what Thom Hartmann says, "Health insurance corporations are nothing more than banksters".


Health Care Industry Moves Swiftly to Stop Colorado’s “Single Payer” Ballot Measure

The Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers, a national trade group, is mobilizing its member companies to defeat single payer in Colorado. “The council urges Coloradans to protect employer-provided insurance and oppose Proposition 69,”

Profit-driven health care industries and professional medical societies have blocked cost-saving reforms for decades, and in recent years, spent tens of millions of dollars to shape the outcome of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The health insurance industry in particular lobbied aggressively to shape public opinion and block proposals to expand single payer over the last decade.

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/22/colorad-single-payer/

[think]

1. How could they ever do it without a middle man?

[Doctor_J]

2. The death merchants have too many friends in high places, including the white house

The president is one of the insurance industry's whores, and the probable nominee of the democratic party was recently heard shrieking, "there will never, ever be single payer healthcare in the US"

After thirty five years of working, I can no longer afford to go to the doctor. The deductibles and co pay on my company plan have gone up $12,000 per year since Obama signed heritage care into law. My total healthcare annual is $15000, 35% of my take home pay. Thanks Obama! Wonder why the party head count is historically low?

[think]

5. Best wishes and go Colorado....

[Jitter65]

3. Well, since pot cures everything, why do they even need health care? nt

[think]

4. Is it wrong for more people to get access to health care by cutting out profits?

[Corporate666]

6. whose profits?

35% of health care costs are personnel (doctors, nurses)

35% is facility costs (hospitals, emergency rooms)

15% is drugs

10% is health insurance administration, overhead and profit

5% is everything else (physical therapy, ambulance services, etc)


Health insurance companies are being demonized, but the reality is that even if half of all the health insurance company costs were profit (the reality is that it's much less), you are looking at a 5% savings.

There is no way to get to a European level of health care costs without HUGE cuts to pay for doctors and nurses and other caregivers. Doctors and nurses earn 200% to 500% more than they do in Europe. It's something nobody talks about because politicians know it would be an unpopular argument to talk about how we need to give doctors and nurses a 50-75% pay cut, and reduce the number of X-Ray, CT, MRI and other diagnostic equipment, increase wait times, ration services and reduce standards of care. But that is the ONLY way to get to European health care costs. Period.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

9. Everybody except some Americans understand single-payer is cheaper per capita. n/t

[Corporate666]

10. explain to me

why it will be cheaper and how much cheaper it will be.

And everybody but Americans understand that when you have single payer health care, you also have much longer wait times for care, and you have to ration care. Those are just how it works.

Only fools believe single payer in the USA will mean we all have the same quality of care we have now, but it just won't cost anything.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

11. Profit margin is eliminated, but much bigger savings from elimination of red tape.

In all other major countries, bureaucracy is much smaller, because they don't have armies of paper shufflers like America does. Also single payer means Uncle Sam can drastically reduce drug prices, through massive bargaining power.

That is why we pay at least twice as much per capita as any other major country.

[Corporate666]

15. I'm sorry but you just don't know anything about this topic

So your claims are we can get to European health care costs through elimination of red tape and drug prices.

You're wrong.

Using the latest CDC data, less than 10% of health care costs are drugs. The profit margins of drug companies average 19%, so let's say we somehow passed a law making it illegal for drug companies to turn a profit. That's 19% of 10%, or 1.9%. So it would reduce $10,000 of annual health care spending by less than $200.

As for "red tape", the overall burden of insurance companies is less than 5% of all health care spending, whereas Medicare is around half that (although that number doesn't account for the fact that Medicare outsources many things, like billing, which don't get counted in the number). But let's say we can cut the administrative costs by half. That means 50% of 5%, or 2.5%. Which would be $250 out of the $10,000 annual health care spending for an individual.

In order to get to European levels of health care spending, you need to deal with hospital costs and doctor/nurse salaries. Hospitals earn around 2-5% profit margins, so the costs are not because of huge profits. The USA has over 6 times the number of MRI machines per capita compared to the UK, as an example.

Doctors and nurses in the USA earn a TON more money than anywhere else in the world. The average salary of a cardiologist in the USA is over $510k/year. In the UK, it is $135k a year.

Anyone who talks about how we can get to European level health care costs without having a plan to cut doctor and nurse salaries by 50-75% is lying or ignorant of what we actually spend money on for health care in this country.


In order to get to European health care cost levels, we have to get doctors and nurses pay reduced by 50-75%. We will have to ration care and have eligibility requirements for things like hip replacements, knee replacements, cataract surgeries and the other common things people get - just like they do in Europe. We will have to have much longer wait times for things like heart surgeries - moving from 3 days to 3 months, just like they do in the UK. And we will have to stop the high level of screening and preventative testing that we do for things like colon cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer and such.


Again, anyone who claims we can get anywhere close to European health care costs with single payer but who doesn't have an answer for the above is lying or ignorant on the subject.


So I ask again - how is Sanders going to get us anywhere close to European health care costs if his plans were implemented? What is the plan for doctor/nurse salaries? What level of reduction will he implement? How will he do it?

Talking about drug costs and red tape only gets you 5% of the way there. It's a pandering bullshit line that people like Bernie use to avoid talking about the reality of health care spending.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

16. I reject everything you say.

Your characterization of foreign health care systems does not correspond to anything reported by the users of the systems. Canadians pay much less per capita than we do and are very happy with their health care. Same in Scandinavia and throughout northern Europe. Same for New Zealand and Australia.

Everybody is covered and the wait times are generally comparable to the US. They pay a lot less than per capita.

Btw, if your figure of $510k per year is correct, that is part of the problem. Nobody needs to make that much money. This country needs a first world health care system, not rich doctors. Right now we have a third world system. Last time I checked, our health care system is ranked about 40th in the world. That is pathetic.

[Corporate666]

18. You reject facts.... I knew that before you said it

You said a bunch of things which were factually untrue, and when confronted with actual facts, you said "I reject them".

"I reject your reality and substitute my own" - it's something Adam Savage said as a joke, but in this case it appears to be the truth.

1) Wait times are a fact. In the USA, the wait time for knee replacement surgery is 3 weeks. In the UK, it is 4 months. For heart operations, in the USA the wait time is 3 days, in the UK it is 3 months. In Canada, it is 5 months.

2) Yes, other countries pay less than the USA. And I have already stated why. The BIGGEST 2 costs are the costs of hospitals and the salaries of doctors/nurses. In the USA, doctors and nurses earn 2 to 5 times more than they earn in the UK.

Your claim that wait times are comparable is provably false.

Your claim that we can approach EU level health care costs through drug prices and "eliminating red tape" is provably false.

Your claim that there are no reports of unhappy users of those systems is false. I am one of those users, as are many in my family. You have zero direct or personal experience with the UK health care system, is that right?

Why do you say "if your figure is correct". Didn't you even take a moment to do any research yourself before making a claim that I am wrong? You've just admitted your posts have no basis in facts whatsoever.

As for cardiologist salaries, who decides what someone "needs" and how much they should earn? Does Bernie Sanders need to earn $200k a year? That is in the very top of earners in the USA - surely he doesn't deserve that and his income should be capped at the median income, right?

And finally, you are wrong about "we have a third world health care system". Have you visited a third world country in your life? Do you have any direct personal experience with third world health care systems? Or is this just more stuff you "know" without having done the smallest bit of research?



I hope you will be mature enough to admit that you were wrong and stop repeating the falsehoods you've stated in your prior posts.

[laundry_queen]

24. Your 'fact' for Canadian heart surgery is misleading.

What kind of heart surgery? Which province (times vary widely per province)? Do you have a link?

[Corporate666]

28. Misleading how? It's a fact

that wait times in Canada and the UK are longer than those in the USA.

Quibbles about whether the wait is 4 times as long or 3.5 times are long aren't relevant to the point, which is that the wait times are significantly longer in Canada for the common surgeries people need as they age (heart, hip, knee, cataract, etc).

[laundry_queen]

33. So you refuse to define your parameters.

So how does anyone know if your so called 'facts' are correct if you won't provide proof? You can call them facts, but unless you are willing to say what kind of heart surgery in Canada versus what kind of heart surgery in the US then it's not a fair comparison. Also, I would say wait times in the US don't include the people who are excluded from wait times because they don't have insurance so they don't get care. What is the average between 3 days and death? It's easy to have a 3 day wait time when you exclude a large part of the population. It's not an accurate comparison.

Your username is apt.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

27. Progressives support a reasonable approach to American health care. Apparently you don't.

The US health care system is grossly inefficient economically. Yes or no? Every other major country provides universal health care. Yes or no? The US health care system is rated around 40th in the world. Yes or no?

As to your cited facts, you have not offered any evidence to support them. You have already been challenged regarding your Canadian "facts" by a Canadian.

Maybe your assertions about wait times for some procedures are correct. I have seen independent reports to that effect. But I am not your monkey. I will choose to do research at my own discretion.

My beliefs about first world health care in Europe and New Zealand are based on world health data, a close friend and three of my daughters who have lived and traveled to those places, as well as numerous reports of citizens who are satisfied with health care in their countries. The close friend is an American who lived in the UK for 20 years. His daughter once had a fever and so the doctor paid a house call to them! House calls have been non-existent in the US for decades. My friend reports that UK health care is cheaper and avoids the mountains of red tape in the US.

When I used to go to the doctor, back when I had health insurance, I would encounter a receptionist, a nurse who took my vitals, sometimes another person who would ask questions and then finally a doctor for about five minutes. Then I would deal with one or two people about health insurance before I left. Not to mention time spent determining if the doctor was in my plan before I even went.

By contrast, my daughter while living in France, went in to a doctor's office and he was the only one she dealt with! She wasn't a citizen, but reports her visit was hassle free. Try doing that in the US.

US health insurance companies are grossly inefficient. They are staffed by armies of paper shufflers who produce no economic benefit. Some of these employees serve as "death panels." In other words, they function in order to DENY health care coverage to people experiencing catastrophic illness. Fortunate ones are able to declare bankruptcy, receive some health care and survive. Many others simply die because they can't afford care.

The US system does excel at many kinds of advanced and hi tech medicine. But it is grossly inefficient, does not provide universal health care and millions of Americans are under insured. The American health care system is much lower rated than other major country by world health organizations. And long wait times are a reality. When I had health care it still often took weeks to see a doctor. The US system is deeply dysfunctional. That is the basic reason we pay more than twice per capita of any other major country in the world. That is why people go bankrupt or die for lack of health care in the US, unlike any other major country.

[Corporate666]

29. Your post is entirely anecdotal and you admit to refusing to do research

You stated earlier that we can get to UK-level health care costs by "cutting red tape" and drug costs.

I told you the CDC reports the data and you were wrong - your reply was that you weren't going to do the research and instead posted a bunch of anecdotal stories and threw in a personal attack. Which just proves to me that you have no data, no facts and that you know you're wrong.

The CDC info is here http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-expenditures.htm

Now go ahead and cite your facts to back up your statements, or retract them.

Look at table 103. Less than 10% of health care spending is on drugs. Less than 6% is the overhead of health insurance companies.

Your claim that we can get to EU levels through "cutting red tape" and drug costs is false, provably so.


Anecdotal information is worthless. The doctor used to come visit me when I was a kid too. It's not a right in the UK and only some places do it. And (newsflash), they do it in the USA too. My sister is a NP and visits patients who are unable or unwilling to come to the doctors office. What does that prove? Nothing.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

17. I know this:

https://www.facebook.com/dailykos/photos/a.416444264254.190398.43179984254/10154225320089255/?type=3&theater

[Corporate666]

19. You're just throwing shit at the wall

hoping something will stick.

You made some specific claims that are unsupported by facts. When challenged, your resorted to falsehoods and anecdotal data that is not supported by any evidence, then you moved the goalposts by changing to a different topic.

Stop doing that. Be intellectually honest.

[Texasgal]

21. How do you explain the mega salaries

of the CEO's of health insurance companies?

[Corporate666]

30. What's to explain?

I am not sure what you are suggesting? The health insurance co is free to pay the CEO whatever they like. Sure, it's an easy data point for demonization of the wealthy but it's irrelevant to the consumer.

United Health's CEO was one of the highest paid for a year or two. Over $100 million one year. But that was due to stock options - his actual salary was a few million, and in subsequent years he made less. Last year he earned $48 million.

The bottom line is that his salary isn't relevant to the consumer. United Health covers over 85 million people. Even if the CEO were required by law to give all his income to the customers, it would be just over $1 in his best year, and closer to 60 cents last year.

Insurance companies are required by law to pay out 80% of all the money they take in on health care spending, most are substantially higher than that. There will always be some cost of administration but even if we could cut it by 50%, we're talking about a 2.5% overall savings.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

25. I am dealing with your "facts" in another thread.

The post on American bankruptcies is relevant because it illustrates the how deeply dysfunctional the US "health care" system is. You are defending a system which is indefensible.

[Skittles]

26. nice repuke talking points

I lived in England for many years and do not remember long wait times to see a doctor

what good does no/low wait times for healthcare in America do if we cannot afford to go?

[Corporate666]

31. Nice display of willful ignorance

I live in the UK now and I can tell you that you don't know what you are talking about.

The NHS publishes the wait times. It's a simple Google search away, or go to nhs.uk.

The mandated maximum wait time is 18 weeks from the date you are referred to the specialist - so it's longer when you count the time required to see your GP prior to referral. And the NHS has been having a hard time keeping up with the maximum wait times, because they just can't fit everyone in.

Trickery ensues. Like scheduling patients for appointments without telling them, which then get missed, which then kicks the person to the back of the line. Or putting people back to the end of the line for other issues, like failure to follow doctor orders which can include things like not going to instructional classes or other things which are unrelated to the actual surgery you're waiting for.

I've had 3 direct family members dealing with this in the past year, one of them has been 'bumped' 3 times for his hernia surgery.

I got hernia surgery in the USA. Called my docs office, had an appointment 2 days later. He referred me to a specialist who I met with 3 days later on a Thursday. Specialist asked me when I wanted to do the operation, the first open slot was that coming Tuesday.

My brother in the UK has been waiting since September of last year. He just had a pre-requisite blood test done a week ago and "one of his levels was slightly off", so they sent him for a full panel of bloodwork and he got bumped to the back of the line AGAIN. He's scheduled to come visit in July and now it's looking like his surgery will be the same week. And he can't just delay it by a week - he goes to the back of the line - again.



Oh, and doctors in the UK just went on strike - including at emergency rooms - because they are unhappy with pay and working hours.

[Skittles]

32. I have family in England now

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 04:12 AM - Edit history (1)

my uncle is currently getting getting treated for prostate cancer - nothing like you describe

WHAT GOOD is health care you CANNOT AFFORD???

GET A CLUE!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/free-medical-clinic-in-los-angeles-draws-thousands/

[laundry_queen]

34. Upthread you call someone else's post 'entirely anecdotal'

and then go on to post your post about your direct family members and their anecdotes and then your anecdotes and then your brothers anecdotes....as proof? or what?

[SHRED]

12. Yeah...It would cure a car wreck

[Autumn]

22. Wow. That's a rather ignorant comment. Pot cures nothing but for those who have medical problems

that require expensive medication access to healthcare sure does work miracles.

[basselope]

7. The big problem is one state can't do it.. unless MAYBE California.

The whole way single payer works is b/c you have a single negotiator who holds ALL the customers.

Colorado, on their own, doesn't have enough clout to force all the pharmaceutical companies, equipment manufacturers, etc.. to drop their prices and reduce profit. It is only when you have the buying power of 300 million people behind you that you can actually FORCE them to accept the prices you want.

The only state with the population large enough to even attempt this would be cali and even that would be tough.

[cprise]

14. Except that smaller countries have single payer, too.

The problem did not magically reconfigure itself to the size of the US population.

Having a single negotiator per state (and who knows, maybe states will team up in the future) is far better than the 5-10 private negotiators a state has under the ACA. There is also that *little* detail of conflict of interest... the investors want the parasitic levels of return that they are accustomed to in the rest of the economy; if they don't get it then the insurers will withdraw from markets deemed less profitable, resulting in people getting shuffled between insurers as the finance sector keeps gaming the system.

[jeepers]

8. If more citizens

in the different states began initiative petitions in their states demanding single payer which is what we did in Colo, we might have a movement on our hands.

Meanwhile, I'm gonna roll another one take a hit and wait for the rest of you to catch on and catch up.

[cprise]

13. K&R

[SickOfTheOnePct]

20. I applaud Colorado for trying

but I don't see how it can work, given the number of military, federal government and retired military/government who live there.

[Dont call me Shirley]

23. Weed Legalisation. Check. Single-Payer Healthcare. Check: Yes!

[amborin]

35. hRC lobbyist/donor one of the big corps fighting against it