And so it begins...CO and MD offer bill for single payer

[dgoldenz]

Remember that "we're going to be flexible with states" thing that Obama was in agreement with the other day trying to look like a centrist? Any coincidence that these two articles popped up today?

Those lousy Republicans are just obstructionists! Nothing to see here, move along please...

Maryland - Maryland bill to create single-payer system excludes insurance agents | Insurance & Financial Advisor I IFAwebnews.com

Colorado - Colorado Senate panel OKs universal health idea | Denver Business Journal

Vermont - should have an article to link here in a few days....you know they're going to be at the top of this list.

 

[M Paquette]

Lemme get the popcorn...

 

[brewer12345]

Suits me. Better yet, have the feddle gubmint pull its pants up and implement a single payor system.

 

[MichaelB]

Works for me. The sooner the better.

 

[Martha]

I'm on board. Too bad that these are proposals that are not proposed to be fully effective for years.

 

[donheff]

Suits me. Better yet, have the feddle gubmint pull its pants up and implement a single payor system.

++ Kind of Obamacare plus. We get a marginal national plan so anyone, anywhere can at least be assured that they will have coverage. And the few progressive states that are willing to give it a try can do something more assertive that the Republican plan that Massachusetts implemented. Maybe after a couple of decades of state experiments we will have some good data on what works. Note: I recognize that this leaves out the libertarian, totally unregulated programs that some would like to see tested. But you can't get everything you want in a democracy.

 

[ziggy29]

This mess for people under 65 will probably be fixed when I turn 65.

 

[Independent]

The Colorado story seems to say that a committee of the state Senate has sent a bill to the whole Senate which, if approved by both houses & the governor, would set up a study committee to consider the feasibility of a single payor plan.

In Maryland, it appears that the Senate Finance committee has scheduled a public hearing regarding a single payor bill.

I don't live in either state, but it seems they are a looong way from passing anything.

 

[Gotadimple]

But, none of these plans address the fundamental question: how providers are paid. The payment model (piece work - being paid for each part of a service) remains the same and it is a core element in why health care costs so much.

-- Rita

 

[M Paquette]

I don't live in either state, but it seems they are a looong way from passing anything.

The Usual Suspects are already pointing out how this will raise unemployment (of insurance folks) and reduce state income (from insurance premium taxes).

Denver Daily - Universal health measure gets approval

But Mark Reese, a spokesman for the Colorado Association of Health Plans, said as many as 20,000 people employed by the private health care insurance industry in Colorado could lose their jobs as a result of a universal cooperative.

“There is an economic impact to this bill that is significant,” said Reese. “It impacts many Colorado lives, and it will impact everybody greatly, and how the general fund is funded, and every individual’s responsibility, whether it’s via income tax or another form of supplying that general fund so the state can continue on in its business.”

I think we all know where the Job Killing Colorado Health Care Cooperative bill will eventually go.

 

[Beryl]

The Usual Suspects are already pointing out how this will raise unemployment (of insurance folks) and reduce state income (from insurance premium taxes).

I live in Colorado and I don't care if those who work for health insurance need to find new jobs. I also don't care if war profiteers lose revenue if there is peace on earth.

 

[Westernskies]

I also don't care if war profiteers lose revenue if there is peace on earth.

Threadjack, anyone?

 

[Beryl]

Threadjack, anyone?

I responded on topic with a comparison. Any response to that comparison needs to be on topic.

 

[Sevo]

I just read TWO DAYS THAT RUINED YOUR HEALTH CARE. BY. William Waters. A very concise read about how we go into this mess. Unfortunately there is no way out now. We have reached the point that the majority of voters really truly sincerely believe that some how "the government" and can magically make high quality health care appear out of thin air.

 

[lets-retire]

We have reached the point that the majority of voters really truly sincerely believe that some how "the government" and can magically make everyone's life better out of thin air.

There fixed it for you.

 

[Sevo]

Originally Posted by Sevo
We have reached the point that the majority of voters really truly sincerely believe that some how "the government" and can magically make everyone's life better out of thin air.
There fixed it for you.

Thanks you did fix it.
Hang on and hope that's all we can do now.

 

[RetiredGypsy]

So when we're no longer producing 70% of medicine and equipment, can no longer subsidize other country's national healthcare plans, and other country's pharmacies aren't able to make a profit by sending drugs here before or if ever their own countries get it (GlaxoSmithKline has or had a nice little time table on their site demonstrating this), then will people finally believe national healthcare plans don't work? Or are we just going to test to catastrophic failure?

 

[rescueme]

"the government" and can magically make everyone's life better out of thin air.

So can Santa, the Easter Bunny, and other such myths ...

 

[Sevo]

Human nature has not changed in thousands of years... We will test to catastrophe. A common feature of almost all cultures is that people are far more comfortable with equality of poverty than they are with the idea that they have less than their neighbor no matter how good their standard of living is. My hope is that we have some more years left before we see wide spread failure.

Just pray the Chinese will continue to loan us 40 cents of every dollars that we spend to keep medicare and medicaid checks flowing. If they stop loaning I personally just have no idea what is going to happen.

all we can do now is hang on and hope for the best.

 

[M Paquette]

So when we're no longer producing 70% of medicine and equipment, can no longer subsidize other country's national healthcare plans, and other country's pharmacies aren't able to make a profit by sending drugs here before or if ever their own countries get it (GlaxoSmithKline has or had a nice little time table on their site demonstrating this), then will people finally believe national healthcare plans don't work? Or are we just going to test to catastrophic failure?

I'm not entirely sure we're under any obligation to support corporations that entered into bad deals elsewhere, through paying top dollar for products that they sell for less elsewhere.

We're already engaged in testing for catastrophic failure.

 

[RetiredGypsy]

I'm not entirely sure we're under any obligation to support corporations that entered into bad deals elsewhere, through paying top dollar for products that they sell for less elsewhere.

I would agree that we aren't. But this is the method used to help finance and create national healthcare in other countries; I'm saying take that whole foundation away (which we would be doing by going to a national healthcare plan ourselves) and see how happy people are with national healthcare still.

 

[haha]

I would agree that we aren't. But this is the method used to help finance and create national healthcare in other countries; I'm saying take that whole foundation away (which we would be doing by going to a national healthcare plan ourselves) and see how happy people are with national healthcare still.

This is a complex question, but likely if all the pharmaceutical firms stopped doing what they call research it would have minimal effects on the health and welfare of populations.

Ha

 

[RetiredGypsy]

This is a complex question, but likely if all the pharmaceutical firms stopped doing what they call research it would have minimal effects on the health and welfare of populations.

Ha

It goes beyond pharmaceutical companies though. Take the BC Cancer Agency in Canada, for example. A couple years ago they identified the DNA sequence that may cause breast cancer. They actually work to treat cancer patients. But while they get a small amount of funding from the Canadian government, in large part they get donations from private parties (including an organization that finds millions in donations from here in America specifically for Canadian health care), research is farmed out to American universities and businesses, and the equipment used in this particular discovery was developed and made here.

This is not unusual.

Nor is it true that what pharmacies do is so-called research, though this would be more obvious if patent laws were changed to extend patents for when a drug goes to market (which would also make things a little cheaper for us). When a drug company only has about 5 years to make up hundreds of millions of dollars from a 20 year patent limit (from research that's gone well, let alone losses in areas that proved a dead end), we see more attempts to make up those profits in other drugs that look stupid to a lot of us, but cost them less and may take less time to get to market.

If all pharmaceutical companies stopped doing research (and if all medical equipment developers stopped producing as well) we wouldn't see much of a change for the things we already have cures and treatments for. For the rest who are suffering and dying, and for the improvements in future cures and treatments, that research is needed desperately.

The problem is, healthcare is expensive. It's always going to be expensive. It's inherently expensive. It's stupidly expensive. It's inherently a limited resource as well. There are ways make it all somewhat better (though it's never going to be some Utopian ideal, and it sure isn't going to be readily available to everyone no matter who says otherwise), but every single one of these ways are exactly the opposite of what national healthcare (and at the moment, primarily employee-provided insurance) promises.

 

[samclem]

One aspect of the new health care law is to cover more people by putting them into Medicaid. It's something else indeed.

Medicaid is Worse than No Coverage at All

From the link above:

Washington contributes to this mess by leaving states no option other than across-the-board cuts. Patients would be better off if states were able to tailor the benefits that Medicaid covers—targeting resources to sicker people and giving healthy adults cheaper, basic coverage. But federal rules say that everyone has to get the same package of benefits, regardless of health status, needs or personal desires.
These rules reflect the ambition of liberal lawmakers who cling to the dogma that Medicaid should be a "comprehensive" benefit. In their view, any tailoring is an affront to egalitarianism. Because states are forced to offer everyone everything, the actual payment rates are driven so low that beneficiaries often end up with nothing in practice.
Dozens of recent medical studies show that Medicaid patients suffer for it. In some cases, they'd do just as well without health insurance. Here's a sampling of that research:
• Head and neck cancer: A 2010 study of 1,231 patients with cancer of the throat, published in the medical journal Cancer, found that Medicaid patients and people lacking any health insurance were both 50% more likely to die when compared with privately insured patients—even after adjusting for factors that influence cancer outcomes. Medicaid patients were 80% more likely than those with private insurance to have tumors that spread to at least one lymph node. Recent studies show similar outcomes for breast and colon cancer.

. . .
The liberal solution to these woes has been to expand Medicaid. Advocacy groups like Families USA imagine that once Medicaid becomes a middle-class entitlement, political pressure from middle-class workers will force politicians to address these problems by funneling more taxpayer dollars into this flawed program.
President Barack Obama's health plan follows this logic. Half of those gaining health insurance under ObamaCare will get it through Medicaid; by 2006, one in four Americans will be covered by the program.

So--build a crappy program, force more people into it, make the states administer it but don't let them optimize it, and let the many disgruntled patients vote for more resources to "fix" it (with OPM). Who is being "used" here?

 

[RetiredGypsy]

Advocacy groups like Families USA imagine that once Medicaid becomes a middle-class entitlement, political pressure from middle-class workers will force politicians to address these problems by funneling more taxpayer dollars into this flawed program.

Families USA. There's a go-to source for knowledge and well thought out reasoning.