CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 24, 2009 08:29 PM UTC
43 Comments
People who fear a government-run health insurance plan don’t have to choose one. And if the government screws up the public plan, people are free to switch to something else.
I really don’t know what all the consternation is about. Republicans have held up private competition as the answer to fixing public issues (see also: school vouchers). Is this street not two-way?
I think the problem is that the public plan will have the opportunity to subsidize itself endlessly through taxes. Of course they can provide a cheaper option for employers if it’s aided by endless piles of taxpayer money. This seems to be the plan to make it the only option.
It won’t succeed because it’s better run (think DMV), but because it doesn’t have to meet any kind of market test.
I was curious so I called our good Rep. Jared Polis’s office yesterday to see if he was in favor of a public option. Yes, was the plain and simple answer. Looks like Udall is showing some mettle too.
Bennet hems and haws over everything and its getting mighty irritating. In his head he is no doubt weighing out the overall advantages of whoring this one out to the health insurers, and calculating what that’ll bring him in the next election. Sad.
Parsing had a good point earlier today in his question to Karate Kid. How come all those other countries with a public plan aren’t looking to make theirs like the US ? We know the answer – because our system is a disaster. We know which one works better.
I just don’t understand what the motivation would be for someone to defend private health insurers, other than them being on the take, or employed in the health insurance industry.
I think it’s because once you provide insane entitlements to a majority of your citizens, you’ll never be able to take them away. Not politically possible.
Look at the riots that happen in France when the government wants to implement common sense work laws.
and I don’t think there is any fear of us becoming anywhere near their situation.
The right to pay a fair fee for healthcare is not an insane entitlement. The right not to go bankrupt (even if you have health insurance) is not either. The right to actually be covered when you most need it is not an insane entitlement. The right to have a potentially life saving operation, that you paid for, is not an insane entitlement.
The right to gouge the public, especially the infirm, old and sick, and have the government turn a blind eye, all the while stuffing millions in your pocket IS AN INSANE ENTITLEMENT !
But this is not the right path, IMO.
How about universal catastrophic coverage?
And there has to be monumental tort reform as part of the conversation.
I think that is a good idea. Its the big ticket items that matter the most, and these are the things that have the potential to destroy lives and families now.
Still, the devil is in the details. What would be considered catastrophic, where and when does a patient migrate from non-catastrophic to catastrophic, how much is expected to come out of the pocket of the patient, etc.
Tort reform needs to be part of this package, agreed LB.
Also, I have been reading a lot about reducing unnecessary procedures or tests, like what the Mayo Clinic has been doing for years. If tort reform were part of this I think that would help lower these unnecessary items as doctors and nurses would practice a lot less defensive medicine.
although doctors pass around stories of defensive medicine, its like sailors of the 16th century passing around stories about sea monsters: everyone believes they exist, so if they ever see anything unusual its easy to call it a sea monster.
The empirical evidence does not support the position. The claim of a major impact on healthcare cost due to defensive medicine rest on a politically motivated, science deficient report by the politicized Bush Department of Health and Human Services. The report included no new data examination and instead rests on a single study by two Stanford University scholars, which is virtually the only such study to find evidence of major costs from “defensive medicine.” The 1996 Stanford study concluded that caps on damage awards could reduce overall health care costs by 5% to 9%, but it was based only on a study of ederly heart patients who were hospitalized. Insurers misuse this data as evidence of a 5% to 9% increase across the entire health care system. However, virtually all other studies of defensive medicine have found no such thing.
In fact, before Bush took office, after examining the original study, the GAO concluded: “Because this study was focused on only one condition and on a hospital setting, it cannot be extrapolated to the larger practice of medicine. Given the limited evidence, reliable cost savings estimates cannot be developed.” In addition, the GAO, identified “revenue-enhancing motives” as one of the real reasons behind the doctors ordering extra diagnostic tests and procedures.
A fact not mentioned in the Bush HHS paper is that several other studies of defensive medicine failed to find anywhere near such large costs. A 1994 study by the congressional Office of Technology Assessment stated “it is impossible in the final analysis to draw any conclusions about the overall extent or cost of defensive medicine.”
The New Yorker piece (I can’t find my link and I’m late for an appointment) properly points to the real problem–fee for service. Doctors get paid for running extra texts–defensive medicine is better characterized as profiteering medicine.
It is important to note that Minnesota with its collaborative medical culture enjoys the lowest medical malpractice rates, the lowest malpractice insurance rates, the lowest per capita cost medicare costs and some of the best outcomes. And oh yeah they don’t have caps on damages or any of the other laws hostile to patient rights.
Instead of trying to solve the problem of the practice of bad medicine by limiting doctor accountability and shifting costs on to injured patients, Minnesota manned up, addressed the underlying problem, bad medicine, and has a culture that puts patients first.
for a doctor it can kill a bird with two stones through insulating them from potential liability and garnering them more revenue…
Study shows defensive medicine widespread
by Kristina Goodnough – February 23, 2009
Survey’s are asking 16th century seamen if they believe in sea monsters. It is not an objective measure of actual practice.
Surveys are asking physicians if they engaged in a specific practice (which I am pretty sure they can recall) rather than asking them if they believe in some sort of strange phenomena that does or dosen’t exist.
extra tests usually have as their root motive a profit motive. This is what the GAO determined when they studied the issue 10 years ago.
in the fee for service model doctors are paid for running more tests. I recommend this New Yorker article.
http://www.newyorker.com/repor…
Doctors are quick to say it is fear of litigation that makes them order extra tests, but the evidence points to other causes.
Minnesota does not have malpractice damage caps, but doctors do not order the extra tests. Why? their medical culture remains focused on healing (I think the Mayo influences the entire state–Minnesotans are very proud of it).
I read it in full when you first posted it about 2 weeks ago, give or take. I really loved how the CEO or director of the hospital in McAllen was a died in the wool conservative, all the while living off the government teat. There’s no kind of irony like bilking the government for millions of dollars and then railing about how inefficient it is. I hope that guy burns in hell !
I still think doctors are sometimes motivated about liability concerns, but your point about Minnesota is good. Thanks for posting it.
So if the govt runs health care, and you can’t sue the govt, then that’s your tort reform, right there, isn’t it? (Ha!)
But I think that you’re onto something with universal catastrophic care. I don’t think taxpayers should pay for face-lifts or little blue pills or all manner of elective care.
Regarding the DMV comparison you cited earlier, I like to think of the post office and Fedex/UPS instead. They very successfully compete with a subsidized P.O. So, you can compete and succeed, if you can provide enhanced/better services that consumers are willing to pay for.
Who do you think the USPS contracts with for most of their express mail?
My wife was recently mutilated by an ER physician who violated his hospital’s protocols.
Are you saying there should be no recourse for that?
Are you trying to encourage incompetent doctors or what?
And I’m really sorry about your wife. I truly am.
I’m speaking more to outrageous settlements that we all know exist.
n/t
Thanks to a couple of brave ER nurses who advised her to show up the next day (“not too early”) for some follow-up. They couldn’t say anything bad about the doc, but they told us in their own way that we needed to get another doc to look at what the first doc had done.
Even though it is highly subsidized by the government and offers similar services, often for a lot less expense.
And Airborne/DHL didn’t either, despite the fact that it was subsidized by the German government. In fact, they couldn’t compete, so they went essentially out of business (except for international shipping).
They certainly will not be able to endlessly subsidize through taxes. On the bail out front we are already seeing the limit to which the public can be pushed.
We keep hearing from your side about how the free market does everything better and more efficiently than the government and how the government can’t do a good job running anything. If that’s the case the private insurers should have no trouble coming out on top, out performing the heck out of any hopeless government run plan.
Of course the reason there is 75% support among the public for public option availability is because private insurers have done such a poor job of providing us the service we require at affordable prices. If they can’t compete it will be because they really can’t do the best job for consumers.
As for businesses dropping plans people like because of public plan availability, for years businesses have been dropping plans or raising cost beyond what employees can afford because of cost increases. As costs continue to rise more businesses will do so and more people will lose plans they like, perhaps never being able to get on another plan because of pre-existing conditions.
Now, people losing the plans they like have few if any options. Once we have public option availability, those whose employers drop plans because of cost or because a public option is available or who increase cost to employees beyond their means will have an alternative.
Private insurers will have to give us a reason to prefer them (with their superior abilities to be more efficient etc.?) or cater mainly to an upper strata of individuals and corporations who desire and can pay for luxury level coverage. The private sector is supposed to have so much more ability to adjust, right?
75% simply aren’t buying the fearmongering anymore. We’re more scared of being at the mercy of the for profit insurers who have been so fond, over the years, of chewing us up and spitting us out. Let them worry about us spitting THEM out, for a change. It will be good for them. Competition and all that.
What makes you think the public plan won’t be subsidized by a gigantic tax?
minus the exhorbitant monthly premiums currently paid by large and small businesses and individuals. Who knows what the net amount is, but you are paying more of one thing and less of another, so you have to understand there is a trade off there.
You already pay it or risk absolute ruin.
The only difference is that we actually have more of a say with taxes than insurance premiums.
If my taxes went up as much every year as my health insurance premiums, I’d be a Republican.
“If my taxes went up as much every year as my health insurance premiums, I’d be a Republican.”
Now do you tea-types get it?
I just wish others see it for what it really is.
because they could endlessly raise taxes. I also reject that the tax increase for the average tax payer would have to be gigantic.
Polls also show a willingness by the majority to pay a bit more in taxes in order to have a good health care plan. Why not? We now pay more every year for insurance that can be take be pulled out from under us at any moment. That’s hardly a great deal for the consumer.
A reasonable tax hike coupled with dramatic decreases in out of pocket expense and being able to sleep at night sounds OK to most. Once again, I give you the three quarters who say, let’s give it a try.
We also elected a president who promised to give it a try. We elected Democratic majorities in both houses to support that president in giving it a try. Or do you think we, the majority, are too stupid and greedy to know what’s good for us? Not so big on spreading democracy here at home? Tsk tsk, LB.
Is that healthcare will be his first big failure. If he doesn’t pass it this year, it’s over for a while.
We’ll see.
I think you’re trumpeting one poll a little too much.
This poll shows that folks are equally or moreso concerned about costs as they are about wanting a solution.
Again, I’m not saying that we don’t need to make some changes, but I believe pretty strongly that this has much less to do with crafting an imaginative solution than it does growing government power and buying votes by promising free healthcare to people.
Love ya LB. The monkey cage just hasn’t smelled right since you’ve been gone.
I’m so happy to see LB back.
three polls right off hand that show a majority willing to give public option a try. One of them with a combination of strong and somewhat supporting totaling over 80%. Links have already been provided in past threads. And if that many of us are idiots whose votes can be bought (though I beg to differ), well that’s democracy in action,isn’t it?
Sure people are concerned about cost. Of course, if you ask if people are concerned about anything in a poll a goodly number will express at least some concern. We all worry. But you can’t show me ANY poll that says a majority is against a public option.
And we weren’t talking about the politics of success or failure here. We were talking about the merits of public option as part of a good health care package. One discussion at a time, please. Once again, we must agree to disagree, LB.
Knockin’ doors and holding forums in NoCo, we’re finding that the polling numbers hold up. Even up here, roughly 70% want major changes.
The reason is simple, and the stories are common: at my kid’s baseball game last night, heard a fellow parent and farmer say: “can’t make the medical payments anymore, and can’t get any hay up with all this rain. They can take my house, if they want, but I can’t let her die.”
That, my friends, is “real” America, and the American people know it’s time we did something about it.
…universal catastrophic coverage help your anecdotal friend’s situation?
“can be take be pulled”. Am recovering from flu that really knocked me back and my self editing skills ain’t what they ought to be. A little hazy and physically exhausted. Which is not to say, LB, that I think my general reasoning is off.
There need to be changes, but creating a giant, inefficient, potentially more expensive system isn’t the answer in my eyes.
A couple of focal points:
1. We need to provide some sort of safety net coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.
2. IMO, we need to keep decisions on who needs what out of the hands of the government.
3. A baseline, no frills catastrophic coverage system would go a long way towards solving a lot of these problems.
out of the hands of those whose bottom line interest is denying as much care as possible and avoiding the mildest level of risk.
As a self employed, self insured person, always on the look out for a better deal, I was once rejected by a less expensive plan because I had taken a prescription allergy medication the previous year, a medication so potent and high risk its now available over the counter.
That was it. My weight, blood pressure, general health and habits (don’t smoke, do exercise, etc) all great and I never run to the doctor over anything if I can help it, including the lousy flu I’m getting over.
Don’t think a public option plan would be quite that draconian in decision making and I might even feel free to get routine tests I now put off pretty much indefinitely since they have become increasingly expensive while my costs and deductible have become so much higher.
Never mind I’m very healthy and cost my private insurers so much less than what I pay in. I’ve been a reliable profit machine for them all my life and get screwed for it as a “thank you”. Hard for me to see how a public option could possibly not better meet the needs of someone like me, much less someone with serious health issues.
If the decision was in the hands of the doctors under the catastrophic policy?
a system that encourages routine tests and care is less expensive than one that encourages putting any health care off until you find yourself in the hospital for hundreds of thousands of dollars worth surgery and IC or with an advanced cancer.
For what I now pay just to make sure I don’t lose everything if something like that happens, I sure as hell ought to be able to make a few yearly visits to my doctor and get the routine tests they nag people my age to get without coming up with thousands more in deductibles in addition to what I pay in premiums.
That’s why I’m quite sure any tax increase connected with a public option would cost me less and give me more than anything the for profit insurers are going to come up with. Let them market to those who want luxury hospital suites, etc.
I want civilized healthcare, not a system that covers the middle class only after we’ve become seriously, expensively ill. That’s where our system is headed, with more companies offering employees less every year. Those plans people like so much are disappearing on their own without a public option to blame.
The government does some things poorly, but it also does some things very very well. Having recently spent a lot of time talking to government employees (trying to sell Windward), I am overall very very impressed with the job done by govt employees.
“Inviting the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to have a seat at the table is like inviting your drug dealer to your intervention.”
See, I can tell you two apart pretty much instantly now.