• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If you lived in Colorado, would you vote for single-payer this year?

If you lived in Colorado, would you vote for single-payer this year?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 23 43.4%
  • No!

    Votes: 22 41.5%
  • I'm not sure, I would need to know more

    Votes: 8 15.1%
  • I would abstain

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    53
Well correct if wrong but a single payer limited to a state means if i were to travel outside the state i wouldn't covered. So i would need other insurance anyway, or to stay within the state. This is also a problem with the medicaid expansion
 
Why not remove insurance (that also means removing government insurance) from healthcare as much as possible, making it cash for service up to a certain cutoff?

because illness is somewhat random so everyone paying out of pocket just screws people with bad luck, and especially the poor and elderly. That's the idea behind all insurance - "i can't guarantee this won't happen to me, it's out of my hands to a large extent"
 
Why not remove insurance (that also means removing government insurance) from healthcare as much as possible, making it cash for service up to a certain cutoff?

Sounds like some people are already there. See:

My sister and her husband now have a deductible that exceeds any annual expense for healthcare they're ever had. What they have now that is called health insurance is actually a catastrophic coverage policy.



Well correct if wrong but a single payer limited to a state means if i were to travel outside the state i wouldn't covered. So i would need other insurance anyway, or to stay within the state. This is also a problem with the medicaid expansion

The policy on that is TBD. The text of Colorado's amendment calls for ColoradoCare's board to develop policy around that circumstance:

(n) Establish policies and procedures to pay benefits for health care services rendered to a beneficiary who is temporarily living or traveling in another state;
 
Well it kind of is the providers fault as well. Our healthcare is more expensive in this country than anywhere else because our providers charge more for their services, in most cases far more, than they do anywhere else in the world. This is particularly true with specialists. It is nothing for a specialist to charge a few grand simply to look at a test or CT scan result for a patient in the hospital. Quite literally thousands of dollars for a few minutes of their time. My wife works at an insurance defense firm and has to look at medical records and billing all the time. Many of the prices charged by providers are absurdly expensive.

This notion that some cost control on that would force doctors to go elsewhere is ridiculous. They won't make anymore anywhere else than they do here. How many impoverished specialists have you ever seen? We have a system here where your GP is often undercompensated for their services while in many cases specialists are way overcompensated relative to what they would get anywhere else on earth.

Finally, what is the solution otherwise. If we are not paying providers and big pharma less for their services, then there is no cost control.

what you don't seem to realize is that these doctors and providers have high costs, right down to their education, insurance, and equipment costs. How much are those costs for doctors, specialists, and providers compared to other countries? Many countries with national healthcare only run with one or few doctors in a practice and several nurses who actually do the doctor's work. You don't see a specialist with five doctors in the group like you do in the US. In fact with many of these countries you very rarely see that one doctor in the group at all but a nurse instead.
 
what you don't seem to realize is that these doctors and providers have high costs, right down to their education, insurance, and equipment costs. How much are those costs for doctors, specialists, and providers compared to other countries? Many countries with national healthcare only run with one or few doctors in a practice and several nurses who actually do the doctor's work. You don't see a specialist with five doctors in the group like you do in the US. In fact with many of these countries you very rarely see that one doctor in the group at all but a nurse instead.

I get all that. However, even with the costs of education, equipment and so on, we don't have any impoverished specialists in this country and after they pay for all of that equipment, insurance and so on, they still earn more here than they would just about anywhere else. In fact the only places on earth they can more more is Australia or the Netherlands, both wealthy countries with small populations.

Either we reduce the amount of money we pay providers, or we ration healthcare, or we do both, that is the only way you are going to curb healthcare costs because that is where all the cost is. Even if there was someway to introduce true market forces into health care, which is pretty hard for necessary healthcare because your choice as a consumer is either pay or die, but even if we did, then market forces would reduce salaries of specialists and income to providers.
 
Last edited:
Why not remove insurance (that also means removing government insurance) from healthcare as much as possible, making it cash for service up to a certain cutoff?

How does a high deductible plan reduce overall health costs? Reason why I ask that is the bulk of health costs are not in routine healthcare that would then be paid out of pocket or out of an HSA. The majority of health spending in this country is for chronic conditions like cancer, heart disease, diabetes, dementia, and end of life care. For example, let's say that God forbid a person gets cancer. The costs of treating their cancer for just one month will exceed the costs of a lifetime worth of routine medical care.

High deductible plans can be good in terms of padding an insurers bottom line a bit, and they can be good for younger upper middle class consumers, but there is no reason at all to believe they would do anything substantive to curb over all health care spending growth in this country as the problem is not routine care, its the big stuff.
 
Every government run medical system is a cluster ****.

So how much personal experience do you have with government-run medical systems? AND while we're at it, please relate to us your personal experience with EVERY government-run medical system, since you believe that you are able to categorically state that they're all fusterclucks.
 
You can't just arbitrarily impose tort reform, it has to become ingrained in the society. When you have thousands of ambulance-chasing lawyers encouraging people to sue at the drop of a hat, you've got problems and no legislation can change that.

In other words, you're sticking with the theory and the rhetoric, and are choosing to flatly ignore the real-world results of what happens when what you support is actually implemented.
 
In other words, you're sticking with the theory and the rhetoric, and are choosing to flatly ignore the real-world results of what happens when what you support is actually implemented.

I'm saying that your results wouldn't actually work in the real world.
 
So how much personal experience do you have with government-run medical systems? AND while we're at it, please relate to us your personal experience with EVERY government-run medical system, since you believe that you are able to categorically state that they're all fusterclucks.

How's the VA working, nowadays? Running like a well oiled machine, is it?

The government couldn't even make the Obamacare website work right. How is Obamacare, BTW? How many exchanges have collapsed so far?
 
How does a high deductible plan reduce overall health costs? Reason why I ask that is the bulk of health costs are not in routine healthcare that would then be paid out of pocket or out of an HSA. The majority of health spending in this country is for chronic conditions like cancer, heart disease, diabetes, dementia, and end of life care. For example, let's say that God forbid a person gets cancer. The costs of treating their cancer for just one month will exceed the costs of a lifetime worth of routine medical care.

High deductible plans can be good in terms of padding an insurers bottom line a bit, and they can be good for younger upper middle class consumers, but there is no reason at all to believe they would do anything substantive to curb over all health care spending growth in this country as the problem is not routine care, its the big stuff.

The consumer must somehow have an interest in how much they are being charged.
 
The consumer must somehow have an interest in how much they are being charged.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. When you suffer a heart attack or whatever, whatever happens, happens. The system is kind of a monopoly. You can't tell the ambulance driver to take you to the cheaper hospital, and then ask the hospital for the cheapest doctor from another hospital, and ask that any drugs needed be delivered to the hospital by the cheapest pharmacy in town. You're stuck with whatever happens to you.
 
The problem with all of these programs, including Obamacare, is that there is not one bit of anything in place to control health care costs, other than paying the doctors and providers less and less money, like it is all their fault that prices rise. Until we get serious about working with doctors, providers, health insurers, and yes, even big Pharma about helping to control THEIR costs, the problem will never be solved.

You forgot lawyers who are the reason health care costs so much.
 
The wikipedia page gives a pretty good explanation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Germany

Their net costs are about half of ours and every man, woman and child in the country has full coverage. I've been using it for 4 years and I've watched all of my family members go through it for 10 years, and the quality is quite good and it's usually very easy and quick to see a doctor. Rarely is money ever exchanged hands, just show your card. Health insurance is co-paid 50% by you and 50% by your employer, and the plan always follows you, so you don't have to stay locked into a job to keep your insurance.

The true innovation / compromise is that if you don't want to participate in the public system you can opt-out and take that same money you would've paid elsewhere. Generally, if you go private young you'll save money, but later on in life it'll get more expensive. I plan on simply staying on the public system because it's cheap and high quality. Most of the benefits for private insurance are superficial, like having a single room in a hospital instead of a 2 person room. It's a bit like a free-to-play game where some people who want to can buy extra skins and visual effects that have no impact on gameplay.

Do you get to see a doctor when you need to or is there a wait?
 
If I lived there, sure - that's a no-brainer. The sad irony surrounding this initiative is that initially, a majority of voters were in favor of it, but when the healthcare industry stepped in and financially inundated the opposition, public opinion flipped and made an offering of its own good for the good of moneyed men that have a mandate to amorally monetize people's health.
 
The consumer must somehow have an interest in how much they are being charged.

I agree. However, once again you are just talking about the costs of routine care that would then be paid out of pocket or out of their HSA. The cost of routine care is not the problem in terms of overall health care costs. For example if you go to your GP for a standard medical exam with some standard bloodwork and pay completely out of pocket, it will probably cost you around 200 to 300 dollars for the visit. I don't think that is out of line cost wise to begin with. What is out of line however are things like specialists charging 2 grand or more for them to spend a maximum of 5 minutes glancing over the results of a test for a patient in a hospital, but you can't shop that one. Hell you might not even be concious when they do it. Right now the only curb to costs for that one is what the insurer prenegotiates the rate at for that service.
 
Do you get to see a doctor when you need to or is there a wait?

General doctor is almost always walk-ins, specialty appointments can be days or weeks, depending on their schedules or the importance of what you're doing. Having spent years through going through both systems I would say the German wait times are as good or better than ours.
 
When Coloradans go to the polls this year, they'll have the chance to vote on Amendment 69, which would create a state-level single-payer system in Colorado.

While the effort initially seemed to have some momentum it appears to be running out of gas short of the finish line:


If you lived there (maybe you do!) or your state were offering the same choice, would you opt to experiment with single-payer in your state?

I like the idea, but the only thing that worries me is that folk from other states will come a-running once we have something like this. Plus it's not going to really generate the popular support to pass. But at least we can have the discussion in this state without things getting out of hand to badly.
 
How's the VA working, nowadays? Running like a well oiled machine, is it?

The government couldn't even make the Obamacare website work right. How is Obamacare, BTW? How many exchanges have collapsed so far?

I notice you provided precisely ZERO personal experience with the VA or any other government-run health care. But I'm pretty sure you do have some personal experience with them.

The VA's had problems, yes...BUT it's a grand error on YOUR part to look at the VA's problems and ASSUME that because the VA had problems, that ALL government-run health care must therefore be screwed up.

FYI, I do go to the VA and I personally have had no problems at all with them. But that's not the only one I go to. I and my wife are covered by TRICARE, which is what covers all active-duty personnel...and all retired military who choose it. And I've got nothing but good to say about TRICARE - it's saved my wife's life and saved mine. Earlier this year I had a knee replacement (at a cost to me of about $35 for meals)...and I was able to jump with that knee in two weeks flat. My other knee replacement's coming up in three weeks, and I'm eagerly looking forward to it. There's a great many retirees just like myself who happily use TRICARE - and if you'll recall, MOST military retirees strongly tend to be conservative. Have you heard Fox News telling you how screwed up this particular government-run health care is? No, you haven't...because it isn't.

So when you tell me just how horribly screwed-up ALL government-run health care is, I know from personal experience how incredibly wrong you are...and it's glaringly obvious that you - like so many other conservatives out there - are looking at the relatively few problems of the VA (when compared to the tens of millions it serves) and assume that if the VA is screwed up, ALL government-run health care must therefore be screwed up.

Oh, and one more thing - the VA didn't have nearly so many problems before your side decided to engage in military adventurism in the ME, and saddled the VA with literally hundreds of thousands of new patients for which it wasn't prepared or funded...and so they got overwhelmed.
 
I notice you provided precisely ZERO personal experience with the VA or any other government-run health care. But I'm pretty sure you do have some personal experience with them.

The VA's had problems, yes...BUT it's a grand error on YOUR part to look at the VA's problems and ASSUME that because the VA had problems, that ALL government-run health care must therefore be screwed up.

FYI, I do go to the VA and I personally have had no problems at all with them. But that's not the only one I go to. I and my wife are covered by TRICARE, which is what covers all active-duty personnel...and all retired military who choose it. And I've got nothing but good to say about TRICARE - it's saved my wife's life and saved mine. Earlier this year I had a knee replacement (at a cost to me of about $35 for meals)...and I was able to jump with that knee in two weeks flat. My other knee replacement's coming up in three weeks, and I'm eagerly looking forward to it. There's a great many retirees just like myself who happily use TRICARE - and if you'll recall, MOST military retirees strongly tend to be conservative. Have you heard Fox News telling you how screwed up this particular government-run health care is? No, you haven't...because it isn't.

So when you tell me just how horribly screwed-up ALL government-run health care is, I know from personal experience how incredibly wrong you are...and it's glaringly obvious that you - like so many other conservatives out there - are looking at the relatively few problems of the VA (when compared to the tens of millions it serves) and assume that if the VA is screwed up, ALL government-run health care must therefore be screwed up.

Oh, and one more thing - the VA didn't have nearly so many problems before your side decided to engage in military adventurism in the ME, and saddled the VA with literally hundreds of thousands of new patients for which it wasn't prepared or funded...and so they got overwhelmed.

The government can't even take care of 1% of the population, but you want the government to take care of 100% of the population. I'll pass. When the VA runs properly, get back with me.
 
I'm saying that your results wouldn't actually work in the real world.

Hm, let me see here. You are so much in support of tort reform, I presented two solid examples where it was tried and did NOT work (Texas of today and California where it was passed under Reagan), and you still can't pull yourself away from the conviction that tort reform is some kind of great shining solution to all that ills our health care system.

I haven't discussed my solution, have I? Personally, I like Germany's system: single-payer for those who want it, and for those who decide to opt out of it, they're free to purchase private health insurance or health care on their own.

In other words, they have a freedom of choice that we don't have. AND - unlike your claim - it DOES work in the real world...Germany proves it every single day, ensuring ALL citizens have access to quality health care, at a much lower per-citizen cost than we already pay.

But wait! Let me guess - you're going to say, "well, just move to Germany, then!" Because that's the normal retort from conservatives whenever we point out how this or that nation is able to do something better than we do, with much fewer taxpayer dollars than we do. The problem with this is that it exposes a grand assumption that it's somehow unpatriotic to learn positive lessons from other nations, much less to copy one their ideas when that particular idea is a heck of a lot better than what we've currently got.
 
The government can't even take care of 1% of the population, but you want the government to take care of 100% of the population. I'll pass. When the VA runs properly, get back with me.

In other words, you couldn't refute what I posted, so you go back to the tried-and-true method of making broad-brush accusations based on cherry-picked observations.

Some things never change.
 
In other words, you couldn't refute what I posted, so you go back to the tried-and-true method of making broad-brush accusations based on cherry-picked observations.

Some things never change.

In other words, the VA is cocked up and you can't prove otherwise.
 
Hm, let me see here. You are so much in support of tort reform, I presented two solid examples where it was tried and did NOT work (Texas of today and California where it was passed under Reagan), and you still can't pull yourself away from the conviction that tort reform is some kind of great shining solution to all that ills our health care system.

I haven't discussed my solution, have I? Personally, I like Germany's system: single-payer for those who want it, and for those who decide to opt out of it, they're free to purchase private health insurance or health care on their own.

In other words, they have a freedom of choice that we don't have. AND - unlike your claim - it DOES work in the real world...Germany proves it every single day, ensuring ALL citizens have access to quality health care, at a much lower per-citizen cost than we already pay.

But wait! Let me guess - you're going to say, "well, just move to Germany, then!" Because that's the normal retort from conservatives whenever we point out how this or that nation is able to do something better than we do, with much fewer taxpayer dollars than we do. The problem with this is that it exposes a grand assumption that it's somehow unpatriotic to learn positive lessons from other nations, much less to copy one their ideas when that particular idea is a heck of a lot better than what we've currently got.

For some reason, Americans, particularly conservatives are incensed by the idea that we could learn anything from the way any other nation handles it's business. It's long been a weakness of America, that we feel that our way, as long as it originates here, is somehow superior to anyone else's, regardless of real world outcomes. Japan is a shining example of how flawed that line of reasoning is. Japan didn't invent the automobile, or the VCR, or many of those things they do so well. They copied others and then improved upon them. Now if only Americans could even begin to grasp that concept, we could do wonderful things, but with this whole alt right, anger with no viable solutions offered, I fear we move backwards, and away from this more and more, and it will likely be our downfall.
 
For some reason, Americans, particularly conservatives are incensed by the idea that we could learn anything from the way any other nation handles it's business. It's long been a weakness of America, that we feel that our way, as long as it originates here, is somehow superior to anyone else's, regardless of real world outcomes. Japan is a shining example of how flawed that line of reasoning is. Japan didn't invent the automobile, or the VCR, or many of those things they do so well. They copied others and then improved upon them. Now if only Americans could even begin to grasp that concept, we could do wonderful things, but with this whole alt right, anger with no viable solutions offered, I fear we move backwards, and away from this more and more, and it will likely be our downfall.

Bigger federal government is fraught with problems and bureaucracy and our founding fathers specifically didn't want a large federal government. That's what our country is. As far as other country's health care systems go, I have had a couple of chronic conditions where I have had a lot of contact with people all over the world on message boards and I wouldn't want their health care systems. It is easy to get misled by just reading world wide health care statistics instead of having first hand experience. There are advantages and disadvantages to every system and I don't claim that our system doesn't need improvement.
 
Back
Top Bottom