Koch Brothers Attempt to Kill Single-Payer Health Care in Colorado

[marmar]

Koch Brothers Attempt to Kill Single-Payer Health Care in Colorado

Thursday, 24 March 2016 09:47
By Michael Corcoran, Truthout | Report


Colorado's efforts to become the first state to pass a public, universal health care system are facing stiff opposition from right-wing organizations, many of which are funded by or affiliated with brothers Charles and David Koch.

As expected, these moneyed interests are doing everything they can to stop the state from amending its constitution with a ballot referendum, Amendment 69, which would implement a statewide version of "single-payer" health care. If approved, ColoradoCare would cover every resident, regardless of employment or ability to pay. In October, organizers submitted enough signatures to put the amendment on the ballot. The vote will take place on Election Day this year.

If the opposition groups succeed, they would not only be depriving Colorado of universal health care, but also would be serving another destructive blow to single-payer activists across the country. The single-payer movement saw a similar effort in Vermont fail in 2015, and its activists were shunned by the White House during federal reform discussions in 2010.

These groups and their tactics demonstrate how progressive state policies are opposed -- and often defeated -- with the help of a vast and impressive network of free market groups in all 50 states. Many of these groups have ties to the billionaire Koch brothers, who have vigorously resisted health care reform in Washington and in the states. Opposition is also coming from the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and is expected from the health insurance and drug industries. Combined, these forces will be an extremely difficult obstacle for advocates of health care justice, who hope Colorado can create health care history.

Given the wealth and organization of the opposition, if Colorado is to become the first state to pass universal, guaranteed health care, it will require a massive effort: strong coalitions, lots of education and as many resources as possible, possibly including support from outside of the state. This is because if ColoradoCare becomes a reality, there is hope that it could create momentum for single-payer health care across the country -- and this is exactly why the right is so rigorously opposed to these kinds of plans. .................(more)

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35353-koch-brothers-attempt-to-kill-single-payer-health-care-in-colorado

[Auggie]

1. I think it would be somewhat easier to get people on board with Single-Payer if ...

we referred to it as Single-Payer Health Insurance instead of Single-Payer Health Care.

[truebluegreen]

2. I think it would be easier if we called it Medicare For All

(and yes, I know that is a federal program). But in my view the "insurance" part is what we are trying to stigmatize/change: the whole profit motive in the health care system.

[Auggie]

3. That would work too

[Darb]

4. I disagree, respectfully.

Medicare is for the elderly. People work hard for what they have and do not want to be lumped together with everyone else. It is a part of reason for working so hard, to have good health insurance.

There should be a base plan for everyone, the rest should be purchased or provided by employer.

Just my opinion.

[Rebkeh]

9. That reinforces the notion of health care as a privilege

Most of the country disagrees. Most of the world, for that matter. I prefer calling it what it is - a natural born right.

[Darb]

10. Define how it gets paid for so that

we can all know. Is it just a part of our tax burden, carved out from the pie? Do we pay for it in addition to our normal tax burden? Thanks.

[Rebkeh]

12. Go to feelthebern.org or google it

Better yet, listen to his speeches, they are quite detailed and substantive.

I'm not doing your homework for you.

[abelenkpe]

18. Spoken like a true republican

[Darb]

39. I pay for insurance now.

I work hard for it. I do not want Medicare. So stow that ignorant shit.

[LanternWaste]

22. I like to pretend my obligations are burdens too.

I like to pretend my obligations and responsibilities are burdens too.

[Darb]

40. Taxes are a burden we bear, quit whining and answer the question.

How does it get paid for and how do we make services available for everyone? Explain.

[passiveporcupine]

28. No one is talking about taking away your Medicare on retirement plan

We are talking about making it a better plan that everyone pays for now (if they make enough money) and is eligible for now, including you, if you aren't retirement age yet. It means making health care more cost effective, while offering better coverage than you can get now from basic Medicare. Yes, it covers people who are not working and able to pay for it, but so does Medicare...they cover spouses on retirement, even if they never paid into it, and disabled now even if they can no longer pay into it.

It's fine for retired people and disabled, but it's not a great plan, as vision and dental are not covered and prescription coverage is not as good as it could be, if we could negotiate for better pricing from the pharmas.

Medicare for all would provide you better coverage for your whole life, and cost less than what you (not you specifically) pay for insurance and medicare now. It's a win win for everyone.

If you want better coverage than the basics pay for, you still will have an option to supplement it with private, for/profit insurance. Just like now with the advantage plans.

Why anyone would have a problem with that is just beyond me.

[Darb]

41. Thanks for taking a few minutes to explain. At least

you didn't call me a Republican. So everyone in the health insurance industry gets laid off? Are there enough health care providers? Many doctors don't take medicare and medicaid patients now, as things are, or limit the amount, are they going to be forced to take them?

My questions are about viability and practicality. I want to know how we get there from here.

[passiveporcupine]

43. Right now, Medicare is run by the government, but

managed through private insurance companies, and enlarging Medicare will mean using more privage insurance companies to manage care. It will not result in all insurance companies being shut down and everyone losing their jobs.

Medicare does limit payments and negotiates pricing, but it pays a very fair cost for most services. Because of private insurance, paid for by employers, costs have risen drastically in the medical field. They have far outpaced an individuals ability to pay for services like we used to before insurance. The hospitals and medical providers set their prices too high, knowing they will be knocked down by insurers, and even more by Medicare.

I don't know that there is a shortage of doctors for Medicare. I do know that Medicaid pays less and many doctors refuse to take it. But if everyone were on the same health care plan, all doctors would have to take it and it would pay uniformly, not higher for some people and lower for others, so Medicaid I'm assuming would be absorbed into Medicare. There would be no more games played by medical providers to try to squeek a litte more money out of the insurance provider, because they would not be dealing with competing insurance companies, who negotiate based on size.

None of the bills that hospitals and doctors provide (unless they operate on cash only) are real. They are all jacked up because of the for-profit nature of insurance.

Medicare pays for all necessary care, and you pay for it with your taxes, but you pay a lot less than what people pay now for for-profit insurance (which just makes sense, since you are cutting out the middle man). And it's fair pay for doctors and hospitals. They are not hurting on what they get.

Concerning the layoff of insurance workers (and doctors office employees who process insurance), yes there will be job losses because there will be only one insurance plan for doctors and hospitals to deal with...but that will also bring down medical costs a lot.

One thing to remember, as the baby boomers retire and as our population continues to grow, there will be more need for medical providers, not less, so many more jobs may open up that can absorb these people in other functions of medical office staffing.

I'm not really worried about potential layoffs. It happens in every industry now, but in this case the re-absorption into new positions is going to make less of an impact than many layoffs for companies that shift their jobs overseas. At this point in time, we cannot shift our medical jobs overseas. That may change in the future.

And another thing that might help bring down medical and dental costs is if we offer free college and medical students don't graduate with a ton of debt they have to pay off...which of course is added to their costs in the field.

[Cassiopeia]

14. Many want good jobs that provide decent health insurance

and they simply can't get them. Millions are underemployed and not in that position by choice.

It's time to stop punishing people with poor healthcare or no healthcare simply because they can't find a great job that provides good health insurance.

[ananda]

25. I don't mind being lumped in at all.

EVERYBODY deserves good affordable healthcare!

[Darb]

42. As long as there are enough providers.

Are there enough? Many DRs don't accept additional medicare and medicaid patients because of the low reimbursement. Will this produce a DR shortage? Should we just expect all DRs to work longer and harder to take care of more patients?

How do we get there?

[EdwardBernays]

6. it's not insurance though??

why call it that?

If we wanna just call it something nice sounding why not call it kittens?

[Liberalagogo]

17. Single-Payer Health Kittens

is the name of my new band.

[Recursion]

32. Sure it is

Unless you're actually making the physicians state employees, it's just insurance, not care.

[EdwardBernays]

36. The state is paying them

By definition.

[Recursion]

37. And? Insurance companies pay them now

If we're going to say "health insurance isn't health care" (and that makes sense), then we have to admit that "social health insurance", which is a subcategory of "health insurance", also isn't health care.

[EdwardBernays]

38. What you're missing

Is that the insurer takes a chunk of profit as a private enterprise and regulates coverage based on contribution. That is exactly not how single payer or universal Healthcare works.

Social health insurance is closer, but it's also not the same thing as insurance, because there is no limiting of coverage. If you can't pay, the state will. Yes it's a public private partnership, but it doesn't set the terms of anything; those are collectively negotiated.

In the end its more like the government is paying a company to administrate Healthcare than provide it, and that company can not set the terms or the costs or the level of provision without negotiating with the government and often representatives of labor, etc.

Very very different to health insurance.

[eridani]

35. We actually need care, but we don't need insurance. n/t

[turbinetree]

5. I think......................................

the citizens of Colorado and across this country need to file a suit against these two hypocrites and there cronies and side groups that are going around under the disguise as being a 501c (3) front group using a slush fund money to operate under, and say that they don't want any interference on this issue, you are not a citizen of the state, and you do not live in the state


Honk--------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

[EdwardBernays]

7. Single payer

works all over the world... it's amazing how many Americans still think you have to pay some middle man to have healthcare...

[Cassiopeia]

16. American exceptionalism

We're exceptional all right.

[wilt the stilt]

19. actually it doesn't

only a few countries actually have it . most have some form of it with additional coverage being paid for by the insured.

[EdwardBernays]

20. Actually that's not true

Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception

http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/

The ones listed as two tier have single payer but with the option of premium Healthcare at an additional cost (private rooms, no waiting lists, etc.)

Some countries like Germany have mandated insurance, but it's nothing as stupid as Obamacare and doesn't leave 15% without Healthcare.

"Health insurance is compulsory for the whole population in Germany. Salaried workers and employees below the relatively high income threshold of almost 50,000 Euros per year are automatically enrolled into one of currently around 130 public non-profit "sickness funds" at common rates for all members, and is paid for with joint employer-employee contributions. Provider payment is negotiated in complex corporatist social bargaining among specified self-governed bodies (e.g. physicians' associations) at the level of federal states (Länder). The sickness funds are mandated to provide a unique and broad benefit package and cannot refuse membership or otherwise discriminate on an actuarial basis. Social welfare beneficiaries are also enrolled in statutory health insurance, and municipalities pay contributions on behalf of them."

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

[wilt the stilt]

23. universal healthcare is not single payer

I am all for single payer as I own my own business. Most of the world has a graduated universal system.

[ret5hd]

26. Oh...I see...we're playing the game "Semantics".

How many dice are in this game?

[Recursion]

34. You don't even care about single payer enough to learn what it is?

Yeah, this does a lot to explain why it's getting nowhere in the US, honestly.

[EdwardBernays]

27. if you

go look at the link I posted you'll see that there's plenty of single payer examples...

[Recursion]

33. If you honestly cared about this issue, you would have learned that universal healthcare is not

the same thing as single payer.

The fact that you haven't makes me question your commitment to this.

[zentrum]

11. Hmm, the Koch Bros.

Weren't they the same kindred who helped fund the original DLC, founded by the Clintons, Rahm Emmanuel et al? Why yes-----they were!

Funny how this all works.

[Delmette]

13. Kansas had their chance at a real life experiment for their state.

Colorado should be able to do their version of a real life experiment.

The trick is to frame it properly so that citizens understand that Colorado will benefit the 99%, not the 1%.

[jeepers]

15. You gonna stand there and watch.?

Instead of starting your own initiative drive in your state to call for Medicare for all. We could use the support. The revolution has to be about finding ways for the citizen to participate.

[Ferd Berfel]

21. Will Hillary be any better on this issues?

[pbmus]

24. Koch = EVIL

[locks]

29. Thank you marmar

I know many people who have worked to have universal health care for 40 years, even before the Clintons tried to get it passed. The Coloradans behind Amendment 69 ColoradoCare, like T.R.Reid, are outstanding progressives who have given their time and money to create a workable plan that will bring health care to all at less cost to the nation. These big moneyed insurance, drug and health care for-profit industries will fight tooth and nail to keep their huge profits. We need every person who wants to see this Amendment pass to support the effort and to pressure our Dem candidates to back it.

[Hotler]

30. Employers don't want single payer because then...

their employees would be able to quit and go to work some place else when they realize the place they work sucks. Can't have employees being free agents. Single payer takes the control (chains) away from the "Man". Nothing drives the"Man" more crazy than the thought that his employees have any freedom and he can't control their lives. Same way the "Man' doesn't like unions, because it gives employees a voice and some power to stand up for their own lives and defend themselves against being treated like shit.

[area51]

31. +1

I've thought this for awhile; it would save employers so much money to transition to single-payer but they don't want to lose that hammer they hold above employee heads.