<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Health Care Reform Finally Takes the Stage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://coloradoindependent.com/3532/health-care-reform-finally-takes-the-stage/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/3532/health-care-reform-finally-takes-the-stage</link>
	<description>News you can&#039;t get anywhere else</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 14:59:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: shoezack</title>
		<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/3532/health-care-reform-finally-takes-the-stage/comment-page-1#comment-10133</link>
		<dc:creator>shoezack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:35:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coloradoindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=3532#comment-10133</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;matt&lt;/strong&gt; This study is 100% Bunk! The doctors who did this study also conducted one in 2002 and found that the majority of doctors did not want national health care, the problem with this is that the 2 question surveys drastically differ in there 2nd question. I found this article, &lt;a href=&quot;http://jaajoe.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=39&amp;Itemid=28#jc_allComments&quot;&gt;60% of Physicians Surveyed Oppose Switching to a National Health Care Plan&lt;/a&gt;, It&#039;s worth a read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>matt</strong> This study is 100% Bunk! The doctors who did this study also conducted one in 2002 and found that the majority of doctors did not want national health care, the problem with this is that the 2 question surveys drastically differ in there 2nd question. I found this article, <a href="http://jaajoe.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=39&amp;Itemid=28#jc_allComments">60% of Physicians Surveyed Oppose Switching to a National Health Care Plan</a>, It&#39;s worth a read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oldbogus</title>
		<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/3532/health-care-reform-finally-takes-the-stage/comment-page-1#comment-10132</link>
		<dc:creator>oldbogus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:36:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coloradoindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=3532#comment-10132</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Lamm&#039;s right&lt;/strong&gt; from my experience on an insurance advisory committee for the Colorado Springs Utilities. One of the commonest comments was &quot;they&quot; (choose any allegedly high risk group: gays, obese, those with numerous offspring, or smokers) would run costs up. The misconceptions are legion.&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;In fact, in any large group plan, less than 10% of the covered incur 90% of the cost of claims. Usually due to catastrophic illnesses like cancer, life-threatening diabetes, accident, and other crises. A never-ending battle is the effort by other insurees to force those claimants into a &quot;special group&quot; to reduce costs. The statistical analysis of this measure was that individual premiums would drop maybe 5% or so but the &quot;outcasts&quot;&#039;s cost would actually make it cheaper for them to pay the hundreds of thousands of medical care out of pocket than pay the disastrous premiums they would require.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;Then there are the &quot;opt outs&quot;: &quot;I don&#039;t need no insurance &#039;cause I won&#039;t get sick so give me the money.&quot; Until they get a serious illness or condition. Or family. Then these lawyers mysteriously appear.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;Which illustrates the [nonprofit] insurance concept &quot;shared risk&quot;. Group medical insurance is based on this concept. The larger the group, the bigger the spread of risk. The ultimate humane solution is one-payer, universal insurance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;br&gt;But forcing insurance on everyone is not the way. A plan like Medicare (which I am, incidentally, being, for all practical purposes, forced to join) with fixed and defined costs and benefits would be perfect. And if you don&#039;t join, you are on your own. No one sues Medicare for not forcing coverage if they decline.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Lamm&#39;s right</strong> from my experience on an insurance advisory committee for the Colorado Springs Utilities. One of the commonest comments was &#8220;they&#8221; (choose any allegedly high risk group: gays, obese, those with numerous offspring, or smokers) would run costs up. The misconceptions are legion.
<p>In fact, in any large group plan, less than 10% of the covered incur 90% of the cost of claims. Usually due to catastrophic illnesses like cancer, life-threatening diabetes, accident, and other crises. A never-ending battle is the effort by other insurees to force those claimants into a &#8220;special group&#8221; to reduce costs. The statistical analysis of this measure was that individual premiums would drop maybe 5% or so but the &#8220;outcasts&#8221;&#39;s cost would actually make it cheaper for them to pay the hundreds of thousands of medical care out of pocket than pay the disastrous premiums they would require.</p>
<p>Then there are the &#8220;opt outs&#8221;: &#8220;I don&#39;t need no insurance &#39;cause I won&#39;t get sick so give me the money.&#8221; Until they get a serious illness or condition. Or family. Then these lawyers mysteriously appear.</p>
<p>Which illustrates the [nonprofit] insurance concept &#8220;shared risk&#8221;. Group medical insurance is based on this concept. The larger the group, the bigger the spread of risk. The ultimate humane solution is one-payer, universal insurance.</p>
<p>But forcing insurance on everyone is not the way. A plan like Medicare (which I am, incidentally, being, for all practical purposes, forced to join) with fixed and defined costs and benefits would be perfect. And if you don&#39;t join, you are on your own. No one sues Medicare for not forcing coverage if they decline.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oldbogus</title>
		<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/3532/health-care-reform-finally-takes-the-stage/comment-page-1#comment-6883</link>
		<dc:creator>oldbogus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coloradoindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=3532#comment-6883</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Lamm&#039;s right&lt;/strong&gt; from my experience on an insurance advisory committee for the Colorado Springs Utilities. One of the commonest comments was &quot;they&quot; (choose any allegedly high risk group: gays, obese, those with numerous offspring, or smokers) would run costs up. The misconceptions are legion.&lt;p&gt;
In fact, in any large group plan, less than 10% of the covered incur 90% of the cost of claims. Usually due to catastrophic illnesses like cancer, life-threatening diabetes, accident, and other crises. A never-ending battle is the effort by other insurees to force those claimants into a &quot;special group&quot; to reduce costs. The statistical analysis of this measure was that individual premiums would drop maybe 5% or so but the &quot;outcasts&quot;&#039;s cost would actually make it cheaper for them to pay the hundreds of thousands of medical care out of pocket than pay the disastrous premiums they would require.&lt;p&gt;
Then there are the &quot;opt outs&quot;: &quot;I don&#039;t need no insurance &#039;cause I won&#039;t get sick so give me the money.&quot; Until they get a serious illness or condition. Or family. Then these lawyers mysteriously appear.&lt;p&gt;
Which illustrates the [nonprofit] insurance concept &quot;shared risk&quot;. Group medical insurance is based on this concept. The larger the group, the bigger the spread of risk. The ultimate humane solution is one-payer, universal insurance.&lt;p&gt;
But forcing insurance on everyone is not the way. A plan like Medicare (which I am, incidentally, being, for all practical purposes, forced to join) with fixed and defined costs and benefits would be perfect. And if you don&#039;t join, you are on your own. No one sues Medicare for not forcing coverage if they decline.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Lamm&#8217;s right</strong> from my experience on an insurance advisory committee for the Colorado Springs Utilities. One of the commonest comments was &#8220;they&#8221; (choose any allegedly high risk group: gays, obese, those with numerous offspring, or smokers) would run costs up. The misconceptions are legion.
<p>
In fact, in any large group plan, less than 10% of the covered incur 90% of the cost of claims. Usually due to catastrophic illnesses like cancer, life-threatening diabetes, accident, and other crises. A never-ending battle is the effort by other insurees to force those claimants into a &#8220;special group&#8221; to reduce costs. The statistical analysis of this measure was that individual premiums would drop maybe 5% or so but the &#8220;outcasts&#8221;&#8216;s cost would actually make it cheaper for them to pay the hundreds of thousands of medical care out of pocket than pay the disastrous premiums they would require.</p>
<p>
Then there are the &#8220;opt outs&#8221;: &#8220;I don&#8217;t need no insurance &#8217;cause I won&#8217;t get sick so give me the money.&#8221; Until they get a serious illness or condition. Or family. Then these lawyers mysteriously appear.</p>
<p>
Which illustrates the [nonprofit] insurance concept &#8220;shared risk&#8221;. Group medical insurance is based on this concept. The larger the group, the bigger the spread of risk. The ultimate humane solution is one-payer, universal insurance.</p>
<p>
But forcing insurance on everyone is not the way. A plan like Medicare (which I am, incidentally, being, for all practical purposes, forced to join) with fixed and defined costs and benefits would be perfect. And if you don&#8217;t join, you are on your own. No one sues Medicare for not forcing coverage if they decline.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shoezack</title>
		<link>http://coloradoindependent.com/3532/health-care-reform-finally-takes-the-stage/comment-page-1#comment-6884</link>
		<dc:creator>shoezack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.coloradoindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=3532#comment-6884</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;matt&lt;/strong&gt; This study is 100% Bunk! The doctors who did this study also conducted one in 2002 and found that the majority of doctors did not want national health care, the problem with this is that the 2 question surveys drastically differ in there 2nd question. I found this article, &lt;a href=&quot;http://jaajoe.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=39&amp;Itemid=28#jc_allComments&quot;&gt;60% of Physicians Surveyed Oppose Switching to a National Health Care Plan&lt;/a&gt;, It&#039;s worth a read.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>matt</strong> This study is 100% Bunk! The doctors who did this study also conducted one in 2002 and found that the majority of doctors did not want national health care, the problem with this is that the 2 question surveys drastically differ in there 2nd question. I found this article, <a href="http://jaajoe.com/index.php?option=com_content&#038;task=view&#038;id=39&#038;Itemid=28#jc_allComments">60% of Physicians Surveyed Oppose Switching to a National Health Care Plan</a>, It&#8217;s worth a read.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

