DISQUS

If they "played by the rules" this county wouldn't have the expansion it's enjoyed - that everyone has enjoyed thanks to the increased property taxes on the homes occupied only a few weeks a year. Even the most diehard xenophobes I know have to admit that if the undocumented workers were carted out of the valley, the rest of us would be up the Eagle River without a paddle. I believe the point of the story is (1) the undocumented workers are working here in construction (that's a fact), (2) they work in jobs no one else would really want - demolition, for example, is dangerous and the lack of safety oversight makes it more so, (3) we have a law in place that requires workers' comp insurance be provided to ALL employees, (4) injured employees - regardless of immigration status - are often not able to access the system that is in place to pay for work-related injuries because employers don't want to file claims, (5) the result of (4) is to increase the losses healthcare providers experience due to treating uninsured people thereby increasing the cost of healthcare to all, and finally this quote:

Under CO workers' comp law all contractors are required to have workers' comp or insure that all subs have workers' comp coverage. It seems some employers are not playing by the same rules and they are exploiting laborers and the taxpayers at the same time. Why do people always blame the illegal workers for having the audacity to work here without work permits?

And let's not forget one of my all-time favorite denial/reduction in reimbursement comments (emphasis added):

"Your plan provides benefits for covered expenses at the prevailing charge level, AS DETERMINED BY AETNA, made for the service in the geographical area where it is provided. In determining the amount of a charge that is covered we may consider other factors including the prevailing charge in other areas. Aetna's determination of the prevailing charge does not suggest your provider's fee is not reasonable and proper. Your provider may bill you for this amount. If there is additional information that should be brought to our attention or questions on this reduction, please contact us at the telephone number, or by writing to the address, shown on this statement."

As determined by Aetna. Americans have to realize at some point that the bogey man out there is not the oil industry, but health care insurers and pharmaceutical companies. Insurance companies are financial services companies. I don't have to tell the readers how many financial services companies - including scions of the insurance industry such as Wellpoint and AIG - have been embroiled in scandals these last few years. The increased non-reimbursable amounts I have paid this year thanks to my insurer's "determinations" have far exceeded any increase in my household budget due to energy and food cost increases.

Thank you, Wildflower. The mantra of health insurers today is deny and delay. For the most part, people who have insurance still have to wonder if they have coverage. The arbitrary and capricious manner health insurers deal with claims is appalling yet their lobby - and the pharmaceutical industry lobby - manages to keep Congress off their backs.

Further to my comment about who's driving the healthcare bus - think about this definition (one of many different ones) of "medical necessity" from Aetna: Coverage is not provided for the following charges: Those for services and supplies not necessary, AS DETERMINED BY AETNA, for the diagnosis, care, or treatment of the disease or injury involved. This applies EVEN IF THEY ARE PRESCRIBED, RECOMMENDED, OR APPROVED BY THE PERSON'S ATTENDING PHYSICIAN OR DENTIST."

Think about that for a while. People who never see the insured are making determinations about coverage that trump an attending physician's or surgeon's treatment recommendations. In one case involving a chronic neurological issue, the physician that made the coverage decision was an internist who never even interviewed the patient and disregarded the advice of two neurologists, an internist and a physical medicine/rehab physician.

I thought this was the Colorado INDEPENDENT. While I recognize media outlets are rarely characterized as totally independent, I believe a little more balance in the Colorado INDEPENDENT would be called for. You are starting to sound a little like just another Obama news outlet when it comes to campaign coverage. What a shame as I was hoping to get a little balance somewhere.

How is "under-insured" defined? Does the study take into consideration the effects of decreasing reimbursements that results in healthcare providers dropping insurers such as United Healthcare and Anthem Blue Cross? Choice is increasingly being limited as providers turn away from carriers that squeeze every penny out of them. Does the study also take into effect the increasing number of denials for subjective (and often capricious) decisions that the treatment wasn't medically necessary thereby substituting some unnamed clerk with a high school diploma's decision for that a physician. Ludicrous. And why do they do it? Because they can! How many people simply walk away from a denial rather than appeal it? WHy? Because the process is daunting and many people would rather walk away from it than fight.

Bottom line is there is too much control on treatment by third party payors and that's where reform needs to occur. We don't need more insurance, quite the contrary. We need a sane system that doesn't allow insurance companies to reward doctors for results and PTs for completing a rehab under a certain number of visits. This gives insurers a great deal of power since many providers are happy to vie for the increased reimbursements if they play the game.

And where is the outrage? I don't hear of any legislators - national or state - calling for investigations of the bad faith practices of health care and disability insurers. Until such time as that happens, the insurers, not doctors, will drive the direction of healthcare and what sort of treatments will be allowed.

A bit like the Hartford, CT story, but in the high country. I find this shocking, but sadly not surprising. As David noted, the apathy of the city streets is spilling over to the wilderness trails. The hikers must not have been locals!

As to the beetle-kill tree question, good question. Maybe someone from CI will find out and report this to us. Next winter is going to be a scary one for folks paying upwards of $94 (or lucky enough to pay squat vis-a-vis the Epic Pass) to ski on beetle-kill tree-lined slopes. I would not want to be anywhere near the skiers' left side of a slope during some of those big westerly winds like the ones we had last winter.

Good review, Wendy. I agree with wildflower that it's good these jerks have stopped swimming in the gene pool.

Wish you had pointed out, though, that the Eagle County ordinance requiring bear proof trash containers went into effect on September 1, 2007. Why are we almost 11 months from that date and only now seeing an effort by the "government" of Beaver Creek - Vail Resorts - to comply with the ordinance? The record shows home owners have been complaining about the lack of compliance with the ordinance, but the county has failed to act on these complaints until the number of euthanized bears began to mount.

Unfortunately, we "treat" a large majority of our mentally ill on the streets and in the prisons.

If the so-called "over-levered rich people" aren't interested in staying in the market or coming into it, the less-fortunate minions responsible for building, selling and maintaining these properties will have some serious financial issues and head elsewhere. Then what, as greenchilidem points out.

As to the print media barely spending any time on this issue, IMO that's what makes CO Independent so good. The Vail Daily is nothing but an excuse to sell advertising space. They have no journalists, only reporters.

If Rob Katz would focus his efforts on working with the Forest Service on this issue rather than on getting a permit to build alpine coasters in Beaver Creek and Vail we'd all be a lot better off!! When he came in as VR's CEO in spring 2006, instead of focusing on real issues where he could get the support of the community he undertook a campaign to turn BC into Disneyland and waste precious time and money on litigation.

Chubb has a great deal that they will spray your house with some sort of repellant if a fire is within a certain number of miles from your insured home. Of course, if it's a situation like Tahoe, you're lucky to get out with your undies much less have someone come spray it. Thanks, David, for the article and shining light on this important issue.