One Step Closer

zappasguitar

Well-known member
Colorado will vote next year on single-payer health care system


First legalized marijuana, now universal health care?

As reported by the Denver Post, Colorado is now poised to consider the possibility of expanding its health coverage in a way never before seen in the United States via a single-payer insurance system — thanks to a successful campaign run by ColoradoCareYES.

The grassroots group presented 158,831 signatures sponsoring a proposed overhaul of the pre-existing health care system to the state earlier this year. This Monday, it was confirmed that they had obtained enough valid signatures to suppass the 90,000 threshold needed for the measure to be placed on the ballot, according to Secretary of State Wayne Williams.

“Colorado deserves a better option, and now they can vote on one,” said Senator Irene Aguilar (D-Denver) in a statement released by ColoradoCareYES. “Health care costs continue to rise every year, hurting Coloradans’ chances to get ahead. It’s time we get the insurance industry out of the driver’s seat and put families in charge of their health care.”

The Colorado Care measure, should it pass, would fund itself through a new 10 percent payroll deduction. Employers would pay about 7 percent of the tax while employees would cover the rest. In exchange, people would no longer need to pay individual premiums, deductibles or most co-pays. Though people would still choose their own medical providers, their bills would be paid by the state itself, creating what the group calls “Medicare for all.” According to them, savings would come from reducing administrative costs as well as allowing the negotiation of bulk rates for pharmaceuticals. It’s claimed these savings will amount to about $5 billion when compared to what Colorado citizens currently pay collectively.

Of course, Colorado is hardly the first state to attempt such a radical shift in its health care system, nor is it even the first state to get this far. In 2011, Vermont successfully passed legislation that allowed for the formation of a single-payer system. Three years later, however, the state was forced to reconsider its implementation, after it was determined that the short-term costs were too high a burden on the economy.

Similarly, there are already naysayers who decry even the possibility of a similar system in Colorado. "A single-payer system would destroy our industry. I don't think there's any question about it," Byron McCurdy, board president of the Colorado State Association of Health Underwriters, told the Denver Post.

With just under a year before next Election Day, it appears that time will tell how enthusiastic Colorado citizens are for a new approach to health care. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 11 percent of Coloradans are presently uninsured.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/col...system-and-insurers-are-already-freaking-out/
 
Single payer universal is where it is all going. Had conservatives not dragged their feet at every opportunity on The AHA, that would have kept going for who knows how long. Republicans have brought us to the inevitability of single payer.
 
It would destroy the profit-based healthcare and health insurance industries, so politicians in thrall to corporate interests will never allow it to happen.

As we saw during the Obamacare debate, demonization of any threat to these highly-profitable spheres of influence will be well-funded.

As long as petty greed rules the day here in America, single payer won't happen.

But little by little, attitudes are changing and selfish greed is being exposed as the evil it is.
 
It's so awesome living in the most expensive City in the U.S. which is also one of the most progressive. You talk to newcomers here and generally one of the first things they say here is how much people seem to be obsessed with money and status (what start up are you with, if you have options etc.). Good thing liberals don't like money and aren't greedy.
 
It's so awesome living in the most expensive City in the U.S. which is also one of the most progressive. You talk to newcomers here and generally one of the first things they say here is how much people seem to be obsessed with money and status (what start up are you with, if you have options etc.). Good thing liberals don't like money and aren't greedy.

It's a question of priorities cawacko, You will probably never understand.
 
It's so awesome living in the most expensive City in the U.S. which is also one of the most progressive. You talk to newcomers here and generally one of the first things they say here is how much people seem to be obsessed with money and status (what start up are you with, if you have options etc.). Good thing liberals don't like money and aren't greedy.


Yes, I am so impressed by the vow of poverty taken by liberals. Why just the other day I read a post where every liberal on JPP eschewed life's material trappings and gave 90% of their assets to the needy. Very charitable indeed. I am sure they will be rewarded beyond measure in heaven
 
Yes, I am so impressed by the vow of poverty taken by liberals. Why just the other day I read a post where every liberal on JPP eschewed life's material trappings and gave 90% of their assets to the needy. Very charitable indeed. I am sure they will be rewarded beyond measure in heaven

Can't refute the point made in the OP?

No problemo, simply fall back on the old Rightie standby, argumentum ad absurdum
 
Can't refute the point made in the OP?

No problemo, simply fall back on the old Rightie standby, argumentum ad absurdum

I'm trying to understand the difference between what Vermont proposed and what Colorado proposed. Essentially it was too expensive in Vermont and they stopped pursuing it. What is Colorado proposing that would make it work economically that Vermont didn't?
 
I'm trying to understand the difference between what Vermont proposed and what Colorado proposed. Essentially it was too expensive in Vermont and they stopped pursuing it. What is Colorado proposing that would make it work economically that Vermont didn't?

Colorado has a lot more people.
 
I'm trying to understand the difference between what Vermont proposed and what Colorado proposed. Essentially it was too expensive in Vermont and they stopped pursuing it. What is Colorado proposing that would make it work economically that Vermont didn't?

The have a surplus of marijuana money, they can afford it.
 
The have a surplus of marijuana money, they can afford it.

Not even 1/20th close to enough to dip our finger into the bathtub let alone to soak.

It will take $25 Billion/year, more than doubling the taxes and budget of the state. The MJ taxes don't even get close to 5% of that kind of slag. And that's just what they "guess" it will take. They are always short on the amount of money it will take to do something in their estimates.
 
Back
Top