Wow! Colorado considering Single Payer Health System – Liberals and Socialists will love this one. I knew they were totally pro-Democrat but this is pure socialism where theory is far removed from reality. Ask United Kingdom and others how well it works for them.
November 8, 2016
Colorado could become the first state in the nation to adopt a single-payer healthcare system, but a unique bipartisan coalition is fighting it.
The state’s residents will vote Tuesday on whether to adopt ColoradoCare, which would create the state’s own healthcare system that would cover all healthcare services for residents. It would come with much higher taxes to the tune of 10 percent payroll and 10 percent non-payroll taxes.
The ballot referendum comes after Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders advocated for a national single-payer system.
However, in a unique twist, traditionally Democratic allies such as abortion rights groups and the state’s governor oppose the Colorado measure.
Amendment 69 is a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment that would establish a political subdivision of the state called ColoradoCare. The measure was designed to establish a statewide program to provide universal healthcare coverage and finance healthcare services for Colorado residents. Amendment 69 would not prevent people from purchasing private health insurance. A 21-member board of trustees would govern ColoradoCare. As ColoradoCare would operate as a cooperative, members would vote for candidates to serve on the co-op’s board and decide whether taxes should be increased to provide additional funding to the program. To fund ColoradoCare, a 10 percent payroll tax would be implemented, with employers paying 6.67 percent and employees paying 3.33 percent. Other non-payroll income would also be taxed at 10 percent.
Amendment 69 would mandate that ColoradoCare pay for healthcare services regardless of the cause of the patient’s illness or injury. ColoradoCare would replace the medical care portion of workers’ compensation insurance. Beneficiaries that would be eligible for Medicaid or the Children’s Basic Health Plan would receive benefits required by federal law in addition to ColoradoCare’s standard benefits.
ColoradoCare would not charge beneficiaries any deductibles, nor would designated preventive and primary care services have copayments. Other copayments would be waived in cases of financial hardship. Beneficiaries would be permitted to choose their primary care professionals and still be covered if they are temporarily living—or traveling—in another state.
The ColoradoCare Board of Trustees would conduct an annual assessment of the program’s revenues and costs. Should more revenue be needed to maintain ColoradoCare’s fiscal stability, the board would refer to members a ballot question asking them whether taxes should be increased. A majority vote would be needed to increase taxes.
Honestly, I understand their need to provide state insurance assistance. I also understand from personal experience just how important having help from Medicare, Medicaid, and a Supplementary Insurance is to people who have ongoing issues like mine.
But I see major issues arising on the horizon with this plan.
First, it says you can have private insurance but that this is a payroll tax so all citizens in Colorado would be paying for those who have no private plan.
Second, many physicians have been forced to move away from Medicare types of payment because it is unreliable, at times unrealistically priced, and often requires huge efforts to input and report for payment.
Third, hospitals and physicians have classically fallen over backwards to provide timely and high quality care to private insurance and wealthy clients. Not so with the indigent and middle class. There are many who do try to help the less fortunate; but let’s face it, few go into medicine as family doctors anymore. Most train as specialty doctors who more often than not are no longer patient but payment oriented. They are funding their own portfolios and bank accounts not really caring so much about patients who cannot pay their top specialist fees.
The same with pharmaceuticals. They get grants, loans, and charge astronomical fees for cutting edge medicines even though they claim the higher fees help fund new research. Yet the minute a drug is deemed unprofitable or got rushed to market before weighing the affects/side affects , they drop the medicine despite those who may desperately need it. Their management teams look at bottom line and shareholder profits not health issues while also padding their own private accounts.
Fourth, wait times across other countries vary but in general are prolonged and often turned down for “executive” reasons even though treatment might have saved a patient’s life. The countries inevitably find they created a ravenous monster that drains public funds as well as stifling innovation at the expense of patient care. A few pre-refugee invasion did show fairly descent promise. However, the horror stories of overflowing refugee camps and the inevitable diseases have probably destroyed any advantage they had gained.
I DO believe having states establish workable in-state insurance is critical but I also think more like Trump in that competitive coast to coast insurance markets would alleviate some of the problem. It certainly won’t alleviate fraud, abuse of system, waste, governmental transparency, or overcharging. Those should be revamped as well.