True but the problem is that health care is either something you need very little of, or something you need a lot of. So for most people they won’t notice a difference.
I believe 80% of people use 20% of health spending, and 50% of people use about 3% of health spending.
So if you are in that 50-80% who don’t need it right now, you won’t notice it.
I also live in Colorado and I do not yet know what to think. I am retired and have a very good group health plan in my retirement plan and Medicare part A and D, of course. I am very happy with the HMO I have selected for my medical (vision care could be a bit better, but dental care is pretty good).
I’d have to know much more about this single-payor plan before I would vote for it and I have not seen much in the way of public meetings, etc. Maybe it is just too early.
If it would cost me much more than I am paying now and/or if I would not get equal or better coverage, I would not be for it. Unless I can find out more about it, I’ll vote against it.
Bob
I think a single-payer system is a good idea. But I also think there would be serious problems if it’s enacted in one state. You’re creating a situation that encourages everyone in any of the other forty-nine states who has major health care expenses to relocate to Colorado.
Well that’s not impossible to get around. You could have some minimum length of residency before you can get on the program and make you carry your old insurance in the mean time.
I don’t live in Colorado bit I’m following this because I want to see how it shakes out. Usually when these reforms are proposed Medicare and people taking SSI are exempt. Is this not the way it was written in Colorado?
Yeah, but you could say the same thing about police and firefighters. Most people don’t need such very often - if ever - yet it’s something we tax to provide to the minority that need it.
As for people migrating in or out of Colorado due to this becoming law I’m doubtful. That sort of argument is trotted out on every statewide issue but it’s rare that it actually occurs in large numbers. It’s another version of the ‘welfare queen’ argument that postulates some large, mobile number of benefit recipients who are both motivated and savvy enough to make it happen. I’d be interested in seeing some decent, non-partisan evaluations of such.
Anyway, this is the very definition of the states being the testers of democracy. If Colorado passes it the others can observe and decide later.
If it couldn’t work in Vermont due to cost, it won’t work in Colorado. Does Colorado have a neutral agency like the CBO that has figured out the actual cost, or are their numbers just rosy estimates?
Also, the offset argument only works if people believe they are getting better health care. If it’s all just Medicaid-equivalent, then that doesn’t work.
But the proof is in the union pudding. Have they endorsed this prop? Or are they exempt? If they have either not endorsed it, or are exempt from its requirements, then that’s a pretty good sign it’s a turd.
I read the amendment. Section 6.2.III.d appears to take care of people on Medicaid because they get SSI. As for Medicare, I understand Section 11.2 to mean the state entity will work like a Medicare supplement and they may set up their own Part C-style plan. As for funding the program, it says they will employ payroll taxes and then tax 10% of “all nonpayroll income” (Section 9.2.a-c). However, Section 9.6 implies this will only be assessed against those “filing” tax returns. Most elderly people don’t have to do this, unless they get a lot of social security and/or other income. Hence, I’m assuming they won’t be taxed for it.
From what I’ve read just doing a quick search, the only detail that is certain is that a board will be elected that will basically set the whole thing up and decide the funding mechanism and run it. It is authorized under the initiative to increase taxes outside the legislature.
So this looks a lot like Vermont, where all the ballot initiative does is say, “Let’s think about single payer health care”. And once it passes, they’ll think about it, realize it won’t work, and abandon it. It’s not just health care initiatives that die this way, Florida high speed rail met the same fate.
I provided a link to the text of the amendment in the post just prior to yours. You can read it yourself.
Edit:
I read what you wrote to mean the funding provisions were not set by the text of the amendment and that is not true (the amendment does set the premiums). However, the board can adjust premiums once per year down the line.
Actually, let me revise that…premium increases are subject to a vote by the electorate:
From Section 2 - Definitions:
From Section 9.8:
I still think it would be an issue. Let’s say I develop a long-term medical condition like diabetes. It makes sense for me to move to Colorado now even if there’s a three year waiting period before I’m eligible for their program. I can pay my medical expenses through my savings while I’m waiting to establish eligibility and I’d still be better off than doing the same thing in my current state where I’m going to exhaust my savings and have no back-up.
This would be a federal lawsuit in ten minutes flat. Discrimination against new residents is often unconstitutional. Maybe the state would win but it wouldn’t be a sure thing at all.
I think it would pass muster–there is certainly precedent: Alaska’s Permanent Fund distributes an annual dividend to people meeting a very similar residency requirement.
Hope you don’t mind the slight distillation.
Touchstones for detecting political idiots:
[ol]
[li]Advocating flat tax of any kind[/li][li]“Going to run government like a business.”[/li][/ol]
Fingers Crossed
Say yes to 69
We Californians get to vote on whether porn actors have to wear condoms.