SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
DeathMonkey (1380)
Journal of DeathMonkey (1380)
See the "Blue Book" for more information
Amendment 69 proposes amending the Colorado Constitution to:
establish ColoradoCare, a statewide system to finance health care services for Colorado residents;
create new taxes on most sources of income, redirect existing state and federal health funding to
pay for the services and administration of ColoradoCare, exempt ColoradoCare from constitutional
limits on revenue, and require approval by Colorado residents for future tax increases;
establish a board of trustees, initially appointed and then elected, to oversee the operations of
ColoradoCare; and
allow the board to terminate ColoradoCare if the waivers, exemptions, and agreements from the federal
government are not sufficient for its fiscally sound operation.
Arguments For
1) Amendment 69 creates a more equitable health care payment system that provides coverage for all
Coloradans. All people should have access to affordable health care regardless of their ability to pay. The
current health care system leaves many people uninsured or unable to access care due to insurance denials or
high deductibles. ColoradoCare prohibits deductibles and may reduce financial barriers to needed care. The
measure helps ensure that individuals and families will not face financial ruin when accessing needed health care
services.
2) Amendment 69 offers a means to control health care costs and improve patient outcomes. In the
United States, health care costs are higher than in any other industrialized country. Under Amendment 69, health
care costs could be controlled by lowering administrative costs, adjusting payment rates to health care providers,
and reducing the amount of unpaid care provided by health care providers. By creating a centralized system for
health care records, ColoradoCare may improve the coordination of care and create cost savings by more
efficiently sharing information between providers, monitoring medical conditions, and reducing diagnostic testing.
3) ColoradoCare provides a more transparent system that serves the interests of Coloradans, instead of the
interests of private corporations. The current private health insurance system is profit-motivated, which
contributes to rising health care costs. ColoradoCare offers an alternative that shifts incentives toward improving
patient care by allowing Coloradans to elect health care decision-makers. Under Amendment 69, Coloradans
also have control over tax increases for ColoradoCare, increasing local control over health care costs. Unlike
private insurance companies, ColoradoCare board meetings are subject to open meetings laws, which allows
Coloradans to monitor decisions made by the board.
Arguments Against
1) Amendment 69 imposes new taxes, which may harm the Colorado economy by burdening
taxpayers and eliminating jobs. The tax increases under this measure will nearly double state government
spending, which currently totals $27 billion for the entire state budget. In the initial years, taxpayers will pay
about $2 billion a year into a system without receiving any direct benefits. Many individuals and
businesses will pay more with the new taxes than they currently pay for health care. Additionally,
taxpayers must pay the new taxes even if they do not utilize the services offered through ColoradoCare.
Under Amendment 69, higher taxes and an uncertain economic climate could discourage businesses from
operating in Colorado. Finally, ColoradoCare may cause private health insurance businesses to downsize
or leave the state, leaving many people unemployed.
2) Amendment 69 offers no guarantee that ColoradoCare will improve patient care, expand access, or
reduce health care costs. Coloradans may never receive the benefits promised under ColoradoCare if
federal approval is not granted or revenues are not sufficient. The measure does not specify critical details of
how ColoradoCare will be implemented, and has no required implementation date. The measure concentrates
control for making important decisions and spending billions of taxpayer dollars in a 21-member board with limited
accountability and no required health industry experience. ColoradoCare may not solve fundamental problems of
rising health care costs and limited access. If the state fully transitions to ColoradoCare and it fails, it could take
years to re-establish a private health insurance market and government programs, and taxpayers will have paid
billions of dollars for a failed system.
3) ColoradoCare may limit consumer choice and strain the health care system. Health care providers may
be unwilling to serve ColoradoCare patients if reimbursements are too low, or they may choose to leave Colorado
due to uncertainties in the health care market. This could reduce options for patients and increase wait times to
receive services. Also, the health care system could be further burdened by people coming to the state to receive
health care without adequately contributing to the taxes that pay for their care. If the system fails to control costs,
health services covered by ColoradoCare may be reduced. Additionally, private health insurance may not be
available or affordable if Amendment 69 passes. This could leave people with limited options for accessing
alternative coverage or needed care, forcing some people to leave the state.
Personal take
Tentatively planning Yes on this one. Despite the costs we really need to move away from for-profit health insurance.
What say you Soylent?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday October 10 2016, @05:11PM
Yeah, I skipped U. We can come back to it if anyone cares.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday October 12 2016, @01:07AM
Second, I don't agree that it'll result in affordable health care. Why would any doctor accept below market payment for health services? Why would any consumer of health services willingly restrict their consumption of health care using money from this program? There's this huge gap between what they are promising would-be customers of the service and what the medical industry expects to get. I think the whole reason health insurance is so expensive in the first place is because there are few limits to how much health care is consumed aside from those large deductibles. This program would create a population of voters with a huge conflict of interest. And it doesn't create an incentive for health care providers to provide.
Third, it's a huge increase in the budget of Colorado. The tax load does need to be considered here. Further, what happens when there are shortfalls in funding? Do we take money from other programs or just not pay for health care services? I don't want genuinely important things like law enforcement or basic infrastructure like roads and public sanitation compromised just so granny can have expensive medical procedures.
Fourth, the claim that it would be easy to reverse is a falsehood. There are way too many examples of such things that turned out to be remarkably hard to reverse once they get started. In particular,
Under Amendment 69, Coloradans also have control over tax increases for ColoradoCare, increasing local control over health care costs.
The amendment explicitly creates exemptions to the 1992 Taxpayer Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org] ("TABOR"). That's a warning sign to me since TABOR already supposedly addresses the problems of tax control. As to "local control over health care costs", what does that really mean? Can we just choose to have free health care? Somehow I doubt it.
So needless to say, I don't buy this. Hence, my coming NO vote.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 13 2016, @06:10PM
Second, I don't agree that it'll result in affordable health care...
I think the argument for reducing costs is that it'll cut out the for-profit insurance middlemen.
Third, it's a huge increase in the budget of Colorado.
Yeah, definitely a hefty tax hike in there.
Fourth, the claim that it would be easy to reverse is a falsehood.
I wasn't aware people were claiming it would be easy to reverse. I guess they're referring to the fact that if they can't get the feds to buy in the board can call the whole thing off. e.g. "allow the board to terminate ColoradoCare if the waivers, exemptions, and agreements from the federal government are not sufficient for its fiscally sound operation."
The amendment explicitly creates exemptions to the 1992 Taxpayer Bill of Rights ("TABOR").
Coloradans would still have to vote to approve tax increases but it wouldn't be on the Nov ballot, necessarily. e.g. "Voter approval for tax increases. The measure exempts ColoradoCare from the existing constitutional
requirement to seek approval of tax increases at a regularly scheduled November election. Instead, tax increases
for ColoradoCare must be approved at a ColoradoCare election scheduled by the board of trustees. The board of
trustees may request a tax increase no more than once per year."
The Sanders camp is pushing pretty hard for this, to add a non-fallacious appeal to authority...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 13 2016, @10:13PM
I think the argument for reducing costs is that it'll cut out the for-profit insurance middlemen.
And replaces it with another middleman. Profit is not the only cost of a middleman. A chief concern of mine here (and really a problem of every single payer system) is that demand is open ended with the people doing the demanding also voting.
The measure exempts ColoradoCare from the existing constitutional requirement to seek approval of tax increases at a regularly scheduled November election.
And I still don't see the reason to allow such an exemption since November elections are annual in Colorado and would already have great attendance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 23 2017, @01:59PM
Make it public. It will be wasteful, but apparently the insurance based system manages to be even more burdensome.
Also, treat big pharma as the mob because they are it. Now that I think of it, where does all the boatloads of drug money get reinvested in?