U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-12-2015, 07:37 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
10,628 posts, read 11,023,385 times
Reputation: 13847

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkbill View Post
From my understanding this would be Colorado only, cover anyone in Colorado, whether they are paying taxes or not (Must file an income tax return) and would pretty much make Colorado a single payer system. Would still have veterans and medicare/medicaid payments. I belive they already have their signatures and it will appear on the Nov 2016 ballot.
I'm not a fan of single payer as it is. I'll vote emphatically no on this. I'm not sure why anyone not paying taxes should be eligible for a product or service.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2015, 07:39 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
10,628 posts, read 11,023,385 times
Reputation: 13847
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescreen73 View Post
I'm not big into knee-jerk absolutes, but if this passes I'll keep my options open. It would definitely make it easier for my wife to convince me to cash out our equity and go elsewhere.
I hear you. My wife and I have weighed returning to Colorado or staying here in Virginia. This will make a huge difference if it passes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2015, 09:42 PM
 
Location: Evergreen, Colorado
650 posts, read 564,459 times
Reputation: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowftbll View Post
I'm not sure why anyone not paying taxes should be eligible for a product or service.
As frustrating as it is to support folks that don't contribute, it's actually cheaper for all of us if they don't show up in emergency rooms every time they have a cold. Those costs get trickled down to you and me and/or our employers. Probably not the answer you're looking for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2015, 09:11 AM
 
20,840 posts, read 39,059,222 times
Reputation: 19075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Red Road View Post
As frustrating as it is to support folks that don't contribute, it's actually cheaper for all of us if they don't show up in emergency rooms every time they have a cold. Those costs get trickled down to you and me and/or our employers. Probably not the answer you're looking for.
Memorial Hospital used to put their financial statements on-line for the public to see. I recall one year where they provided $125M worth of care to people who couldn't pay - and still had a $25M surplus (aka profit).

If you think through the math on that it means that those of us who ARE insured paid enough to the hospital not only for our own care but for Memorial to eat $125M in unreimbursed care and STILL make a profit, i.e., that $125M is how much we all overpaid via insurance.

IIRC the rest of the numbers it was total intake of $750M from all payers with expenditures of $600M in care for those of us who are insured, $125M in expenditures for care given to non-payers and $25M to the surplus account.

Point is, the cost of caring for the uninsured has been built into our insurance premiums for years, else all these hospitals would have gone broke decades ago.

Rather than get into a long drawn out thread on the overall topic of health insurance, ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, the V.A. and military health care and on and on and on, all I can say is IMO we're moving in the right direction if our efforts keep people out of horribly expensive ERs and move them into a doctor's office for their health care.

So, we are going to pay for the uninsured somehow, be it via taxes that support city hospital systems or be it via insurance premiums that are jacked up enough to cover the uninsured. But if Item 20 moves a chunk of the uninsured onto the rolls of those who are insured it's a step in the right direction. My gripe is that this has to be done at the state level and not at the national level where IMO it belongs, i.e., Medicare for the whole nation and be done with it.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2015, 07:56 AM
 
415 posts, read 436,425 times
Reputation: 342
As a business owner, I would not be able to stay in CO if this passes.
I think it would hurt the state's incentive for lower waged people to work (more taxes), would discourage businesses from moving to CO (more taxes), give the local gov too much control over our health, reduction of privacy in medical care, encourage sick unemployed people to come to CO, etc...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2015, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,887 posts, read 102,301,239 times
Reputation: 32946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metairie View Post
As a business owner, I would not be able to stay in CO if this passes.
I think it would hurt the state's incentive for lower waged people to work (more taxes), would discourage businesses from moving to CO (more taxes), give the local gov too much control over our health, reduction of privacy in medical care, encourage sick unemployed people to come to CO, etc...
You don't know that for sure. You don't know what it's going to cost. My spouse worked for a very small business for years, the years when we were having babies and had little kids, therefore had fairly high expenses. Back then (late 80s, early 90s), insurance availability for small businesses sucked. We were changing insurance every year or so; sometimes our doctors were in the plans and sometimes they weren't; the coverage for our second child was abysmal, yada, yada. I asked DH if he thought his boss would just prefer to pay a tax and have the employees covered. DH thought about it for a while and said yes, he thought that would be more acceptable. Less time wasted trying to find something for a business of five people, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2015, 08:29 AM
 
9,568 posts, read 5,766,215 times
Reputation: 9652
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescreen73 View Post
It's not just the payroll tax. They also want to tax "other income." Rental income, capital gains, IRA disbursements, social security benefits, etc. They're conveniently omitting that part because it doesn't make them look good. 10% Payroll tax is subsidized unless you're self-employed, then you pay the whole 10%. The tax on "other income" is 10%.

From their own literature:

(12) “NONPAYROLL INCOME” MEANS TOTAL INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES SPECIFIED ON LINES 8 THROUGH 10, 12 THROUGH 18, AND 20 THROUGH 21 OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE FORM 1040 FOR THE TAX YEAR 2014 OR THE CORRESPONDING LINES OF ANY SUCCESSOR FORM. “NONPAYROLL INCOME” DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PENSION OR ANNUITY INCOME WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO COLORADO INCOME TAXES PURSUANT TO SECTION 39-22-104(f)(4), COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, OR ANY SUCCESSOR STATUTE.
It sounds like this is a huge tax increase and one that will hit the self employed hard with an additional 10% tax on their wages. Also a big blow to the small business owners who will be subsidizing their employees via taxes. This is going to be very expensive. Based on what I know about it thus far, I really hope that it does not pass.

This is what it says it will cover. Very cushy benefits which to me just seems like a prelude to the taxes going higher then the already high proposal
Quote:
Comprehensive benefits must include primary and specialty care; hospitalization; prescription drugs and medical equipment; mental health and substance use services, including behavioral health treatment; emergency and urgent care; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; pediatric care including oral, vision and hearing services; laboratory services; maternity and newborn care; and palliative and end-of-life care. Additional benefits can be provided. ColoradoCare replaces the medical portion of Workers’ Compensation. There will be no deductibles. Designated primary and preventive care services have no co-payments. Any other co-payments or cost-sharing must have ColoradoCare’s prior approval and can be waived to insure access to proper care. ColoradoCare will assure statewide access to emergency and trauma services. Beneficiaries will choose their primary care professionals. Beneficiaries temporarily living or traveling in another state will receive coverage.
I might be able to get on board with a less expensive catastrophic style coverage for all but this is way too much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2015, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
4,795 posts, read 4,899,143 times
Reputation: 17144
I'm not worried about this.

No way would it pass.

Colorado cannot do single payer by itself. If the country wants it, we need to implement in all states.

During all the sturm und drang of getting the ACA passed, people were never given the choice of voting for single payer. That's because the big Pharma and Insurance companies who wrote the legislation knew that most people wanted single payer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2015, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Behind You!
1,949 posts, read 3,504,351 times
Reputation: 2673
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkbill View Post
From my understanding this would be Colorado only, cover anyone in Colorado, whether they are paying taxes or not (Must file an income tax return) and would pretty much make Colorado a single payer system. Would still have veterans and medicare/medicaid payments. I belive they already have their signatures and it will appear on the Nov 2016 ballot.
Single payer systems are crap, our financial system isn't set up for it and the gov't shouldn't be in the healthcare business other than regulate costs to keep us in line with all the other countries that pay half for the same health care.


Quote:
My concerns:
How are co-payment amounts decided
No such thing in a single payer system, if their was it wouldn't be a single payer

Quote:
How is it decided what treatments are covered (Chiro, stem cell, holistic, etc etc etc)
If a doctor says you need it, you get it, as far as holistic, probably not as that's not really medical treatment.

Until Obamacare closes all the loopholes that Romney closed in MA (which will never happen) businesses will easily find ways to get around doing it right and just keep screwing people that way they are now.

Most countries governments control how much doctors and pharma companies can charge, ours doesn't. So WE are paying for it. But don't worry, they will NEVER "fix" that. If the doctors and pharma companies are making more money, their paying more taxes, rest assured the govt isn't going to correct that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2015, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,887 posts, read 102,301,239 times
Reputation: 32946
Quote:
Originally Posted by snatale1 View Post
Single payer systems are crap, our financial system isn't set up for it and the gov't shouldn't be in the healthcare business other than regulate costs to keep us in line with all the other countries that pay half for the same health care.




No such thing in a single payer system, if their was it wouldn't be a single payer



If a doctor says you need it, you get it, as far as holistic, probably not as that's not really medical treatment.

Until Obamacare closes all the loopholes that Romney closed in MA (which will never happen) businesses will easily find ways to get around doing it right and just keep screwing people that way they are now.

Most countries governments control how much doctors and pharma companies can charge, ours doesn't. So WE are paying for it. But don't worry, they will NEVER "fix" that. If the doctors and pharma companies are making more money, their paying more taxes, rest assured the govt isn't going to correct that.
I don't think you understand how health insurance works. They can and do decide what to pay for, whether the doctor says it's necessary or not. This includes many tests and prescription drugs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:08 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top