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.
I have read the outline of the plan and it is a disgrace that the big money interests are pouring money into the political system through leading democrats who are paid off by the same big money interests. Just in order to crowd out the will of the people. Let the people decide whether they want a compassionate health care system where the size of your wallet doesnt decide who lives or dies or a system geared towards profits instead of care.
Don't listen to propaganda either. I have doubts this will pass, precisely because Coloradans will vote (some with their wallet, yes). You may want to read responses to the thread I created a while ago in the Colorado forum. Real people (some of whom I consider very liberal based on what they posted in Colorado forums previously) are voicing real concerns. It's easy to sit there in California and critique Colorado for being careful about changing their constitution.
These are the special interests tied to the Democrats who oppose this:
Quote:
The anti-single-payer effort is funded almost entirely by health care industry interests, including $500,000 from Anthem Inc., the state’s largest health insurance provider; $40,000 from Cigna, another large health insurer that is current in talks to merge with Anthem; $75,000 from Davita, the dialysis company; $25,000 from Delta Dental, the largest dental insurer in the state; and $100,000 from SCL Health, the faith-based hospital chain.
This is the future Hillary promises us. The health care industry controlling the health care policy and war corporations controlling the foreign policy. Big money pouring into the political process in order to defeat the will of the people and increase their profits.
No big surprise.
For-profit healthcare is huge here, and just getting bigger.
There are free-standing emergency rooms popping up all over and the preferred model seems to be insurer as provider (ie. Kaiser-Permanente, etc.)
Lots of money to be made/lost.
Lots.
It's kind of surprising that the proposition has gotten as far as it has, but the family that is the "face" of the proposal has a very compelling situation that a lot of people no doubt relate to.
I've little doubt that most people are going to hear nothing except that their taxes will go up and ignore the rest of the equation - no co-pays, premiums, etc. and will not fully examine the pros and cons for themselves.
While I don't have any opinion yet, and do not know how I will vote (for/against) in November, I do think that it is a bold move and certainly something that needs to be talked about and not dismissed out of hand.
Don't listen to propaganda either. I have doubts this will pass, precisely because Coloradans will vote (some with their wallet, yes). You may want to read responses to the thread I created a while ago in the Colorado forum. Real people (some of whom I consider very liberal based on what they posted in Colorado forums previously) are voicing real concerns. It's easy to sit there in California and critique Colorado for being careful about changing their constitution.
Besides the point. Leading democratic consultants are teaming up with their financial overlords in the health care industry and are pouring millions into the political process in Colorado to defend their special interests and defeat progressive ideas whether its health care, paid vacation, paid parental leave, public funding of education etc.
Besides the point. Leading democratic consultants are teaming up with their financial overlords in the health care industry and are pouring millions into the political process in Colorado to defend their special interests and defeat progressive ideas whether its health care, paid vacation, paid parental leave, public funding of education etc.
This implies that people don't think for themselves and only listen to "leading democratic consultants". I find this a little offensive, as I hope that most Coloradans can think for themselves. Colorado constitution is very conservative in its ideals. I think going with a single payer system is making a huge leap. Because... don't get me started on public funding of education in Colorado. Maybe that needs to be addressed first.
This implies that people don't think for themselves and only listen to "leading democratic consultants". I find this a little offensive
You might find it offensive but there is a reason why they are pouring money into the political system. They are not stupid. They will defend their vested interests at the expense of the peopple and research clearly shows that big money has a massive influence. Meanwhile, thousands of people in Colorado will go bankrupt because of cancer and countless more will die a miserable death because profits are valued over lives in the current system.
No big surprise.
For-profit healthcare is huge here, and just getting bigger. There are free-standing emergency rooms popping up all over and the preferred model seems to be insurer as provider (ie. Kaiser-Permanente, etc.)
Lots of money to be made/lost.
Lots.
It's kind of surprising that the proposition has gotten as far as it has, but the family that is the "face" of the proposal has a very compelling situation that a lot of people no doubt relate to.
I've little doubt that most people are going to hear nothing except that their taxes will go up and ignore the rest of the equation - no co-pays, premiums, etc. and will not fully examine the pros and cons for themselves.
While I don't have any opinion yet, and do not know how I will vote (for/against) in November, I do think that it is a bold move and certainly something that needs to be talked about and not dismissed out of hand.
Kaiser does not have free standing emergency rooms, which I agree are a big problem. And Kaiser is a not for profit.
And the plan is not no co-pays, that is just for whatever specific primary care or preventive treatment they decide to cover. There will be as yet undisclosed co-pays for anything outside of that so no one even knows how much this is going to cost out of pocket in addition to 10% tax on all income - not just payroll income. The 10% is split between employers and employees unless you are self-employed, then you pay it all. The non-payroll income is 100% on the recipient. And that also hasn't been fully defined yet, so we could be paying a 10% premium on any profits when we sell our homes.
Kaiser does not have free standing emergency rooms, which I agree are a big problem. And Kaiser is a not for profit.
The overall Kaiser foundation is not-for-profit. The regional subsidiaries, like the one operating here in Colorado, are for-profit entities.
And, the point I was making specifically with regard to Kaiser, is that it IS the standard-bearer for insurer as provider/provider as insurer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
And the plan is not no co-pays, that is just for whatever specific primary care or preventive treatment they decide to cover. There will be as yet undisclosed co-pays for anything outside of that so no one even knows how much this is going to cost out of pocket in addition to 10% tax on all income - not just payroll income. The 10% is split between employers and employees, the non-payroll income is 100% on the recipient. And that also hasn't been fully defined yet, so we could be paying a 10% premium on any profits when we sell our homes.
Not sure why this info should be considered any more accurate than what is included in the links I posted.
In the first, a doctor interviewed specifically stated "no co-pays..."
As with so many of these issues, one's understanding is clearly informed by what one wants to believe and whether the issue is perceived as "good" or "bad" going in.
The bottom line, to the OP's point, is that there is no limit on how far some will go to protect their fiefdoms.
I don't find it at all coincidental that many of those who support Clinton, including our esteemed governor, seem more interested in placating their backers than they are in actually examining what might be better for their constituents.
Again, I have no idea how I will vote on this issue come November, but the fact that so many are putting so much money behind defeating it leads me to think that maybe, just maybe there is a possibility that the model could actually be (too) effective.
Nothing says "threat" like innovation.
The overall Kaiser foundation is not-for-profit. The regional subsidiaries, like the one operating here in Colorado, are for-profit entities.
And, the point I was making specifically with regard to Kaiser, is that it IS the standard-bearer for insurer as provider/provider as insurer.
Not sure why this info should be considered any more accurate than what is included in the links I posted.
In the first, a doctor interviewed specifically stated "no co-pays..."
As with so many of these issues, one's understanding is clearly informed by what one wants to believe and whether the issue is perceived as "good" or "bad" going in.
The bottom line, to the OP's point, is that there is no limit on how far some will go to protect their fiefdoms.
I don't find it at all coincidental that many of those who support Clinton, including our esteemed governor, seem more interested in placating their backers than they are in actually examining what might be better for their constituents.
Again, I have no idea how I will vote on this issue come November, but the fact that so many are putting so much money behind defeating it leads me to think that maybe, just maybe there is a possibility that the model could actually be (too) effective.
Nothing says "threat" like innovation.
The info I cited is taken directly out of the 38 page booklet put out by ColoradoCare.
Quote:
Health Care Premiums
∙ Employees pay a Health Care Premium Tax of 3.33% of gross pay.
∙ Employers pay a Health Care Premium Tax of 6.67% of payroll.
∙ Those earning non-payroll income pay a Health Care Premium Tax of 10% excluding:
∙ Unemployment insurance, alimony, Social Security, and some pension income up to $33,000
annually for individual income tax filers and $60,000 annually for joint income tax filers
∙ Income over $350,000 for individual filers and $450,000 for joint filers.
∙ The impact of the Premium Tax on non-payroll income is lower than 10% because the
Premium Tax is a state tax, and therefore it becomes a deductible expense on both federal
and state taxes. Considering the reduction of income tax, the impact of the 10% Premium
Tax is between 5.577% and 8.537% depending on which tax bracket a person is in
page 14. Non-payroll income is defined in the proposed initiative
(12) “NONPAYROLL INCOME” MEANS TOTAL INCOME FROM ALL SOURCES SPECIFIED ON LINES 8
THROUGH10, 12 THROUGH18, 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.
This includes Line 13 of the 1040 for capital gains. So yes, we could be paying 10% on any profits on a house sale or any other capital gains.
Re co-pays
Quote:
Out-of-Pocket expenses are reduced from 10%
in ACA Platinum Plan to 4% of health care costs
(Miller, 2015a).
∙ No deductibles ∙ No copayments for designated primary
care or preventive treatment services
∙ Copayments for specialty care,
medications, or tests are waived for
financial need
page 28. We have no idea what the co-pays will be for anything outside of those designated primary care or preventative treatment services. That's not at all the same as a plan with no co-pays.
to the extent this happens, it will not be on a state-by-state basis. "The law of mathematics and the pseudo-science of economics guarantees it" - no "virtually" needed.
Absolutely...... And keep in mind I did not say the the Colorado plan is a good one, as I have not even read it.
I have listened-to many lecturers from the investment community that give a very detailed analysis on how the for-profit medical insurance industry has no long term viability. I am tempted to dig one up and post it here but I'm positive most wouldn't make it through the first two minutes as it would bore them to death.
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.
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.
