Swing state Colorado mulls universal health care proposal
By KRISTEN WYATT
The Associated Press
Published: November 22, 2015 11:12AM
Updated:
November 22, 2015 05:13PM
Denver • A new plan for government-run health care that covers everyone is
coming from a surprising corner: Colorado, a politically moderate swing state
where Republicans and Democrats often share control of state government.
Universal coverage proposals — known as gsingle-payerh — have failed time and
again in the United States. Left-leaning Vermont recently pursued such a system,
only to abandon it as too expensive. President Obamafs health care law doesnft
cover everyone and has sparked enormous political backlash.
If the idea hasnft worked in states that embrace Canadian-style,
government-run health care, what are the chances it will fly in a moderate state
that has the nationfs toughest restrictions on raising taxes?
Itfs a long shot, supporters concede. But theyfve gotten the question onto
2016 ballots and hope that dissatisfaction on both sides with the current
federal health law will make Colorado the first state to set up universal health
care.
gI think we should take a picture of us throwing a bunch of cash down the
toilet, because thatfs what we have right now,h said Shelley Cohen of Denver, an
advocate who handed out flyers about the plan at a recent meeting in a Denver
church fellowship hall. About two dozen people came to hear details.
The plan would work like this: There would be a new, $25 billion-a-year tax
taken out of paychecks, similar to how Medicare is funded. That money would then
go to an elected board of trustees, which would act as an enormous insurance
company and reimburse doctors.
The ColoradoCare tax would raise enough to cover everyone, even people who
donft work or arenft legally in the country. Itfs not exactly a gsingle-payerh
plan, because Medicare and the military health care system would remain intact.
But co-payments and deductibles would go away.
And so would most insurers. A brochure explaining the plan touts, gIt is
assumed that residents and Colorado businesses will choose to discontinue
purchasing other insurance coverage.h
The campaign projects ColoradoCare would run annual surpluses of $2 billion,
based mostly on trimming administrative costs from insurers and doctorsf
offices.
Supporters insist voters are so soured on insurance companies and complicated
insurance exchanges that they are ready to try a radical new way of providing
health care.
gWe will save not millions but billions,h said Jeanne Nicholson, a retired
nurse and former Democratic state senator who is touring the state leading
workshops on Colorado Care.
Edmund F. Haislmaier, a health policy research fellow at the conservative
Heritage Foundation, said hefs skeptical Coloradofs plan will win public
support. The price tag is so eye-popping — almost doubling the size of
Coloradofs overall budget overnight — that even health-reform fatigue may not
carry the campaign, he said.
gYou can write the opposition campaign now. eDo you want your health care to
look like the Post Office or DMV?f The average person kind of gets that,h
Haislmaier said. gWhen youfre talking about forking over an extra 10 cents a
dollar on top of all your taxes, people arenft going to like it.h
Indeed, a recent campaign to raise Colorado income taxes to shore up the
statefs struggling public school system lost badly, despite almost universal
acceptance that schools are underfunded. The 2013 schools income tax question
would have raised taxes $950 million a year, a fraction of the ColoradoCare tax,
but failed nearly 2-to-1.
Even supporters of single-payer health care have questions about
ColoradoCare.
At the Denver meeting, one physician asked about the elected board of
trustees that would set premiums and decide what to pay doctors for their
services.
gThis board is absolutely going to control the money, and special interests
are going to control the board,h warned Dr. Vince Markovchick, professor
emeritus of emergency medicine at the University of Colorado-Denver School of
Medicine.
Others asked about abortion services — how could a government-controlled
health system pay for them? The question raised the specter of ethical concerns
about lots of medical services, from gender transition to fertility treatments
to erectile dysfunction medicine. Shouldnft those services be left to the
private sector?
Nicholson said that covered services would be determined by the elected board
of trustees. She conceded that a board controlled by insurers gcould undermine
all our efforts.h
gEven though this is going to be hard and there are going to be challenges,
that doesnft mean we shouldnft try,h Nicholson concluded.
ColoradoCare supporters say theyfve learned from Vermontfs mistakes — such as
trying to take over Medicare, instead of leaving care for people over 65 to the
federal government. And the Colorado backers insist they wonft set brute-force
price controls on doctors in order to keep costs manageable, which could drive
doctors out of business.
gDoctors are leaving now, because theyfre at the bottom of the food chain
with insurers. Doctors who can afford to retire are retiring,h said Democratic
Sen. Irene Aguilar, a physician who is ColoradoCarefs chief supporter in the
Legislature.
She didnft guess how much it would cost to run a campaign to persuade voters
to approve ColoradoCare. Win or lose, the question will be an economic boost,
she joked.
gThis will be a great economic driver for our state because of all the
opposition money thatfs going to pour into Colorado,h Aguilar said with a
grin.
©
Copyright 2015 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved.