Universal ColoradoCare debated in Carbondale
Colorado
Sen. Jeanne Nicholson, standing, addresses the pro side of Amendment
69, the ColoradoCare initiative that will be on the November ballot,
during a debate in Carbondale Monday hosted by the West Mountain
Regional Health Alliance. Christian Reece, executive director for Club
20, seated, spoke in opposition to the universal health care measure.
Learn more about Amendment 69
• ColoradoCare Yes www.ColoradoCare.org
• No on 69 www.coloradansforcoloradans.com
ColoradoCare, the $25 billion
universal health-care initiative being put forward as Amendment 69 on
the state ballot this November, topped the agenda Monday in a
pro-and-con debate before a gathering in Carbondale of regional health
services representatives.
The state income tax-funded measure would
replace the current private health insurance exchange and associated
premiums now mandated through the federal Affordable Care Act.
It would fund a statewide, nonprofit health insurance system that would provide coverage to all Colorado residents.
“We feel that we do have one of best
solutions possible to move from the current health-care payment system
to one that insures every Coloradan has affordable health care,”
Colorado Sen. Jeanne Nicholson, D-Gilpin County, said during the debate
held as part of the West Mountain Regional Health Alliance meeting at
the Carbondale Branch Library.
“Yes, it is a tax increase,” she said,
acknowledging the large price tag, essentially doubling the state
budget, to implement universal health coverage in Colorado.
“But this is one of the rare times when a
tax increase represents a cost savings … because you are replacing
something that you now pay a lot more for,” she said, noting that
Colorado businesses and individuals now spend about $30 billion a year
on health insurance.
Speaking against the initiative was
Christian Reece, executive director for the Grand Junction-based Club
20, a coalition of Western Slope businesses and local governments that
opposes the measure.
She called the ballot proposal “risky,
uncertain and unaffordable,” and said it would drive business out of
Colorado and disrupt the positive economic gains the state has
experienced in recent years.
“This would be a first-of-its-kind,
government-run system that may not work as it’s intended,” Reece said.
“The ballot language is very vague and doesn’t describe how this is to
be implemented.
“It just leaves too many questions and
decisions up to chance,” she said, adding those decisions would be left
to a 21-member elected governing board that opponents believe would lack
accountability.
It also locks the new health-care system
into the Colorado Constitution by amendment, making it difficult to
change or do away with if it doesn’t work, Reece said.
ColoradoCare would be funded by 3.33
percent employee and 6.67 percent employer payroll deduction. Business
income and other types of income would also be taxed under the measure.
“That’s a massive new tax for all
Coloradans, and it will have an impact on our ability to be economically
competitive,” Reece said.
Nicholson countered that the measure would
actually save $4.5 billion annually in health-care costs in the state,
partly by doing away with private administrative costs that are a big
reason health care is so expensive.
She noted that Colorado employers and
their workers now pay an average of 13.5 percent on their earnings for
private health insurance premiums, “and for fewer benefits that what we
are proposing,” Nicholson said.
Although the ACA, or Obamacare, has been a positive step, she said, its weakness is that it will never cover everyone.
“Health insurance will always remain
unaffordable for a percentage of our population,” Nicholson said, adding
that while the percent of uninsured people has gone down since the
inception of ACA, a high percentage of people remain underinsured.
“Every other industrialized nation in the world has figured out how to cover everyone,” she said.
Responding to criticisms that Colorado
shouldn’t go it alone as a single state in adopting universal health
care, she pointed to Canada as an example where one province,
Saskatchewan, led the way in the middle part of the 20th century before
the rest of the country followed.
“Colorado can do something similar by
starting universal health coverage, which we would hope will move to the
rest of the country,” she said.
Reece worried that Colorado would “once
again” become a “guinea pig” in trying something new at the state level,
as it has with legalizing marijuana.
“Even if you agree that we need a
single-payer system for health care, we are finding that most Coloradans
agree that Amendment 69 is not the right answer for Colorado,” she
said.
The Amendment 69 opposition group,
Coloradans for Coloradans, has bipartisan support including former
Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, business organizations and health-care
professionals, Reece also noted.
The proposal calls for a two-year
implementation period and appointment of a 15-member interim board of
trustees to work out the fine details of the new system. It also hinges
on keeping the $13 billion in federal funding tied to meeting the
requirements of the ACA.
No comments:
Post a Comment