Colorado Debates a Major Health Care Overhaul
Ouray, Colorado loneroc / Shutterstock.com
As proposed, Amendment 69 would introduce a new single-payer plan to replace Obamacare in the Centennial State.
Sara Davidson, the acclaimed writer, fully understands the power of an anecdote to capture the essence of a complex story.
She demonstrated that early in her career with her 1977 best-seller, Loose Change, about three women growing up in the 1960s, and she has proved it many times since in other books, magazine articles and television drama series.
Now she brings the power of anecdote to the fight she and others are waging to dramatically broaden the scope of Colorado’s health care system. Those supporting the change have succeeded in gathering enough signatures to place the issue on this fall’s ballot. They hope to follow in the footsteps of the state’s earlier controversial Amendment 64—the legalization of marijuana sales for recreational purposes—that was approved by 55 percent of the state’s voters in 2012.
Davidson, now living in Boulder, writes about her neighbors’ struggles with Obamacare in a recent posting on her blog.
As Davidson tells the story, Matt, 33, and his wife Nuri, 29, were forced by Obamacare to give up a health insurance plan that cost $500 a month, carrying a deductible of $1,000, that allowed them to see doctors of their choosing. None of the new plans they considered would allow them to continue with their current doctors, and, given a planned pregnancy, they would almost surely exceed the available Obamacare plans’ $12,000 out-of-pocket maximum, as well as paying $600 a month in premiums. That would amount to nearly $20,000, more than a third of their projected income of $55,000.
“This is ‘affordable?’” Davidson asks in her blog post detailing how the new “ColoradoCare” system would work.
Amendment 69 was certified for this year’s ballot last November, when the Secretary of State’s office announced that proponents had gathered 158,831 signatures, easily exceeding the 98,492 required. Proponents call it “Medicare for All.”
As Davidson writes, the initiative is supported by a coalition called ColoradoCareYes, which has been working on the idea for eight years. The coalition claims that the state would reduce its health care spending, while citizens too would see reductions in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.
But financing the new single-payer system would require a complex new taxation system, including substantial new payroll levies. It’s estimated that the state would have to increase revenues by $25 billion a year, beginning in 2019-20.
In Vermont, Gov. Peter Shumlin proposed a similar plan in 2014 but then withdrew it as skepticism grew that the legislature would approve new taxes to finance the scheme. Shumlin is still trying to enact reforms of his state’s healthcare system.
Coloradans for Coloradans is leading opposition to Amendment 69. The group includes many conservatives, but one of its co-chairmen is former Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter. In a sign of the uphill struggle the idea faces, two-term Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper on Jan. 26 announced that he would not support the proposal.
Still, Davidson writes:
Twenty other states—including California, Oregon, Ohio, and New York—are studying ColoradoCare to develop their own citizens’ initiatives. It’s an alternative to repealing Obamacare or fighting congressional gridlock to improve it.
Timothy B. Clark is Editor at Large for Government Executive’s Route Fifty.
NEXT STORY: When the Soft Power of Naming City Streets Sparks Conflict