ColoradoCare backers collect 156,000 signatures for single-payer plan

[Nuclear Unicorn]

ColoradoCare backers collect 156,000 signatures for single-payer plan

Proponents of a single-payer health care plan in Colorado collected more than 156,000 signatures to get it on the November 2016 ballot, far more than the 98,492 needed.

The signatures await verification.

The ColoradoCaresYes campaign delivered 27 bushel-sized boxes of petitions in a decommissioned ambulance and wheeled them in on a stretcher Friday morning to the secretary of state. The plan's chief proponent, state Sen. Irene Aguilar, a medical doctor and Democrat from Denver, wore her white lab coat as she pulled along the stretcher.

If it passes, Initiative 20 would replace Obamacare's Colorado health exchange with a plan paid for with a 10 percent "premium tax" on payrolls or other income.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29013454/coloradocare-backers-collected-156-000-petitions-single-payer?source=rss

Text of the ballot question --

https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Initiatives/titleBoard/filings/2015-2016/20Final.pdf


There's a lot of back and forth on this. The state's ACA exchange just dumped 80,000 policy holders and is looking like it will not survive much longer. The ballot initiative calls for a 10% payroll tax on all beneficiaries but the governing board can raise that without going through the legislature.

[think]

1. I look forward to seeing how this goes in Colorado. They seem to be way ahead of the curve....

[SickOfTheOnePct]

2. I'm glad that a state is finally taking it on

But I want to see how they're going to handle active and retired military and federal employees.

It also appears that there will be co-pays for some services, although waivers appear possible based on need. I would like to see more detail on what services will require co-pays, what the income cut off is, etc.

[DustyJoe]

3. as usual

Always the workers making income have to pay more taxes so ALL residents have paid-for single payer health care.

What happens when there's not enough workers to pay this tax ? Why is a consumption based tax such an unknown or undesirable tax as compared to an income tax ? With the number of non working or retired or disability receivers not making any income and not paying income tax, who pays for them in single payer if not the few workers. They need to spread the tax around, consumption tax, vat tax, sales tax whatever they want to call it so everyone getting single payer benefits is paying something into the system. Plus a higher level of consumption tax for the items like alcohol, pot, tobacco, sugsry snacks that cause health problems. /rant off

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Pot is already taxed at 25% or higher (no pun intended)

If it gets any higher (still no pun intended) they'll drive the consumers back underground and lose revenue.

[jwirr]

5. I think these same questions can apply to ACA also.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. These aren't income taxes

So workers that don't make enough to file income tax, or who pay no income tax currently, will still have to pay their portion of the 10% payroll tax.

I incorrectly stated yesterday that it will be split between employees (3.5%) and employers (6.5%), when it's actually employees 3.3% and employers 6.7%. When you figure that you won't be paying insurance premiums anymore, it may well not be any increase in what's taken from your paycheck.

Non-wage income will also be taxed at 10%, but with exceptions (haven't found yet what those are).

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. That's contingent upon costs keeping within that 10%. Vermont wasn't able to do so.

Remember, the state exchange is dropping 80,000 -- which is effectively everyone in it -- and as you noted insurance premiums are higher than 10% of payroll. If the insurance exchange can't work at a higher rate I don't see how CC can hold at its proposed 10%.

Also, according to the state constitution, all tax increases must be enacted through a ballot referendum. The CC initiative exempts the payroll tax from that requirement allowing the board to raise taxes on its own initiative without even going through the legislature. Last election a school levy was defeated over a similar provision that allowed the legislature to raise taxes without a referendum. I don't see people voting to give that power to a committee.