Updated OP: Prominent Democratic Consultants Sign Up to Defeat Single Payer in Colorado [View all]

[Kittycat]

Last edited Tue May 3, 2016, 07:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Prominent Democratic Consultants Sign Up to Defeat Single Payer in Colorado

Prominent Democratic Consultants Sign Up to Defeat Single Payer in Colorado
Lee Fang
May 3 2016, 12:21 p.m.

INFLUENTIAL DEMOCRATIC CONSULTANTS, some of whom work for the Super PACs backing Hillary Clinton, have signed up to fight a bold initiative to create a state-based single-payer system in Colorado, according to a state filing posted Monday.

Coloradans for Coloradans, an ad-hoc group opposing single payer in Colorado, revealed that it raised $1 million over the first five months of this year. The group was formed to defeat Amendment 69, the ballot measure before voters this year that would change the Colorado constitution and permit a system that would automatically cover every state resident’s health care.

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.

-snip-

The filing reveals that the anti-single-payer group has retained the services of Global Strategy Group, a Democratic consulting firm that has served a variety of congressional candidates and is currently advising Priorities USA Action, one of the Super PACs backing Clinton’s bid for the presidency.

Hilltop & Trimpa as listed in the article. More at link above.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/03/single-payer-dems-colo/


Update/Additional Info
I want to share some additional information that's been discussed in other areas, and was brought up in regards to the single payer Healthcare Issue and our trade deals, specifically 1995, GATS. This potentially raises a big risk to states should a international insurance provider enter the marketplace. I haven't fully digested this, but understand more in context of risk with trade deals and other "products". I'll let you read and respond as desired.

This could be a secondary/silent reason real reason this is being blocked.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5725

Also, relevant:

http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/ctpchlthcaresub.pdf