General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSingle-payer health care failed miserably in Colorado. 79 % voted NO. Heres why. Mandatory reading
On the day the state of Colorado voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by about 5 points, voters there also rejected a ballot measure to enact a state-based single-payer system by an astounding margin of 79 percent to 21 percent.
Amendment 69, the Colorado Creation of ColoradoCare System Initiative, would have created a system in which all Coloradans would gain insurance through a tax-funded government insurance program. Private health insurers would have been rendered obsolete.
The Colorado initiative bears a resemblance to the Medicare-for-all legislation released by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) this week and endorsed by leading Democrats like Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and to HR 676, Rep. John Conyerss (D-MI) single-payer proposal which has the support of a large majority of House Democrats.
Colorados initiative, in other words, matched the 2017 health care platform of the Democratic Party. And it failed really, really, really badly.
The proposal came too soon and too fast for where voters were, Joel Dyar, who worked as state field director for the ColoradoCare Yes campaign, says.
Some of that failure is attributable to the unique challenges of adopting single-payer through a ballot initiative, and at the state level. Because Colorados constitution bans public funding for abortions, ColoradoCare wouldve taken away access to abortion from the hundreds of thousands of women currently in private health plans that cover the procedure. That earned the amendment the opposition of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado and Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, two leading progressive groups in the state. They didnt check in advance to see if this was a problem, Karen Middleton, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, recalls. By the time anyone had seen the language, it was already locked in.
And because the proposal had to be set in stone in order to appear on the ballot, advocates didnt have time to negotiate with key stakeholders on details of the plan, meaning few stakeholders bought in. Many progressive think tanks like the Colorado Fiscal Institute and the Bell Policy Center, unions like the United Food and Commercial Workers, and advocacy groups like ProgressNow Colorado wound up opposing the plan. A poorly thought-through initiative like Amendment 69 does violence to the future of single-payer in Colorado, Ian Silverii, ProgressNow Colorados executive director, says.
But other obstacles will be just as present in a federal fight. Entrenched interest groups, particularly insurers, spent millions opposing the measure. Moderate Democrats like Gov. John Hickenlooper, Sen. Michael Bennet, and former Gov. Bill Ritter came out against it. And ultimately, Colorado voters were just not persuaded
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/14/16296132/colorado-single-payer-ballot-initiative-failure
WhiteTara
(29,722 posts)but please be aware that you are violating the TOS by posting more than 4 paragraphs.
CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)And I mean a LOT more to it than this. This is an issue I worked very hard on here tirelessly. Outside money, Koch money, big pharma, health insurers, came pouring in to my state and they outraised those who were backing single payer here. In fact, a lot of questioning has been happening as to why some Democrats were on the same side as conservatives in their wanting to defeat the measure along with being on the side of big pharma and health insurers. That should be a red flag right away.
This here--- https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2822006-Colordans-for-Colordans-May-2nd-disclosure.html
And if that isn't enough, then there is the Koch money that came floating in.
As expected, these moneyed interests are doing everything they can to stop the state from amending its constitution with a ballot referendum, Amendment 69, which would implement a statewide version of "single-payer" health care. If approved, ColoradoCare would cover every resident, regardless of employment or ability to pay. In October, organizers submitted enough signatures to put the amendment on the ballot. The vote will take place on Election Day this year.
If the opposition groups succeed, they would not only be depriving Colorado of universal health care, but also would be serving another destructive blow to single-payer activists across the country. The single-payer movement saw a similar effort in Vermont fail in 2015, and its activists were shunned by the White House during federal reform discussions in 2010.
These groups and their tactics demonstrate how progressive state policies are opposed -- and often defeated -- with the help of a vast and impressive network of free market groups in all 50 states. Many of these groups have ties to the billionaire Koch brothers, who have vigorously resisted health care reform in Washington and in the states. Opposition is also coming from the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and is expected from the health insurance and drug industries. Combined, these forces will be an extremely difficult obstacle for advocates of health care justice, who hope Colorado can create health care history. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35353-koch-brothers-attempt-to-kill-single-payer-health-care-in-colorado#15055122287361
randr
(12,414 posts)Voltaire2
(13,159 posts)brer cat
(24,605 posts)because of the ban on funding for abortions. Asking women to give up access to abortion is a non-starter for many Democrats who might have supported the initiative otherwise. I'm not from Colorado, but just reading the OP it seems that it was rushed.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)BannonsLiver
(16,448 posts)If that's the best case we can make for it not catching on in Co. or anywhere else we need to go back to the drawing board.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)and very likely to be successful nationally.
We can support single payer.
But right now, in the next two weeks, all our efforts should be focused on SAVING THE ACA, SAVING MEDICAID, and SAVING MEDICARE -- all of which are threatened by the Cassidy/Graham "Obamacare repeal" bill.
CONTACT CONGRESS: TELL THEM TO VOTE AGAINST CASSIDY/GRAHAM OBAMACARE REPEAL.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)for years.
CherokeeFiddle
(297 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)We also lose medicare. This was not a good idea.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)But you're ultimately asking people for a pretty big leap of faith into the unknown, and for a lot of people who are in public sector, unionized or skilled employment their existing healthcare is already probably somewhere between good to great. And if a universal healthcare system is created at some point there will forever be forces dedicated to demolishing it.
While I support universal healthcare as a matter of principle, I would be lying if I said the employer provided health benefits I have had in my adult life were anything but excellent.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)will not vote to give up his health care or support any single payer system...a public option could work.
kacekwl
(7,021 posts)Like Medicare was designed to over time lower the age of those who can qualify. This will give insurance and other business affected to adapt.
Voltaire2
(13,159 posts)That was about one year after the law was passed in 1965.
There was no gradual introduction.
kacekwl
(7,021 posts)then gradually lower to the next tier then the next and so and so on until all were covered.
Voltaire2
(13,159 posts)It wasn't.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)Voltaire2
(13,159 posts)The only businesses that are going to take a hit are the health insurance companies, and pharma. They've been robbing us for decades. Too fucking bad. All the other businesses that were trying to do the right thing for their employees will benefit from no longer having to pay their share of the outrageous premiums.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)spending on healthcare should go to employees, to help them pay their higher taxes.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In the formulation of the Medicare legislation, one of the features under consideration was to start it at age 65, but then gradually lower the eligibility age so that everyone would eventually be covered.
The legislative give-and-take resulted in a final bill that omitted that gradual expansion.
lindysalsagal
(20,730 posts)Bastards.
R B Garr
(16,976 posts)It was a poorly thought out.
A poorly thought-through initiative like Amendment 69 does violence to the future of single-payer in Colorado, Ian Silverii, ProgressNow Colorados executive director, says.