Home | About | Donate

Prominent Democratic Consultants Sign Up to Defeat Single Payer in Colorado


#1

Prominent Democratic Consultants Sign Up to Defeat Single Payer in Colorado

Lee Fang, The Intercept

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.


#2

Once again, the Democrats have proven to be a shill for the 1%. Before it is over, the ignorant will think that single payer health care will be the reason for the destruction of the middle class. I wonder how many "think tanks" are working on how to discredit this great idea? One nation of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.


#4

"The plan calls for raising $25 billion through a mix of payroll taxes, along with bringing down costs through negotiations with providers."

CO will have to raise state taxes as well. Not really gonna fly otherwise:

Total Population 5.3 million
over 65 12% (covered by medicare) 636,000
under 18 23% 1,219,000
total working age 3.4 million
5% unemployment (maybe) 172,000
total working population (o pay the payroll tax) 3.2million
total payroll tax needed $25billion
average payroll tax $7800/yr

So the average employee will have to pay about $7800/yr in extra taxes. For a family of 2 wage earners that would be $15,000. Also to keep in mind is that the payroll tax would be a percentage so most likely the average middle class family would pay a little more than that.

Point is payroll tax is not gonna cover this.


#5

Perhaps making corporations (especially mining and oil shale groups) doing business in Colorado PAY THEIR TAXES AND FEES IN FULL along with upping the estate tax on estates over $500,000 will help fill the coffers. (Martin Marrietta companies come to mind for one....)


#6

I guess they could, but if you look at the CO budget, looks like it is about $27B, so free healthcare would basically double that and at a GDP of about $320B, there's not much more you can squeeze.


#8

The $25B already take savings into consideration. Apparently the US spends about $8k/capita on healthcare. If you look at my numbers, there are 4.7 million CO residents to be covered (total pop less seniors covered my medicare). That would be about $5300/capita. There's your 35% savings.

Anyway, I have nothing against "free" healthcare. Used it in Canada. I'm just pointing out it's not really "free". In Ontario (the one in Canada) you pay 13% sales tax, provincial taxes and a health premium (don't call it a tax).


#9

Just to add to your list, let us not forget the concept of price regulation of services, procedures, and especially medications. Anyone who's had to contend with the system knows how difficult it is to get a straight answer to the simple question, "How much will this cost?" Even if one is lucky enough to get someone to commit to providing an 'estimate', there's no guarantee that the final billing will come close to resembling anything near that amount. We speak from experience. The Affordable Care Act made heath care anything but affordable.


#10

Well if anyone wondered what a Clinton Presidency would look like there you go.


#11

In the US we pay those taxes, too, in the form of excessive and absolutely obscene profits.


#13

How did you find that out? Ran a background check, eh? Guess what? You got it wrong.

Not sure what all the rant was about, stopped after the first para. Anyway, if you had read my prev post i have nothing against "free" healthcare. I was just injecting some realism in the debate. Just playing with the numbers that were thrown out there. Find and flaws in my estimates?