Letter: ColoradoCare conundrum
For decades, I was professionally involved in efforts to provide more equal access to quality health care at a reasonable cost. None of them went far enough, particularly in cost control. During those years, I became convinced that a well-run, nationwide, single-payer system would save billions of dollars while still greatly benefiting the vast majority of Americans.
Some proponents of Amendment 69 believe the only road to such a system runs through state-by-state adoption of single-payer. They might be right. But I have my doubts. It appears that Jill Stein, the presidential candidate of the Green Party, also has concerns. And she’s not the only progressive who is concerned, as pointed out in John Stroud’s recent article.
If Amendment 69 passes, some people will definitely end up paying more in taxes than they save in health-care costs. Some are extremely fit, healthy and happy with minimal or no health insurance. Others have what they consider good enough plans funded largely by their employers. Many are already very well-covered by Medicare, Tricare and/or the FEHB program, for example.
In my opinion, those who support the concept of single-payer insurance would be wiser to push for making buy-ins available to these proven nationwide plans instead of reinventing the wheel state-by-state. But there are certainly arguments on both sides of this matter, and I mention some of them in “Who Should Care About ColoradoCare? — It’s a Proposed Single-Payer System” here: http://tinyurl.com/KellyColoCare.
Thanks for covering this important issue.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.