Liberal Groups To Come Out Against “ColoradoCare”

coloradocareA press release from the opposition group to Amendment 69, the ColoradoCare single-payer health care initiative, announces a press conference tomorrow opposing the measure headlined by progressive groups and Democratic lawmakers:

A group of Colorado progressive leaders, including a number of state lawmakers and legislative candidates, will announce their opposition to Amendment 69, also known as ColoradoCare. The group will hold a news conference on Wednesday, August 17 at 10 a.m. at the offices of ProgressNow Colorado, 1714 Humboldt Street in Denver.

The group announcing their opposition includes activists who support universal healthcare coverage nationally but believe that ColoradoCare’s one-state plan is risky, untested and financially unsustainable.

Amendment 69, on the ballot this year, would double the state budget through a $25-bllion tax increase to create a government-run health insurance system that would replace the current health insurance coverage for virtually all Coloradans. The plan has garnered opposition from across the state, citing not only its massive cost and high taxation, but significant concerns about reduction in the accessibility and quality of healthcare.

Tomorrow’s presser is set to include ProgressNow Colorado, NARAL Pro Choice Colorado who had already come out against Amendment 69 citing unintentional problems the law could create for abortion coverage, and a number of Democratic lawmakers led by House Majority Leader Crisanta Duran. Local Republicans have seized on Amendment 69 as a stick to beat Democrats at all levels with, employing misinformation and scare tactics to frame the debate in terms favorable to them.

The combination of very long odds for successful passage of Amendment 69, potential serious unintended consequences identified by NARAL and others, and Republicans apparently determined to make the initiative toxic in a perilous and unpredictable election year simply makes supporting the measure politically non-viable for Democrats in competitive races this year. Recognizing that early, and giving lawmakers up for election cover to stay clear of the measure, is the smart play politically–even if it stings a little in the short term.

We’ll update after tomorrow’s press conference.

75 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. BlueCat says:

    "Untested" is why I will not be supporting yet another crap shoot amendment. Not the kind of thing that should be set in stone in an amendment.

  2. hic_civis says:

    Smart move. I doubt single-payer on a state level can work for various reasons – risk pool is too small, and the private health insurance industry would use its enormous economic power to derail this plan.  And if this "untested" plan blows up it would just be more ammunition for the opposition.  Just look at how many GOPers inaccurately use the VT example as "proof" that single-payer would be a disaster.  I say inaccurately, because the VT single-payer plan didn't fail; rather, the Governor pulled the plug before it could go into action.  

    Single-payer would have to happen on the national level. And activists need to stop using the words single payer and simply do this:

    Medicare, age 65 and up for all


    • BlueCat says:

      It's already there and that's what the pols of the day thought was going to happen. Never dreamed we'd still be the only first world country without it at this late date.

    • gaf says:

      risk pool is too small

      implies that we 5.6 million Coloradans are incompetent to do what Denmark ( 5.7 million), Finland (5.5 million) and Norway (5.3 million) have already done.

      And that may be true. We may not be able to overcome the opposition and obstruction from the health industry and other opponents.

      • mamajama55 says:

        Aided and abetted by opportunistic "progressive organizations"  mindlessly repeating the talking points of the insurance industry.

        Coloradocare is (I refuse to say "was", even though Progress Now and Backstabber Duran have probably killed it)  an opportunity to test public option health care over a careful, 3 year process. It had many fail-safes and opt-out points built in.  It was not a 25 billion tax increase. It did not prohibit abortion nor contraceptive coverage, anymore than they were already prohibited by the Federal Hyde amendment or Catholic hospitals refusing coverage.

        When "liberal blogs" mindlessly repeat this drek, the Koch Brothers put another hundred thou in the bank. Because it saves them money and trouble if we propagandize each other, instead of waiting for their hirelings to do it.



      • hic_civis says:

        It doesn't imply incompetence, at all.  Denmark, Finland, and Norway did not have to battle against an entrenched institution that has enormous economic power, like the US health insurance industry does.  

  3. LaSenadoraAguilar says:

    Wow! As a progressive legislator who is one of the major spokespersons for Amendment 69, I am appalled that I learned about this via ColoradoPols. I asked to speak with the board of Progress Now about ColoradoCare, and they didn't give me the courtesy of a reply. I guess Brandenberry McKenna has more influence than I do. 

    • BlueCat says:

      This is a pretty progressive dominated blog and it doesn't look like you're getting a lot of love here. This kind of stuff shouldn't be taken out for a trial run as a practically set in stone amendment. 

      • LaSenadoraAguilar says:

        Anyone can sign on and create an account and not reveal their true identity. So I can't say if the anti Amendment 69 replies are from progressives or from lobbyists for the medical industrial complex. 

        I can tell you that the 2400 volunteers we have working on our campaign without pay are real people without a "dog in the fight".

        I don't expect every progressive to support ColoradoCare and I guarantee you there are Republicans who support ColoradoCare. So I think your comment about whether I am getting love or not from mystery bloggers is  irrelevant. 

    • mamajama55 says:

      This is a punch in the gut. Way for Progress Now Colorado to start a coalition with the Koch Brothers-funded Advancing Colorado. Use the same language : $25 billion tax increase, even though you understand quite well that it is not a tax increase, since the net effect of not paying health insurance premiums and copays saves whatever money would be in the employee 3.3% tax.

      On the abortion language NARAL objects to, it is not at all clear that any abortion or contraceptive coverage would be denied; the Hyde amendment already prohibits any Federal money from going for abortions.

      Crisanta Duran is an ambitious (edited) who is looking for advancement at whatever cost. I take back anything nice I ever said about her. How did she manage to backstab Senator Aguilar without a courtesy call? We'll remember that she can't be trusted. Now I understand why the union folks can’t stand her.

      I blame myself, too – I meant to write a diary answering some of the allegations, but got busy with other projects. No links in this comment – you all don't read what I write if it disturbs your preconceptions, anyway. Guess that "Medicare for  All" will go the way of Bernie Sanders' candidacy, betrayed by the same people and institutions. Too bad you won't have it for your kids and grandkids – only whatever compromise Hillary is willing to make with private insurors.

      Way to suck up to the right wing. I'm sure our trolls are stocking up on popcorn even as I speak.

      • Polsjunkie says:

        That kind of attack on women leaders in the House smacks of Trump talk.

        Why is it that women get the nasty, sexist insults when they stand their ground?

        We have seen a lot of it this year, I will say that.

        Last time I checked, those who do the work, win the elections and rise to leadership have the power.  They earned it.

        Seems to me the troll may be in the selfie.

        • Voyageur says:

          What are you talking about?

        • Voyageur says:

          What are you talking about?  If you mean mj, she didn't attack "woman leaders"  She attacked , yes, rather nastily, just one woman.  You need to look up the rules for plural nouns in your grammar book.

        • mamajama55 says:

          Well, Pols is now 100% in line with Advancing Colorado, and parroting their every line about Coloradocare. So is Crisanta Duran, apparently, and she also lacked the common courtesy to tell her senior colleague in the Senate, Senator Irene Aguilar, who has been pouring her soul into this initiative for five years now, that Crisanda et al would be stabbing her in the back because it is now politically expedient to do so.

          Is it troll talk to point that out?

          150,000 voters signed petitions, most of them collected by volunteers like myself, to get this on the ballot. Colorado Pols, Crisanta Duran, Progress Now Colorado, and whoever the other opportunistic political sellouts at the press conference tomorrow will be selling those voters down the river. We want Medicare for all. We want healthcare for us and our kids. We want to improve the way the affordable care act works. Pols, does this "sting a little" that you are now ignoring the will of 150,000 voters who got this on the fricking ballot? Yeah. It burns like a futhermucker.

          Now we won't  get a chance to have that,  because these bought off "bipartisan" candidates  and pundits will never, ever, sign off on a public option because the insurance companies will lose money and market share if Medicare for all became a reality at the Federal level. That's real talk. If Obama sold us out on the public option, just what do you imagine Hillary Clinton will do?

          We had a chance to see if we could make this work in Colorado. The misinformation started early, spread by the Koch – funded group Advancing Colorado. What's heartbreaking is to see the "liberal blogs" and "progressive politicians" spreading the same exact bullshit, and getting all self-righteous about it to boot.


          • FrankUnderwood says:

            It's not our fault that you wasted your time collecting signatures. Did you actually think this boondoggle had a snowball's chance in hell of passing in Colorado. (Hell, it wouldn't even pass in Massachusetts.)

            Look at the proposed tax increased for education which was on the ballot three years ago. This is going to make that look like a close vote.

            Colorado is not a left-left state. Look at the voter registration stats – unaffiliated voters are the largest block. They put off by the GOP's racists, misogynists, xenophobes and morons but they're not ready to sign on to the left wing economic agenda that some in the Democratic Party are promoting:  raising taxes to pay for free stuff.

            The fact that even some of us on the left (center-left when it comes to me, to be more accurate) are opposed to this brain fart of an idea speaks volumes. I'm glad Rep. Duran speaks for many of us and doesn't simply tow the party line.

            • mamajama55 says:

              FU::  F. U.

              That's cool…..we'll all still be waiting for the Dems to decide that they have a safe enough majority to take the risk of being called a commie.

              What will we be waiting for? Universal Health care. How long will we be waiting for it. For Fricking Ever.

              If you think that your precious Hillary is going to be any more willing to buck Big Pharma and Big Insurance than Obama was, good luck with that.  Safe majorities or not. Maybe we'll get a couple of minor tweaks to Obamacare, and then she can declare victory and hold  a press conference. If that much.


              • Duke Cox says:

                If you think that your precious Hillary is going to be any more willing to buck Big Pharma and Big Insurance than Obama was, good luck with that. 

                It will be a cold day in Aziziya when that happens…

                I seldom admit this, mama, but, in my twenties, I worked in the insurance industry for 3 or four years. I studied hard and learned the turf. The incestuous relationships between industry and government are many and well documented, none more corrupted and lucrative than the insurance industry. Few people realize just how much money is controlled by insurance companies. 

                The percentage of total investment made by insurance companies then, in the early 70s, was 72%. The tens of thousands of dollars I sent to United Healthcare (among others) over the years is pure profit …minus bookkeeping costs. All that profit, and yet, I saw a piece the other day exposing many life insurance companies that fail to pay death benefits, even when they know the insured is deceased. If the beneficiary is unaware of the policy, the company closes the account and keeps the benefit for themselves. It is quite common.

                The benevolent picture insurance companies (and Big Pharma, not to leave them out) like to paint of themselves is so much horse shit. Hillary Clinton will not be the champion the people need when it comes to healthcare.  

                She will never support "Medicare for All"

            • LaSenadoraAguilar says:

              Please don't make personal attacks on each other. It doesn't help anyone's cause.

              Cancer is non partisan. The profit-first Medical Industrial Complex is screwing all of us. 

          • TobiasFunke says:

            "Ignoring the will" of the voters who got it on the ballot? 

            I didn't realize a press conference could pull something from the ballot.

            • Voyageur says:

              You live and learn, Tobias.

            • mamajama55 says:

              The press conference will spread disinformation to voters,  makng them more likely to vote against #69, which is the purpose. I never said this would disenfranchise voters; but it will significantly misinform them, if PCN and Duran are using the same talking points as Advancing Colorado, to wit:

              1. Coloradocare is NOT a 25 billion dollar "tax increase".

              2. We are not "abandoning" Obamacare. We are not "starting from scratch". Those phrases need to be made accurate.

              3. There is nothing in the language around abortion that limits abortion for poor women any more than the Hyde amendment and court decisions allowing religious exemptions already limit that right. Coloradocare does not fix abortion access for poor women. That is not its primary purpose.

              4. It is not "free stuff".

              Anything that spreads disinformation does voters a disservice. It may get more Dems elected in the short run; I'm becoming less and less convinced that that is a worthy goal, if all we do is lose or maintain ground.

              I honestly don't see any way Medicare for All goes through at the Federal level under a Clinton administration (obviously, not under a Trump admin). I'm seeing maybe a couple of tweaks lowering Medicare age for certain groups or expanding Medicaid for certain groups. I'm not seeing significant reforms limiting the profitability of drugs or more access for medicines.

              I truly don't care what you all think of me, so your scolding and scorn rolls right off. I am very saddened and outraged by our progressive champions betraying the very causes of public health and access that they should be championing – all in the name of getting a few more "D"s elected.

              You all can be relieved of my obnoxious presence, though – school is starting, and I'll be on here very little. Nobody else apparently gives a shit or is supportive about Coloradocare, or informed enough to even have an opinion. You are content to let others do your reading and thinking for you. If you believe that Hillary is going to encourage a public option / Medicare for all, then Good luck with that.


              • PKolbenschlag says:

                The pursuit of short term tactics over a longer term strategy is precisely why progressive issues keep losing ground IMO. Not sure how I will vote on A69 as I need to consider it more, but progressives will keep losing ground if all we dare do is focus on the next election.  

              • TobiasFunke says:

                1. Then what is it? 

                2. Then what would you call opting out of the ACA? 

                3. Odd that the attorneys for NARAL disagree so strongly with you. 

                4. You're right; we're all paying for it. With a tax increase. 

                Here's the thing: many of us disagree with the whole thing based on the attempt to crowbar it into the state constitution, making it a miserable bastard to fix should it not work out exactly how proponents say it will. 

                Here's another thing: the loss of jobs in the state of Colorado — those dreaded insurance companies employ lots of good, middle-class folk in the state, and those jobs will absolutely go away — shouldn't be looked at as collateral damage. You can't feed your family with universal health care. 

                Oh and one more thing: I've had this described to me more than once as Medicaid/Medicare for all, and that with overhead at 3%, it's much better on the whole than the current system. The only thing I can say is that anyone who holds Medicare/Medicaid up as the shining example of everything that's right has never had to deal with Medicare or Medicaid. 

                There are too many question marks around this, and I've not read a stitch of literature from the Koch brothers, so kindly save your condescending nonsense for someone else. 

                • Voyageur says:

                  I've been on Medicare 6 years, Tobias and it is fabulous.  I agree 69 is fatally flawed, in part because it fails to mesh well with Medicare Advantage plans.   But don't trash Medicare.   It's the holy grail.   We just need to lower the age  to birth and find a way to pay for that.   (My way is a national VAT)  Unfortunately, that won't happen soon.    Hillary will, I trust, fight for a public option but that won't happen unless we get the House and Senate both.

                  • PKolbenschlag says:

                    Even lowering the age to 50 or so would be a huge step. Medicare for all is my preference. At least the option for it within exchanges. 

                  • TobiasFunke says:

                    It's fabulous for the people who are on it, agreed. 

                    It's an unmitigated disaster for a lot of the caregivers requiring reimbursement. 

                    The 69 people talk about 3% overhead like it's a good thing, while care givers (doctors and practices) wait YEARS to be reimbursed because of that low overhead. They simply don't have the people to keep it moving at a reasonable pace. 

                    That number will have to go up, if everyone is going to be on it. Which means more expense to pay for that overhead. 

      • BlueCat says:

        So all those here who don't think it's a great idea to try this plan out by way of first embedding it in our state constitution where any undesirable consequences will become almost impossible to address is a great idea are sucking up to the right wing, in league with the Kochs or idiots who haven't listened properly to your analysis. What's more, refraining from passing 69 is an assault on Medicare for All. Never mind if it turns out to be a dud it will simply supply ammunition for those opposed to Medicare for All  even though that would be an entirely different thing. 

        You and V (who also doesn't support 69) may have a good point about back stabbing but I think you're going off the deep end on the rest.  

        • Voyageur says:

          What bc said.  Aguilar deserved the courtesy of a sitdown with Progress Now.  But BC is absolutely right that this thing doesn't belong in the Constitution where its flaws are beyond review or change.   We don't need anotherTabor debacle in constitutional concrete.

          • LaSenadoraAguilar says:

            The amendment is in the constitution because otherwise the revenue collected would count against our Tabor limit and leave no revenue for basic state services which I agree are under funded.  Since it had to be in the constitution, the amendment is only 12 pages long. It provides principles which are the skeleton of the program. The details will be added by the legislature at the bequest of the board of directors.  All legislators hold true to our constitution. This allows for fluidity as health care evolves in our nation.


            • BlueCat says:

              It's got to stop somewhere. We can't keep tying ourselves in knots adding things to the constitution that make other things impossible unless more stuff is also added to the constitution but the catch is the more you box the budget in with competing amendments the worse it gets.

              There will be no good solutions until pols have the guts to push for repeal of TABOR for starters. You can't clean up this mess by rearranging the deck chairs.

              If the whole thing crashes and burns or fails to provide quality coverage as Obamacare has failed to do ("affordable" care under Obamacare is the same old minimal high deductible crap) that will just give those who don't want us to join the 21st century with universal healthcare nationwide more talking points about the failure of "socialism".

              Thanks but no thanks.


          • LaSenadoraAguilar says:

            Thank you Voyageur. That is my major complaint. I asked for an audience and was denied. I was "notified" there would be a press conference (without time) by email 20 minutes before this was posted on ColoradoPols. I had a call from a fellow legislator notifying me of a press conference (without a time or location) 90 minutes before the event. With one exception, none of the Democratic House members who were present at the press event spoke with me about ColoradoCare or their concerns. I have twice sent them information and talking points and invited them to speak with me. To me that is not professional and not a way you treat a fellow legislator. 

        • mamajama55 says:

          Read the actual amendment. Nothing gets "set in stone" in the Constitution until the second year of study. The first year sets up the nonprofit organization to do the feasibility studies and work out bugs. Nothing gets finalized until then . Amendment 69 funds the setting up of the nonprofit only. Plenty of off ramps. Progressnow Colorado, Crisanta d and the rest are intelligent people who read bills and know these things. Yet they are allowing the misinformation spread by Koch-funded groups to panic them about getting elected. It's a fucking shame.

          • BlueCat says:

            OK… then pray tell what does get set as an amendment to the constitution by this amendment to the constitution. Something has to. 

            • mamajama55 says:

              BC, there's a process that could take 1-3 years. An interim committee has to apply for a waiver from the ACA. If it looks like the plan doesn't cover as well as the present Colorado exchange (if, for example, it limited reproductive rights the way NARAL's lawyers claim it would), then the waiver would not be granted.

              Unless the bill were adjusted in the legislature, which could take at least one session. For more details, see Senator Aguilar's posts on this thread. She understands it well, having seen it through several incarnations and years, since she got weary of seeing poor women in my old Highland neighborhood be finally able to access services for the first time in decades. My immense respect for Dr. and Senator Aguilar dates from that time, almost 20 years ago.

              I'm done for tonight. I'm going to make nice and not smoke anyone verbally tonight. Clearly, this campaign suffers from a lack of communication. However, the opposition , i.e. the health insurance industry, is so much better funded and can hire media experts.

              • BlueCat says:

                This doesn't answer my question.  If this amendment is passed something concrete becomes part of the constitution. That's what amending the constitution does. 

                But all I have to do is take Aguilar's word for what it really is… a "skeleton" we are being asked to vote into the state constitution, the details of which will be worked out later. Seriously, that's kind of insane. I'm sorry but, in full understanding of what Aguilar is communicating here, I'm not buying. Not because the insurance industry got to poor unwitting me but in full understanding of the "enlightening" words of Senator Aguilar that you recommend. 

                The amendment is in the constitution because otherwise the revenue collected would count against our Tabor limit and leave no revenue for basic state services which I agree are under funded.  Since it had to be in the constitution, the amendment is only 12 pages long. It provides principles which are the skeleton of the program. The details will be added by the legislature at the bequest of the board of directors.  All legislators hold true to our constitution. This allows for fluidity as health care evolves in our nation.



    • Voyageur says:

      I don't support 69 because it is a bad deal for seniors like me.  But for an allegedly "progressive" group to attack it without even letting backers like LaSenadora Aguilar speak to them is disgusting.  Maybe they should change their name to Progress When Powerful Special Interests Don't  Pay Us Off to Support the Status Quo.  Que Lastima!

  4. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    Amendment 69 is a bad, bad idea; with reasons already being discussed on other Pols threads. 

  5. mamajama55 says:

    Trust the voters enough to let them decide. Give our real information, not Koch-funded talking points.

    You know it's not a tax increase. You know that abortion is just as unavailable paid through federal funds as it has been since the Hyde amendment vwas enacted. You know that nothing gets "set in stone in the Constitution" until it has been thoroughly studied and voted on. You understand that the amendment 69 is just to begin the study process. You know these things, yet you are deliberately deceiving the public because you are scared of what the Conservatives might say about you. Grow a spine and lead.











    • Voyageur says:

      For me, it is a$1,000 tax increase with zero benefit.  And, yes, the constitution is beyond legislative reach.  It is an utter lie to say 69 passage " only begins a study process. "  You don't need to amend the constitution to do a study.  So, finally, grow up and stop screaming insults at anyone  who lacks your blind Faith in socialism.

      • mamajama55 says:

        Read the bill.

        • Voyageur says:

          I did.  Nowhere does it say "This only authorizes a study,. "  Seems the Bluebook folksmissed that too.

        • mamajama55 says:

          Read. The. Bill. Amendment 69

          Ballot language

          Actual bill language

          Process is, for those of you baffled by bureaucratic bullshit:

          1. election. People vote up or down. (biggest off-ramp – let the voters decide). This is what PCN, Duran, et al, don't trust us to do.

          2. If Amendment 69 passes, Governor signs it into law, within 30 days of the results being certified. So ~December 2016.

          3. Interim board of trustees is appointed within 60 days. That's the "study group", Vger. That's where initial funds are allocated.

          4.Interim board seeks a waiver under section 1332 of the ACA, which allows states to innovate if they cover as many people as well as the ACA.

          5. Off ramp – if waiver is not granted because of ???? see 4 (1) a from the amendment 69 law.

          The amendment cannot be enacted unless the waiver is granted, and the waiver will not be granted unless ColoradoCare is proven to cover as many people or more as the Affordable Care Act,at the same cost or less than the Affordable Care Act, with the same quality coverage or better than the Affordable Care Act.

          This is both an appropriately high standard and a safeguard ensuring that the system can’t be implemented unless it will work.” (off ramp alert- my emphasis)

          6. If waiver is granted, then interim appointed board sets up elections for elected board.

          7.Within 3 years of governor signing CC, election of board must be held. 

          8.. 90 days prior to the date when CC is to begin operations, interim board certifies to governor and dept of revenue about the chosen date.

          9. Collection of premiums – July 1 of the year after the year that it is signed into law, so July 2017, Colorado care can begin collecting premiums. First year, on only 50% of income, so instead of 3.3 percent from employees, it would be a 1.51%.

          There could obviously be an off ramp here on collection of premiums if waiver from ACA is not granted.


          • bullshit! says:

            How does a press conference prevent the people from voting? You went a little off the rails there in your anger methinks.

          • BlueCat says:

            No one can guarantee that anything "will work" until it's been implemented. That's why detailed plans should not be enacted as constitutional amendments but as legislation that can be tweaked or discarded a zillion times more easily than an amendment to the friggin state constitution. 

            BTW….frothing at the mouth, dialing it up to 11 and calling all of us who disagree with you Koch loving dupes or idiots who lack your keen understanding or don't know how to read is probably not going to win over anyone reading this thread who doesn't already share your view. Just sayin'.  

          • Voyageur says:

            It is utterly misleading to claim this is only a study.  If 69 passes and the feds grant the waiver we are stuck with this turkey.  Period 

            Yes, let the people decide.  Decide "No" , people!

            • LaSenadoraAguilar says:

              There is an interim period in which a 0.3%  and 0.6% premium is collected. This premium becomes the reserve for the health fund.  It is also used to create the detailed plan, hold public meetings, and apply for the waiver.  If the waiver is not granted, the premium is returned to the people.

              The Federal Guidelines for being granted a waiver include the requirement that there is a public hearing on the waiver. The waiver is for 5 years only and reapplication is needed.

      • LaSenadoraAguilar says:

        People who are on Medicare are required to maintain Medicare A, B and D.  ColoradoCare is the supplemental plan for Coloradans on Medicare. ColoradoCare is obligated to pay bills not paid by Medicare.

        Those who are retired will have up to $46,000 of their retirement and pension income exempted from the premium tax as individuals and up to $76,000 exempted as a couple. So the 10% premium is on non-retirement income or retirement income over this amount. Unfortunately, few seniors have income over these amounts and thus they will get a robust supplemental plan at no extra cost.

        Up to 25% of people on Medicare are at risk for medical bankruptcy according to the Commonwealth Fund.  ColoradoCare removes this risk from our elderly. 

        • Voyageur says:

          I am a senior and recalculated my taxes as if 69 was now in effect.   It almost triples my state income tax, adding about $1,000.   It does nothing for me because I am on Kaiser Senior Advantage.   It won't lower my premium because Kaiser Senior Advantage is zero premium.  Zilch, Nana, zippo.   So I'm out a grand with nothing in return.   Yes, in my working years I earned a modest private pension and put aside some savings in a 401(k).   Don't insult seniors by pretending we all live under railroad bridges.   Seniors, in fact, have the lowest level of poverty.   The highest, sadly, is children.

          I appreciate your hard work La Senadora, and think you were treated shabbily by people to whom you have extended every courtesy in the past.   But the proposal itself is badly flawed and, in the Constitution, would be very hard if not impossible to cure.

          I also fear the abortion problem is real.   This bans most private policies that are not affected by the Hyde amendment and replaces it with a federal/state hybrid that does fall under Hyde.  In legislation, that problem might have been addressed.  In the constitution, it's locked in concrete.

          Me gustan sus trabajos.


    • BlueCat says:

      The voters are getting to decide. What's your problem?

  6. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    "implies that we 5.6 million Coloradans are incompetent to do what Denmark,,,,,,Finland…..Norway……have already done."

    Such a statement overlooks the fact that Colorado is one state in a country of over 310 million people and people are free to  move where and when they want. The three Nordic countries are more or less closed societies and don't have the issues with immigration like the US does. And if I was a poor Native American living in a hovel up on Pine Ridge,  dependent on health care from the BIA, and hear about the free stuff available in Colorado, I'd be down here in a heartbeat.

    mamajama: I respect a lot of your thoughts on this site even when I disagree with them. Before telling someone else to "grow a spine," maybe you could activate some additional brain cells to try and understand why some of us think 69 is a bad deal.

    • FrankUnderwood says:


      Yes, the proponents of this boondoggle never explain how this can be done successfully on the state level. The damn thing would more than double the state budget. The same good people who run the DMV would be overseeing the health care industry.


    • BlueCat says:

      EU is not USA and not all the European countries that have universal healthcare are even in the EU. Our states as political entities bear little resemblance to the separate nations of Europe and the EU bears little resemblance to the strong central government federation that is the USA, a single nation. Apples to oranges. 

  7. IndependentProgressive says:

    Most "liberals" are barely liberals at all … they are really just straight-ticket hack corporate Democrats.

    Democrats are allegedly by tradition "liberal" or "progressive" and that is the only reason most of them still call themselves liberal or progressive.

    But the country has moved so far to the right and the Democratic Party has become so corporatized and coopted by Wall Street (i.e., Clintonism) that in reality they aren't liberals or progressives at all … except on a very few social issues (which they bray about ad nauseum).

    So, of course, these "liberal" groups are against Amendment 69; the last thing the health insurance and the corporate provider industries want are regular folks taking control of their own lives and mandating genuine democracy in our government. The elite and governing class Democrats know that big campaign money is at stake for them … therefore, complete opposition to single-payer in Colorado.

    • BlueCat says:

      Take your self righteous disdain and  shove it it where the moon don't shine. Almost everyone on this site who opposes this amendment supports high quality universal health care coverage such as what we would have have with Medicare for all and the liberals here are not corporate stooges.

      Go vote for Jill Stein or whoever. 

  8. The realist says:

    Statutes are often flawed, the constitution is already flawed, politics is beyond flawed. I have confidence the voters will have their will heard on this proposal, and if it passes, legislators and others will work diligently to implement effectively. 

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.