Democrats work with insurance companies to defeat single-payer in CO

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I'm surprised this has hardly gotten any traction.  I posted this in another thread a few weeks ago, but I thought the story was deserving of its own.

From The Intercept:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Even Hickenlooper is against it:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Seriously, what the hell?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Seems like every day, a new story is reported that confirms what I suspect the future may hold for the Democratic Party and I wasn't kidding when I said many Democrats would be disappointed and not just Sander's supporters.

A transaction is about to occur and these people play for keeps.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Seems like every day, a new story is reported that confirms what I suspect the future may hold for the Democratic Party and I wasn't kidding when I said many Democrats would be disappointed and not just Sander's supporters.

A transaction is about to occur and these people play for keeps.

Why would this impact the Democratic Party for the future?  If Sanders' coalition holds, the next generation that controls the party will completely reject people like Hickenlooper and nonsense like this.

In fact, it's exactly people like Hickenlooper who will come to epitomize the Democratic Party of yesterday.  This isn't the first time he's been completely at odds with the progressive base in his state.

[hurricanehink]

Is this the 2nd major attempt (after Vermont) for a state to attempt universal healthcare? I think this is a sign of progress, that it's not a settled issue, that Sanders is still campaigning on it. It might take another few tries, but one of these efforts will eventually work, and we'll finally see a model that works other than Romneycare.

[Virginiá]

Personally, I'm worried that if this passes it will seriously hurt the Democratic party in Colorado if it fails. I don't think single-payer will really work on a state-by-state basis, especially for one like Colorado. If it fails after large debt and tax increases, it might just end up hurting the idea's future progress.

Of course, maybe it does work out in the end, but it is risky. I don't think objections here are entirely unfounded and for as much as politicians don't want to take risks, I think perhaps reformers might be willing to take too much risk.

Also, baking policy this consequential and large into the State Constitution right away, knowing the risk and before the idea has been tested is stupid as hell. What if there are core problems that can only be changed by a State Constitutional amendment and the people reject any critical future changes? It's not the right way to do this.

[Lief 🗽]

Your first mistake was reading The Intercept, which is garbage and run by a Kremlin-stooge traitor.

[Panda Express]

1. LOL Intercept
2. They tried to do single-payer in Vermont just recently. Shumlin had to back down because it was too expensive. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/vermont-peter-shumlin-single-payer-health-care-113653. I really doubt it is magically going to work in Colorado if it couldn't in a state like Vermont. Now is not a good time for this single-payer narrative but maybe in the future we can edge towards there.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No surprise. Hillary came out as as strong enemy of single payer. Trump is more likely to support it than her. Hillary has nothing to offer people who aren't powerful and don't care for idiotic identity politics.

[IceSpear]

No surprise. Hillary came out as as strong enemy of single payer. Trump is more likely to support it than her. Hillary has nothing to offer people who aren't powerful and don't care for idiotic identity politics.

jfern, your hero Bernie failed to get single payer through in Vermont of all places. Why don't you hold him accountable?

[IceSpear]

1. LOL Intercept
2. They tried to do single-payer in Vermont just recently. Shumlin had to back down because it was too expensive. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/vermont-peter-shumlin-single-payer-health-care-113653. I really doubt it is magically going to work in Colorado if it couldn't in a state like Vermont. Now is not a good time for this single-payer narrative but maybe in the future we can edge towards there.

I find it quite funny how so many people stick their fingers in their ears and sing "LALALALALALALALA I can't hear you!" whenever anyone points out the Vermont example. I mean christ, it's VERMONT, and the incumbent governor nearly lost their seat over merely PROPOSING single payer healthcare, and you wonder why Hillary, Hickenlooper, or any other mainstream Democrat won't touch it with a ten foot pole?

Bernie has major influence in the state. He could've used his political capital to try to get single payer there, and depending on how that went, it could've paved the way for the nation. He didn't. When he was asked about in a debate, he basically just said to blame Shumlin. He never addressed why it failed in the first place, and why he did NOTHING to help. This is actually one of my biggest gripes with him.

[This account no longer in use.]

No surprise. Hillary came out as as strong enemy of single payer. Trump is more likely to support it than her. Hillary has nothing to offer people who aren't powerful and don't care for idiotic identity politics.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Don't forget that Colorado is, obviously, quite different from Vermont.  Just because single-payer had to be nixed for budgetary reasons in one small state doesn't mean it should be immediately rejected in every state where it's proposed - and Colorado and Vermont are not the only states where this has been proposed recently.

Unfortunately, useless Democrats like Hickenlooper do nothing to advance this cause at all.  At least Shumlin tried for four years.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

FF

[RaphaelDLG]

Single-payer is obviously great but 1) the requisite tax increases are scary/cause cold feet due to sticker shock for voters and 2) industry comes down powerfully to bear on/threaten democratic govs/legislatures.

And it might be better in America to do a transition with the public option first anyway.  That's why I'm pretty excited if cautiously optimistic about HRC's recent support for the public option.  I think that's exactly how to start and I would have much rather have had that than the mandate in '10.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Sounds like Hickenblooper has been drinking fracking fluid again.

[publicunofficial]

One would think that if single-payer came to Colorado via a voter's initiative, Colorado Democrats wouldn't have to fear the backlash as much.

Surely the voters wouldn't punish them for implementing a system that THEY demanded?

[IceSpear]

One would think that if single-payer came to Colorado via a voter's initiative, Colorado Democrats wouldn't have to fear the backlash as much.

Surely the voters wouldn't punish them for implementing a system that THEY demanded?

>implying voters are logical

Remember when Republicans went from horrible people who destroyed the economy to our holy saviors against the socialist Muslim in the span of a single year?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

One would think that if single-payer came to Colorado via a voter's initiative, Colorado Democrats wouldn't have to fear the backlash as much.

Surely the voters wouldn't punish them for implementing a system that THEY demanded?

There's no way a huge program like this doesn't affect the ability of state government as a whole to operate.  All the tax increases needed to pay for this program would create an opportunity cost for funding other programs and may also damage the state economy.

[Clark Kent]

Democrats actually did something decent? Wow!

[Maxwell]

Single-payer is obviously great but 1) the requisite tax increases are scary/cause cold feet due to sticker shock for voters and 2) industry comes down powerfully to bear on/threaten democratic govs/legislatures.

And it might be better in America to do a transition with the public option first anyway.  That's why I'm pretty excited if cautiously optimistic about HRC's recent support for the public option.  I think that's exactly how to start and I would have much rather have had that than the mandate in '10.

I'd second this and why I agree with Colorado Dems on this.

[Virginiá]

Single-payer is obviously great but 1) the requisite tax increases are scary/cause cold feet due to sticker shock for voters and 2) industry comes down powerfully to bear on/threaten democratic govs/legislatures.

And it might be better in America to do a transition with the public option first anyway.  That's why I'm pretty excited if cautiously optimistic about HRC's recent support for the public option.  I think that's exactly how to start and I would have much rather have had that than the mandate in '10.

I can see a lot of people getting in a fit if this measure is defeated. I don't think many are looking at this from a reasonable standpoint. They see it as a major priority getting defeated, whereas in reality it's probably best that single-payer isn't done state-by-state where huge costs threaten state finances and party strength in the state. Universal healthcare like this is really better if done nationwide - Everyone pooling their resources helps reduce the financial burden. I'm not sure any single state is truly capable of financing such a project all on its own without issues.

If this passes and fails horribly, it hurts the movement to transition to single-payer and may hurt Democratic prospects in Colorado for a few election cycles or so. That only sets us even further back in advancing progressive goals.

Edit: completely forgot I already posted something similar. oh well

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Fwiw single payer was introduced in a single province in Canada before being introduced nationwide.