• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Colorado have gotten a single payer system

Do you support colorado's healthcare plan

  • Yes, healthcare is a right

    Votes: 1 50.0%

  • No, it would double Colorado's taxes

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • Total voters
    2
M

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Amendment 69 would have given the state of Colorado the option of the state paying for healthcare. The main problem many have with it is that in order for Colorado to implement it, taxes would have to be doubled. If you're a colorado resident and you're worried about this expensive system, don't worry, the measure has been soundly defeated by Colorado voters with an astounding 2/3 majority.

Me personally, I support a single payer system but I think this was the wrong way to bring it forth.
 
Masterhawk said:
Amendment 69 would have given the state of Colorado the option of the state paying for healthcare. The main problem many have with it is that in order for Colorado to implement it, taxes would have to be doubled. If you're a colorado resident and you're worried about this expensive system, don't worry, the measure has been soundly defeated by Colorado voters with an astounding 2/3 majority.

Me personally, I support a single payer system but I think this was the wrong way to bring it forth.
Click to expand...

I am in general in favor of a form of single payer healtcare, but it can't be done on just the state level. Too many people would have tried to move into CO, we're already in a immigration boom, we couldn't afford to keep it running. To really do it properly, single payer would have to be federal.
 
Ikari said:
I am in general in favor of a form of single payer healtcare, but it can't be done on just the state level. Too many people would have tried to move into CO, we're already in a immigration boom, we couldn't afford to keep it running. To really do it properly, single payer would have to be federal.
Click to expand...

...but wouldn't those people who move to Colorado for the health care be subject to the taxes? Wouldn't the system sustain itself with taxes?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
...but wouldn't those people who move to Colorado for the health care be subject to the taxes? Wouldn't the system sustain itself with taxes?
Click to expand...

Eventually, if they're coming here and finding jobs, yes. But there wouldn't be a guarantee on that. People can just move in without finding jobs, or the influx can be so large that the system becomes so swamped and overburdened that it cannot recover.
 
Ikari said:
Eventually, if they're coming here and finding jobs, yes. But there wouldn't be a guarantee on that. People can just move in without finding jobs, or the influx can be so large that the system becomes so swamped and overburdened that it cannot recover.
Click to expand...

Does this same swamping/burdening happen on the national level?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Does this same swamping/burdening happen on the national level?
Click to expand...

I would depend on how the system is initialized, I guess, but it stands a much better chance against it because it's national. So everyone in the nation is paying, not just the folk of a given state. Those without jobs are already without and those with jobs are already with. Everyone in the nation then gets health coverage, and those already paying taxes are paying taxes towards that healthcare system.

If you have too few facilities, those can still become swamped and you can end up with excessively long wait times. But it's far better isolated against surges than a single state would be.
 
Ikari said:
I would depend on how the system is initialized, I guess, but it stands a much better chance against it because it's national. So everyone in the nation is paying, not just the folk of a given state. Those without jobs are already without and those with jobs are already with. Everyone in the nation then gets health coverage, and those already paying taxes are paying taxes towards that healthcare system.

If you have too few facilities, those can still become swamped and you can end up with excessively long wait times. But it's far better isolated against surges than a single state would be.
Click to expand...

You just made a great argument for limited, tightly controlled immigration.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
You just made a great argument for limited, tightly controlled immigration.
Click to expand...

There would be that too, certainly could have an impact on the system. I'm not for "open boarders", but I do think we need immigration. But yes, if we had a nationalized healthcare system, completely unregulated huge surges in immigration could swamp and destroy it.
 
Ikari said:
There would be that too, certainly could have an impact on the system. I'm not for "open boarders", but I do think we need immigration. But yes, if we had a nationalized healthcare system, completely unregulated huge surges in immigration could swamp and destroy it.
Click to expand...

How many would represent a "huge surge" at the state level? And how many at the national level?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom