Health care panel offers plan to cover 85% of uninsured
Proposal would cost $1.1 billion
By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
Health care in Colorado appears headed for a transformation instead of a revolution. Private insurance would remain but government-subsidized coverage could play a larger role.
If lawmakers adopt recommendations approved Monday by a special commission, 85 percent of the state's 792,000 residents currently uninsured would be covered, some folded into existing programs such as Medicaid, the Children's Health Plan or CoverColorado.
Others would be given subsidies so they can afford private insurance. About 6,000 who can afford insurance but have chosen to be uninsured would be forced to buy at least a basic plan.
Of the 96,000 or so residents who still would be without insurance, half would be illegal immigrants.
Thousands of low-income children and very-low-income adults would qualify for free health care under Medicaid or the Children's Health Plan, said members of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform, which voted 21-3 to approve the recommendations.
The plan would cost an additional $1.1 billion over the $30 billion the state now spends on health care.
If the legislature adopts the recommendations, it would have to find that extra money. One option is a "sin tax" on such items as cigarettes, hard liquor and junk food.
Depending on how the reform plan is finalized, its implementation might require voter approval.
The panel, appointed by the governor and lawmakers, will package the recommendations in a final report with four other proposals by grass-roots organizations and a fifth proposal hammered together from ideas in the other four. The whole package will be presented to the legislature in January.
But Monday's vote was the key one for the commission. The recommendations reflect the principles of that fifth proposal and will be accompanied by an analysis that says "why we think this is the way to go," said Edie Sonn, spokeswoman for the panel.
Commission members range from free-market champions who resisted any extra costs or employer mandates, to advocates for the disabled, some of whom would have preferred a single-payer government-run system similar to Great Britain's or Canada's.
"This reflects a compromise of 27 people, after one year of work," panel member Arnold Salazar said.
"Would I change some things if it was just up to me? Sure. But this is a very diverse group of people," and the final recommendations are what a cross-section could agree on in trying to shape policy for health care reform, he said.
"There is no question health care in the state would be improved by this," Salazar said.
Families of three earning less than about $52,000 a year would get some help to buy a plan offered by their employers.
If no plan is offered at work, families of three earning up to about $68,000 would get some government help - on a sliding income scale - to purchase plans on the open market.
The aim is to ensure that modest-income families and individuals don't spend more than 9 percent of their household income on health care premiums.
Insurers who want to stay in the Colorado market would have to offer a low-cost basic plan for about $200 a month, along with their other offers.
Highlights of the recommendations
* Government subsidies for families of three earning less than about $60,000 a year so they can afford to buy health insurance.
* Employers are not mandated to pay anything for workers' health benefits, but are required to allow workers to purchase their own plans using pretax dollars.
* Insurers must offer a low-cost basic plan.
* Insurers could charge older people more, but couldn't charge more because of a pre-existing or current medical problem.
* The basic health care pack- ages would include a $1,000- a-year dental benefit.
* Coloradans would pay little or nothing for preventive care, such as mammograms for women older than 40 and prostate exams for men.
Comments
Posted by Art on November 20, 2007 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Administration costs for this plan will cost more than the $1.1 B estimate. This is always the case, costs are always higher than estimates. Where will the dollars for this come from? Who will adminster the decision to "punish" those who choose not to buy health insurance? What sort of data base will need to be set up to follow insurance coverage for individuals and/or families? How will each family and individual be expected to report their insurance coverage? This will be a nightmare the likes of which have never been seen before. This plan will only make health insurance more of a quagmire than it is now and is sure to result in huge costs to the taxpayer, costs that will not benefit anyone. Sometimes when all options are looked at and none of them are any good it is best to just leave well enough alone. What we have now is certainly broken, but this fix is worse and more expensive than our present broken system.
Posted by BrianSchwartz on November 20, 2007 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To repeat my comment from the Nov. 19 article, which is very similar to this one:
A rationale for such compulsory insurance is to make the uninsured "responsible" by not allowing them to shift costs to the insured through higher insurance premiums. To address this, the Commission has proposed $1.1 billion in taxes for subsidized insurance and Medicaid expansion. This will cost $400 per privately-insured Colorado resident. Yet, the 208 Commission's website shows the relevant cost shift from the uninsured to be around $200 million, or just $85 per privately-insured resident.
Compulsory insurance is unethical regardless of cost. Government should protect us from aggressors, but compulsory insurance is aggression. You'd face fines and ultimately prison for peacefully refusing to purchase politically-defined insurance.
Politicians love compulsory insurance because lobbyists will throw money at them in hopes of having their services covered. As P.J. O'Rourke observes, "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."
Indeed, politicians already succumb to special interests by forcing insurance plans to cover many benefits that you may not need. These mandates increase your premiums by 21 to 54 percent. They reduce wages and are responsible for up to twenty-five percent of the uninsured.
The individual mandate is essentially single-payer in disguise. Strict regulations on legal insurance plans severely limit competition, so insurance companies are effectively government contractors for politically-defined insurance.
For more commentary on compulsory insurance, see my free-market proposal at WhoOwnsYou.org.
Posted by Edward on November 21, 2007 at 2 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nowhere in this article does it mention that after spending an additional $1.1 billion dollars in state taxes will premium costs be reduced (or the rate of growth slowed) for the 83% of Coloradans who currently have insurance?
Ed
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.