Ritter pulls back on health plan

Initial expansion may have to be restricted to kids

By Chris Barge, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

The governor who promised health care for all Coloradans lowered his sights Monday to covering more of the state's children - in stages, over time.

And Gov. Bill Ritter cautioned that he might not be able to find the $43 million that would be needed for a bill being introduced this week to expand coverage to more than 65,000 of the state's approximately 180,000 uninsured children.

Ritter said in his first State of the State speech 13 months ago that he wanted to give every Coloradan access to basic health insurance by 2010. He said Monday that while health insurance for just the state's uninsured children is a worthy goal, it would require a new tax that Colorado's fiscally conservative voters aren't yet ready to pass.

"It's the right aspiration," he told reporters after speaking to the 2010 All Kids Covered Initiative. "The question on the minds of the administration, the legislature and I think the people of this state is how do you pay for that, and whether you pay that money into a system that's still fundamentally broken."

Ritter said the state may have to phase in funding for such programs over time - "until we get to the place where we're comfortable going to the voters and taking to them a plan that might involve a new revenue stream. But I'm not there yet."

The governor's budget calls for bringing about 17,000 more children onto the rolls of the children's health plan this year. Meanwhile, he and other lawmakers are focusing on making the health care system more efficient.

The Colorado Blue Ribbon Commission for Healthcare Reform delivered its report to lawmakers last month, saying it would cost the state an additional $1.3 billion per year to cover almost all of the state's 785,000 uninsured. But even before the report was formalized, Democrats signaled that a health care tax was not headed for the ballot.

There is also a philosophical gulf between Colorado Democrats who want to insure the uninsured and Republicans who are more concerned with tamping down the erupting costs of health premiums for the already insured.

That partisan divide was conspicuous on the Senate floor Monday morning, when Sen. Bob Hagedorn, D-Aurora, tried to pass a joint resolution pledging health care coverage for all Colorado children by 2010.

"How could anyone be against expanding coverage?" asked Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield. "Well, if extending public programs will do more harm than good, will lower the quality of care, will reduce access to care, will reduce private coverage that's available, will shift people from private health insurance to the public roles - those are all bad things, those are all possible outcomes of immediately expanding coverage."

Hagedorn tabled his nonbinding resolution, but plans to give it another shot today.

bargec@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5059

What's proposed

Lawmakers plan to introduce two bills this week aimed at covering more of Colorado's uninsured children.

* Sen. Bob Hagedorn, D-Aurora, and Rep. Anne McGihon, D-Denver, propose expanding coverage to more than 65,000 of the state's approximately 180,000 uninsured children at a cost of roughly $43 million per year.

* Sens. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, and Nancy Spence, R-Centennial, and Rep. Michael Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs, want to make it easier for low-income families to re-enroll their children in the state children's health care program.

• February 12, 2008

  7:43 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  DougH writes:

  Floyd, The Blue Ribbon commission was set up by Gov. Owens. Gov. Ritter is being practical and pragmatic about the cost of any new program and what taxes may have to be raised. He is taking a conservative (small c) approach to the problem. Try to think things through before you go off on your one-term nonsense. Better yet, turn off the radio and start reading.

• February 12, 2008

  8:06 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  BMat writes:

  Ritter said above, ". . . a plan that might involve a new revenue stream." ?!

  Reach for your wallets my fellow coloradans! Mr. Ritter never met a tax hike he didn't like!

  He calls it "a new revenue stream" which is orwellian political correctness for "Mail me your economic stimulus rebate. I know better than you how to spend your money. Trust me, I'm from the government."

  Mr. Ritter better get back to promoting the socialization of state workers B4 he starts talking about even more tax hikes on the brink of a recession.

  You're a great leader Mr. Ritter. You just need to find something that your constituants actually want!

• February 12, 2008

  8:24 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  vudumom writes:

  Isn't there a plan in place to cover children's healthcare?Why isn't that being used? Parent's in upper brackets need to stop buying the SUV's and tone down their spending before they reach into the taxpayer's pockets to fund their children's healthcare.The plan to cover children is there.The plan to cover upper level income parent' s children should be bought by those parents.

• February 12, 2008

  8:37 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Geta_clue writes:

  Let's put the $1.3 billion welfare question on the ballot this year. We will vote it down and be done with it for good.

• February 12, 2008

  8:38 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ParticipateINtheCOST writes:

  Republicans think you should have some responsibility to cover yourself and your kids. We have programs already in place to provide children and families without the means to get care. Am not sure why its always someone elses problem. Insurance is about the healthy paying for the sick and it takes participation from the healthy to pay for the sick. The more of the healthy that do not participate the more taxing it is on those who do participate to pay for the sick.
  We already have programs that help the poor - medicaid and CHIP for those who do not qualify for medicaid. The CHIP program had more available funding then we could get people to sign up? and we want to expand? what we want to expand is the public paying ALL of the cost for people who do not want to pay any.

  Participation should be mandatory to spread the cost and risk to all. Free care = increased out of control costs, long lines, and ultimately substandard care.

• February 12, 2008

  9:48 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  miranda_1 writes:

  The public what? Did you really mean to write "roles"? Shame on the writer and the editor. No surprise basic facts aren't being checked anymore........

• February 12, 2008

  10:03 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  BetterEducated writes:

  Let's face it, Ritter sucks.

• February 12, 2008

  10:05 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ToeNee writes:

  I wonder how much money this nation would save "we the tax payers" if we kicked government out of healthcare?

• February 12, 2008

  11:32 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  pwern writes:

  Governor Ritter claims 180,000 children are uninsured in Colorado. Assuming it's because they can't afford coverage, one has to conclude that they live below the poverty line. If that's the case, they automatically qualify for Medicaid. Do the math (and these numbers come straight from the U.S. Census Bureau):

  Colorado's population: 4,753,477
  Percent under age 18: 24.9%
  Under 18 in Colorado: 1,183,615
  Percent living below poverty line: 10.2%
  Number living below poverty: 484,854

  If children make up the same percentage of population within both groups (general population as well as % living below poverty line), then the number of children living below the poverty line is 119,274 - which is 60,000 LESS than the Governor claims are uninsured. Here's the rub: Children who's families fall below the poverty line are already automatically eligible for Medicaid - they're not uninsured, they're just not PRIVATELY insured. They're insured by you and me - that is THE TAXPAYERS. Anyone who lives above that poverty line should be able to afford health insurance for their children, and if they instead chose to spend that money on other things, then they shouldn't have children - at least not at my expense.

  The bottom line is that this really has nothing to do with 'The Children' as our governor claims. It's really about a Democrat who's advancing the Democrat's idealist fantasy of socialized medicine by sneaking it in through the back door.

  Hold on to your wallet whenever you hear a Democrat claim something is "for the children".

• February 12, 2008

  12:19 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RickyLee writes:

  One-term isn't nonsense, DougH, it's reality. Wait and see.

  RECALL RITTER!!!!!!!!!

• February 12, 2008

  12:26 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RickyLee writes:

  I'd like to see, JUST ONCE, guv Critter say;

  "we need more money for this/that program, so we're going to tighten our belts down here at the Capitol, and save the money instead of expecting the taxpayers to buy into our socialist scheme".

  Anyone think that'll ever happen?

• February 12, 2008

  12:29 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  RickyLee writes:

  ...OR....

  We're going to bring severance taxes for the ULTRA RICH companies
  drilling in our state in line with Wyoming and New Mexico, and we're going to put that money into a trust that CANNOT be raided by the legislature. Then, in five or ten years, we'll be making enough money from interest to fund our socialist programs.

  Anyone think that'll happen?

• February 12, 2008

  1:58 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  davies writes:

  People, here's the problem: Health care costs too much in this country because with our present system, as soon as a drug or a treatment or a surgical procedure or whatever has been determined to be medically effective, we expect our insurers from the private sector to pay for it no matter what the cost. So the health care industry innovators do not focus on cost-effectiveness as in other industries.

  We like to sanctimoniously proclaim that "you can't put a price on human life". But this principle allows us as a society to rationalize that we do not need to make hard choices about cost effectiveness when it comes to medical care. So we end up with a system that is becoming more and more expensive, and as this happens, more and more people end up without health insurance coverage. So by making covered lives 'priceless', we end up with more and more uncovered lives.

  You want Universal Health Care? Then try to establish finite costs for treatment. And by the way, good luck with that.