ColoradoCare and amendment 69

[NYEXPAT]

Curious if anyone else is planning to move to Colorado if the amendment passes in November (polls suggest it will).

We are a family of four (I will be on medicare) so for a family of three (if my wife works) insurance would cost about $70.00/mth. no deductibles or copays!

I plan to come back to Peru when I am 74 so I will be able to keep up my Peruvian Health Insurance (300-400/mth) while I am in the states and then have full coverage for the rest of my life at a fixed cost.

 

[walkinwood]

Depending on the dividends & realized cap gains you have each year, this may or may not be a great deal. The proposal is 10% of all non payroll earnings (3.3% of payroll earnings with the company paying the other 6.7%)

I Pay For My own Health Insurance | Colorado Ammendment 69

I thought I'd be all for a proposal like this, but there are so many unknowns, that I'm still researching it.

There are plenty of other reasons to move to Colorado though. We love it here.

 

[COcheesehead]

Depending on the dividends & realized cap gains you have each year, this may or may not be a great deal. The proposal is 10% of all non payroll earnings (3.3% of payroll earnings with the company paying the other 6.7%)

There are plenty of other reasons to move to Colorado though. We love it here.

Agree on both counts.
Also with the RE prices as high as they are and rents as well, any savings in moving here would be eaten up in higher cost of living.

 

[NYEXPAT]

Depending on the dividends & realized cap gains you have each year, this may or may not be a great deal. The proposal is 10% of all non payroll earnings (3.3% of payroll earnings with the company paying the other 6.7%)

I Pay For My own Health Insurance | Colorado Ammendment 69

I thought I'd be all for a proposal like this, but there are so many unknowns, that I'm still researching it.

There are plenty of other reasons to move to Colorado though. We love it here.

Thanks for the link! I noticed that there is a $60,000 exclusion for couples on retirement income before the 10% tax kicks in and also that ColoradoCare takes care of all supplementary medicare stuff (which always confused me).

 

[walkinwood]

Thanks for the link! I noticed that there is a $60,000 exclusion for couples on retirement income before the 10% tax kicks in and also that ColoradoCare takes care of all supplementary medicare stuff (which always confused me).

I missed the exclusion. Do you remember where you read that? Thanks.

 

[COcheesehead]

Looks like the latest poll data shows this amendment has little chance.

From the Denver Business Journal:
The ColoradoCare amendment to create a statewide single-payer health-care system is getting crushed by a margin of roughly 2-1/2-to-1, according to a second poll put out by Louisville-based Magellan Strategies.

 

[outabout]

I read the full text of ColoradoCare and I conclude it is a bad deal, especially for individuals relying on non-payroll income. It exempts $20,000 for individual 55-64, $24,000 for 64 and above. But there is currently already $20,000 state income exemption for "retirement income" (taxable SS benefit and IRA, pension). ColoradoCare doesn't tax this portion, but it imposes 10% above this level. People contribute to retirement plans because we believe that the tax rate in retirement should be lower, 15% vs 25%. With this new tax, it wipes out any tax rate advantage plus it will tax additional 10% on the earning from retirement plans. Had I known this, I would have definitely contributed to roth IRA instead.

Additional bad part for seniors on Medicare Advantage is you must pay Medicare A, B, and D, compared to many Advantage plans currently pay prescription drug with no premium. It is supposed to provide medicare-supplement-like benefit, but it is only limited in Colorado providers. This is very bad for snow birds.

ColoradoCare has no deductible, but it has no copay for primary/preventative care only. It says nothing about copay for other types of care, only it will "waive copayments when they cause economical hardship". There are also with no vision, dental benefit defined.

I think this amendment is poorly defined, impose undue and uneven tax burden, my vote is No.

 

[NYEXPAT]

I missed the exclusion. Do you remember where you read that? Thanks.

You can find it here I am on Medicare | Colorado Ammendment 69

 

[Chris7]

no deductibles or copays!

From the website: Copays for care other than primary and preventative care may be required.

Cost would be less than what I am paying now, but is it sustainable?

I didn't see info on how those that aren't working would be paying their part nor on what level of benefit someone who wasn't working would receive or for how long.

And in general Gov'ts just seem to mess everything up. I will say the website does seem to have an abundant amount of info and does seem to be trying to present both sides fairly.

cd :O)

 

[hesperus]

We live in SW Colorado, in a fairly liberal corner of the state, and there is doubt that it will pass. Even the local rag is running editorials that indicate that there are conflicting reports about it's long term sustainability. To be honest, I think there hasn't been enough good info out there to allow people to make an educated decision. I see more good info about costs and taxes here in this thread than I've heard or seen available locally. I personally would like to see a good workable single payer system in place, but it may not be there yet.

 

[timo2]

As a Colorado resident, I was all set to vote against this, and may still. Because look at all the jobs in the healthcare offices that deal with insurance companies that would be lost. Most Dr. offices I'm familiar with have at least two people just to deal with insurance companies. Plus the jobs at the insurance companies. Quality of life begins with a job for most people.

However, I'm waffling now. For me, the shenanigans the health care companies have been pulling with the ACA make me want to just vote against them. But then there are those jobs. I'll decide before election day.

 

[GTFan]

Depending on the dividends & realized cap gains you have each year, this may or may not be a great deal. The proposal is 10% of all non payroll earnings (3.3% of payroll earnings with the company paying the other 6.7%)

Dunno what the average taxable amount of this is for ERs here, but for my taxable portfolio it wouldn't be bad at all. Something like $2k a year I think which is damn cheap for the insurance they're offering.

If the election goes a certain way this fall I think many of us may consider states that are willing to go their own way, assuming the ACA gets gutted.

 

[GTFan]

As a Colorado resident, I was all set to vote against this, and may still. Because look at all the jobs in the healthcare offices that deal with insurance companies that would be lost. Most Dr. offices I'm familiar with have at least two people just to deal with insurance companies. Plus the jobs at the insurance companies. Quality of life begins with a job for most people.

However, I'm waffling now. For me, the shenanigans the health care companies have been pulling with the ACA make me want to just vote against them. But then there are those jobs. I'll decide before election day.

So let me get this straight, you want to support jobs that create gross inefficiencies? Why stop there, just expand road-building crews so that 10 people stand around watching one do work instead of the current 5 today.

(/sarcasm)

 

[candrew]

And in general Gov'ts just seem to mess everything up.

cd :O)

The same can be said about the private, for-profit healthcare industry that has consistently placed their profit lines ahead of the best interests of patients. And it was, in fact, "government" that created Medicare without which untold millions of elderly Americans would likely have lived in poverty and suffered without access to routine healthcare.

 

[FUEGO]

We would be paying an extra $2500 or so per year compared to our current sweet set up with a heavily subsidized ACA plan with $0 deductibles for $125/month family coverage.

Not the end of the world. I might consider moving there (or a state with a similar plan) if the ACA ends if the alternative is going back to work to obtain health insurance (ex: if HI were $20,000 per year and I simply couldn't afford it in my budget).

I also had myself wondering if $2500 per year is a small price to pay for peace of mind and not having to stress over ACA applications, documenting stuff, filling out the medicaid data for the youngest (who will get bumped to our ACA policy this year when he hits age 5. I think.). Maybe worth it.

I do feel for all those soon to be unemployed professional paper pushers. I wonder if that 10% tax is sufficient to pay all the extra unemployment claims for all the tens of thousands of redundant employees and job training to get them suitable skills elsewhere. I suppose the new COCares program will need similar skills?

 

[samclem]

The same can be said about the private, for-profit healthcare industry that has consistently placed their profit lines ahead of the best interests of patients. And it was, in fact, "government" that created Medicare without which untold millions of elderly Americans would likely have lived in poverty and suffered without access to routine healthcare.

And, it was the "government" that created virtually every aspect of the arena in which these private entities operate--it is not a free market and has not been one within memory of any American alive today. Moreover, the government (federal, state, and local) is responsible for 64% of the dollars spent and is (theoretically) responsible for the prudent expenditure of those funds. So, whether you love or hate the present "system," we know which entity is responsible.

 

[Alan]