Much has recently been written about the negatives of proposed Amendment 69: the massive cost; the many unknowns; questions of administrative oversight; implementation dates and methodology; no guarantees of improved patient care/expanded access/reduced health care costs; limits to health care choices; and mandatory payments by all residents into the system for the first two years, if not longer, without any direct benefits, just to mention a few. So I won’t belabor those issues other than to say, “be afraid, be very afraid”.
Not as much has been written, however, about the potential mass exodus of Colorado retirees who would be required to pay 10 percent on virtually all income into a state health care system in which most would not be eligible to participate, and small businesses that would pay an additional 6.67 percent tax on top of myriad taxes they are currently paying.
Even less has been expressed about the potentially calamitous effect on the state’s economy if just a few of the fears materialize about this program. Nor has much focus been placed on the provision of annual increases in the taxes for the program if so desired by the governing board. I guess semi-annual increases must have seemed a tad distasteful when drafting the amendment.
Can you imagine, for a moment, a capital gain of, say, $200,000 from the forced sale of an asset inherited years earlier from your parents, needed to pay for long-term care for a loved one: After paying federal and state income taxes on the gain, being told by ColoradoCare to pay an additional $20,000 (10 percent) for health care services in which you are not eligible to participate. Really?
I agree that our current health care system needs to be improved, and the Affordable Care Act has some weaknesses, but really?
I urge you to read Page 13 of the 2016 state ballot information booklet prepared by the independent Legislative Council of the Colorado General Assembly. It will tell you all you need to know about Amendment 69.
Vote “no” on 69.
Steve Kramer
Hesperus
