U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 04, 2019 06:05 AM UTC
47 Comments
Interesting comment in The Week magazine, mentioning a Kaiser Foundation survey. 56% of citizens support Medicare for All. Number drops to 37% when they learn their taxes may increase.
I couldn't find the article in The Week online, but here is the survey in its fullness.
KFF Health Tracking Poll – January 2019: The Public On Next Steps For The ACA And Proposals To Expand Coverage
It's hard to know what opposition to taxes means when you get these responses back-to-back. We'll have to wait to see how various proposals are received, I expect, because the arguments they supply in the survey are simplistic.
Hmm… The specific wording is that it "requires most Americans to pay more in taxes", which isn't necessarily true depending on how progressive we make the taxes to implement it. If we do it through increasing taxes on wealthy enough people or through cutting spending in other parts of the government, such as reducing military spending, it would not require most Americans to pay more in taxes.
Please show your expert source or your reasoning to say that M4A could be done without higher taxes for most taxpaying citizens.
One starting point: https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2018/oct/11/would-medicare-all-really-double-every-americans-t/
Because they will only tax the one percent. That has worked out so well in the past, why wouldn't it work now?
"They"? Who is they?
"Past"? What history are you talking about?
"Has worked out well in the past?" What are you talking about?
Michael Dell got spectacularly pwned when he made inaccurate historical comments about tax rates for the wealthy, so you need to be more specific.
Do you understand how progressive taxation works?
Of course. Progressive taxation taxes progress!
Taxing only rich people is the big fairy tale told from the left.
Just like a balanced budget could be achieved by cutting out waste, fraud and abuse. Which I believe is what Ronald Reagan promised in 1980. How did that turn out?
Both sides tell fairy tales to their bases.
What do you think people who have more $50 million in assets would do if Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax ever got enacted? Well, a lot of their assets would disappear.
I'm sure a few plutocrats might be careless enough not to protect all of their property and some revenue might be realized by the wealth tax but get serious people.
By the way, how many people actually paid the 70% marginal tax rate when we had that up until the 1980's?
The questions are posed as standalone features, but in isolation, a couple don't add up. For example, eliminating premiums should imply compensatory taxes, or more taxes mean lower premiums. They then can be progressively scaled to the desired income levels.
But overall, it sounds like a large majority (including Republicans) understand and agree that lowering the age of Medicare eligibility, and for those without employer provided health plans is a reasonable start.
I wonder how it would change responses to say that it would eliminate health insurance payments, but increases taxes.
It would likely vary depending on the perception by the listener whether the difference is a wash, or if it would shift the overall burden to someone else, or onto themselves (regressive or progressive tax scale).
I think the perception is almost entirely self-centered:
(1) How much do I pay now in HIPs? How much will I pay if HIPs are moved to my pay-stub/tax returns.
(2) Is my health care guaranteed, and what will it cost for me to see a doctor, buy prescriptions or go to the emergency room?
How it affects other people (costs/benefits) is more analytical and pretty much secondary.
Agreed. A poll is highly unlikely to provide details such as tax rates and income brackets, etc. since it would take too long and likely too much head scratching to figure out what bucket you might land in.
Thus the questions are conceptual, not concrete, leading to the wildly variable result noted in this survey.
THEIR taxes won’t go up. Only the taxes of rich people will go up.
Historically in the US, taxes for rich people keep going down. The idea is that that the more money rich people have the higher the wages they pay the little people.
That’s an “idea”??? . . .
. . . And, here I always had the idea that an “idea” is different from a cannard?
(The reason I keep reading Pols is the new things I learn here everyday.)
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck…
Are you saying that Republicans are liarrs? Oh, but I repeat myself.
What if you asked the question "Would you like Medicare for all if it meant that your premiums would go down?
I'll bet people would be supportive of that. Of course Republicans would lie about it, but that isn't news.
Or even better:
"Would you like Medicare for All if that meant:
– your premiums would go down,
– you would have guaranteed access to health care,
– your pre-existing conditions would be covered,
– you would never have a surprise emergency room bill,
– drug prices would be lowered,
– you could choose to stay on your employer health insurance, if you wanted."
Let's just call them "Health Insurance Premiums", not taxes. You pay a premium and you get a benefit. HIPs scale with your income so you can still afford health care even if your employer only pays you $12/hour ($2,000/mo).
The promise of Medicare for All is that your insurance belongs to you even if you change jobs, become unemployed or disabled, or need to take off work to have kids or go to school.
Employer coverage is about 48% of the population. So, Medicare for All would cover everyone else cradle to grave: 65+, disabled, vets, unemployed, students, etc.
If your employer offered insurance, you could still have the option of using the employer’s contribution to pay for your HIPs.
Yeah, but how many employers would ditch their insurance benefits if M4A actually happened? I don't know where one would find the statistics, but did employers dump pensions when Social Security came in? That might offer a comparison.
To your first point. Employers would be free to continue insurance benefits. If the Medicare For All provided a better and cheaper alternative, you would see employees jumping to Medicare for All.
I mean, it's happening already. Lots of companies are dropping health coverage, especially smaller companies.
Your second point is also useful. Decreasing pension benefits is an indicator of how weak unions have become. How many companies provide IRAs or pension benefits anymore?
You know where you still get pensions and health care benefits? Public service. Wages are typically lower. Even there organization budgets are strapped, though, as we have seen an increase in teacher strikes.
As a public servant, I have to say that my health care benefits are highly mediocre.
I just finished paying out of pocket for non-covered costs for surgery I had done in 2015. My health insurance costs me about 1500 / year. And I have co-pays and plenty of procedures are not covered and so have to be paid out of pocket. Not paying those premiums, co-pays, and uncovered costs would save me about $2000/ year in a MFA model. That's not even counting dental, vision, and mental health, which I understand are included in the MFA model.
Medicaid for All taxes (under the Sanders proposal) would be 4% of my gross income, so that would still be about $1700/year. For me, it would be something of a wash financially, but it would bring such peace of mind to know that my health insurance was portable, attached to me, not to a job title. That would be the real way to ensure that "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
I’m not sure if the MFA proposals ParkHill is talking about are the Sanders plan, or another one. You should provide a link, PH.
I'm tired of switching up health plans every year, even if I keep the same job – we've been through three in three years, trying to hold costs down in rural Colorado.
When I say MFA, I mean "Medicare for All while keeping Employer Insurance in Place" rather than "Single-payer for All".
WOTD from Jacob Hacker at Vox: "How to build a Medicare-for-all plan, explained by somebody who’s thought about it for 20 years"
Why would you want that over single-payer?
Less "job churn", meaning that people who have worked in the insurance industry wouldn't suddenly have to qualify for a position in the Federal government.
More public acceptability; everybody likes Medicare, now, and it turns out it didn't lead the country into a socialist death spiral. Broadening the Medicare pool incrementally would be less scary.
People like Bennet would be for it, because it would be less threatening to his insurance donors.
But what I don't see, ParkHill, is any legislator proposing this version of MFA….all I see is the Sanders Bill.
Mj, you alluded the other day to plans for retiring soon. Good luck with whatever you do, but it's hard to go from making a difference to sitting on the sidelines.
Ok, but one of the biggest benefits single payer has to reducing healthcare costs is it's monopsonistic nature means that we get to negotiate healthcare costs much lower than we would with multiple buyers on the scene, something which this sort of supplemental system wouldn't be able to do. So, likely, the sort of system Park Hill described would lead to higher healthcare costs, higher taxes, and higher premiums (for people still on private insurance compared to the taxes they'd pay in a single payer system) than just going straight to a single payer system.
And there are ways to reduce job churn. The US government could essentially "hire a firm", for example, by integrating existing health insurance infrastructure into the US government instead of hiring each person working at that firm individually.
They did ask that and it increased support. What they didn't do is ask that in conjunction with taxes going up, so we can't know what people's reaction to medicare for all where they're told that their taxes will increase, but their premiums will go down.
My point is that your taxes aren't going to go up. They're HIPs, not taxes.
Everybody is guaranteed insurance; everyone pays HIPs, let's say 8% just to start a conversation. Is that higher or lower than your present HIPs? In any case (even for you employer’s contribution), HIPs are now part of your paystub, or tax form, or whatever.
DERF!
Democrats for Education Reform was behind text campaign seeking to prevent teacher strike
Realized I left the best bit out
No need, CHB, to point out once again the selfishness of much the American poputation. We see it acted out, daily.
Only interesting if you are trying to make a point.
I recall MamaJ sharing with us that Fisting Granny wanted better roads with no increase in taxes. <sigh> How’s that #LafferCurve working out for you, Granny?
You mean we can’t do that with health care too? Who knew….
I couldn’t be happier about today’s announcement regarding the 2020 CO Senate race. Count me as an early and enthusiastic supporter of Andrew.
Romo is running?
Yes
I thought he did pretty good as a sports announcer for awful games.
Yawn re: Romo. The Romanoff groupies were AWOL during his CD6 race against Coffman. Has he re-enlisted Pat Caddell to be his pollster again?
God, I hope not.
Andrew did a great job as Speaker of the House. Today several rural communities are still benefitting from his leadership via BEST program. He was solid on our renewable energy bills (that largely has benefitted rural counties) when they were in their infancy. He led the divestiture efforts over the genocide in Darfur (in the 99-1 vote of the combined chambers).
I was in the Romanoff camp during the Ritter appointment phase to replace Ken and was disappointed, as many, that he wasn't chosen. Not because I didn't like Michael – I didn't know him. I've come to admire Michael Bennet as our senator (sorry Zap). Andrew, through personal tragedy, has had the time to delve into the mental health world in Colorado. As a child my mother was deeply involved in the (then) Colorado Mental Health Association. Mental health is where we need to focus more resources. I'll bet there isn't a one of us on this site that doesn't have a family member or friend who is crying out for help. I lost a school friend long ago to this issue.
For these reasons I'm an enthusiastic supporter of Andrew. We all make mistakes; we grow, we learn, we get better. He'd be a great representative for our state in the US Senate.
Totally agree.
Me as well ….
I was involved in Andrews' campaign during the senate primary. I am an enthusiastic supporter.
Those who now make refusing PAC monies central to their campaigns have Andrew to thank for breaking that ground. Heaps and gobs o' derision were hurled his way for making that decision. Nowhere more than here on these pages.
Without Andrews' leadership, it is doubtful we would have passed three O&G bills in 2009 (or was it 07? ) despite the best efforts of CPA, COGA, IPAMS, and the collective might of the Republican caucus in Colorado.
There is no better candidate to unseat Cory.
Me three.