I'm bestselling healthcare journalist TR. Reid, and Colorado is about to vote become the first state in the US with universal healthcare. AMA!

When we started with ColoCare, we had no $$ and no organization. So we went/ to meetings, gatherings, etc. and explained our idea. One great boon for us was the Bernie campaign; whenever he came to Colo., wefound thousands of people who shared the idea that a decent society should provide heaalth care for everybody. So: Get your plan down on paper, so people can see the idea. Then recruit people, and get them to recruit more people, to spread the word. We needed 98,400 signatures in Colo It seemed impossible at the start. Within 6 /months we got 157,000 signatures. When we explained our idea, people all over the state said, "Where do I sign?"

I looked at health care systems in all the industrialized democracies. There are several models that work, but I concuded that any system that covers everybody with good outcomes at reasonbable cost is a success. The World Health Org. rated France the best in the world (and the USA 37th). In terms of outcomes per dollar, Japan rates high. It has the healthiest populatioin in the world, longest life expectancy, much better recovery rates from major diseases than the U.S. -and spends about 44% as much as we do per capital.

We often hear this concern. By law, ColoradoCare will cover only permanent residents whose primary home is Colorado. To be covered,people will have to prove that they meet this test. My guess is we will adopt the same residency requirement that there is to get in-state tuition; that is, proof that you've lived here at least one year, and intend to stay.

Yes. Ths has become a textbook case of outside money trying to buy an election. The insurance giants in Minn., Ind., Conn., & Calif. have sent in $4 million so far. Big Pharma, about half a million. And the Koch Brothers, closely allied to investors in the for-profit insurance firms, having been runnng (untrue)ads against our plan for months. Thousannds of volunteers are working their heads off to offset this flood of out-of-state $$. But, frankly, it would be good to have some $$ to spend as well. Pls. take a look at ColoradoCare.org to see how to help in this regard.

Yes. The author of our plan, Dr Aguilar, is crzy about payfor-performance ideas-- paying docs, hospitals, etc. for/keeping people healthy rather than doing procedures. So we have built in experimental programs in this area.

Public health saves lives and saves money by keeping people out of the hospital or ER. It's always a valuble investment. But people still get sick or injured, and then they're in our rotten, unfair, exorbitant health care system. We could save hundreds of billions by fixing health care -- and use those funds to pay for more public health measures.

ColoradoCare will obviate some of the jobs unique to U.S. health insurance --e.g., the people who deny your claims, the people who decide which doctors ad hospitals the plans will pay for. ColoradoCare willcover every doc, hospital, PT, chiropractor, etc., and will pay their claims, But most of the people doing those jobs for the insurance companies don't work in Colo. The big difference will be that the $35 billion we now send to outof-state insurance companies will stay in Colorado--creating demand and business activity and jobs. Ans employers will see that they can provide excellent coverage for employees in Colo at half the average national cost for health insurance; that will draw employers, abd jobs, to our state

This is awesome! I will be pushing this point as I canvass! Thank you so much.

We taxed non-payroll income because we need that revenue to provide care for everybody in the state. By federal law, our plan has to operate in the black. So we need to tax non-payroll income. However, seniors will get a significant exemption from this tax. And since it is a tax, you can deduct it on your federal income tax return. The self-empployed can get an "adjustment" for paying this tax that will reduce federal income tax. I think we should have had progressive tax rates, as you suggest. I think the theory was that the damn thing is complicated enough already, so we'll just use one tax rate. For simplicity

I strongly believe that Colorado can lead our great country to a destination we should have reached long ago: quality health care at reasonable xcost, for Everybody. (Sometimes called "Medicare Part E" We have become a national leader on issues like teen pregnancy, fracking regulation, and of course, marijuana (We are the highest state in the nation in more ways than one). The problem is, the giant insurance companies also know that Colorado could be a leader. So they are pouring $$millions into our state to buy a No vote. They've decided it's cheaper to try to buy an election in Colorado than in bigger states like NY or Cal.

Just like current insurance: if you get sick or hurt when out of the state, we cover tha treatment you need until you are stable enough to come home to Colorado.

When we make this work, other states will follow, No doubt. That's how the U.S,. got female suffrage, public education, child labor laws, inter-racial marriage, etc. One state does it. If it works, the others follow. Same sex marriage went from 1 state to 50 in a decade. Our biggest problem is the money that the insurance giants are pouring in to run ads against our plan. Interestingly, none of the "No" ads or op-eds have anything good to say about our current health insurance system. Instead, they just trash our plan: $25 billlion tax increase!" -- when in fact, that's less thab we're paying now,

ColoradoCare will cover everybody, and will pay every licensed provider (i.e.., no "narrow networks." That's the norm in allother industrialized democracies. We also let people choose to buy private insurance if they want (but they still have to pay the Colocare tax, to fund universal coverage). Some countries allow that --it's often a way to get to the front of the queue-- but many don't. The closest model to ColoradoCare is Medicare --that is, a public payment system that pays private doctors, hospitals, etc. But Medcare starts at age 65. ColoradoCare coverage starts at birth (or, really, 9 months before yorur birth).

Those problems are real in some countries (e.g., canada). But most have shorter waiting times for both chronic and elective care than the U.S. And almost all rich denmocracies record higher rates of satisfaction with the health care system than the U.S. U.S. doctors earn more than their counterparts elsewhere. But docs overseas fiinish med school with no debt; their malpractice premiums (if any) are tiny by US standards. In most countries, physicians are comfortable upper-middle-class people, Our image of the doc who drives a Lexus to the country club is not shared o verseas. Totally shameless of me, but there's more fascinating comparative lure like this in the book "The Healing of America, at your favorties book store.

[removed]

It should be done on a national scale. It probably won't be, because the insurance/Pharma/Hospital industry lobbyists have a lock on the U.S, Congress --and they fight change. If you get everybody covered, give people their choice of any doctor or hospital, save billions of dollars on insurance preniums, and shift control if health care decisions to people in your own neighborhood, how does that ruin your state? If you want ruin, stick with the big inefficient costly insrance companies,

Nope, completely false. I know from personal experience you're waiting in the ER queue just as long as everyone else.