- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is Proposal 003-16: Endorsement of Amendment 69 ColoradoCarePlease read the proposal, and confine any comments to the proposal only. Designate your wishes by using "AGREE", “BLOCK”, or "STAND ASIDE". Any blocks will require a vote of the Council. Taking a stance on a public issue requires a 60% vote of council, per Section 4.3 of the GPCO Bylaws. The floor is open for one week of Agreement Seeking for passage, or a block to bring the issue to a vote. There are currently ten (10) active voting chapters in the Green Party of Colorado. A of 60% quorum requires at least one response from five (6) chapters. The floor is now open for one week of Agreement Seeking.Active Chapters: AdamsJeffersonArapahoe CountyDenverDouglasGreater BoulderPikes PeakSan MiguelSouthwest Mesa1. Basic Info Date proposed: August 31, 2016 Name of the sponsor(s): Bill Bartlett, Susan Hall2. Title: Endorsement of Amendment 69 ColoradoCare3. Text of the actual Proposal:Amendment 69 (ColroadoCare) would extend health insurance to every citizen of Colorado. There would be no exceptions. No deductibles. Primary and preventative services have no co-pay and other services must be approved. Regions vote in their own representatives to the board that oversees everything. National single payer health care is the goal for the GPUS. ColoradoCare has a model that comes very close to that goal. The Green Party of Colorado officially endorses Amendment 69, ColoradoCare. With this endorsement, we encourage all Greens to familiarize themselves with ColoradoCare so we can spread the word and pass an all-inclusive health care bill! 4. Background: Groups have tried to pull together a universal health care plan for Colorado for years, and things have historically gone very wrong. In 2011 the GPCO backed another health care initiative in the state (the Healthcare Cooperative, see resources below). This bill, ColoradoCare would give all Coloradans health care with no exceptions. Recent polls show that 10% of Coloradans still don't have health insurance and many more cannot afford their copays or needed care even though they have expensive health insurance.. As Greens, we are all familiar with the high cost of insurance under the ACA even for catastrophic coverage. ColoradoCare would lead the way for other states in using the framework of the ACA to provide our citizens true medical security. 5. Justification/Goals: Supporting this initiative sends the message that the Greens have heard the people's continuing struggles with medical care. ColoradoCare vastly improves health care access for those that are still uncovered or insufficiently covered.. most vulnerable. When Dr. Jill Stein was here this weekend, she herself weighed this against our ultimate goal of single-payer coverage and noted that it is a strong step in the right direction. 6. Pros and Cons: The biggest positive of endorsing this health care initiative is to lend our support to a community that is passionate about simple, all-inclusive health care. Whether or not it passes, it is an opportunity to build relationships. Should the amendment pass, it will save lives, alleviate suffering and perhaps inspire other states to follow suit.The drawback to not endorsing this initiative would be to put our Greens at odds with our stance on healthcare. As many new voters are joining the party in CO who also support health care for all, rejecting ColoradoCare gives the appearance that we will not 'walk our talk'.7. Alternatives to the proposal: This Amendment is on the ballot this year, and our silence on this issue has already brought confusion and concern from many Greens that are in support of this measure. Alternatives might include more detailed caveats that are of concern in the amendment. 8. Supporting statements including references to other sources of readily accessible materials to aid in the members’ decision making process. http://www.coloradocare.org/frequently-asked-questions/http://coloradogreenparty.org/green-party-endorses-health-care-cooperative-bill/http://www.gallup.com/poll/189023/arkansas-kentucky-set-pace-reducing-uninsured-rate.aspx?g_source=uninsured&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles
Agree.We have some new chapters, and I have contacted Brittany to double check my details. In the meantime, I'd like to get the process of Agreement Seeking underway.
I do not have much time this morning, but I wanted to say a few words on this proposal. Yes, I agree. However I wanted the following opinion to be known. I was glad to see some disagreement on the proposal because it could ignite a successful start in the U.S. to a Universal Healthcare plan or it could backfire and be used as a tool to say why we should not have Universal Healthcare since those put in place to oversea the program could mismanage it and yet cannot be fired. The GBGP decided we hope for the best, which meant it would be the beginning of a new provision. Certainly the old provision of the Affordable Healthcare was not best for everyone, especially those who struggled with paying for it. For myself and at least one other I have heard of people thinking of paying a fine without getting any healthcare provision in return. I understood that it was good for those who had major health concerns and could pay for the insurance, but were not accepted. I like the idea that the Greens were aware of the problems and were divided in the plan, so I could say that we were not without concerns and as Green Party chapters not all in agreement on how to place our bets on an unsure expensive policy; rather than we all said it was going to be an absolutely good policy. Perhaps we should have in person meet ups for issues like this so we can find ways to disagree and still stay together as Green members that appreciate one another and our opinions.
Agree, strongly.We desperately need universal single payer user choice. This is a courageous first step in Colorado and deserves our support.Michael HaugheyJefferson County Greens
AGREE! STRONGLY! As we saw with the legalization of marijuana in our great state the authors of the ballot initiative did the best job they could to outline a workable law. After the voters approved it the state legislature went to work implementing it and did a lot of fine tuning to cover many concerns such as proximity of dispensaries to schools, dispensary workers cannot have criminal records, marijuana cannot be smoked in public places, etc. They did a great job (except possibly for the high tax rate for recreational pot) and IT'S WORKING! I think it is safe to say that if we in Colorado once again pave the way for the rest of the country to adopt universal health care the state legislature will tweak and fine tune it to make it a reality.Kevin AlumbaughGreater Boulder Green Party
Agree with all of the above, although we did hear an opposing voice in our (ACGP) meeting last Thursday. So I guess the split we're experiencing isn't just at the State level.Larry DunnAdams County Green Party
Stand AsideI am strongly in favor of universal health care, but I have some concerns with this particular Amendment. Sean Friend, Arapahoe County
Leadership should take note that MANY Greens “on the ground” are supportive of ColoradoCare. The caveats that make it unattractive have been made clear and brushed aside.. by our own presidential candidate. A doctor! Dr. Aguilar and Dr. Stein met and Jill concluded that this is a good step forward for health care in Colorado and the US. We should be very cautious about where we allow our doubts to come from and where we let them take root. The "drawbacks" of this bill have been touted by the opposition and retorts have been made that convinced even Jill Stein to support this measure. As we conclude this Agreement Seeking process, I encourage each of you to consider the millions of uninsured and under-insured voters in Colorado and what it would mean to them to have platinum health insurance coverage.. even the panhandlers on 16th street mall who aren't allowed to cover themselves with a blanket this winter. If you have reservations about this bill, I encourage you to weigh them against the outcome for those less fortunate than most of us who are casting our votes.
The GP-PRR discussed this proposal and voted not to approve it as they had too many unanswered questions with regard to the concerns raised about funding and specific possible increased costs to retired individuals from what their current health insurance costs them. There position is that they don't necessarily approve or disapprove of 69 personally (some do and some don't) but that the GP-PPR does not endorse it. I personally support it but cannot cast a vote for this proposal as representative of GP-ppr.
Personally I believe that it would be best if the Green Party of Colorado make an effort to inform voters of the actual impacts of 69 on individual and small business costs so that voters of whatever party can make an informed and principled decision based on 69's attempt to create a just and fair single payer plan. Apparently 69 comes under a Multi-payer plan designation as it currently exists, something I honestly don't understand. All the literature I received as I supported the petition to place 69 on the ballot made it seem to me like it would be a single payer system for Colorado with the exception that those under Veterans insurance and Medicare would be unaffected. People are concerned that their health care bill would be increased because they would be paying a tax increase along with the portion of Medicare and/or Veterans Insurance they pay from their Social Security or Veterans benefits.
This proposal, frankly, is out of line, especially at such a late stage in the game. It can be divisive when we already agree on universal health care/medicare for all but disagree whether 69 gets us there…and divisiveness is a bad thing before an election when we're trying to get our national candidate to 5% of the vote (as well as the downticket races like Arn's). We already have too many people sitting on their hands as it is, and a fight like this could make it worse.I formally request that you two withdraw this proposal, in light of the potential for division and because of two serious flaws in the amendment.What's so wrong with decentralized decisions on this anyway? Isn't it ok for some chapters to differ from others? Do we no longer follow the 10 key values?Denver took a position against 69 for the very concrete reason that the elected/appointed members of this oversight body cannot be recalled, which overrides our right to do so according to the Colorado Constitution. We decided that we preferred single payer AND democracy, not "single payer" OR democracy.The writers of 69 boldly decided to override a piece of our state constitution in that way.But there is a part of the state constitution that the writers of 69 seemed too timid or privileged to take on, and that is the prohibition of state monies to pay for "elective" gynecological services in the form of abortions. In fact, the legal counsel for 69 even wrote an opinion that said "nothing in Amendment 69 prohibits a resident from purchasing private health insurance that includes coverage for elective abortions." (see http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/24/amendment-69-abortion-colorado/)Nothing? What about cost? The reason why working-class women often don't have abortions today is because the cost of an abortion is prohibitive.With that issue, this Amendment puts itself firmly in the camp of economic privilege.You see, this is the wrong amendment for this state party to take a position in favor, and I would ask you two to withdraw this proposal. We don't have to do what liberals do. We can be for medicare for all AND democracy. And we certainly don't have to play politics with our values just because people who will not join the Green Party think we should.Why create such division, so soon before Election Day, when our platform is already in favor of single payer, and when our presidential nominee supports the goal of the amendment, but perhaps not the amendment itself? Why would we be at odds with her as well?Bill and Susan, please withdraw this proposal. At the very least, please amend this so that we can all agree to the GOAL of 69 but not necessarily the amendment itself.Denver respects the GBGP's activism around this issue, and we don't see ourselves at odds, because we all want the same goal: medicare for all. I agree with Bob, that really what we should be doing is informing voters so they can make their own choice. Instead of taking a position, let's issue a pro/con document that will help voters decide.
We will be discussing this proposal at our next meeting. Our delegates have decided not to vote until after that meeting.Here is an analysis of Amendment 69 by the Physicians for a National Healthcare Program.http://pnhp.org/blog/2015/10/28/evaluation-of-the-coloradocare-initiative-by-pnhps-founders-and-policy-director/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.