Vermont scrapped its plan to implement a single-payer health care system once state executives realized the high cost. The governor would have needed to agree to raise payroll taxes by double digits to pay for everything.

It would have more than doubled the tax revenue for the state. And Vermont’s gross state product is only $26 billion — child’s play compared to the $248.6 billion of Colorado, which has a measure on Tuesday’s ballot to initiate a single-payer system.

[ColoradoCare] would cost more than 140 percent of the current state budget.

Close

The ballot measure, Amendment 69, would create a $25 billion ColoradoCare system financed by a 10-percent increase in payroll taxes and by pulling money out of other federal programs. Proponents have been pushing the measure with some interesting logic: Since nobody likes the current health care system, why not try this new experiment?

They neglect to mention, of course, that it would cost more than 140 percent of the current state budget. Seems like a costly gamble.

Moreover, the ballot initiative doesn’t include anything about the level of care available through the new system, and it takes some of the decision-making away from physicians. Advocates for the law argue customers aren’t allowed to make choices about their care anyway; they just have to follow what the insurance companies will cover.

Universal health care has proven complicated, even in those countries with a large base of taxpayers to finance it. Under pressure to cut budgets, health care administrators in the United Kingdom decided to deny hip and knee surgeries to patients who were obese or who were habitual smokers — claiming the surgeries would be more effective for patients who lost weight or quit smoking. No doubt that’s true — but how are patients supposed to lose weight if they are rendered immobile by a serious knee injury?

Related: Four Signs Single Payer Health Is Coming

ColoradoCare would be no exception. Analysis from a nonpartisan health policy institute, the Colorado Health Institute, found “ColoradoCare would nearly break even in its first year while extending coverage to all Coloradans, but it would slide into ever-increasing deficits in future years unless taxes were increased.”

And although the plan could potentially save money in administrative costs, “the revenues designated for ColoradoCare to pay for the new universal coverage wouldn’t be able to keep up with increasing health care costs, resulting in red ink each year of its first decade.” In other words, this system would have similar struggles to the Affordable Care Act: It would not curtail rising health care costs.

[lz_ndn video=31513165]

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

It’s unlikely the ColoradoCare initiative will ever take off. Recent polls from Magellan Strategies have uncovered strong opposition to the movement. Only 27 percent of respondents would vote yes, and a full 65 percent planned to reject it altogether. Even among Democrats — the party most inclined to promote universal health care — 41 percent of voters support it while 45 percent oppose.

Tuesday is Election Day, when residents of Colorado will make the decision to gamble with universal health care or not. Election Day offers the same referendum for the country — as Hillary Clinton has said she is inclined to move toward a single-payer system. For the state of Colorado, it seems likely residents will reject the measure for now. A quick check on the money says they’re absolutely right.