Conservatives have long suspected that the long-term goal of ObamaCare is to force the adoption of a single-payer system. Progressives have occasionally advocated for that transition, and of course Bernie Sanders campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination on the basis of “Medicare for all.” We may soon find out whether it’s true. The crisis may hit as soon as next February, The Hill’s Sarah Ferris notes, regardless of which candidate wins:

The next president could be dealing with an ObamaCare insurer meltdown in his or her very first month. The incoming administration will take office just as the latest ObamaCare enrollment tally comes in, delivering a potentially crucial verdict about the still-shaky healthcare marketplaces. The fourth ObamaCare signup period begins about one week before Election Day, and it will end about one week before inauguration on Jan. 20. After mounting complaints from big insurers about losing money this year, the results could serve as a kind of judgment day for ObamaCare, experts say. … Levitt and other experts warn that if the numbers don’t improve this year, more insurers could bolt. That would deal a major blow to marketplace competition while also driving up rates and keeping even more people out of the exchanges. Already, many insurers this year are proposing substantial rate hikes with the hopes of making up for higher recent medical costs. The average premium increase next year is about 9 percent, according to an analysis of 17 cities by the Kaiser Family Foundation. But some hikes are far higher: Blue Cross Blue Shield has proposed increases of 40 percent in Alabama and 60 percent in Texas.

If the Trojan-horse theory holds, then the next argument we’ll get from the inevitable ObamaCare collapse is that only a total takeover of the US health-care system will save it. However, a new study from Colorado shows that a single-payer system would produce a similar collapse into a sea of red ink, shrinking provider bases, and skyrocketing costs and taxes. Advocates for state-wide socialized medicine managed to qualify a referendum for the November ballot, but an independent study of the proposal says that it will start off in the red — and only sink further and further every year. By the end of its first decade, it will have a $7.8 billion deficit, even with federal subsidies (via Matt Vespa):

The 2016 ballot initiative to give every Coloradan healthcare won’t be able to cover its costs, according to a study released Monday by the Colorado Health Institute. That’s despite the fact that the proposed amendment 69, known as ColoradoCare, would more than triple the amount of taxes collected by the state. “Simply put, the revenue would not be sufficient,” the report stated. “CHI’s model projects that the revenue from taxes and federal funds would fall just short of paying ColoradoCare’s bills in the first year – with widening deficits in each subsequent year.” The study suggests ColoradoCare would have to cut benefits, raise taxes or reduce payments to doctors and hospitals to achieve long-term financial solvency. The ballot language would empower the proposed 21-member board to make such decisions.

In my column for The Fiscal Times, I argue that this is the inevitable result when government seizes control of private-sector economies. The solution should not be the hair of the dog that bit us: