63: Make Health Care Reform Optional

Summary

This is designed to make the recently passed health-care legislation optional for residents of Colorado. It's probably unconstitutional, but it maybe not so treat it seriously.

Vote No

This is a an interesting question that I think is worthy of being put before the voters - if it was an initiative. Locking this in to the constitution is worrisome because it not only restricts what the federal government can mandate, but could mean major limitations in what the state can do.

Unless we are willing to let people without insurance die at the emergency room door, we will provide universal healthcare. Simple fairness then requires that the government at some level mandate coverage to match that delivered emergency care. Passing this amendment will lock in that free ride the uninsured get into the constitution.

Arguments Against

Amendment 63 limits the state's options to improve access to health care coverage, which could hurt the people who need it the most and increase costs for everyone. In Colorado, over 750,000 people, or approximately 15 percent of the population, do not have health insurance. Expanding health insurance coverage prevents the insured population from having to cover the costs of the uninsured, increases access to health care, and decreases the rate of medical bankruptcy. Society benefits when more people have health care coverage.

Arguments For

Making decisions about health care is a basic right. Decisions about how to pay for health care, and what health care to pay for, are better left to individuals rather than to the government. Any government requirement to have health care coverage interferes with a person's ability to manage his or her own health care and spending. Amendment 63 maintains a person's right to choose the most appropriate coverage for his or her situation and prevents the state from requiring a person to join any specific health care plan.

This measure is a statement in opposition to government-controlled health care.