Mandatory health plan participation opposed
By David Montero, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published January 10, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.
Jon Caldara wants the proposal on the November ballot.
No one would be required to participate in a public or private health care plan under a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution.
Jon Caldara and Linda Gorman of the conservative-leaning Independence Institute are proposing the amendment and will meet with the Colorado Legislative Council staff later this month to discuss it.
The amendment, which Caldara wants on the November ballot, would not allow the state to mandate coverage for all its residents.
Coloradans would also not be denied the right to purchase private health insurance in any other state, and the proposal would allow people the option to purchase health coverage from out-of-state providers.
More than 790,000 people in Colorado are living without health insurance.
Gov. Bill Ritter has said it is one of his top priorities to find a way to reduce the number of uninsured, and a Blue Ribbon panel will make recommendations on how to do that to the General Assembly at the end of the month.
One of the recommendations from the panel is to mandate that every legal resident of Colorado have at least minimum health coverage - with an enforceable penalty if residents try to drop out.
The state currently spends more than $30 billion on health care, and the commission studied four plans and crafted a fifth in an attempt to reform some of the system's shortcomings.
Mandating coverage is not needed, according to Gorman, who sat on the Blue Ribbon panel, was one of three members who voted against its recommendations and who wrote a dissenting report.
There were 27 commissioners and 24 voted to approve the recommendations.
"We have a lot of experiments going on that are sort of intellectual fads, and one of those is requiring everyone to purchase health insurance," she said.
"We think that's wrong. There are more important things than health insurance - a car, a job - and some people are responsible enough to pay cash for their health insurance, and they have a right to do that. But the government should not require it."
But Bill Lindsay, the chairman of the panel, said there was a simple reason that the politically disparate body agreed to make mandated coverage a recommendation.
"The reason is what we see in the marketplace is that the market for health insurance isn't working," Lindsay said.
He also found the idea that people would pay cash for services to be unrealistic.
"The notion that people would pay cash for services is ludicrous because of the cost of health care," he said.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Through Your Lens
Submit your photos or see the Editor's Choice slide show here.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Holiday Lights
Is your house the jolliest on the block? Submit your holiday lights display.
-
Holiday Gift Guide
Looking to get a jump-start on the holiday shopping season?
-
Mount Crushmore
Which four Broncos greats should be immortalized on Mount Crushmore? Vote here.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Chiefs.
-
Broncos Video
Get the latest from Dove Valley as the Broncos prepare for Sunday's matchup.
-
Calendar wallpaper
Download this month's desktop wallpaper calendar
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Stirrin' the Soup with Matt Iseman
January 9, 2008
2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
houseofstout writes:
I look for the government, state or national, to give me the ability to choose what health plan fits my needs. Not the ability to chose between what health plan they require, but the financial ability to choose.
This may be in the form of a tax incentive or other such carrot to help re-coop the cost of the ever increasing medical bill.
Telling people that they will get medical insurance because "We Say So", is not an answer to the problem, but is just another brick to weigh down people who will still have a problem finding the money to pay for it.
January 9, 2008
4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
I'm curious to know how many illegal aliens figure into that "790,000 people living without health insurance." Of course we OWE them everything we have so I guess it doesn't matter.
January 10, 2008
7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
freethinker07 writes:
Let's make everyone have car insurance first. It's illegal to drive without it and people still do and it is not enforced. The bill to require everyone to have health insurance will not produce more insureds, it will produce more lawbreakers.
It's amazing to me how many people who, at one point in their lives were enthusiastic consumers of illegal drugs, think that we can enfore behavior with new laws. If the law didn't change their behavior, why do they expect a law about insurance to change someone else's behavior.
January 10, 2008
7:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
JPH writes:
The Dems are at it again. If we cannot take care of ourselves then we have "Big Brother" from cradle to grave. A truly frightening scenario.
January 10, 2008
8 a.m.
Suggest removal
tjpatriot writes:
If you currently don't have Health Insurance, you are being a burden to society. How? Because when you show-up at the emergency room with a burst appendix you might be looking at a $30,000 bill, and if you don't have Health Insurance it won't even be discounted. If you can't pay, then everyone else has to pick-up the slack. Health Insurance brokers hear the horror stories, and going without is NOT a good option, unless you're extremely wealthy, but in that case most have catastrophic insurance anyway because it's just good risk-management. If you ever get hospitalized you will quickly forget your monthly premium. If you truly can't afford Health Insurance, there are very generous federal and state programs that you can qualify for. Many of the uninsured qualify for these, but just haven't taken the time or effort to apply. There are tons of plans out there, including some with tax benefits. Just stick with a "Major Medical" plan from a major carrier and chances are you won't have a problem (at least financially) when your medical "event" happens. (my advice)
www.hayneshealthinsurance.com
January 10, 2008
2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
paulhsiehmd writes:
Bill Lindsay is completely wrong that the market for health insurance isn't working. Our biggest problem is that we don't have a free market but instead a massively distorted market caused by years of ill-considered government regulations. It is precisely because of the government that people can't afford reasonable health insurance. It is not the free market has failed but the government system. Hence, the solution isn't more government, but removing the burdensome government restrictions and letting the free market actually work.
For more information about this topic, Colorado attorney Lin Zinser and I have written an article on health care history and policy entitled "Moral Health Care vs. 'Universal Health Care'". It has been published in the Winter 2007-2008 issue of the national journal, "The Objective Standard".
We argue that the current crisis in American health care is the result of decades of government interference and violations of individual rights in health insurance and medicine. Hence the solution to the problem is not more government controls but instead to gradually and systematically transition to a rights-respecting, fully free market in those industries.
The full text of the article is available online for free at:
<http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/i...
or <http://tinyurl.com/25zffu>.
I haven't read the text of the amendment yet, but I support both elements reported in the story -- i.e., banning insurance mandates and allowing residents to purchase insurance across state lines. Both would be good steps in the right direction.
--- Paul Hsieh, MD
January 10, 2008
2:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
BrianSchwartz writes:
Healthcare Reform Commission chair Bill Lindsey's comments show that he either misunderstands why insurance is so expensive or deliberately misrepresents fundamental issues ("Mandatory health plan participation opposed," Jan. 10).
He wants to force Coloradans to buy politically-defined insurance because "the market for health insurance isn't working." But as my free-market proposal (at WhoOwnsYou.org) to the Commission explains, it's not working because government controls have crippled it.
Federal tax policy deeply discounts employer-provided insurance. This locks us to our employer and the costly insurance plans they offer. Hence, insurance companies need not please us, as they know we must change jobs to buy a competitor's product.
Mandated benefits laws force us to buy expensive policies with benefits we may not need. For example, a widowed wife must buy a policy that covers marital therapy, prostate cancer, and maternity. In Colorado these and other controls add between 20% to over 50% to premiums.
Politically-controlled medical insurance is a disease masquerading as its own cure.
January 10, 2008
3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Retread writes:
Federally provided health insurance is just more give aways for the insurance industry. It aint going to be finnished until we dump medicaid, medicare, and tricare. Then we can go to single payer system, EVERYBODY pays!