Workers, not employers, bear the (full) cost of health benefits
Many workers believe they pay one part of their health insurance premium, and their employer pays the rest. But that’s not how it works. Really, you pay the full cost of your health benefits.
Amendment 63 vs. cost-shift hypocrisy
Huffington Post: Want to be taxed $5 to save just $1? Expect this kind of health care “reform” from those claiming to protect you from what’s called the “uninsured cost-shift.”. Supporters of mandatory insurance only claim to oppose cost-shifting. In practice, they support policies that, like mandatory insurance, add to the very cost-shifting they claim to object to.
Amendment 63′s Foes Only Want You for Your Body
Huffington Post: Should Colorado mandate that each car owner buy a comprehensive lifetime vehicle warranty? By the logic of a common argument against Colorado Amendment 63 and for mandatory medical insurance, the answer is “Yes.” Mandatory insurance treats your body as a means to political ends, rather than respecting your rights as an individual. An editorial in […]
Amendment 63: Dr. Hsieh says it’s right for Colorado
In a Denver Post Guest Commentary, Paul Hsieh, MD of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine says: Suppose the government required everyone to purchase their meals from state-run restaurants. The government would also select the menu items. If you liked spinach but their vegetable choice was broccoli, then tough luck. Everyone would also have to […]
DC unions bankroll Colorado campaign against Amendment 63
Economist Linda Gorman writes: People who need to spend $100,000 to interpret 90 words of a ballot initiative, that the Blue Book interprets for free, shouldn’t have much credibility when it comes to controlling health care costs. That’s how much the campaign against the health care choice amendment, Amendment 63, spent on fancy campaign consultants. […]
Amendment 63 vs. CO Medical Society’s scare tactics
From the Denver Daily News: Dr. Brent Keeler, president-elect of the Colorado Medical Society, said in a statement yesterday that Amendment 63 might “interfere with the state’s ability to regulate the practice of medicine.” Dr. Brent Keeler’s statement about Amendment 63 and licensing is absurd. He might as well argue that the Colorado Constitution supports […]
Promoting Amendment 63
Here’s the latest message from Jon Caldara on how to promote Amendment 63, complete with the logo: Dear Friends of Healthcare Choice, Don’t be afraid, be a part of the movement to bring health care freedom to Colorado! Voting on Amendment 63 is less than 2 weeks away. Voters are starting to pay attention to […]
Amendment 63 vs. the Unlicensed Vampire Alarmists
Huffington Post: Does the Colorado Constitution guarantee the rights of violent criminals to be armed in prison or when released on parole? You might think so if you believe criticisms of Amendment 63. Amendment 63 would prohibit the state from forcing you to buy a politician-approved health plan and protect your right to pay for medical care […]
Amendment 63 protects your individual rights
A and virtually fact-free editorial in the Aurora Sentinel says Amendment 63 “has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with legislative wrongs.” Wrong. It has everything to with rights and preventing legislative wrongs.
Make a word meaningless: add “social” in front of it!
Michael Cannon at the Cato Institute makes a great point: [HuffPo blogger Jesse Larner writes that] “Cannon is not in favor of universal coverage as a social right.” True, that. “As a libertarian, he doesn’t even recognize the concept of social rights.” I believe it was Friedrich Hayek who said there’s no better way to […]
Colorado Amendment 63 vs. the “endless lawsuit” argument
A common argument against Amendment 63 is that it “will lead to endless lawsuits.” This is like opposing the First Amendment because of potential lawsuits from people seeking to use government to restrict your free speech.
“You can keep your health insurance…if you BEG hard enough for an Obamacare waiver.”
That’s Michelle Malkin on ObamaCare (HR 3590), in her post titled “Obamacare waivers: Torquemada Sebelius spares McDonald’s, unions.” (via Ari Armstrong.)
