Health knowledge made personal
Join this community!
› Share page:
Go
Search posts:

Schwartz Rebuts Semro on A63

Posted Oct 07 2010 4:05am
The 10/6/2010 Huffington Post carried Brian Schwartz's latest piece on Amendment 63, " Colorado Amendment 63: Freedom Is Too 'Haphazard' for Bell Policy Center ".

In it, he rebuts the various objections raised by Robert Semro of the Bell Policy Center in Semro's earlier Denver Post OpEd, " No on Amendment 63: It won't hold down health care costs ".

One excerpt from Schwartz's piece
Semro also does not like Amendment 63 because it would "tie the hands of policymakers who want to reduce costs by expanding health care coverage in Colorado." Yes, and this is a good thing. "Reducing costs by expanding coverage" is code for turning health insurance into a tax, or compulsory charity. Mandatory insurance doesn't mean just any kind of insurance, but policies loaded up with mandated benefits and minimum copayments and deductibles. All of these drive up premium prices and force many people to buy more insurance than they'd otherwise want. This "cost-shift" or hidden tax is larger than that from the popular scapegoats, the uninsured.

Semro continues with Orwellian Newspeak. Amendment 63 would prohibit government from forcing you to buy an insurance plan designed by politicians. It also protects your right to pay cash for medical care. But Semro claims Amendment 63 "will obstruct the ability of Coloradans to make decisions about their health care." Nonsense. Amendment 63 does just the opposite. It obstructs the ability of the Colorado politicians and bureaucrats to make decisions about your health care.
(Read the full text of " Colorado Amendment 63: Freedom Is Too 'Haphazard' for Bell Policy Center ".)

Thank you, Brian!
Post a comment
Write a comment: