Missouri Momentum Spills into Colorado

The victory of the pro-health freedom forces in Missouri has energized “freedom fighters” elsewhere. Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute (Colorado), says that the passage of Prop C “bodes well in our neck of the woods.” Last week, Caldara submitted 130,000 signatures–far more than the 76,000 required–to the Colorado Secretary of State, seeking a public vote on a similar measure.

I’ll quote extensively from his latest e-letter:

While patiently waiting to hear from the Colorado Secretary of State, stories like Missouri (and eventually Arizona, Florida, Indiana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and Wyoming) are uplifting. Add this recent Virginia ruling to the mix and I’m feeling like we ought to throw a party! Of course, whenever you throw a party, some people show up just to break things, start fights, and steal your mother’s fine china. That would be the Aurora Sentinelin this scenario. They’ve already come out andeditorialized against the “Right to Health Care Choice,” saying that the ballot measure is “misleading.” I guess it is misleading if you think “choice” doesn’t involve having the ability to choose. And like clockwork, the Bell Policy Center is sending emails out decrying our effort to educate the public on health care choice. They also mention our growing list of establishment opposition:

“Colorado’s proposal is opposed by the Colorado Medical Society, Colorado Hospital Association, Colorado Community Health Network, Colorado Children’s Campaign, Colorado Center for Law and Policy and Club 20, among others.”In almost any other election year I might be shaking a bit in my boots, but this year is different – I no longer wear boots – I wear these. Anyway, I’m glad on I’m this side of the debate, and not on their side. The good people of Colorado not only detest individual mandates, they detest establishment media and organizations telling them what to think. My job from this point on is pretty easy: talk about how important it is to leave medical decisions up to doctors and patients, while preserving as many options as possible for us to choose from.

Medical-Tort Law: Ranking the States

How much do a state’s laws governing medical malpractice and other torts relevant to health care affect the availability of care?  Plenty!

Lawrence J. McQuillan’s & Hovannes Abramyan’s 2010 edition of the U.S. Tort Liability Index, which has a number of measurements included in the U.S. Index of Health Ownership, ranks states according to 42 variables.

Eight of the measurements in the U.S. Tort Liability Index are relevant to the U.S Index of Health Ownership: One output and seven inputs. The previous edition of the U.S Index of Health Ownership included six measurements of medical tort, but McQuillan & Abramyan have discovered more variables for their 2010 edition of the Tort Liability Index, allowing more detailed measurement.

As a partial update of the U.S. Index of Health Ownership, this brief analysis calculates a medical-tort index from a simple average of the eight relevant variables.  Mississippi, Nevada, Michigan, Colorado, and Louisiana lead the pack; while Vermont, Rhode Island, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Iowa bring up the rear. Even the leaders, however, lag in some measurements.

Mississippi, for example, leads on procedural rules: Pre-trial screening or arbitration and conditions on the use of expert witnesses. However, it does not limit lawyers’ ability to abuse their privilege by limiting their share of awards. Colorado and Louisiana also fail to impose limits. Unfortunately, the laggards do not show a similar pattern: The bottom five states perform poorly in all eight measurements.

Reducing the burden of medical tort is critical to increasing Americans’ health ownership and reducing medical costs that curtail our access to care. Some progress is evident, but states aiming to improve their medical-tort laws still have a long way to go.

U.S. District Judge Denies Governors on Lawsuit

Last week, Gov. Chris Gregoire of Washington, Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, Gov. Bill Ritter of Colorado, and Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan all filed a motion in federal court, seeking permission to submit a friend of the court brief. They wanted to go in the record in favor of the new federal health care law, in the case that some states are bringing against the U.S. Government. In at each of the four states, Republican attorneys general joined in the suit over the objections of the Democratic governors.

The federal judge in the case, Roger Vinson, said no, but that the governors may try again should the case go to trial.

Ballot Measure Backers Win in Colorado

Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, uses an e-mail blast announce a legal development related to health care “reform”:

As I hope you know, we have been working to bring to this Fall’s Colorado ballot a citizens’ amendment, the Right to Health Care Choice. Well, we just cleared a massive hurdle. A federal court judge has placed an emergency injunction on a new state law that made it near impossible to get an initiative on the ballot.

In 2009 the state legislature, with heavy bipartisan support, passed a law outlawing paying petition gatherers by the signature they collect. This may sound like a small change to the process, but as I have found out, it doubles or triples the cost of getting a citizens’ initiative on the ballot. That’s not a problem if you are Tim Gill or Jared Polis. But it is an insurmountable problem if you are a little free-market activist like me. The oppressive law made it impossible for us to be able to petition our government. And I remember some old document saying we have a right to do just that. So off to court we went. Again.

Last Friday the ruling came down, and the worst part of the law has been enjoined. We can now pay petition circulators by the signature, meaning we can now afford to petition the government. Now we are off and running! We still are counting on a large volunteer effort. If you are interested in helping gather signatures contact Mike Krause at mike@i2i.org, or give us a ring at 303.279.6536 and ask for Mike. Amazing though. Occasionally the court system works. Of course it was heard in the Federal Court, not the State Supreme Court.

The effort is one of many throughout the country.

Health Care for All = No Medical Privacy

Mike Krause comments on a new law in Colorado that strips residents of their medical privacy, and wonders where the progressive left is.

In the name of promoting efficiency in health care spending, the law gives to one person “access to individual information on physical functioning, medical treatment, supposed mental stability, marital problems, family structure, sexual habits, addictions, adherence to government health recommendations, and individual financial arrangements.”

Colorado Ballot Measure Awaiting the Court

Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, is leading his group in a ballot measure to challenge certain aspects of ObamaCare. In a recent newsletter, he describes the legal challenges the institute is facing:

As I write this we are waiting for a ruling from a federal court judge on whether we can move forward with our ballot initiative on theRight to Health Care Choice. Last year the Colorado legislature passed a law making it doubly expensive to get an initiative on the ballot.  We sued to get an injunction on this anti-First Amendment law.  Read about it in Peter Blake’s piece for Face the State, and theDenver Post, and Vincent Carrol’s column.

Simply, if we win we can afford to get this crucial question on this Fall’s ballot.  If we lose, it is going to be very tough. Cross your fingers, say a little prayer that the wheels of justice turn soon.

Be sure also to check out the institute’s health care blog, Patient Power.

Colorado Needs a Medicaid Fix

When Congress temporarily increased FMAP (federal matching) funding for Medicaid, Colorado, like most states, planned on the increase being renewed.  So far, it hasn’t been, which puts the state at risk of having a $211 million shortfall. I’ve seen worse, but that’s still going to have an impact on other public programs.

What happens if the supercharged FMAP increase promised to come later through ObamaCare (to partially offset the law’s requirement that states make more people eligible for Medicaid) fails to come through?

Instead of mandatory maternity coverage, supplemental insurance

Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed Colorado HB 1021 into law last week.  The Denver Business Journal reports that it requires “all small-group and individual health insurance policies to include contraception and pregnancy coverage” “Proponents of [HB 1021] said it provides women with services that they sometimes had difficulty obtaining from their insurer.”

Then why not mandate that insurers offer a rider for contraception and prenatal coverage (optional supplement), instead of forcing everyone to pay the extra premium costs? That way, only people who want this coverage would buy it, and it would be available.

Could it be that the real reason is to use the strong arm of the law to further distort insurance into mandatory charity? That is, turn insurance into a tax?

The same argument can be made for all mandated benefits. A ballpark figure is that each mandate increases premiums by 4%.

As for supplemental maternity coverage, HealthQuote360.com says:

Yes, most individual health plans will allow for an optional maternity benefit rider to be added to the plan for an additional cost. Almost all plans will have a waiting period of 6-12 months before any (or full) benefits will be paid out for maternity expenses.

Jane Molnar at MaternityInsurance.org writes:

… The best thing to do in this situation is get supplemental maternity insurance.  Most health insurance companies offer this for families that are going through a pregnancy.  This would be an addition to your current health coverage.  This supplement would cover any health visits that are related to the pregnancy.

I’d be more confident of how available these products are if I could find some quotes on-line, or documentation that they exist.  Comments on this are welcome.

Prices for Soda in Colorado Pop After Tax-law Change

The Colorado Legislature raised taxes on certain foods, including soda pop. In turn, members of the Legislature blame the price increases that have followed on … greedy business owners.

Rep. Jack Pommer, D-Boulder, the sponsor of the bill nixing the tax exemption, said “it sounds like (vending companies) are taking advantage” of the tax to increase prices.

“This tax isn’t 10 cents (on a dollar),” he said. “It’s 2.9 cents.”

But as the Denver Post article on the subject mentions, vending machine companies face costs in complying with the law. And it’s not as if people carry 0.9 cent coins in their pockets.

The Post cast the measure as a way of adding money to the state treasury, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the desire to influence human behavior by targeting “unhealthy” food was also at work.

A Debate on the Constitutionality of ObamaCare

Is ObamaCare built on an unconstitutional foundation? Sure, that’s what I think, but the Independence Institute recently held a debate on the issue. An e-mail from Jon Caldara, the institute’s president, offers you a way to listen to the arguments:

If you couldn’t make it out to the epic debate concerning the constitutionality of Obama Care, you certainly missed a great time. Our Dave Kopel took on former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Jean Dubofsky; Dave on the side of the lawsuit and Attorney General Suthers, Jean against the AG’s. Luckily, the ACLU of Colorado was nice enough to live-stream and record the event for posterity. If you’d like to see the video, go to this Cauldron post.