"No" on Amendment 63 Resource Page

Amendment 63

Proposed Initiative

Amends Article II (Bill of Rights) of the Colorado Constitution by adding a new Section 32 which

·        Prohibits the state or federal government from requiring any person’s participation in any public or private health care plan

·        Preserves the right of any person to pay directly for health care

The ballot language for the proposed amendment implies that the state or federal government might require all persons to be covered by health insurance.  No such law currently exists, and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in the Spring of 2010 imposes no such mandate.  It does impose an added tax liability of $750 per year in 2016 and thereafter for each individual who chooses not to carry health coverage.[i]

The ballot language for the proposed amendment further implies that individuals might be prohibited from paying directly for health care.  No such prohibition currently exists, nor is it part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Likely Consequences

If enacted, this amendment will almost surely be ruled unconstitutional on grounds that it violates the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the US Constitution, since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed by Congress is now the supreme law of the land with regard to health care policy.  It will ultimately, therefore, not likely have any consequences for health care delivery in Colorado.  However, it may well cost the taxpayers of the state thousands of dollars to litigate the constitutionality of the amendment.

Many voters are likely to be misled by the wording of the initiative to believe that they will be prohibited from exercising choice in the way their health care is paid for if the amendment is not adopted.  The federal law explicitly protects the right of individuals to participate or not in any health insurance plan (“Nothing in this title shall be construed to restrict the choice . . . to enroll or not to enroll in a qualified health plan. . .”).[ii]  It simply adds to their tax liability if they choose not to carry health insurance.

Were this amendment to be enacted and not be declared unconstitutional, it would lead to

·        Higher health care costs for all, to pay for health care for the uninsured[iii]

·        An unfair shift of health care costs from those who opt out of health insurance to those who pay for it (and employers who provide it)

·        Greater operating expenses for hospitals to treat more uninsured patients, resulting in cuts to personnel like nurses and other services, leading to reduced quality of care for all patients

Position of the Democratic Party of Denver

This amendment attempts an unconstitutional override of federal law, on the dubious premise that federal law takes away rights which it does not do.  Besides inviting lengthy and costly litigation, the amendment, if somehow enacted, would increase health care costs for everyone in Colorado, and actually reduce choice and quality of health care, without ensuring any new rights that don’t already exist. The Democaratic Party of Denver therefore OPPOSES adoption of Amendment 63, and urges a “no” vote in the November 2, 2010 General Election.