The Colorado Springs Gazette has an outstanding editorial on Amendment 63, the “Right to Health Care Choice” citizens amendment, calling it a “great idea” that has become certainty. One money quote out of many:

Amendment 63 would make Colorado an attractive haven for health care development, competition, and medical tourism, thus improving the health care options of Coloradans and boosting the economy.

This country hasn’t prospered and flourished because of federal mandates. We have flourished because of freedom. Amendment 63 will be one giant step in protecting freedom for Coloradans.

Read the entire terrific piece here.

Today the Colorado Secretary of State announced the approval of the “The Right to Health Care Choice” citizens initiative for this November’s ballot. The initiative is now officially titled Amendment 63. The Health Care Choice for Colorado Issue Committee collected a total of 135,000 signatures that were handed in on July 30th.

If approved by voters in November, Amendment 63 will amend Colorado’s Constitution in two meaningful ways. First, the State of Colorado would be prohibited from forcing its citizens to purchase a public or private health insurance product, either on its own, or on behalf of the federal government. Secondly, it would constitutionally protect fee-for-service health care by ensuring Coloradans the right to choose to pay out of pocket for health care services and products.

Tune into this Friday’s Devil’s Advocate as Colorado Attorney General John Suthers joins me for a one on one discussion about the details, status and constitutional basis of the ongoing State Attorneys’ General lawsuit over the constitutionality of the health insurance mandate recently enacted as part as part of the federal health care bill, HR 3590, also known as Obama Care. That’s Friday, August 27 at 8:30 PM on Colorado Public Television 12. Re-broadcast the following Monday at 1:30 PM.

The final event at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Association of Law Schools was a Federalist Society panel on the constitutionality of the centralized health control law. Participants were Randy Barnett (Georgetown, VC), Jack Balkin (Yale),  Gillian Metzger (Columbia), and me (Denver, VC). The moderator was  Bradley A. Smith (Capital). Available here. The recording is 93 minutes, although the event itself ran a little longer. While the focus was on the two state suits (Virgina, and the 20-state coalition), we also discussed some of the additional issues raised by the five other suits, such as due process rights to medical privacy and decision-making.

The brief of Florida and 19 other states, challenging the constitutional of the new health control law, was just filed today. It is a response to the DOJ’s motion to dismiss.

You know when you’re up way too late at night and you start dozing off to incredibly bad infomericials, and then one comes on that catches your attention. Usually for me it’s something involving the ShamWOW guy, but the other night it was this nicely animated masterpiece on Obama Care that woke me up from my half-slumber. Enjoy!

Football season is right around the corner, and just when you started feeling sorry for the good people of Missouri having to endure another year of St. Louis Rams football, Missouri Health Care Freedom (aka Prop C) comes along. The voters of Missouri just yesterday overwhelmingly passed a referred ballot measure that protects them from Obama Care’s individual mandate. And when I say overwhelming, I actually mean a full-blown ass-whooping – 71% to 29%! The Missouri people have spoken, and they do not want to be forced to buy a private product from a private corporation. Nor do they care for all the establishment media and organizations that lined up against the measure, including three major newspapers, hospital associations, and the obligatory women and children campaigns. It is not a good year to be in the establishment anything.

This bodes well in our neck of the woods. 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 Sentinel in this scenario. They’ve already come out and editorialized 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. 

Last Friday I submitted over 130,000 signatures to the Colorado Secretary of State on behalf of the Health Care Choice for Colorado Issue Committee. What does that mean? Well, it means we are one step closer to getting the “Right to Health Care Choice” ballot initiative on your November ballot! We need 76,000 valid Colorado signatures out of the 130,000+ we submitted. The Secretary of State has 30 days to confirm that we have 76,000 valid signatures, and once that happens, it is official! As of now however, I am confident that the citizens of Colorado will have a chance to protect themselves from this monstrosity we call Obama Care.

Check out some of the media coverage we’ve already got since Friday – Denver Daily News, the Colorado Independent, and a cool Channel 9 video segment with a story.

Thank goodness Congress passed Obama Care, because now at least we know what’s in it, right Nancy Pelosi? The bureaucratic nightmare that is the health care “reform” bill was, until this point, a horror movie where the scary monsters were still lurking in the shadows and hadn’t yet revealed themselves to the audience. But as we all know, a scary movie ain’t scary until the monsters make their gruesome debut. Unfortunately for Americans, the monsters lurking in the health care bill outnumber even the most sadistic projections. For example:

Speaking of major insurance mandates, the Right to Health Care Choice ballot initiative is just inches away from being on your ballot in November. We are confident that we have met the quota, and we’re looking forward to beginning the next phase of this process – educating voters about the initiative.

As more information trickles out about this horrifying monstrosity, even President Obama finds it difficult to continue some of his most cherished lies talking points. Keep your health insurance if you like it? Naahhhh. They’d rather force you to drop it so you become dependent on government rationed health care. (only of course, after you wait your turn). It’s terrifying to think that even with the most rosy projections, Obama Care does nothing to insure more Americans or reduce health care costs. Why, who could have ever imagined that this bill would result in exactly the opposite of what was intended? The only people who gain from unleashing this hell on the public are the politicians who will take credit for “doing something” long before that “something” is put into place, and the insurance companies who now enjoy an entire populace forced into buying their product.

Stay tuned for updates on our initiative. I’ll report right here when we get official word that we’re on the ballot. *fingers crossed*

This new article in Tax Notes, by Professor Steven J. Willis and recent graduate Nakku Chung, both of the University of Florida’s Fredric G. Levin College of Law, explains why the non-insurance penalty provision of the new federal health control law is unconstitutional, at least if it is a tax.

In brief, the argument is: The tax is not an excise tax, and it could not be a constitutional excise tax because it is not uniform. The tax is not an income tax, and it could not be a constitutional income tax, because it is not a tax on derived income. Accordingly, the tax must be a capitation or direct tax. Article I, section 9 provides: “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” The tax is not apportioned, and therefore is contrary to Article I, section 9.

As the introduction indicates, I provided some comments to the authors on a pre-publication draft of the article.