DENVER -- In about one week, the residents of Colorado will be deciding upon some major issues -- one of which is Amendment 63.
"It changes Colorado's bill of rights and adds one more right," said Jon Caldara on his talk show Monday, while filling-in for Mike Rosen. "What we are trying to do is create a sanctuary state for healthcare."
Caldara, of the Independence Institute is the man behind Amendment 63.
According to the Colorado Blue Book, Amendment 63 would:
- add health care choice as a constitutional right;
- prohibit the state from requiring or enforcing any requirement that a person participate in a public or private health coverage plan;
- restrict the state from limiting a person's ability to make or receive direct payments for lawful health care services.
"This is about making sure that healthcare in Colorado is a choice," said Caldara.
Amendment 63 will not override President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act; therefore Coloradans will still have to buy health insurance.
However, Caldara said he believes the Affordable Care Act will be deemed unconstitutional at which time the federal government will be looking to state governments to mandate that everyone have health insurance. Caldara said Amendment 63 will ensure the state cannot force people to do so.
But the Colorado Medical Society is speaking out against Amendment 63. Its members strongly believe everyone should have health insurance.
"We want to have every citizen of Colorado covered with basic health coverage," said Dr. Brent Keeler, president-elect of the Colorado Medical Society.
Keeler said Amendment 63 could not only stand in the way of protecting Coloradans, but also negatively affect a lot of people.
"You can read the language and say maybe we would have problems regulating doctors and health care providers," said Keeler.
"Here in Colorado, doctors have to be licensed," said Caldara. "This doesn't change that."
Opponents said ambiguity and a lack of clarity are some of the biggest concerns with Amendment 63.
"It is incredibly ambiguous and powerful," said Alec Harris, of the Colorado Center on Law and Policy. "This is going into the state constitution and has really strong statements with no clarifications with what it means, what it is trying to do or things it doesn't want to change."
As a result, Harris said Amendment 63 could wind up costing the state a lot of money through litigation.
"We know we are going to have to interpret it through the courts," said Harris.
"Obamacare is costing the state money in litigation," said Caldara as he laughed at the notion.
Harris said the language in the amendment also raises concern about Medicaid and CHP +, the state children's healthcare program.
"There is some language in Amendment 63 that may interfere with how the state administers these programs, how they manage people and people's care," said Harris.
"It doesn't stop the state from offering healthcare choices," said Caldara. "All it says is that it can't force you into one of those against your will."
Harris said the language could also affect college students and their health care program. He said most students pay for health care services through fees or it's included in their tuition and there is concern this amendment won't allow that.
Meanwhile, Attorney General John Suthers has joined 21 other attorneys general in a federal lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
