I would like to speak in support of SB-200.  A few months ago, I joined two groups – the Southeast Metro Business Association (SEMBA) Healthcare Reform Task Force, and the Arapahoe Tea Party. Little did I know at the time those two groups would end up on opposite ends of the SB-200 debate.

My first reaction to the Task Force group was, “it is so nice to finally have a common sense discussion on health care reform” as opposed to the nonsense that had passed for debate on Obamacare. Briefly, I am adamantly opposed to Obamacare – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) as it will be neither affordable nor protect patients. Also, the Federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in healthcare in the first place. The power and money for citizens to voluntarily provide health care to others needs to be devolved back to the states. Health care is not a right. A right is something that can’t be taken away from you, not something someone is required to give you.  My reaction to the Tea Party meetings and events was similar – “it is so nice to finally have common sense discussions on the proper role of government.”  I am gravely concerned for the future of our country.

So how can two common sense groups end up on opposite ends of the same debate?  I understand and share my fellow Tea Party members’ concerns about having “Obamacare for Colorado.” I just don’t see SB-200 as necessarily leading us down that path. As was pointed out to me by Rep. Stephen’s aides, it is good that the Tea Party groups are so involved in keeping up with legislation. Citizen oversight of the legislature is crucial. If as I hope, SB-200 passes, I would encourage my fellow Tea Party groups to stay involved in keeping an eye on the Board which is created, to advocate for useful Health Insurance Exchanges. The Heritage Foundation, while opposing Obamacare style Exchanges, believes “Health insurance exchanges are a good idea—if they are used to implement patient-centered and market-based health reforms that enhance choice and value for customers.” *

I also understand and share the concerns of the SEMBA’s Task Force that something needs to be done to rein in health care costs. SB-200 is but one of many reforms that need to be tried – at the state level, not the Federal level. Senator Boyd graciously gave me some of her time one day to discuss SB-200. At the end, we agreed to disagree on PPACA. I would like to point out to Senator Boyd, and anyone else who supports PPACA, that I personally share your goal of affordable health care for all. While not a constitutional mandate, it is a moral mandate for a nation as compassionate as the United States. Unfortunately, not only will PPACA not help, it will make things worse. But that is a different discussion.

I would like to note that, although my paid career was in Health Information Management, I am not currently employed in a health care setting, so have no ulterior motive for supporting SB-200. I am simply a concerned citizen who now voluntarily advocates for the best future possible for our country, state, and specifically my children.

Thank you for your time and the opportunity to express my viewpoint – isn’t the U.S. great? I respectfully urge you to vote yes on SB-200.

Cathy Mitchell

5-3-11

*“A State Lawmaker’s Guide to Health Insurance Exchanges” by Edmund F. Haislmaier; Backgrounder, published by The Heritage Foundation, No. 2534, March 21, 2011

After writing the above testimony, I received the following response from Mike Rosen when I asked his opinion on SB-200:

Denver Post has a guest commentary ("Don't get mugged by a politically controlled insurance exchange")  by Brian Schwartz of the Independence Institute that may be of interest even though SB11-200 has been passed by the legislature:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_18002925

For reference, there were several other comments posted with the thread at:

http://arapahoeteaparty.ning.com/profiles/blogs/urgent-obama-care