What an interesting election this one will be. We have a proposed amendment that will make a young woman a murderer if she takes a “morning after” pill to prevent becoming pregnant by a rapist, and we have a Senatorial candidate (Ken Buck) who spent his entire primary campaign supporting that amendment.
It wasn’t until the general election campaign that he discovered the consequences of the proposal, but he still thinks he’s qualified for a job that is primarily about deciding whether or not legislative proposals are worthy of support.
Then, we have an amendment that gives people the right of “health care choice.” Of course, no one chooses not to have health care. Some people just choose not to pay for it. They forego health insurance, even when they could afford a minimum policy, and they get their health care in the emergency rooms of those hospitals that are required to provide such care even if the person will not pay for it. Why pay for your own care when the rest of us are forced to subsidize it for you?
True “health care choice” means that, if you choose not to pay, you don’t get the care. If you have no insurance and you can’t pay up front, then the hospital can just let you die of appendicitis or car wreck injuries or whatever. If we really want the right of health care choice, then we must first stop requiring hospitals to care for those who choose not to pay (because they forego the insurance needed for them to be able to afford to pay).
Otherwise, “health care choice” simply means “you have the choice to force me to pay for your care, instead of doing it yourself.” Sorry. I’m not in favor of that proposal – not in favor of letting people die or in favor of giving free health care to those who choose not to pay.
We also have three proposals that would decrease the state’s income at the same time they increase its expenses. Of course, the legislators are already having difficulty deciding what services to cut to stay within the state’s current income, but if we citizens want more spending on less income, all we have to do is to say so. What does economic reality have to do with anything?
Finally, we have a proposal to require almost everyone who is arrested to post a secured bond before release from jail, even if a pretrial services program has determined that the person represents minimal risk to public safety and is likely to appear in court as scheduled. Of course, if the person cannot pay, he will have to stay in jail, and we will have to pay $50.44 per person per day to keep him there, but why not spend an additional $2.8 million in taxes to make a point, especially given the other three proposals that represent fiscal insanity?
The frightening thing is that these choices are on the ballot because a significant number of Coloradoans wanted them there. I can only hope that a majority of Coloradoans can do a better job than Ken Buck in recognizing the consequences of proposals that may sound good at first glance. What an interesting election this one will be.
Wendy Koch is a veterinarian living in Loveland. EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been edited.
