COLORADO EDITORIAL FORUM
By Emilie C. Ailts and Vicki Cowart
As national health care reform faces its next hurdle -- a conference committee bill that reconciles the House and Senate bills -- we believe it's critical to draw attention to a provision contained in the House bill. This provision, brought by Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and known as the Stupak abortion coverage ban, would create barriers to women's reproductive health care far worse than any encountered since the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
This new abortion coverage ban makes insurance coverage for abortion virtually unavailable for millions of women purchasing insurance plans through the newly created health insurance exchange.
Federal law already bans use of federal funds for abortions, but the Stupak measure goes much further. It denies use of private money -- not just public money -- to cover abortions.
Six of Colorado's nine-member congressional delegation, Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet and Reps. Diana DeGette, Jared Polis, Betsy Markey and Ed Perlmutter, understood the danger posed by the Stupak abortion coverage ban and its Senate companion and voted against it. The remaining three, Reps. Doug Lamborn, Mike Coffman and John Salazar, voted for the House Stupak provision, choosing to strip women of health insurance benefits they already have and imposing further restrictions on their access to a full spectrum of reproductive health care services.
The Stupak amendment has real-life implications for all women obtaining health insurance through the new health insurance exchange. This exchange is intended to provide a source of affordable, quality health insurance coverage for Americans who are uninsured, self-employed or work for small businesses. In Colorado, small businesses vastly outnumber large employers and are a major force in the state's net increase of new jobs. Because so many women potentially will be insured through the exchange, millions of women would lose reproductive health care benefits they now have.
As the health care reform debate continues, our goal is clear -- to pass health care reform while stopping the Stupak abortion coverage ban. The Senate's health care proposal maintains the status quo, ensuring that no federal funds pay for abortion. While we fundamentally do not agree with this, as since 1976 this policy has codified discrimination against low-income women, we acknowledge a compromise is necessary to advance the health care reform package. Yet, we strongly oppose going beyond the status quo, which the Stupak abortion coverage ban does.
Since the onset of health care reform, President Obama often has articulated a central tenet that no one lose benefits she or he currently has and likes. The Stupak abortion coverage ban would break this promise.
Defenders of the House amendment say that women who purchase health insurance through the exchange will be allowed to buy a single-procedure insurance policy, sometimes called a "rider," providing abortion coverage. Such a provision is as discriminatory as it is illogical, and it contradicts a basic objective of health care reform -- to ensure that all Americans have the health insurance they need.
Insurance by definition should protect us from the unexpected. As with diabetes or prostate cancer, both unplanned pregnancies and complications late in wanted pregnancies are unexpected events. Women who need a legal medical procedure in these situations should not be denied coverage any more than individuals with other unexpected health needs.
We all have different opinions about abortion. However, the debate about health care reform shouldn't focus on those differences. And real health care reform shouldn't cause women to lose insurance coverage they already have for a legal medical procedure.
Health care reform provides an opportunity to advance women's health.
With the exception of the Stupak abortion coverage ban, federal health care reform efforts include many provisions of benefit to women.
They include banning gender discrimination of premium rates, protecting survivors of breast cancer from being denied coverage because of a "pre-existing" condition, and covering preventive care, e.g. cancer screenings.
The President and Congress have moved us closer than we've ever been to achieving affordable, quality health care for all. But health care reform won't be fair -- and will not succeed -- if it comes at such high cost to women.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ailts is executive director of Denver-based NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado. Cowart is CEO & president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Colorado Editorial Forum. 12/09
12/09
Showing posts with label Colorado. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colorado. Show all posts
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
COLORADO EDITORIAL FORUM
By Matt Sundeen
There's a story going around that's so scary it ought to be told only in a whisper:
If Colorado tries to untangle the conflicts in its budget, it will end up like...California.
No self-respecting state would want that. The massive budget cuts, the IOUs, the celebrity governor autographing government-surplus sale items...yikes! Just the thought makes your blood curdle.
The "change makes us California" story is intended to scare us, but like many good tales, it's blatantly untrue. Budget reforms will not transform us into the Golden State. Almost the opposite is true. In many ways, Colorado is already like California, and if we don't change, more California-type problems are likely.
Opponents of budget reform have peddled the Colorado-to-California scare tactic for years. This summer, the Independence Institute's Barry Poulson repeated it to Colorado's Long-term Fiscal Stability Commission. Speaking about Colorado's ongoing reform efforts, Poulson warned that "if these trends continue, the outcome in Colorado will be similar to that in California."
Poulson supported his ominous assertion by comparing Colorado to California of the 1980s. That's when California voters modified their GANN amendment, a constitutional provision similar to our own TABOR. After that, the story goes, California spiraled into a free-spending budget morass – a state that people and businesses were eager to leave. Surely a similar nightmare would befall Colorado, Poulson intimated.
The comparison is simplistic and false. It ignores meaningful differences between the two states. California boasts one of the world's 10 largest economies, and a general fund budget roughly 13 times the size of Colorado's. California state services support nearly 38 million people, compared to the 4.9 million here.
California's main problem is its requirement for a two-thirds "supermajority" vote by its legislature to pass fiscal measures. This provision allows individual lawmakers to hold the budget hostage each year and makes it almost impossible to pass anything on time. The result is an annual budget impasse and the perception that California is running amok. Stunningly, many in the Colorado-to-California crowd have called for a similar supermajority rule here.
It's also noteworthy that California's GANN changes did not lead to runaway taxes, stagnant growth and people fleeing the state. California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office reports that California tax rates, though slightly higher than the national average, are comparable to tax rates in the western region and in other large states. Many corporate powerhouses are located in California, and the state experienced sustained economic growth in the 1990s and early 2000s. Although its growth has slowed along with the rest of the country, California's population continues to climb.
Unfortunately, the "change makes us California" story overshadows the real threat. Colorado's lawmakers are already hamstrung by many of the budget conditions afflicting California. Look at the similarities:
If Colorado tries to untangle the conflicts in its budget, it will end up like...California.
No self-respecting state would want that. The massive budget cuts, the IOUs, the celebrity governor autographing government-surplus sale items...yikes! Just the thought makes your blood curdle.
The "change makes us California" story is intended to scare us, but like many good tales, it's blatantly untrue. Budget reforms will not transform us into the Golden State. Almost the opposite is true. In many ways, Colorado is already like California, and if we don't change, more California-type problems are likely.
Opponents of budget reform have peddled the Colorado-to-California scare tactic for years. This summer, the Independence Institute's Barry Poulson repeated it to Colorado's Long-term Fiscal Stability Commission. Speaking about Colorado's ongoing reform efforts, Poulson warned that "if these trends continue, the outcome in Colorado will be similar to that in California."
Poulson supported his ominous assertion by comparing Colorado to California of the 1980s. That's when California voters modified their GANN amendment, a constitutional provision similar to our own TABOR. After that, the story goes, California spiraled into a free-spending budget morass – a state that people and businesses were eager to leave. Surely a similar nightmare would befall Colorado, Poulson intimated.
The comparison is simplistic and false. It ignores meaningful differences between the two states. California boasts one of the world's 10 largest economies, and a general fund budget roughly 13 times the size of Colorado's. California state services support nearly 38 million people, compared to the 4.9 million here.
California's main problem is its requirement for a two-thirds "supermajority" vote by its legislature to pass fiscal measures. This provision allows individual lawmakers to hold the budget hostage each year and makes it almost impossible to pass anything on time. The result is an annual budget impasse and the perception that California is running amok. Stunningly, many in the Colorado-to-California crowd have called for a similar supermajority rule here.
It's also noteworthy that California's GANN changes did not lead to runaway taxes, stagnant growth and people fleeing the state. California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office reports that California tax rates, though slightly higher than the national average, are comparable to tax rates in the western region and in other large states. Many corporate powerhouses are located in California, and the state experienced sustained economic growth in the 1990s and early 2000s. Although its growth has slowed along with the rest of the country, California's population continues to climb.
Unfortunately, the "change makes us California" story overshadows the real threat. Colorado's lawmakers are already hamstrung by many of the budget conditions afflicting California. Look at the similarities:
- Both states limit residential property taxes. Over time, that's reduced local revenues and shifted much of the public education costs to the states' budgets.
- Voters in both states passed constitutional budget formulas that guaranteed ever-increasing amounts for K-12 education. That means K-12 funding must grow even when state revenues drop.
- Both states are experiencing fiscal pressure from other programs that can't be cut, notably corrections and federally mandated Medicaid. Roughly 73 percent of their general fund budgets are consumed by K-12 education, Medicaid and corrections.
- Although we don't have a supermajority requirement, Colorado's voter-approval requirement in TABOR has a similar effect -- revenue increases to pay for our growing costs aren't impossible, but they are highly improbable.
Those restrictions are creating significant fiscal headaches. This year, the economic downturn forced Colorado lawmakers to close a $1.8 billion budget shortfall. With limited options, the resulting cuts hurt -- layoffs and furloughs for state employees, a closed nursing home and a shutdown of a prison project are examples. And all indications are that next year will be just as painful, if not more so.
The lesson is this: Don't be scared by wild stories that budget reform will turn Colorado into California. It won't. But inaction might cause budget paralysis that's just as bad, and that's what's truly worrisome.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sundeen is a senior policy analyst and general counsel for the Bell Policy Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research center in Denver.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Colorado Editorial Forum. 10/09
The lesson is this: Don't be scared by wild stories that budget reform will turn Colorado into California. It won't. But inaction might cause budget paralysis that's just as bad, and that's what's truly worrisome.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sundeen is a senior policy analyst and general counsel for the Bell Policy Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research center in Denver.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (C) 2009 by the Colorado Editorial Forum. 10/09
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
