Today Majority Leader Amy Stephens (R-Monument) sent a letter to her Senate co-sponsor Betty Boyd (D-Lakewood) on SB 200, the bill that has been dubbed "Amycare" by opponents who believed SB 200 was a formula for the implementation of Obamacare, requesting that an important clause be inserted into the bill.
Majority Leader Stephens requested specifically that SB 200 have a provision in it that it will not be enacted until Colorado has been completely opted out of Obamacare and all of its endless regulations and mandates.
“The provisions of SB 200 shall not be implemented, nor shall they have force or effect, until the State of Colorado requests, and the federal government grants, a full waiver from all terms, restrictions, and requirements in the federal Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act of 2010, and all rules, regulations and administrative guidelines issued thereto. The Governor of the State of Colorado shall seek such waiver within 60 days of the enactment of this Act.”
Stephens starts off the letter addressing the substance of the concerns shared with her by colleagues and constituents:
Many of my constituents and a few of my colleagues have told me that, while exchanges are themselves sensible public policy, the potential linkage of this legislation to Obamacare is far more damaging than whatever benefit is derived from the bill. Some have worried that, even though the exchanges created in my bill are totally independent of Obamacare, that future legislators or Governors (or even the federal government) could hijack this local control measure to implement Obamacare.
Recognizing the absolute distrust that her constituents have for government meddling in healthcare post-Obamacare, Stephens felt the additional language would help avoid any potential misuse and clarify the bill's intent to the public. The added language will help guarantee that SB 200 cannot be used to implement Obamacare:
"It is not in the plain language of the bill, but after all the over-reaches that government has engaged in of late, it is an issue that I want to settle in this legislation in the clearest possible terms…I continue to believe that healthcare exchanges are a common sense policy, just as conservatives have advocated for many, many years. And with the addition of the above provision, they can be implemented into law without federal intrusion, instruction or interference."
This move comes after a significant outcry from conservatives that Stephens was selling them and her campaign promises down the river.
Not only is she requesting this language be added before she will support the bill in the House, but she promises to use her stature to kill the bill if it does not.
Today in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, Senator Shawn Mitchell offered up Amy Stephens' additional language as an amendment, only to see it fail on a party line vote.
Whether the bill makes it through the Senate without the opt-out language or not — make no bones about it — this bill is dead.
Democrats apparently want to kick it around a little longer, not happy that they now have to decide: Do they want healthcare exchanges or do they want Obamacare?
That's a choice that we think needs some answers from Democrats. As some conservatives have said, it's important for Republicans to offer up legislation that makes Democrats go on the record on issues where they stand on the opposite side of public opinion.
Conservatives can be glad that their voice was not only heard but acted upon. And the Majority Leader can be proud of ending a nasty debate in a way that will lay blame on the door of the Dems who have already said they won't accept the amendment.
The full letter from Majority Leader Amy Stephens to SB 200 Senate sponsor Sen. Betty Boyd:
March 31, 2011Dear Senator Boyd:
The discussion surrounding SB 200 (the Health Benefit Exchange) is proof positive that the enactment of Obamacare has set the American debate about healthcare backward by light years. For years, conservatives at all levels have touted the free market virtues of healthcare exchanges as a way to give private citizens greater purchasing power and greater access to private health insurance. The concept of individuals banding together to cut the best healthcare deal possible for themselves and their family has been a staple of the House Republican platform for many, many years.
But enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – otherwise known as Obamacare – has so thoroughly contaminated the public discourse about the nation’s healthcare system that even simple and common-sense ideas like healthcare exchanges have become toxic and fraught with public policy peril. This is more than a symbolic concern. Many of my constituents and a few of my colleagues have told me that, while exchanges are themselves sensible public policy, the potential linkage of this legislation to Obamacare is far more damaging than whatever benefit is derived from the bill. Some have worried that, even though the exchanges created in my bill are totally independent of Obamacare, that future legislators or Governors (or even the federal government) could hijack this local control measure to implement Obamacare. It is not in the plain language of the bill, but after all the over-reaches that government has engaged in of late, it is an issue that I want to settle in this legislation in the clearest possible terms.
On this point let me be clear: Obamacare is unconstitutional, and it is bad public policy. I applaud Attorney General Suthers and his colleagues around the nation for taking the fight to the courts. I have supported legislation in the past to legislatively opt Colorado from its big government vices.
That brings us back to SB 200, and the fear that the health exchange legislation might be unwittingly used to support the implementation of Obamacare. There is only one way to solve this problem, and that is to make absolutely sure that the healthcare exchanges are implemented only after the State of Colorado opts-out of Obamacare. Specifically, I am requesting that the Committee add the following provision to the legislation.
“The provisions of SB 200 shall not be implemented, nor shall they have force or effect, until the State of Colorado requests, and the federal government grants, a full waiver from all terms, restrictions, and requirements in the federal Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act of 2010, and all rules, regulations and administrative guidelines issued thereto. The Governor of the State of Colorado shall seek such waiver within 60 days of the enactment of this Act.”
In as much as I believe that healthcare exchanges are a good idea, in order to be a good representative of my district, I must ensure that these state exchanges are not hijacked for the unconstitutional purposes of implementing the federal healthcare legislation.
With this amendment, Colorado would become one of the first states in the nation to take-up President Obama on his recent offer to allow States to opt-out of his healthcare bill. For his part, Governor Hickenlooper expressed openness to the idea of an opt-out. In exchange for the bold step of opting out of Obamacare, the State of Colorado will have healthcare exchanges that help patients get and receive affordable and reliable healthcare. It is a win-win for the State of Colorado.
I strongly encourage the Committee to accept the above language. If the Committee chooses not to add this important provision and still forwards the bill to the House, I will work all of the votes in my caucus to ensure that the Obamacare opt-out provision is added in the House of Representatives prior to returning to the Senate.
I continue to believe that healthcare exchanges are a common sense policy, just as conservatives have advocated for many, many years. And with the addition of the above provision, they can be implemented into law without federal intrusion, instruction or interference.
Thank you for your consideration.
House Majority Leader Amy Stephens