Amendment 63 does state that Colorado is prohibited from either initiating action on the state level or from taking action “at the instance” of the federal government. However, the entire scope of “at the instance of” is similarly not clearly defined. According to Brian Schwartz, a blogger at the Independence Institute, one circumstance this would cover is where — perhaps in the aftermath of the federal act being found unconstitutional — “the federal government might pressure states to do what they want [them] to do.”

For more, read this articles that summarize arguments against mandatory health insurance.

Not everyone is as supportive of the county open space program. Brian Schwartz of the Independence Institute, a conservative free-market think tank in Golden, says private funding should be used for land preservation, not public funds.

“Why not find sponsors?” asks Schwartz. “There should be ways to finance these purchases without tax money.”

Schwartz also suggests using volunteers to maintain the trails and other public amenities offered by open space.

I wrote about this in the Daily Camera in 2009:

Regardless of user fees, how about soliciting donations for trail creation, management, and maintenance? The Continental Divide Trail Alliance does this. Its website lists both individual and corporate donors.  Outdoor gear companies REI and Coleman each donated more than $15,000 in 2007.  Saloman and W.L. Gore also donated thousands of dollars. Like the “Adopt-a-Highway” program, signs at trailheads could recognize those whose donations support the trail’s maintenance.

Read the whole article: Open space trails: user fees & sponsorship, not taxes.

Thanks to Matt at Clear the Bench Colorado for setting this up!

Brian Schwartz, a member of the Camera’s editorial advisory board, authored the commentary saying that asking voters to approve ballot issue 1B and renew the “Worthy Cause” sales tax this November would continue to be “immoral-regardless of how worthy the cause.” He made a number of astute observations including offering an opinion that simply having a “compulsory charity tax represents the tyranny of the majority” which is unfair to a number of local nonprofits that might not be able to receive one of the few “government subsidies” the tax would support.

There’s little doubt that many of the concerns Schwartz expressed are both heartfelt and valid. Imposing the will of the majority, however, is certainly not without precedent in Progressive Boulder …

It’s difficult to dispute many of the arguments Schwartz makes…

According to Brian Schwartz, a healthcare policy expert who testified before the 208 Commission, Ritter’s plan to increase enrollment in state sponsored insurance programs is only going to grow government unnecessarily and hurt Coloradans in the long run. “The children’s health plan is like the kiddie version of Medicaid,” said Schwartz. “Instead of passing more laws that unfairly compete with private companies and put people on crappy plans, why doesn’t the government look at what it is already doing make insurance so expensive?”

As I’ve written before, Medicaid is a horrible program that keeps the people is “aids” in a state of depending on government for lousy medical care. This blog post by Cato’s Michael Cannon (& challenge to Paul “everyone who disagrees with me has evil intentions” Krugman) includes several references on why SCHIP (Medicaid for kids) is a bad program.  Cannon has also written about it in the USA Today and a longer briefing paper. A good moral case against SCHIP is here.

The commission’s majority recommendations come after the panel rejected 31 other proposals submitted for consideration in 2007. Brian Schwartz, a Boulder-based optical engineer, saw his proposal nixed.On his Web site, Schwartz writes, “regarding health care reform, Bill Ritter claims to ‘refuse to throw more money at a problem without addressing the root causes of the crisis.’ Unfortunately, the 208 Commission on Health Care Reform does exactly that.”

The article concludes:

Over the coming months, you may often hear claims that massive tax hikes and expanded political control of medicine will save you money. If you value your health and your money, you will recognize such claims for what they are — dishonest spin. Don’t be fooled: Expanded medical welfare will cost you plenty, and ever more as the programs grow. In the long term, the only way that politicians can control costs is to impose rationing. The alternative is to repeal the political controls that have created the problems and turn to liberty in medicine.

Brian Schwartz, an Arvada-based optical engineer, proposed to the Blue Ribbon Commission a market-based health care reform package that mostly involved deregulation. Commission member Linda Gorman fought for it, but others scoffed.

“One commissioner said we already have a free market in health care, and it has failed,” Schwartz told The Gazette. “But we don’t have a free market. If you’re a widow, you have to buy a policy that covers marital therapy, maternity and prostate cancer. You have no need for this, but if you want insurance you’re required to buy it. Mandates raise your premium by 20 to 50 percent.”

I actually live and work in Boulder.  Close enough.   I obviously think health care is an important issue, and I’m happy that the editor Wayne Laugesen committed an article to it.

A scan of the print edition is here.

In response to my last column documenting how Denver journalists love and embed the conservative/libertarian Independence Institute, some people asked whom I’d quote instead of institute President Jon Caldara. … For an extreme free-market view, there’s Ari Armstrong (ariarmstrong.com) and Brian T. S[ch]wartz (wakalix.com), among others.

Ari wrote some insightful comments on this on his blog, here. An excerpt:

Unlike most politicians and commentators these days, I don’t get ruffled when somebody suggests that I’m “extreme.” If this strikes you as odd, allow me to ask you a few questions.

Do you want to be extremely happy, or just sort of happy? (I’m not talking about a superficial giddiness, but a deep enjoyment of life.)

Would you like to live in an extremely just society, or a society that’s just only some of the time?

Should we strive to be extremely good, extremely virtuous, extremely moral, or just pretty good?

The alternative to extreme happiness, justice, and goodness is some amount of unhappiness, injustice, and destructive vice. (Please don’t confuse “vice” with activities that can be healthy in the right context, such as moderate drinking.)

Imagine yourself in the mid-1800s. The abolitionists called for the abolition — the complete abandonment — of slavery. They took the extreme position that slavery is morally wrong and should be completely outlawed. The moderates, on the other hand, argued that slavery should merely be restricted. Would you have been on the side of the abolitionists or the moderates?

Though the tide at the Boulder meeting was decidedly toward single-payer, commissioners were quick to point out that the sentiment might be different as they solicit public comments throughout the state.And at least one speaker, Brian Schwartz, proposed getting government out of health care entirely – calling Medicaid a “failure” and an example of why single-payer won’t work. Instead, he advocated the free-market system.

“Should we have single-payer food and housing?” he asked. “Didn’t we settle that with Soviet Russia and North Korea? Why is health care different?”

I’ve posted a PDF of the print edition here.