The first flaw, of many, with Amendment 69 is that it is an amendment to our state constitution. Amendments are long-lasting and are changed or removed only with great effort and coordination, as opposed to a proposition.

And isn’t this an amendment to “fix” all of those things wrong with Obamacare, after Pelosi urged Congress to pass it so we could see what was in it?

To be clear, I represent neither the medical field nor the insurance industry. Voters were cautioned to expect pushback from those two groups.

The second flaw that is truly frightening is that we don’t know who would be on the governing board, and citizens would have no input into the initial 15-member “interim board.”

These would be appointed by the governor and the legislature. As long as three years later voters could select a final 21-member board that doesn’t even require members to be U.S. citizens.

That board would then hire an executive team responsible for the system’s operations. We don’t know if these board members would have to meet basic requirements or if they would run willy-nilly for a board seat. To whom would they report? How would they be vetted? Would they have to meet basic qualifications? How would a board member be removed? Could board members be removed for speaking their mind or objecting to something?

Physicians already face huge regulatory interference when trying to treat their patients. Amendment 69 would greatly expand this intrusion and put your private medical records in a health care database that is publicly available for research.

The frightening increase in taxes affects individuals and businesses with the net result that many businesses will go bankrupt, leave the state or choose not to come here in the first place. Why would they come here or stay here when Amendment 69 would result in the highest tax rate in the United States?

To conclude, monopoly health care programs are clunky and have poorly contained costs. Vote “No” on Amendment 69.

Leetra Jurkens

Durango