Details: Sunday, November 1st, 10:40 a.m. (12:40 p.m. Eastern) on FOX News.

By Jessica Peck Corry

October 29, 2009

Read More: Asbestos, Colorado Department Of Public Health And Environment, Colorado Resorts, EPURA, Estes Park, Denver News

When most people think political bullying, the scenic resort town of Estes Park, Colorado, isn’t the first place that comes to mind. But to a growing number of residents there, it has become a daily reality.

The most recent trauma to strike the town came after an Oct. 19 fire, when the storied Park Theatre Mall burned to the ground, leaving its owner, Sharon Seeley, without the business her family had run for decades. Seeley had barely begun contemplating how to rebuild her life when a physician, Dr. George Crislip, told town officials and the media that the fire “let loose unknown quantities of asbestos,” and that [the urban renewal authority] could “form a public/private partnership to get that place uncontaminated.” Crislip even went so far as to publicly proclaim “from a medical standpoint … we’ll have a disaster here” that could result in major health problems in coming years.

The prospects looked frightening until you consider this. Crislip drew such conclusions all without ever conducting any sort of testing, and in total disregard of Seeley’s own efforts to have the area analyzed and cleaned up by a professional remediation company.

Crislip’s conclusions also contradict those made by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, which took the time to survey the area for asbestos contamination in the days following the fire. “We don’t believe there is any risk to anyone that’s posed by asbestos contamination at this point,” Christopher Dann, a CDPHE spokesman told reporters.
Still, despite Crislip’s lack of proof and skepticism from state health officials, EPURA chair Wayne Newsom concurred with Crislip’s flawed conclusions, proclaiming that the authority would be essential to help Seeley and other impacted business owners recover from the devastating fire, including the alleged contamination. “If people voted to abandon the authority, I think it will be a certain disadvantage to the town,” Newsom told the Denver Post. “We want to make the area as attractive as possible.”

The timing couldn’t be more convenient for town officials, including Newsom, who face an ongoing citizen-led effort to challenge the EPURA’s power, taxing abilities, and decision making. The next battle will be a January election brought by a coalition of citizen activists, led by Bill Van Horn, Byron Hall, Jon Nicholas, seeking to dismantle the authority entirely.

But just what is attractive to Newsom? And would any redevelopment plans include Seeley?

While Colorado law prevents local governments from condemning property for economic development purposes (meaning they can’t condemn simply to turn the property over to a private developer who could arguably generate more tax revenue through redevelopment), Newsom and his allies would be allowed to condemn under a public health rationale if they can prove that the threat of asbestos contamination is sufficient to warrant forcing Seeley off her property. In the absence of being able to prove such in court, they could still use this threat as a bullying tool to try to obtain the property at pennies on the dollar. And based on their actions thus far, it appears they are using a public health scare for the broader cause of trying to convince voters that continued funding for EPURA is more important than other lagging priorities, including local schools and special districts that rely heavily on property taxes for funding.

The EPURA has long been a source of controversy and litigation. Many voters first became outraged after the town administrator and assistant town administrator helped oppose citizen initiative voting rights on EPURA. Raising tensions further was the revelation that while EPURA has existed for more than a quarter-century, it long ago lost its ability or desire to complete valid public redevelopment projects. It has become a piggy bank for town officials. Of the $50 million in tax revenue EPURA has collected over its lifespan, $32 million has been transferred directly to the Town of Estes Park.

When Van Horn discovered this, he began gathering signatures to abolish the authority. Never one to back down from a fight, the town resisted the petition campaign, claiming that in spite of a state statute providing for the abolishment of urban renewal authorities, taxpayers lacked the authority to dissolve EPURA.

Fortunately, Van Horn prevailed in court. He has many supporters. In September, the Park R-3 School District Board endorsed his initiative effort. School Board Member Mike Miller, who previously served as a Town Trustee, was especially critical in an article that appeared in the Estes Park Trail-Gazette. “They talk about tax revenues, but they never talk about how families (are affected),” he said. “I believe EPURA needs to go away — soon. People that fight citizens coming forth stating their opinions (and then making them go to court) — I abhor those people.”

Even now, officials continue to bully voters. After losing in court, the Town Board scheduled the public vote over whether EPURA should be dissolved for January 12, 2010. Ballots will be mailed the week of Christmas, when voting is the last thing on most voters’ minds. In addition, officials have threatened to challenge election results should voters vote to abolish the authority. This would amount to political suicide, but the Town Board just doesn’t seem to care.

“The Town, seeing its unchecked cash cow, EPURA, on the brink of extinction, has embarrassingly engaged in all sorts of trickery and political shenanigans to justify EPURA’s continued existence,” said Bob Hoban, an attorney for Van Horn and his fellow activists. “Now, to capitalize politically, the town is attempting to use the Estes Park Mall fire as justification for EPURA’s continued existence.”

While Seeley remains determined to rebuild her property — and her life — without the aid of government meddlers, she faces an uphill battle. When government faces its own fight for existence, it will use anything, even taxpayer dollars and despicable political games, to carry on.

Jessica Peck Corry (www.JessicaCorry.com), an attorney and public policy analyst, serves as the director of the Independence Institute’s Property Rights Project.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/estes-park-officials-use_b_338649.html

This column originally ran on The Denver Post’s PoliticsWest.com on October 28, 2009.
http://www.politicswest.com/49093/hes_black_so_what

He’s Black…So What?

By Jessica Peck Corry

Wow. Who knew the rotary club could be so progressive as to elect a black president? This was the breaking news from Tuesday’s Denver Post business section. And yet once again, the real controversy here is that race was thought to be headline-worthy at all.

Time and again, women and racial minorities see their gender or skin color get top billing in news features. This
was the case for Roland Thornton, who saw his impressive business
credentials as a Qwest vice president play second fiddle in an article
announcing his selection as the Denver Rotary’s first black president.

Tuesday’s article, written by David Migoya, and headlined, “Denver’s Rotary picks black president,” proclaimed, “It
has been 62 years since Branch Rickey helped integrate major-league
baseball, but the Denver businessmen’s club that annually honors him
finally broke its own color barrier just in July.”

Color barrier. Really?

The message is clear. It
was ignorance that took the Rotarians so long to see the light. And
they are somehow to blame for having just three black members out of
their total 370. The approach is similar to what
has been seen time and again in Colorado, a state where just 4 percent
of residents are black, and also across the U.S., where just 13 percent
of the population is black.

Take the
achievements of Colorado House Speaker Terrance Carroll and former
Senate President Peter Groff, both black Denver Democrats and both
highly qualified legislators. And yet in the
pomp and circumstance of their selections late last year, you’d thought
the only thing they’d ever achieved was having the good fortune of
being born with a desirable skin color.

Of course,
sometimes race and gender can become newsworthy as a source of irony.
Take, for instance, the decision by members of the feisty Arapahoe
County Republican Men’s Club to elect Mary Wenke as their president. And yet at any given meeting, Wenke is just another one of the guys.

But most of the time, race or gender simply shouldn’t be an issue. A
quick google search of “African-American Firsts” reveals that Beyonce
Knowles was the first black woman to win the American Society of
Composers, Authors and Publishers’ Pop Music Songwriter of the Year
award. Is it newsworthy at all that a
multi-millionaire loved by people of all races and both sexes won yet
another accolade? The answer is a resounding no.

Denzel Washington gets it. As
the second black man to ever win an Academy Award (a fact thoroughly
chronicled on the Internet), he arrived at a post-awards show press
conference in 2001, excited to answer questions about the film and
annoyed by the focus on his race. When asked
about what his award signified in the larger battle for racial
equality, he responded bluntly, explaining that true equality could
only come when the headline on tomorrow’s paper wasn’t certain to lead
with the award winner’s race.

Washington gets it. He wants to be known for his talent and not his skin pigment. So let’s get over it. Let’s start treating women and minorities like the qualified individuals they are.

So what should the Post’s headline have read? It’s quite simple really. “Denver’s Rotary picks Qwest exec as president.”

Progress, indeed.

Jessica Peck Corry (www.JessicaCorry.com) is an attorney and public policy analyst with the Independence Institute.

Reefer sanity: The marijuana lobby goes mainstream

By Kathleen Parker
Wednesday, October 21, 2009

In an act of merciful sanity, the Obama administration has made good on its promise to stop interfering with states that allow the medical use of marijuana.

Clink-clink, hear-hear, salud, cheers, et cetera, et cetera.

The announcement from Attorney General Eric Holder surely comes as a relief to the many who rely on cannabis to ease suffering from various ailments. This new, relaxed approach doesn’t let drug traffickers off the hook. It merely means that 14 states that now provide for some medical marijuana uses no longer need fear federal raids on dispensaries and users operating under state law.

It’s a good move, long overdue. But is it enough? Not quite.

The debate over whether Americans ought to have the right to be stupid — or to make other people seem more interesting — continues apace after 40 years of the (failed) “war on drugs.”

Arguments for and against decriminalization of some or all drugs are familiar by now. Distilled to the basics, the drug war has empowered criminals while criminalizing otherwise law-abiding citizens and wasted billions that could have been better spent on education and rehabilitation.

By ever-greater numbers, Americans support decriminalizing at least marijuana, which millions admit to having used, including a couple of presidents and a Supreme Court justice. A recent Gallup poll found that 44 percent of Americans favor legalization for any purpose, not just medical, up from 31 percent in 2000.

The highest level of support, not surprisingly, is in the Western states and among self-described liberals, with 78 percent of liberals favoring decriminalization. But the shift toward a more sensible national policy is no longer confined to the left. Nor is the long-haired stoner the face of the pro-pot lobby. Today’s activist, more likely, doesn’t have facial hair, but she does have kids.

Lately to the smallish conservative crowd, notably once led by anti-prohibitionist William F. Buckley, is Jessica Corry of Colorado, a married, pro-life Republican mom, soon to be “freedom fighter of the month” in High Times magazine.

Recent partakers undoubtedly will have to rub their eyes for a double take when they spot Corry, who spoke last month at a NORML conference (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) in San Francisco, wearing an American flag lapel pin, a triple strand of pearls and a gold marijuana leaf pin.

Another day, another stereotype in the dust bin.

In addition to writing and speaking to end marijuana prohibition, Corry, who does not smoke pot, is trying to organize Republican women around the cause. So far, she has commitments from 20 fellow Coloradoans, most of them lawyers, like Corry. Her husband, also an attorney, represents medical marijuana users.

Corry’s arguments focus not only on the inhumanity of further punishing sick people who seek relief through pot but also on protecting her children should they decide to try marijuana someday. There’s nothing like imagining one’s own children as “criminals” to put irrational laws in perspective.

Corry is hardly alone and, in fact, may be part of a “toking point.” (Is there a drug yet for “Tipping Point Fatigue”?) In its October issue, Marie Claire magazine featured “Stiletto Stoners,” an article about accomplished career women who prefer to relax with pot. A September Fortune cover story, “Is Pot Already Legal?” examined the issue. In April, the 2006 Miss New Jersey, Georgine DiMaria, outed herself as a stealth marijuana user to treat her asthma.

States’ rights and conservatism are old friends — except when they’re not. While many Republicans nurse a libertarian streak, the party has been selective in its support of federalist principles. George W. Bush’s administration refused to honor states authorizing medical uses of cannabis, for instance, but aimed to return abortion and marriage issues to state jurisdictions.

In a column for the Colorado Daily, Corry argued that conservative principles of smaller government directly conflict with laws that try to control what we put into our bodies. Alcohol and cigarettes — not to mention 700-calorie cheeseburgers — are inarguably more harmful than a little reefer, she wrote.

The decision not to raid dispensaries or punish people who benefit from marijuana use, though commendable, falls short of what’s needed. At the very least, when jobs and cash are in short supply, legalizing marijuana would seem both prudent and profitable.

In 1929, the Women’s Organization for National Prohibition Reform led the movement to end alcohol prohibition. Might women lead the next revolution in personal autonomy?

Keep those flutes and snifters (and bongs?) handy.

kathleenparker@washpost.com

By Jessica Peck Corry

This column originally appeared on The Denver Post’s Politics West site on October 19, 2009

Give credit where credit is due. Spin masters for Colorado’s colleges, together with Gov. Bill Ritter, are attempting to pull off another good one as they declare—yet again—their commitment to responsibly managing taxpayer dollars during these tough economic times. But once again, they are wrong.

Just ask Josh Penry, Colorado’s Senate Republican leader and a contender for the GOP nomination to challenge Ritter in 2010. Penry, a passionate numbers guy who works overtime at the Capitol to review budgets line-by-line, is outraged that Ritter denies responsibility for the 2,071 university employees added to the public checkbook under his watch over the last three years.

The additions, which have expanded university payrolls by more than 10 percent, come at the same time such institutions have pled poverty to justify raising tuition on some students by up to 20 percent in a single year. While Colorado’s universities claim they are limiting current hiring to only essential positions, taxpayers should be extremely skeptical. Today, the average professor spends less than 10 hours a week in the classroom, our campuses are filling up with new non-essential buildings, including art galleries and recreation centers, and one CU chancellor makes nearly $700,000 a year.

So who is really to blame for our current mess of a system?

Ritter conveniently relies on constitutional and statutory language to proclaim the problem out of his hands. In Oct. 18th’s Denver Post reporter Tim Hoover elaborated, citing constitutional language providing that public colleges “shall have the general supervision of their respective institutions and the exclusive control and direction of all funds of and appropriations . . . . unless otherwise provided by law.” State law says cash is given to colleges as a lump sum, with recipients maintaining spending discretion.

But, in fact, legislators have substantial control over wasteful education spending, with universities spending generously to annually fund aggressive state-level lobbying efforts. If Ritter and his fellow Democrats, who now control both houses of the state legislature, have no ability to fight back against questionable campus spending, it’s merely because they’ve delegated power away to our universities.

And in many cases they have. Earlier this year, Democrats shot down Penry’s efforts to fight back against out-of-control university salaries. The proposal, put forth during budget negotiations and based on model legislation put forth by the Independence Institute, sought to require all Colorado’s institutions to cut six-figure salaries by at least five percent. While the proposal could have shaved up to $12 million from CU’s budget, Democrats quickly shot Penry down, saying the proposal would have made Colorado less competitive in hiring top faculty.

But Penry knows better. As he has articulately pointed out, Colorado’s working families, corporations, and small businesses have all had to cut back during these tough times. Our public institutions should be required to do the same. And outside of Colorado, many are.

As the director of the Independence Institute’s Campus Accountability Project, I frequently investigate the relationship between lawmakers and university administrators. And as I concluded in An Academic Arms Raise: The catastrophic rise of taxpayer-funded salaries at the University of Colorado and its peer institutions, I discovered that a five percent cut to six-figure salaries would have been extremely modest compared to those witnessed in other states, where some saw institutions saw salary cuts more than twice as large.

While CU President Bruce Benson voluntarily imposed a five percent salary cut to CU’s highest ranking administrators (saving just $155,000), Democratic leadership refused to demand any real sacrifice by some of the state’s wealthiest public employees. Students paid the price through higher tuition yet again.

But it’s not just Democrats who are to blame. As Hoover pointed out, the state’s three largest college systems are run by Republicans. In addition, Benson has also done some things right. He’s spoken out against “mission creep,” a problem resulting when competing taxpayer-funded campuses, in the effort to become more competitive, unnecessarily duplicate academic programs and student resources provided by other public in-state competitors.

Unfortunately, Benson faces an uphill battle here. CU’s current structure largely denies its president the power to undertake much substantive structural change of any form, with governance split between the president, board of regents, campus chancellors, and faculty. As a result, the system is too often corrupted by faculty members demanding to work less while getting paid more. But just as Benson is largely excluded from dictating limits to in-class speech, professors should also be limited in their ability to demand that universities balance unreasonable economic demands on the backs of tuition-paying families.

Penry is right. While our colleges sing a fine tune of poverty, don’t be fooled. They have plenty of money and legislators have plenty of control. While Ritter and fellow Democrats ran on a platform devoted to empowering working families, their decision to turn a blind eye to fiscal waste means more disadvantaged students will be excluded from the system.

Jessica Peck Corry (www.JessicaCorry.com) serves as the director of the Independence Institute’s Campus Accountability Project.

This column originally appeared on HuffingtonPost.com on October 6, 2009

Ahh, wouldn’t it be nice? When you fail to comply with a law, just rewrite it. This is the strategy of Gov. Bill Ritter, a Colorado Democrat and former elected district attorney, who was questioned publicly this week after failing to enforce a major ethics executive order.

Under the mandate, put into place by previous Gov. Bill Owens, all members of a governor’s cabinet and senior staff must submit annual conflicts of interest reports. This means that at least 30 reports should have been filed nearly three years into Ritter’s tenure. But a little recent digging by the Independence Institute, where I am a policy analyst, has revealed that just one such report was ever filed.

While Ritter’s Agriculture Secretary John Stulp saw fit to play by the rules, no one else in the administration viewed compliance as a priority. Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer declined to return the institute’s repeated requests for comment or explanation. According to insiders, it wasn’t until the Denver Post caught wind of the story, which was first published by the institute late Thursday, that Ritter’s people finally started returning calls.

On Monday’s Mike Rosen radio show, Ritter was forced to address the flap during his monthly appearance there. When Rosen asked why Ritter’s cabinet wasn’t in compliance with the ethics order, one can only imagine how hard Ritter gulped before uttering the following: “Thank you to Jon Caldara and the Independence Institute [for revealing the lapse].” Ritter went on to say that the Owens order was a decade old, and thus needed updating. Ethics can be squirmy like that.

But having spent much of his political career as the enforcer of laws — including outdated laws — Ritter knows better. And as any first-year law school student should be taught, compliance with an executive order is not optional. In fact, such orders — until revoked or amended — carry the full weight of law.

All this begs the question: where is Chantel Taylor of Colorado Ethics Watch? Taylor makes her living blasting out press releases attacking Republican politicos for infractions as small as technical mistakes on campaign finance reports. While Taylor had the time Monday to bash one Republican gubernatorial candidate, she declined to file a complaint against Ritter — a full four days since the institute first broke its discovery.

Taylor, ever eager to jump to the public microphone, is taking an uncharacteristically laid back approach to the situation, telling the Post, “I’m hoping, in light of the exposure to the issue, that this would be quickly and appropriately corrected.” She must have been too busy attacking Republicans to conduct her own investigation. Makes you wonder.

While Ritter’s humble appearance on the Rosen show was a good first step in damage control, his issuance of a new order should not be enough to shut the door on this issue.

In today’s Post coverage, titled “Ritter Staff Skirts Disclosures,” reporter Jessica Fender highlights the fact that the new order will not retroactively cover the last three years of Ritter’s violations, not even with the aid of Ritter’s own spin machine, headed up by spokesman Evan Dreyer, who flippantly referred to the mistake as “an oversight,” and one that had been “remedied” by the new order.

The new order rescinds a section requiring gift disclosures and puts monitoring authority in the hands of the state’s Independent Ethics Commission. Certainly, this is not what voters expected when they past Amendment 41, an aggressive constitutional amendment sold to them as a way to increase transparency in state government.

And voters should not buy the line that Ritter’s lack of compliance was a mere oversight. After all, when new governors take over the reins of the state, it is standard practice to review the previous administration’s orders and kick out the ones deemed politically unpalatable. Ritter did just this, in fact, rescinding several of Owens’ other orders.

This certainly isn’t the first time Ritter has faced flak for ethics issues. Just last month, a Colorado Court of Appeals panel ruled that a campaign finance complaint made by a Republican legislator and against Ritter could move forward. And last fall, Ritter’s administration was put in the hot seat after using state resources to campaign against Amendment 46, a statewide ballot initiative I ran. After Ritter made and sponsored campaign appearances against the measure, his economic development chief Don Elliman conceded to reporters, “We blew it.”

Down the road, there is a larger debate we should have here concerning the value of disclosure requirements. But in the mean time, Ritter should get to work. While he may view compliance with certain laws as optional, the state constitution proves otherwise.

If Ritter really wants to do the right thing — both in terms of the law and in terms of ethics — he should require his staff to supply the reports. And if he doesn’t, we can all only assume he has something to hide.

So, Mr. Governor, where are those reports?

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-corry/after-skirting-ethics-rul_b_311736.html?view=print

Westword: Legalizing marijuana — medical or otherwise — has become the toke of the town

September 29, 2009

Rob and Jessica Corry aren’t normal Republicans, but the Corrys did spend time last weekend as NORML Republicans at the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws’s 38th annual conference in San Francisco. Rob, a Denver attorney who specializes in marijuana cases, and Jessica, a public-policy analyst with the right-wing Independence Institute, were there to encourage other Republicans to end the laws that make marijuana illegal and to discuss pot, parenting and morals in general. The couple (who have also been blogging on the subject for the Denver incarnation of the liberal Huffington Post website) say there’s nothing more immoral than bankrupting their children’s future by spending billions of dollars on the war on drugs, and Jessica, who’s never shied away from a controversial topic, notes that she’s received more response to her pro-marijuana mom stance than any other.

NORML advocates believe the current recession and changing attitudes toward marijuana — medical or otherwise — have created a political climate that may allow politicians on either side of the aisle to get behind pot reform laws. After all, retired Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo, Texas congressman Ron Paul and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson all are on record as endorsing the legalization of pot. And Boulder District Attorney Stan Garnett has also been edging in that direction. As the Democrat told Westword last week, “Legalizing marijuana entirely would be the simplest way to resolve the tension between the Constitution and the criminal statutes and I expect that, eventually, most states will decide to do so.” (See the Latest Word blog for more of that interview.)

Here in Colorado, the medical-marijuana industry has been growing like crazy, and while some dispensaries resemble swanky bars or sterile dentist offices, others feel like a dope dealer’s college dorm room. To help keep them straight, Westword has been reviewing a dispensary a week in “Mile Highs and Lows.” Here’s an excerpt from our online review of Patients Choice of Colorado: “An über-professional tour guide covers the Patients Choice’s considerable rules, such as no smoking (of any substance) on the premises, limiting patients to at most six ounces of pot a month and requiring a state-issued medical marijuana ID to get in the door, not just a doctor’s recommendation for the ID, like many dispensaries will accept. (The place sticks by its rules: A manager was overheard reaming out an employee for letting in a customer whose state ID had expired five days earlier.) The dispensary also asks patients to inform them of any food allergies, so that one of the owners, a culinary school graduate, can take these issues into account in his edible marijuana concoctions.”

But we’re not bogarting that joint. In fact, we’re looking for a new dispensary reviewer. To find out if you qualify, go to the Latest Word.

Health Care ‘Refugees’
by Jessica Peck Corry

This column originally appeared at www.HumanEvents.com on October 1, 2009

Sometimes, patriotism can be awkward. Especially when it means admitting to an international TV audience that your nation’s broken health care system forced you onto welfare, into adult diapers, and hobbling with a walker. And all before the age of 30.

Embarrassing perhaps, but for Canadian Lin Gilbert, the time had come to share her story publicly this week. Especially after her 15-year-old son was recently diagnosed with the same health condition leading to her suffering. “As a parent, I will do anything to help him. I will borrow the money, I will do whatever it takes,” she said. “If the Canadian system can’t take care of him, I’ll find a way.”

Specifically, Gilbert wants to prevent her son from enduring the agony of government waiting lists she has known all too well. After first encountering excruciating back pain in 2001, she was forced to wait six months for an MRI. Nearly three more years passed before she made it to the top of a waiting list for spinal fusion surgery. Even then, she recalls, one surgeon refused to operate because she “hadn’t suffered enough.” Another, however, saw things differently, lobbying for Gilbert to get the procedure and successfully performing it himself.

At 38, Gilbert is now off public assistance, owns her home, and manages a financial services business. Life is good, though she still suffers immense guilt from memories of being “an absent mother,” agonized by being unable to play with her kids, and struggling to remain coherent as she downed morphine to drown the pain.

Fortunately, Gilbert’s son faces better prospects. Enter Rick Baker, a Canadian determined to improve health care in his country. Baker joined Gilbert Monday at a Vancouver hotel to speak with American reporters as part of a health care dialogue organized by the Colorado-based Independence Institute, a free market think tank where I am a public policy analyst.

Baker began by offering a blunt disclosure. “I make my living sending patients to the U.S.,” he said. “This is medical tourism, but instead of sending someone to Thailand, we’re sending them to Delaware.”

Through an innovative partnership with 22 independent American surgery centers and doctors in 13 states, Baker and his American counterparts transport Canadians to the U.S. for timely care at cost savings up to 80 percent. The partnership operates largely outside the traditional health insurance system. And this isn’t just about helping Canadians. Baker now also provides a similar state-to-state service for Americans seeking more affordable or timely care.

Under Canada’s controversial federal health legislation, surgeons are prohibited from charging patients to provide “medically necessary” treatment. In addition, they are limited to performing surgeries to six hours a week. Gilbert recalled one surgeon telling her, “I spend six hours in surgery each week, less time than I spend explaining to sick patients why I can’t perform theirs.”

Currently, Baker is involved an Ontario lawsuit that could effectively eliminate such limits. “The Canada Health Act is responsible for more pain, more suffering, and more death than any other piece of domestic legislation in history,” he said. “Imagine a law that prevents you from taking care of yourself and preventing your own death.”

The Vancouver gathering came as President Barack Obama continues his push to radically expand the role of government in administering American health care. But participants weren’t just focused on bashing Canada as a role model. It was also about explaining that America’s health care woes don’t come from an absence of government, but rather too much government and not enough consumer choice.

“The Canadian system is a Ponzi scheme is that is just a little further along ours,” explained Dr. Keith Smith, an Oklahoma anesthesiologist who partners with Baker and manages his own outpatient surgery center. Baker believes real change will come only when patients are given the incentive to help control costs, freed from being forced to blindly abide by the decisions of insurance companies.

To attract patients, Smith lists the costs of all packaged surgery services on his center’s Web site, adding that if the center’s costs rise above the figures provided, patients aren’t required to pay more. “If we are wrong, we eat it.”

Smith hopes the model catches on. “It’s radical. But when people go to our competitor across town and pay $21,000 [for a procedure], and then find out we could have done it for a fifth of that, they start to ask a lot of questions, starting with ‘why didn’t my insurance company go there?’”

Smith says insurance companies opt to pay more at hospitals because of a “cartel” where both inflate the total costs of services as a way to increase profit. Smith’s approach, meanwhile, also includes a commitment to not accepting any federal funding, standing in stark contrast to the position espoused by the American Medical Association, which recently endorsed Obama’s plan. Smith was unsympathetic. “The reason the AMA is endorsing this plan is that 90 percent of its funding comes from the federal government,” he said. “Less than 15 percent of AMA’s budget comes from physician dues, so they are seen largely as irrelevant.”

Hospital lobbyists argue that surgery centers like Smith’s are given an unfair advantage in that unlike traditional hospitals, they are not required to take every patient coming to their door. But Smith rejects this, saying hospitals often exaggerate costs associated with treating uninsured patients as a way to gain political sympathy and more public funding. “They love to see the uninsured person come through the door,” he said. “They run a bunch of tests and say it cost them $80,000. Meanwhile, it probably really cost $1000.” And while Smith’s center is taxed, his “not-for-profit” hospital competitors are not, a distinction Smith says helped net those in his city net up to $100 million in profit last year.

Despite the intense political opposition they face, Smith and Baker are soldiering on, building a new system that is transforming lives one at a time. “I know it sounds a bit naive, but it’s true that reform is as simple as charging less for the delivery of health care,” Baker said.

Imagine that.

Jessica Peck Corry (Jessica@i2i.org) is a policy analyst with the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo., where she specializes in land use, higher education, and civil rights policy.