Prop 106 Arizona healthcare choice wins!

[Navy1960]

An Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, also known as Proposition 106, or HCR 2014, will be on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. State legislators in both the Arizona State Senate and Arizona House of Representatives voted to put the measure before the state's voters. The proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution was sponsored by state representative Nancy Barto.[1][2]
Proposition 106 would amend the Arizona Constitution by barring any rules or regulations that would force state residents to participate in a health-care system. The proposed amendment would also ensure that individuals would have the right to pay for private health insurance
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...rance_Reform_Amendment,_Proposition_106_(2010)

While I was confident that this would pass and did see that other measures like this passed around the country, it's my opinion that this law sets up a conflict with existing Federal Law in the healthcare bill. So the Federal Govt. will choose to do one of two things, one is they will seek to have this tossed out in court, or simply choose not to enforce it here in Arizona. Frankly, given the current Administrations love for taking our state to court these day's, I'm sure that this one will soon find it's way into the courts as well. However, I am glad to see that the question will soon be answered one way or the other.

 

[WillowTree]

Just a thought dear Navy. Did you notice that the hispanics who won elections on Nov. 2nd were Republicans?

 

[California Girl]

An Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, also known as Proposition 106, or HCR 2014, will be on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. State legislators in both the Arizona State Senate and Arizona House of Representatives voted to put the measure before the state's voters. The proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution was sponsored by state representative Nancy Barto.[1][2]
Proposition 106 would amend the Arizona Constitution by barring any rules or regulations that would force state residents to participate in a health-care system. The proposed amendment would also ensure that individuals would have the right to pay for private health insurance
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...rance_Reform_Amendment,_Proposition_106_(2010)

While I was confident that this would pass and did see that other measures like this passed around the country, it's my opinion that this law sets up a conflict with existing Federal Law in the healthcare bill. So the Federal Govt. will choose to do one of two things, one is they will seek to have this tossed out in court, or simply choose not to enforce it here in Arizona. Frankly, given the current Administrations love for taking our state to court these day's, I'm sure that this one will soon find it's way into the courts as well. However, I am glad to see that the question will soon be answered one way or the other.

At least you can be proud of your state for taking a stand. Look at the embarrassing mess that mine's in. Be glad you live in a state that values its rights.

 

[Navy1960]

Just a thought dear Navy. Did you notice that the hispanics who won elections on Nov. 2nd were Republicans?

You know I did happen to notice that and I will tell you this, I'm very impressed with the new Gov. from New Mexico, she seem to be quite on the ball , I have to admit I don't know a lot about Marco Rubio, other than seeing him speak. However based on the size of his win, it does appear he ran a good campaign and is very popular. Personally here, I would have liked to have seen John McCain retire , while yes he is a fellow Navy man I think it's time he stepped aside and let some younger people take up the task. I wasn't much worried about many of the races here as they all seemed to be decided a while back. Our biggest problem here at the moment like many other places is the economy as we have a big housing crisis going on and honestly, anyone who addresses that would be very much appreciated Democrat, Republican , or otherwise.

 

[Navy1960]

An Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, also known as Proposition 106, or HCR 2014, will be on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. State legislators in both the Arizona State Senate and Arizona House of Representatives voted to put the measure before the state's voters. The proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution was sponsored by state representative Nancy Barto.[1][2]
Proposition 106 would amend the Arizona Constitution by barring any rules or regulations that would force state residents to participate in a health-care system. The proposed amendment would also ensure that individuals would have the right to pay for private health insurance
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...rance_Reform_Amendment,_Proposition_106_(2010)

While I was confident that this would pass and did see that other measures like this passed around the country, it's my opinion that this law sets up a conflict with existing Federal Law in the healthcare bill. So the Federal Govt. will choose to do one of two things, one is they will seek to have this tossed out in court, or simply choose not to enforce it here in Arizona. Frankly, given the current Administrations love for taking our state to court these day's, I'm sure that this one will soon find it's way into the courts as well. However, I am glad to see that the question will soon be answered one way or the other.

At least you can be proud of your state for taking a stand. Look at the embarrassing mess that mine's in. Be glad you live in a state that values its rights.

Cali, Arizona has quite the history of standing up to the Federal Govt. on issues, one need look no further than the water wars that have been going on for years here out west to understand that. Often times though , we tend to shoot ourselves in the foot here by not communicating issues as they should be. Take for instance the immigration issue, while illegal immigration is a crime, many have failed to get the point that , for the most part the very people who are comming to the United States to seek a better life are often times treated like slaves when they get here, or abused by those who want nothing more than to use them. What I have always failed to understand is, especially by those who oppose a immigration system that is not only fair, but also one that seeks to enforce the law is how they square that with the treatment those they are supposed to be supporting are getting. To me at least it's a failure on the part of our state officials to properly comunicate that and advocate for a fair system that seeks to stop that sort of thing. In the healthcare issue, it's just a matter or personal freedom and I for one hope that the courts will see it that way.

 

[Zander]

I think we'll see a lot more of this type of legislation until we can unwind Obamacare.....

 

[Navy1960]

I'm not 100% sure but am told that Ok. passed a similar measure last night as well. If someone has information on the Ok. law by all means post it.

 

[auditor0007]

I'm curious, does Prop 106 allow insurance companies to deny coverage to anyone who might be a risk or do they have to offer insurance to everyone? And if it requires them to offer insurance to everyone, can the insurance companies then make it completely unaffordable to those with pre-existing conditions by charging four or five times the rate charged to someone without a pre-existing condition? I'm just curious who gets to keep their option of choice here. Is it everyone or just those who are not a risk?

 

[Navy1960]

I'm curious, does Prop 106 allow insurance companies to deny coverage to anyone who might be a risk or do they have to offer insurance to everyone? And if it requires them to offer insurance to everyone, can the insurance companies then make it completely unaffordable to those with pre-existing conditions by charging four or five times the rate charged to someone without a pre-existing condition? I'm just curious who gets to keep their option of choice here. Is it everyone or just those who are not a risk?

The law is clearley aimed at the section of the healthcare bill that requires a person purchase healthcare insurance. It leaves the choice to particpate in those plans up to the individual. The regulation that points to pre-existing condition would still apply to those that that choose an insurance company. As for afforadablility and price regulation, again that is a seperate matter from what this bill addresses which is the choice to participate or not. It applies to everyone, if someone had a pre-existing condition then they can choose to participate or not just like someone who does not have one under this law.

 

[auditor0007]

I'm curious, does Prop 106 allow insurance companies to deny coverage to anyone who might be a risk or do they have to offer insurance to everyone? And if it requires them to offer insurance to everyone, can the insurance companies then make it completely unaffordable to those with pre-existing conditions by charging four or five times the rate charged to someone without a pre-existing condition? I'm just curious who gets to keep their option of choice here. Is it everyone or just those who are not a risk?

The law is clearley aimed at the section of the healthcare bill that requires a person purchase healthcare insurance. It leaves the choice to particpate in those plans up to the individual. The regulation that points to pre-existing condition would still apply to those that that choose an insurance company. As for afforadablility and price regulation, again that is a seperate matter from what this bill addresses which is the choice to participate or not. It applies to everyone, if someone had a pre-existing condition then they can choose to participate or not just like someone who does not have one under this law.

Do you think doctors and hospitals should be required to provide medical care to a person who chooses not to purchase insurance when they have the means to do so?

 

[Navy1960]

I'm curious, does Prop 106 allow insurance companies to deny coverage to anyone who might be a risk or do they have to offer insurance to everyone? And if it requires them to offer insurance to everyone, can the insurance companies then make it completely unaffordable to those with pre-existing conditions by charging four or five times the rate charged to someone without a pre-existing condition? I'm just curious who gets to keep their option of choice here. Is it everyone or just those who are not a risk?

The law is clearley aimed at the section of the healthcare bill that requires a person purchase healthcare insurance. It leaves the choice to particpate in those plans up to the individual. The regulation that points to pre-existing condition would still apply to those that that choose an insurance company. As for afforadablility and price regulation, again that is a seperate matter from what this bill addresses which is the choice to participate or not. It applies to everyone, if someone had a pre-existing condition then they can choose to participate or not just like someone who does not have one under this law.

Do you think doctors and hospitals should be required to provide medical care to a person who chooses not to purchase insurance when they have the means to do so?

Short answer, if a person chooses not purchase healthcare and requires catastrophic care for some reason or the other then yes they should be treated at their own expense. If they do not have the ability to pay for it all up front then they should be held liable for the costs, because that is choice they made. However, I do not think that hospitals should be allowed to turn anyone away due to lack of coverage. If your going to say, that the reason thats in the law is because these emergency room visits drive up the costs of healthcare, then frankly I will respond with this, in a free society such as ours , choice is not something you can mandate on a person simply because you believe that a choice they may make later on, might impact you financially. If that were the case, you could then make the argument that because a person made the choice not to purchase a GM car and decided instead to buy a toyota made in Japan and cause American workers to be laid off they should therefor be mandated to purchase a GM. If you want to really reform costs, make healthcare insurance affordable for the average person and there are many ways to do that other than mandating someone purcahse it through and already over-burdended and broken system.

 

[TossObama]

Health care does not have to be this horrific expensive mess. Have any of you taken the time to look at where all the money goes in hospitals, including your County Hospitals?

You might want to do that.

You are also advised to have an urp bag nearby when you do your research.

 

[auditor0007]

The law is clearley aimed at the section of the healthcare bill that requires a person purchase healthcare insurance. It leaves the choice to particpate in those plans up to the individual. The regulation that points to pre-existing condition would still apply to those that that choose an insurance company. As for afforadablility and price regulation, again that is a seperate matter from what this bill addresses which is the choice to participate or not. It applies to everyone, if someone had a pre-existing condition then they can choose to participate or not just like someone who does not have one under this law.

Do you think doctors and hospitals should be required to provide medical care to a person who chooses not to purchase insurance when they have the means to do so?

Short answer, if a person chooses not purchase healthcare and requires catastrophic care for some reason or the other then yes they should be treated at their own expense. If they do not have the ability to pay for it all up front then they should be held liable for the costs, because that is choice they made. However, I do not think that hospitals should be allowed to turn anyone away due to lack of coverage. If your going to say, that the reason thats in the law is because these emergency room visits drive up the costs of healthcare, then frankly I will respond with this, in a free society such as ours , choice is not something you can mandate on a person simply because you believe that a choice they may make later on, might impact you financially. If that were the case, you could then make the argument that because a person made the choice not to purchase a GM car and decided instead to buy a toyota made in Japan and cause American workers to be laid off they should therefor be mandated to purchase a GM. If you want to really reform costs, make healthcare insurance affordable for the average person and there are many ways to do that other than mandating someone purcahse it through and already over-burdended and broken system.

The problem is that the uninsured individual never pays his/her medical bills. They file for bankruptcy and the hospital writes off the loss. It happens all the time. I think it should be simple. If people don't want to purchase health insurance, then let them opt out with the stipulation that they must have the means to pay in order to receive treatment.

This would satisfy those who believe they shouldn't be forced to buy something they don't want, and it would protect those who do pay from also having to subsidize those who choose not to.

 

[Revere]

Do you think doctors and hospitals should be required to provide medical care to a person who chooses not to purchase insurance when they have the means to do so?

Short answer, if a person chooses not purchase healthcare and requires catastrophic care for some reason or the other then yes they should be treated at their own expense. If they do not have the ability to pay for it all up front then they should be held liable for the costs, because that is choice they made. However, I do not think that hospitals should be allowed to turn anyone away due to lack of coverage. If your going to say, that the reason thats in the law is because these emergency room visits drive up the costs of healthcare, then frankly I will respond with this, in a free society such as ours , choice is not something you can mandate on a person simply because you believe that a choice they may make later on, might impact you financially. If that were the case, you could then make the argument that because a person made the choice not to purchase a GM car and decided instead to buy a toyota made in Japan and cause American workers to be laid off they should therefor be mandated to purchase a GM. If you want to really reform costs, make healthcare insurance affordable for the average person and there are many ways to do that other than mandating someone purcahse it through and already over-burdended and broken system.

The problem is that the uninsured individual never pays his/her medical bills. They file for bankruptcy and the hospital writes off the loss. It happens all the time. I think it should be simple. If people don't want to purchase health insurance, then let them opt out with the stipulation that they must have the means to pay in order to receive treatment.

This would satisfy those who believe they shouldn't be forced to buy something they don't want, and it would protect those who do pay from also having to subsidize those who choose not to.

No, it still means you have to forced to buy something you don't want, a policy, a bond, or show some means you will let someone else put a claim on.

People without insurance get health care. It's not perfect, but it doesn't warrant massive disruption of a health insurance system that works fine for 85% of Americans for a handful of outliers.

 

[auditor0007]

Health care does not have to be this horrific expensive mess. Have any of you taken the time to look at where all the money goes in hospitals, including your County Hospitals?

You might want to do that.

You are also advised to have an urp bag nearby when you do your research.

Hospitals know they don't need to be competive because they know the insurance companies will see to it that they get paid, no matter what the cost. Yes, they play this stupid game where the hospital overcharges and the insurance companies only pay a percentage based on a fee scale, but the hospitals know they are getting pretty much what they ask for regardless. And the insurance companies are happy to oblige, because the more they have to pay, the more they need to charge for premiums, which in turn increases their profits. While insurance company margins remain low, the sheer volume leads to huge profits even at low margins.

The main cause of this is that health insurance is not actually insurance in the usual sense. It used to be that health insurance covered major medical, so if you became really sick, you were covered. However, normal routine medical care was paid out of pocket. This kept costs for most medical care reasonable as providers had to stay competive. Today, with most employers providing health insurance, everything is covered. Patients go wherever their insurance company tells them to go, regardless of the cost, because the insurance company covers it. If an individual has a higher deductible, it still goes through the insurance as the deductible must be accounted for, so even the most basic services are overpriced.

While I am all for mandatory insurance, I think it should only be mandatory to purchase catastrophic insurance, which would be much cheaper than these plans that cover everything. We need to force providers to become competetive again, and the only way to do that is to change the way insurance is packaged.

 

[theHawk]

Do you think doctors and hospitals should be required to provide medical care to a person who chooses not to purchase insurance when they have the means to do so?

Short answer, if a person chooses not purchase healthcare and requires catastrophic care for some reason or the other then yes they should be treated at their own expense. If they do not have the ability to pay for it all up front then they should be held liable for the costs, because that is choice they made. However, I do not think that hospitals should be allowed to turn anyone away due to lack of coverage. If your going to say, that the reason thats in the law is because these emergency room visits drive up the costs of healthcare, then frankly I will respond with this, in a free society such as ours , choice is not something you can mandate on a person simply because you believe that a choice they may make later on, might impact you financially. If that were the case, you could then make the argument that because a person made the choice not to purchase a GM car and decided instead to buy a toyota made in Japan and cause American workers to be laid off they should therefor be mandated to purchase a GM. If you want to really reform costs, make healthcare insurance affordable for the average person and there are many ways to do that other than mandating someone purcahse it through and already over-burdended and broken system.

The problem is that the uninsured individual never pays his/her medical bills. They file for bankruptcy and the hospital writes off the loss. It happens all the time. I think it should be simple. If people don't want to purchase health insurance, then let them opt out with the stipulation that they must have the means to pay in order to receive treatment.

This would satisfy those who believe they shouldn't be forced to buy something they don't want, and it would protect those who do pay from also having to subsidize those who choose not to.

Which is exactly why bankruptcy laws should be changed. I never understood how people can run up huge debts, then just declare bankruptcy and have a clean slate. People need to be held accountable for their idiotic financial mistakes in life, and not have everyone else pay for them.

 

[Navy1960]

Do you think doctors and hospitals should be required to provide medical care to a person who chooses not to purchase insurance when they have the means to do so?

Short answer, if a person chooses not purchase healthcare and requires catastrophic care for some reason or the other then yes they should be treated at their own expense. If they do not have the ability to pay for it all up front then they should be held liable for the costs, because that is choice they made. However, I do not think that hospitals should be allowed to turn anyone away due to lack of coverage. If your going to say, that the reason thats in the law is because these emergency room visits drive up the costs of healthcare, then frankly I will respond with this, in a free society such as ours , choice is not something you can mandate on a person simply because you believe that a choice they may make later on, might impact you financially. If that were the case, you could then make the argument that because a person made the choice not to purchase a GM car and decided instead to buy a toyota made in Japan and cause American workers to be laid off they should therefor be mandated to purchase a GM. If you want to really reform costs, make healthcare insurance affordable for the average person and there are many ways to do that other than mandating someone purcahse it through and already over-burdended and broken system.

The problem is that the uninsured individual never pays his/her medical bills. They file for bankruptcy and the hospital writes off the loss. It happens all the time. I think it should be simple. If people don't want to purchase health insurance, then let them opt out with the stipulation that they must have the means to pay in order to receive treatment.

This would satisfy those who believe they shouldn't be forced to buy something they don't want, and it would protect those who do pay from also having to subsidize those who choose not to.

Let's forget for a moment that there is nothing in the constitution that gives congress the power to mandate the purchase of a good or service from a private entity, the fact is that the vast majority of Americans are already insured and those that are not and are using the medical system and driving the costs up is the same as it is in every single business that has to offset losses thru price increases. However, if someone does not have the abilith to pay or refuses to pay for health insurance then they will not be refused treatment in an ER and as such they are also in turn convered in some form or another and that converage or loss is offset by the higher premiums, if you don't want to pay those, then you can switch that to high taxes, because you will be accomplishing the same task in name only. The real solution is to offer coverage at affordable prices to low income Americans such that it is affordable and regulate the prices of that low income coveraage rather than mandate Amercians purcahse a good or service which the Federal Govt. has no power under the constitution to do.

 

[auditor0007]

Short answer, if a person chooses not purchase healthcare and requires catastrophic care for some reason or the other then yes they should be treated at their own expense. If they do not have the ability to pay for it all up front then they should be held liable for the costs, because that is choice they made. However, I do not think that hospitals should be allowed to turn anyone away due to lack of coverage. If your going to say, that the reason thats in the law is because these emergency room visits drive up the costs of healthcare, then frankly I will respond with this, in a free society such as ours , choice is not something you can mandate on a person simply because you believe that a choice they may make later on, might impact you financially. If that were the case, you could then make the argument that because a person made the choice not to purchase a GM car and decided instead to buy a toyota made in Japan and cause American workers to be laid off they should therefor be mandated to purchase a GM. If you want to really reform costs, make healthcare insurance affordable for the average person and there are many ways to do that other than mandating someone purcahse it through and already over-burdended and broken system.

The problem is that the uninsured individual never pays his/her medical bills. They file for bankruptcy and the hospital writes off the loss. It happens all the time. I think it should be simple. If people don't want to purchase health insurance, then let them opt out with the stipulation that they must have the means to pay in order to receive treatment.

This would satisfy those who believe they shouldn't be forced to buy something they don't want, and it would protect those who do pay from also having to subsidize those who choose not to.

No, it still means you have to forced to buy something you don't want, a policy, a bond, or show some means you will let someone else put a claim on.

People without insurance get health care. It's not perfect, but it doesn't warrant massive disruption of a health insurance system that works fine for 85% of Americans for a handful of outliers.

It doesn't work fine for 85% of Americans, unless you believe that a total cost of over $650,000 per person over their lifetime is working fine. The cost is killing businesses in the US and making it much more difficult to compete with companies in countries throughout the world where they don't have this expense.

If we told every person 18 and over that they need to start making payments on their $650,000 medical bill immediately, you would see how well our system is working. Medical costs are hidden from most Americans because very few pay them directly. They are spread through insurance that is paid by employers and taxes paid to the government. If every American had to be responsible for their own healthcare, you would see drastic changes, because the cost is beyond absurd.

 

[Sarah G]

An Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, also known as Proposition 106, or HCR 2014, will be on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. State legislators in both the Arizona State Senate and Arizona House of Representatives voted to put the measure before the state's voters. The proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution was sponsored by state representative Nancy Barto.[1][2]
Proposition 106 would amend the Arizona Constitution by barring any rules or regulations that would force state residents to participate in a health-care system. The proposed amendment would also ensure that individuals would have the right to pay for private health insurance
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...rance_Reform_Amendment,_Proposition_106_(2010)

While I was confident that this would pass and did see that other measures like this passed around the country, it's my opinion that this law sets up a conflict with existing Federal Law in the healthcare bill. So the Federal Govt. will choose to do one of two things, one is they will seek to have this tossed out in court, or simply choose not to enforce it here in Arizona. Frankly, given the current Administrations love for taking our state to court these day's, I'm sure that this one will soon find it's way into the courts as well. However, I am glad to see that the question will soon be answered one way or the other.

You already get your insurance through private insurance companies. Those companies now have to abide by certain rules such as:

Insurers will no longer be able to cancel your policy because you made a minor mistake on an application.

Insurance firms will no longer be able to place lifetime dollar limits on your benefits that result in people losing insurance when they need it most — in the middle of a crisis.

In many cases, insurers will no longer be able to refuse to sell you a policy to cover your child because she was born with asthma or some other pre-existing medical condition.

Insurance companies, in many cases, will no longer be allowed to refuse to pay a doctor or hospital bill without giving you the chance to appeal to a group of outside experts.

Not certain why Republicans are making it job 1 to repeal.

So. AZ, go ahead and do your own thing, you could all along. Sheesh.

 

[Navy1960]

An Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, also known as Proposition 106, or HCR 2014, will be on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. State legislators in both the Arizona State Senate and Arizona House of Representatives voted to put the measure before the state's voters. The proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution was sponsored by state representative Nancy Barto.[1][2]
Proposition 106 would amend the Arizona Constitution by barring any rules or regulations that would force state residents to participate in a health-care system. The proposed amendment would also ensure that individuals would have the right to pay for private health insurance
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...rance_Reform_Amendment,_Proposition_106_(2010)

While I was confident that this would pass and did see that other measures like this passed around the country, it's my opinion that this law sets up a conflict with existing Federal Law in the healthcare bill. So the Federal Govt. will choose to do one of two things, one is they will seek to have this tossed out in court, or simply choose not to enforce it here in Arizona. Frankly, given the current Administrations love for taking our state to court these day's, I'm sure that this one will soon find it's way into the courts as well. However, I am glad to see that the question will soon be answered one way or the other.

You already get your insurance through private insurance companies. Those companies now have to abide by certain rules such as:

Insurers will no longer be able to cancel your policy because you made a minor mistake on an application.

Insurance firms will no longer be able to place lifetime dollar limits on your benefits that result in people losing insurance when they need it most — in the middle of a crisis.

In many cases, insurers will no longer be able to refuse to sell you a policy to cover your child because she was born with asthma or some other pre-existing medical condition.

Insurance companies, in many cases, will no longer be allowed to refuse to pay a doctor or hospital bill without giving you the chance to appeal to a group of outside experts.

Not certain why Republicans are making it job 1 to repeal.

So. AZ, go ahead and do your own thing, you could all along. Sheesh.

As I said Sarah, the Arizona Bill is specific to the "individual mandate" provision" in the new healthcare bill. The provisions dealing with pre-existing conditions as well as those that regualte the health insurance industry itself are not addressed in this bill. In fact all of those provisions would remain in place should someone make the choice to engage in the purchase of health insurance. In fact I will also say this, you will have a hard time finding many who would disagree that covering those with pre-existing condition is a bad thing, and if just those provisions had been part of the healthcare bill it would have passed with little if any fanfare and with wide bi-partisan support.