What Arizona proposes about Universal Health Care.

[Navy1960]

navy,

obama's plan is not a universal plan,

nor is mccain's

so there is nothing to be concerned with on your state's part....

seems to me, you should consider that it was put on the ballot to draw republicans to the voting booth...this is a COMMON tactic and is used quite a bit....like getting a proposition vote to ban gay marriage on the ballot....

it only stops your state from participating in a universal plan if the feds ever inacted one, BUT it does NOT stop the feds from creating one, NOR does it stop the feds from taking your citizens income tax monies to spend on it....

it's a lose, lose -proposition put there ONLY to rally voters enough to bring them to the polls imo.

i could be viewing this thru partisan colored glasses, but i don't think so?

care

Now I have not spent a lot of time on this Care but is not Obama mandating coverage of all kids below the age of 18? If this is not true them forgive me, it's been a while since I looked at his healthcare plan. While thats a noble Idea, I must admit, I like the idea of my state allowing people freedom of choice in healthcare. As for the Gay Marriage there is one on the ballot actually .
Arizona Proposition 102 is a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Arizona defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Along with similar measures in California and Florida, Proposition 102 will be decided by voters in the general election on November 4th, 2008.

Arizona Proposition 102 (2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Now I don't mean to come off as this uncaring person that people should not have healthcare, my feeling is that mandated healthcare is never a good idea. I have often wondered of the 47 Million Americans without healthcare, how many of them can actually afford health insurance, but just choose not to buy it?

 

[Care4all]

Now I have not spent a lot of time on this Care but is not Obama mandating coverage of all kids below the age of 18? If this is not true them forgive me, it's been a while since I looked at his healthcare plan. While thats a noble Idea, I must admit, I like the idea of my state allowing people freedom of choice in healthcare. As for the Gay Marriage there is one on the ballot actually .
Arizona Proposition 102 is a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Arizona defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Along with similar measures in California and Florida, Proposition 102 will be decided by voters in the general election on November 4th, 2008.

Arizona Proposition 102 (2008 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Now I don't mean to come off as this uncaring person that people should not have healthcare, my feeling is that mandated healthcare is never a good idea. I have often wondered of the 47 Million Americans without healthcare, how many of them can actually afford health insurance, but just choose not to buy it?

didn't the new SCHIP bill that congress passed already cover all children up to 18? regardless, would your state stop SCHIP as it is now....?

obama's plan otherwise is about choice, no mandates...

choice to pick your own insurance plan, even picking any of the healthcare plans that the Congress has....

this would not be covered by your state's proposition in my opinion....the proposition is hot air, and would not prevent a thing with obama's or with mccain's plans....not that i can see, unless you stop SCHIP provisions?

care

 

[Navy1960]

didn't the new SCHIP bill that congress passed already cover all children up to 18? regardless, would your state stop SCHIP as it is now....?

obama's plan otherwise is about choice, no mandates...

choice to pick your own insurance plan, even picking any of the healthcare plans that the Congress has....

this would not be covered by your state's proposition in my opinion....the proposition is hot air, and would not prevent a thing with obama's or with mccain's plans....not that i can see, unless you stop SCHIP provisions?

care

Then I see no issues with its passage to be quite honest Care from a mandated healthcare standpoint. I see this proposition as allowing people a freedom in our state like any other, especially when it comes to healthcare. So if Obama's plan had no mandates on employer's or indivuals to have or keep healthcare then this prop. should not be an issue with Obama supporters. In fact IMHO they should be supporting it as it enforces something very basic and thats freedom of choice, which in this case is healthcare.

 

[N4mddissent]

AN INITIATIVE MEASURE

PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE II OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION BY ADDING SECTION 36 OF ARTICLE II; RELATING TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN HEALTH CARE.

Be it enacted by the People of Arizona:

1. Article II, Section 36: Constitution of Arizona is proposed to be added as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:

ARTICLE II, SECTION 36. BECAUSE ALL PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR HEALTH CARE, NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED THAT RESTRICTS A PERSON’S FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS OR PRIVATE PLANS OF ANY TYPE. NO LAW SHALL INTERFERE WITH A PERSON’S OR ENTITY’S RIGHT TO PAY DIRECTLY FOR LAWFUL MEDICAL SERVICES, NOR SHALL ANY LAW IMPOSE A PENALTY OR FINE, OF ANY TYPE, FOR CHOOSING TO OBTAIN OR DECLINE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE OR FOR PARTICIPATION IN ANY PARTICULAR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM OR PLAN.

2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by Article XXI, of the Constitution of Arizona.



Download our PDF version here



Thats the ballot measure Red, as I said there is nothing in there that would stop a person that is getting health benefits from continuing to do so.

Here's a thought about this sort of legislation. It's always going to be viewed favorably in the U.S. I imagine to promote anything giving you more choices, more freedom to decide for yourself. Do you think sometimes we get duped into the illusion of choice? I mean, in the current system most who have healthcare get it through their employer. Now they certainly have the freedom to go get private insurance, but that doesn't mean it's a choice. It's usually much more expensive than that available through your employer, and for many is probably out of their financial reach. So their only reasonable option is continue using their employer subsidized insurance. But, in that case, you have to take whichever plans the employer offers. They are subject to change every year, both in cost and coverage. And because of the high cost of private, you just have to take the changes or have nothing at all. Yet, technically there is freedom of choice for everyone. Just not practical freedom.

Also keep in mind one other thing about healthcare and it's much bigger than most people realize. I've heard many conservatives make the argument when discussing tax policy that increased tax on the wealthy doesn't help because they just pass the tax on. Similar things happen in medicine, but it's the opposite direction of flow. Every single person who pays for insurance here is paying for everyone who isn't insured.

It's a feedback loop. Legally, no hospital can refuse emergency medical service. People without health insurance cannot afford treatment for serious conditions, and some cannot even afford simple office visits which are very expensive for the uninsured. When they get very ill, the only way for them to get the medical treatment they need is to go to the emergency room. This causes all sorts of problems. We have much longer emergency room waiting times than almost any other nation. Doctors and nurses, etc... are paid a higher rate for working in emergency rooms in some hospitals. Plus, because there is no way these individuals can afford an emergency room bill, since they couldn't afford an office visit, the hospital has to write it off and increase costs in other places to cover the loss. The increasing costs cause insurance companies to raise premiums. The higher premiums mean more people cannot afford health insurance. And the cycle starts all over with even larger numbers.

 

[Navy1960]

Here's a thought about this sort of legislation. It's always going to be viewed favorably in the U.S. I imagine to promote anything giving you more choices, more freedom to decide for yourself. Do you think sometimes we get duped into the illusion of choice? I mean, in the current system most who have healthcare get it through their employer. Now they certainly have the freedom to go get private insurance, but that doesn't mean it's a choice. It's usually much more expensive than that available through your employer, and for many is probably out of their financial reach. So their only reasonable option is continue using their employer subsidized insurance. But, in that case, you have to take whichever plans the employer offers. They are subject to change every year, both in cost and coverage. And because of the high cost of private, you just have to take the changes or have nothing at all. Yet, technically there is freedom of choice for everyone. Just not practical freedom.

Also keep in mind one other thing about healthcare and it's much bigger than most people realize. I've heard many conservatives make the argument when discussing tax policy that increased tax on the wealthy doesn't help because they just pass the tax on. Similar things happen in medicine, but it's the opposite direction of flow. Every single person who pays for insurance here is paying for everyone who isn't insured.

It's a feedback loop. Legally, no hospital can refuse emergency medical service. People without health insurance cannot afford treatment for serious conditions, and some cannot even afford simple office visits which are very expensive for the uninsured. When they get very ill, the only way for them to get the medical treatment they need is to go to the emergency room. This causes all sorts of problems. We have much longer emergency room waiting times than almost any other nation. Doctors and nurses, etc... are paid a higher rate for working in emergency rooms in some hospitals. Plus, because there is no way these individuals can afford an emergency room bill, since they couldn't afford an office visit, the hospital has to write it off and increase costs in other places to cover the loss. The increasing costs cause insurance companies to raise premiums. The higher premiums mean more people cannot afford health insurance. And the cycle starts all over with even larger numbers.

Then it as I have addressed on many occasions and I believe you and I have debated this a time or two. That the congress can and does have the power to regulate the cost of those premiums in order to keep the cost affordable. It would appear on the surface that this lack of regulation has allowed the cost to rise where the cost to keep health insurance is beyond the means of some to afford it. While it is true that no one can be turned away from an emergency room , it also true that the cost is so high that to even begin to pay for it would break the average person. Thus the reason why I advocate that congress should get back into the business of regulating commerce so that the cost of health care can come under control. The very idea that to control health care cost by controlling the health care system itself is a complete farce and will limit choice, and quailty of healthcare. Having everyone covered with healthcare is a good thing but how good is it if they have no where to get that healthcare?

 

[Care4all]

Here's a thought about this sort of legislation. It's always going to be viewed favorably in the U.S. I imagine to promote anything giving you more choices, more freedom to decide for yourself. Do you think sometimes we get duped into the illusion of choice? I mean, in the current system most who have healthcare get it through their employer. Now they certainly have the freedom to go get private insurance, but that doesn't mean it's a choice. It's usually much more expensive than that available through your employer, and for many is probably out of their financial reach. So their only reasonable option is continue using their employer subsidized insurance. But, in that case, you have to take whichever plans the employer offers. They are subject to change every year, both in cost and coverage. And because of the high cost of private, you just have to take the changes or have nothing at all. Yet, technically there is freedom of choice for everyone. Just not practical freedom.

Also keep in mind one other thing about healthcare and it's much bigger than most people realize. I've heard many conservatives make the argument when discussing tax policy that increased tax on the wealthy doesn't help because they just pass the tax on. Similar things happen in medicine, but it's the opposite direction of flow. Every single person who pays for insurance here is paying for everyone who isn't insured.

It's a feedback loop. Legally, no hospital can refuse emergency medical service. People without health insurance cannot afford treatment for serious conditions, and some cannot even afford simple office visits which are very expensive for the uninsured. When they get very ill, the only way for them to get the medical treatment they need is to go to the emergency room. This causes all sorts of problems. We have much longer emergency room waiting times than almost any other nation. Doctors and nurses, etc... are paid a higher rate for working in emergency rooms in some hospitals. Plus, because there is no way these individuals can afford an emergency room bill, since they couldn't afford an office visit, the hospital has to write it off and increase costs in other places to cover the loss. The increasing costs cause insurance companies to raise premiums. The higher premiums mean more people cannot afford health insurance. And the cycle starts all over with even larger numbers.

this is so true...we do not have freedom of choice now with our healthcare, we are forced in to whatever program our employer offers and it changes every year, reducing benefits and making our share of the cost more....

unless you make a hundred k NET a year, one could not afford a family private plan of 20k a year, which is what it is here in the NE for a decent healthcare plan....

care

 

[Care4all]

Then it as I have addressed on many occasions and I believe you and I have debated this a time or two. That the congress can and does have the power to regulate the cost of those premiums in order to keep the cost affordable. It would appear on the surface that this lack of regulation has allowed the cost to rise where the cost to keep health insurance is beyond the means of some to afford it. While it is true that no one can be turned away from an emergency room , it also true that the cost is so high that to even begin to pay for it would break the average person. Thus the reason why I advocate that congress should get back into the business of regulating commerce so that the cost of health care can come under control. The very idea that to control health care cost by controlling the health care system itself is a complete farce and will limit choice, and quailty of healthcare. Having everyone covered with healthcare is a good thing but how good is it if they have no where to get that healthcare?

previous deregulation is what has allowed the double digit increases yearly for a decade at least in insurance premium costs.

regulating again, might help?

 

[Navy1960]

previous deregulation is what has allowed the double digit increases yearly for a decade at least in insurance premium costs.

regulating again, might help?

I have always advocated thay congress is well within it's rights to regulate the costs of healthcare as part of its mandate to regulate commerce. that does not mean that congress has the power to mandate what type of healthcare a person can have or that they must have healthcare, but it does mean that they can keep costs down by doing what they are mandated to do.

 

[Care4all]

I have always advocated thay congress is well within it's rights to regulate the costs of healthcare as part of its mandate to regulate commerce. that does not mean that congress has the power to mandate what type of healthcare a person can have or that they must have healthcare, but it does mean that they can keep costs down by doing what they are mandated to do.

right! that sounds good to me!

 

[Chris]

Okay, but who's pushing to get it there?

The insurance companies and their flying monkeys.

 

[Chris]

I have always advocated thay congress is well within it's rights to regulate the costs of healthcare as part of its mandate to regulate commerce. that does not mean that congress has the power to mandate what type of healthcare a person can have or that they must have healthcare, but it does mean that they can keep costs down by doing what they are mandated to do.

A single payer system is the best way to keep costs down. Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF what we pay per capita for healthcare.

 

[Navy1960]

The insurance companies and their flying monkeys.

Chris I believe I posted who is behind this measure here in Arizona.

 

[Navy1960]

A single payer system is the best way to keep costs down. Every other Western democracy has a single payer system, and they pay HALF what we pay per capita for healthcare.

This prop. is not a mandate on a type of system of healthcare what it is Chris a measure that says that you as an individual have a right to choose who you get health insurance from and a government entity does not have a right to mandate to you who you will select for insurance or tell you that you must have insurance or for that matter provide it for you. It leaves that choice in your hands where it belongs.

 

[N4mddissent]

I have always advocated thay congress is well within it's rights to regulate the costs of healthcare as part of its mandate to regulate commerce. that does not mean that congress has the power to mandate what type of healthcare a person can have or that they must have healthcare, but it does mean that they can keep costs down by doing what they are mandated to do.

I had an outline of an idea at one time after studying different systems in different nations, but I'm no expert so there were a lot of details missing, but I'd be curious to know what you thought. (mind you, a lot of this is borrowed, not original). And the beginning will definitely be hard to swallow if you have any conservative leanings but please humor me past that.

A basic minimum healthcare plan paid for by a federal tax that everyone pays. I know it's hard. One advantage would be that everyone pays, thus spreading the risk around. The plan covers emergency care, necessary long term care, office visits, and prescriptions. The office visits will have a co-pay and yearly deductible, both relatively high because it is the most basic plan, but room must be left to lower or eliminate those costs for people below the poverty line. (last I heard I believe that was 14k a year for a family of five.) Another advantage would be that it eliminates hospital write-offs for emergency room visits by the uninsured. Also, it would not be as much as one might initially think because medicare and schip, etc...would be rolled into this plan. Here's the twist part.

Using the same type formulas insurers currently use, the agency managing the program determines an appropriate "premium" for each American. There can be some differentiation based on age, preconditions, etc...but it is important to keep it simple. Now this "premium" is one part of the regulation by the government. To keep the innovation spurred by capitalism, private insurance companies compete for your business. You register and select the private insurer you want to use. I thought perhaps two dates a year where you can register or change. Here's the catch. The standard set by the Fed Agency as the minimum basic care is the floor they cannot go below. And the "premium" provided by the Fed Agency is not subject to their whim, but it is a fair price. As you register, the Agency tallies the percent of the population choosing each participating insurer and distributes the collected revenues accordingly. The goal of this part was that with each insurer having a bare minimum that is unavoidable- and that minimum not being poor coverage, the citizen is really empowered because it really makes little difference what plan you choose, and they all cost the same. However, the insurers are paid according to the percent of the population who choose them, so they have incentive to convince you to choose them. Thus we may see an upswing in customer assistance, convenience, etc... as they come up with ways to compete for citizens. At the same time, the "premium" rate they receive per customer also has a floor. As they improve efficiency, the "premium" may be lowered to save taxpayers, but only a limited percentage, with the rest being a bonus for their company (profits). Of course getting too greedy and letting your service slide, will just mean people switch to another company at the next opportunity, since it cost the same. Additionally, insurers could sell additional or premium coverages above and beyond the basic packages for those who choose to purchase them, and these could be areas where insurers could make the majority of their profits.

I had a few more ideas on the actual medical side of healthcare, but this is getting pretty long so I'll stop there for now, duck and cover, and wait for a reaction.

 

[doeton]

man they've (and by that i mean pubs, though i suppose the dims might do it sometime)

have been pulling this type of crap all over the country.

it really has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

it's just to get out the voters and get them shook up over a total red herring.

we saw it in Missouri with the silly little fags can't get married hate crap. missouri law already said gays couldn't get married but it was get opportunity to get out the hate vote.


FACT.

 

[Chris]

About the way health care is delivered in Arizona and the rest of the United States, one thing is certain: The system is broken.
More than 1.2 million Arizonans,
nearly 20 percent,
lack health insurance. Since 1999, the cost of premiums in the U.S. has risen four times faster than inflation.
Fewer businesses with fewer than 10 employees offered health insurance in 2007 than in 2000.
Against this backdrop comes Proposition 101, which would amend Arizona's Constitution to prohibit laws that restrict a person's freedom to choose private care, or to decline to be covered by any particular health system or plan.
The proposition is a bubbling petri dish of unforeseen consequences that will not improve our health care system and will hinder true reform. It should be rejected.
The broad sweep of the proposition leads many health care experts to believe it will result in endless litigation as attorneys haggle over its interpretation. Even Dr. Eric Novack,
one of two Phoenix surgeons pushing the plan, acknowledges that the right combination of attorneys and plaintiffs could result in lawsuits.
The head of Arizona's state Medicaid program says the proposal, if challenged in the courts, could force the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System
to switch to a fee-for-service model that would cost consumers $1 billion.
Professor Gene Schneller
of Arizona State University concludes,
"Lawyers will be the major beneficiaries."

Our Endorsement: 101 not what the doctor ordered | PROPOSITIONS: HEALTH CARE

 

[Chris]

Perhaps there should be a ballot initiative against mandatory car insurance as well?

 

[N4mddissent]

This prop. is not a mandate on a type of system of healthcare what it is Chris a measure that says that you as an individual have a right to choose who you get health insurance from and a government entity does not have a right to mandate to you who you will select for insurance or tell you that you must have insurance or for that matter provide it for you. It leaves that choice in your hands where it belongs.

This is where you might have a problem with the Obama plan. It does have a mandate for kids. All children must be covered. You can pick how you want to cover them, including as he said the congressional coverage plan, or they may be eligible for state coverage. But kids have to be covered. (I think that is also to help keep down emergency room inflation)

 

[Navy1960]

I had an outline of an idea at one time after studying different systems in different nations, but I'm no expert so there were a lot of details missing, but I'd be curious to know what you thought. (mind you, a lot of this is borrowed, not original). And the beginning will definitely be hard to swallow if you have any conservative leanings but please humor me past that.

A basic minimum healthcare plan paid for by a federal tax that everyone pays. I know it's hard. One advantage would be that everyone pays, thus spreading the risk around. The plan covers emergency care, necessary long term care, office visits, and prescriptions. The office visits will have a co-pay and yearly deductible, both relatively high because it is the most basic plan, but room must be left to lower or eliminate those costs for people below the poverty line. (last I heard I believe that was 14k a year for a family of five.) Another advantage would be that it eliminates hospital write-offs for emergency room visits by the uninsured. Also, it would not be as much as one might initially think because medicare and schip, etc...would be rolled into this plan. Here's the twist part.

Using the same type formulas insurers currently use, the agency managing the program determines an appropriate "premium" for each American. There can be some differentiation based on age, preconditions, etc...but it is important to keep it simple. Now this "premium" is one part of the regulation by the government. To keep the innovation spurred by capitalism, private insurance companies compete for your business. You register and select the private insurer you want to use. I thought perhaps two dates a year where you can register or change. Here's the catch. The standard set by the Fed Agency as the minimum basic care is the floor they cannot go below. And the "premium" provided by the Fed Agency is not subject to their whim, but it is a fair price. As you register, the Agency tallies the percent of the population choosing each participating insurer and distributes the collected revenues accordingly. The goal of this part was that with each insurer having a bare minimum that is unavoidable- and that minimum not being poor coverage, the citizen is really empowered because it really makes little difference what plan you choose, and they all cost the same. However, the insurers are paid according to the percent of the population who choose them, so they have incentive to convince you to choose them. Thus we may see an upswing in customer assistance, convenience, etc... as they come up with ways to compete for citizens. At the same time, the "premium" rate they receive per customer also has a floor. As they improve efficiency, the "premium" may be lowered to save taxpayers, but only a limited percentage, with the rest being a bonus for their company (profits). Of course getting too greedy and letting your service slide, will just mean people switch to another company at the next opportunity, since it cost the same. Additionally, insurers could sell additional or premium coverages above and beyond the basic packages for those who choose to purchase them, and these could be areas where insurers could make the majority of their profits.

I had a few more ideas on the actual medical side of healthcare, but this is getting pretty long so I'll stop there for now, duck and cover, and wait for a reaction.

The Office of Price Administration (OPA) was established within the Office for Emergency Management of the United States Government by Executive Order 8875 on August 28, 1941. The functions of the OPA were originally to stabilize prices (price controls) and rents after the outbreak of World War II.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt revived the Advisory Commission to World War I Council on National Defense on May 29, 1940 to include Price Stabilization and Consumer Protection Divisions. Both divisions merged to become the Office of Price Administration and Civilian Supply (OPACS) within the Office for Emergency Management by Executive Order 8734, April 11, 1941. Civil supply functions were transferred to the Office of Production Management.

Office of Price Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not that I am one for massive govt. intrustion, but N4 if there were such a call for healthcare within the halls of congress then controlling costs and prices is not something govt. has not had a history of doing. So my point has been that the govt. and especially congress has for the most part really not had a vest interest in the healthcare issue because it keeps getting the same people elected year after year. The very same people who are in front of cameras day after day puffed up calling for healthcare for everyone are among the same people who have done one thing to regulate it over the years. The fact remains that healthcare should remain a choice that you and I make for ourselves not one our governement makes for us, especially one that has a record of using the issue to stay in office year after year.

 

[N4mddissent]

About the way health care is delivered in Arizona and the rest of the United States, one thing is certain: The system is broken.
CARE[/url]

It is crazy. I try to avoid partisan websites, and frequently look for articles on American and worldwide healthcare in medical journals, etc... And some of the things I see just make me sad. Our infant mortality rate isn't even in the top 20. We have more infants die per capita than many Eastern European nations. Other measures on quality of healthcare don't put us very high either. The notion we have about Americans having the best healthcare in the world, I believe, is really just an off-shoot of our strongest suit (other than military) which is our University system. Our research universities are top notch, so a lot of medical innovations, technologies, procedures, etc... are developed here, but the quality and efficiency of our healthcare system for average citizens puts us down in like our science score areas compared with other nations. (for those who don't know, we are losing the math/science race. I saw a study a couple of years ago where an International Standardized Science Test was given and the Average Canadian high school students' scores were higher than the American average honor student score. And among industrialized nations, in understanding evolution we are tied for the bottom-with Turkey) Sorry. Tangent.