Arizona FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!!

[Navy1960]

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the
2 Senate concurring:
3 1. Article XXVII, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended
4 by adding section 2 as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation
5 of the Governor:
6 2. Health care; definitions
7 SECTION 2. A. TO PRESERVE THE FREEDOM OF ARIZONANS TO
8 PROVIDE FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE:
9 1. A LAW OR RULE SHALL NOT COMPEL, DIRECTLY OR
10 INDIRECTLY, ANY PERSON, EMPLOYER OR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER TO
11 PARTICIPATE IN ANY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
12 2. A PERSON OR EMPLOYER MAY PAY DIRECTLY FOR LAWFUL
13 HEALTH CARE SERVICES AND SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY PENALTIES
14 OR FINES FOR PAYING DIRECTLY FOR LAWFUL HEALTH CARE SERVICES. A
15 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER MAY ACCEPT DIRECT PAYMENT FOR LAWFUL HEALTH
16 CARE SERVICES AND SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY PENALTIES OR
17 FINES FOR ACCEPTING DIRECT PAYMENT FROM A PERSON OR EMPLOYER FOR
18 LAWFUL HEALTH CARE SERVICES.
19 B. SUBJECT TO REASONABLE AND NECESSARY RULES THAT DO NOT
20 SUBSTANTIALLY LIMIT A PERSON'S OPTIONS, THE PURCHASE OR SALE OF
21 HEALTH INSURANCE IN PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS SHALL NOT BE
22 PROHIBITED BY LAW OR RULE.

The Arizona Strategy | Arizona Healthcare Freedom Act



It has passed the house and the senate in our state and wil be on the ballot next year. IMO this is the sort of law that can send a message to Washington that states will decide whats best for it's own citizens. Now, before you healthcare advocates jump on the bill , it does not exlude a person from purchasing ANY and I repeat ANY health insurance option but rather what it does is put that decision where it rightfully belongs in the hands of the citizens.

 

[veritas]

It's kind of stupid to pass redundant legislation that reiterates that two or more parties may enter into a contract with each other.

But if that is what you like, go for it. It's a waste of time and taxpayer's money. It's politcal BS for stupid people.

 

[Navy1960]

The aim of the law is clear is, to keep the choice of entering into those contracts that people into as it applies to healthcare in hands of the people that make them. Other aspects of this bill are very clear when it applies to healthcare issue and to make a judgement to it's merits based on contract and spending issue is to say the least a broad over generalization. The purpose of this law is not to make a redundant contracts law, it's stated purpose is to keep healthcare choices in the hands of individuals,employee's, and employer's . I find it amazing that those who would advocate a bill that will cost close to a Trillion dollars would then turn around and find fault in a bill based on spending issues that would not bar anyone from purchasing "govt. healthcare" should they so choose. While you have every right to make that judgement on what the bill does, and call it what you will, this bill comes no where close to being political BS and serves as a reminder to Washington that the constitution does not give the Federal Govt. unlimited authority.

 

[veritas]

The aim of the law is clear is, to keep the choice of entering into those contracts that people into as it applies to healthcare in hands of the people that make them.

Clearly redundant. Everybody has the right to enter into any contract unless it is illegal, say like......murder for hire.

 

[Navy1960]

Your contention assumes that by entering into a contract as it applies to healthcare , if this bill were non-existant will be no different and with no restrictions or mandates. Further, your illustration of murder for hire even though that is contract in the illegal sense, when you apply it to the healthcare debate let's say using your logic after a mandated healthcare law is passed and I enter into a healthcare contract with a non exchange healthcare plan, that plan by definition is non binding and is therefor not a contract. So while I appreciate you trying to show the basic meaning of contracts in the dictionary sense it is not a conract in the legal sense.

In law, a contract is a binding legal agreement that is enforceable in a court of law. [1] That is to say, a contract is an exchange of promises for the breach of which the law will provide a remedy.

So in the murder for hire sense the killer cannot seek legal redress if the person that hires them backs out.

Again, the prupose of the Arizona law is to protect the citizens of Arizona against Federal mandates when it comes to healthcare. For example, a college student that is healthy and does not wish to buy health insurance under the Arizona law will not be required to do so.

 

[veritas]

Again, the prupose of the Arizona law is to protect the citizens of Arizona against Federal mandates when it comes to healthcare. For example, a college student that is healthy and does not wish to buy health insurance under the Arizona law will not be required to do so.

I think that is all good if a federal mandate comes down that all persons must purchase private health insurance, which is what the Insurance industry really wants, much like the state mandates you have insurance to register a car, which is the dirty little secret they don't want to get out. As far as universal coverage, a public option or single payer, your law will do nothing to supercede a federal law on those. State law can be more restrictive than Federal law, but not less restrictive.

 

[Navy1960]

Again, the prupose of the Arizona law is to protect the citizens of Arizona against Federal mandates when it comes to healthcare. For example, a college student that is healthy and does not wish to buy health insurance under the Arizona law will not be required to do so.

I think that is all good if a federal mandate comes down that all persons must purchase private health insurance, which is what the Insurance industry really wants, much like the state mandates you have insurance to register a car, which is the dirty little secret they don't want to get out. As far as universal coverage, a public option or single payer, your law will do nothing to supercede a federal law on those. State law can be more restrictive than Federal law, but not less restrictive.

I will say this about this law and it's my opinion this law will force a fight in the courts over 10th Amendment issues should those mandates come down. As I told you before this law does not interfere with a person(s) choice when it comes to purchasing healthcare be a "public plan" or private one, so I fail to see the contention that this law has any restrictions in that regard.

 

[veritas]

I will say this about this law and it's my opinion this law will force a fight in the courts over 10th Amendment issues should those mandates come down.

I don't think you automatically are mandated to participate in any federal program, [besides the IRS that is] you have to apply. If a mandate comes down that we are all forced to purchase PRIVATE health insurance, then the fight will be on.

 

[Navy1960]

While I agree with the later part of your statement, but I was not talking about a madate to purchase federal health insurance, but was talking about a mandate to purchase insurance be private or public. I do believe that by calling for a penality for individuals and companies that do not have health insurance is a mandate for insurance.

 

[AllieBaba]

If this passes, maybe they'll tackle the car insurance crap.

My ex and his dad maintained for years that mandated insurance would be the death of this country.

 

[veritas]

If this passes, maybe they'll tackle the car insurance crap.

My ex and his dad maintained for years that mandated insurance would be the death of this country.

The two are not comparable. Driving a car is a choice, and the license issued is a privilege. In contrast, a health insurance mandate would only require your documented existence.