Visitor Comments
Arizona's Prop 101: Opponents of Patient Choice Sow Confusion
Our governments should be helping the people not takeing from them ahcccs is the only insurance I have and I hope it stays open to all who need it. our governments who want to take from the disabled and low income that,s not right.
- posted by mp
- October 17, 2008 @ 2:23 am
- Permalink
Proposition 101 would protect an individual’s choice to pursue private health care coverage. It would also prevent fines from being levied on individuals who decline health care coverage. Proponents believe that the “Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act” would avoid the impositions on personal freedom that are common in socialized health care systems.
http://www.yeson101.com
http://www.yeson101.com
Prop. 101 Supporters Will File Lawsuit Against AHCCCS This Week
Believe Government Agency Broke Law By Spending Taxpayer Dollars Campaigning; Opinion By Then-AG Napolitano Could Mean Trouble for AHCCCS
PHOENIX, Arizona (October 1, 2008) — Supporters of the Medical Choice for Arizona initiative will file a lawsuit this week in Superior Court against the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, alleging that AHCCCS broke state law by actively campaigning against the ballot initiative.
Additionally, Prop. 101 supporters are investigating the legality of contributions to the “no” campaign by big health plans with contracts with AHCCCS or other government agencies.
It’s the latest in a series of blows to the opposition campaign, including an investigation by the Goldwater Institute into the actions of AHCCCS in relation to Prop. 101 and two legal analyses showing that opposition claims against Prop. 101 are without merit.
State law dictates that government agencies are not allowed to participate in political campaigns. However, AHCCCS Director Anthony Rodgers recently sent out — on AHCCCS letterhead — a memo on “unintended consequences” of Prop. 101 that supporters believe was a clear attempt by the agency to campaign against the proposition.
Additionally, Banner Health CEO Peter Fine last week sent to Banner employees an e-mail urging them to vote no on Prop. 101, and attached as reference the “unintended consequences” memo.
“If that memo wasn’t meant to be a campaign tool, you could have fooled anyone who read Peter Fine’s e-mail,” said Dr. Eric Novack, chairman of Medical Choice for Arizona. “This is a taxpayer-funded document that is being used as campaign propaganda by the no side, and because of its inflammatory language and claims — which have twice been independently debunked by legal analyses — AHCCCS’ claim that it is not a campaign document certainly doesn’t pass the ‘smell test.’”
The lawsuit is being finalized, and will be filed by the end of the week. It will seek an injunction against unauthorized conduct relating to Prop. 101 and potential damages as a result of AHCCCS’ actions.
Supporters of the Medical Choice for Arizona act are also researching whether the statutes prohibiting government agency participation in elections could also apply to corporations that have significant government contracts — making them, effectively, proxies of the state.
“It’s clear that big government and big health plans are driving the ‘no’ campaign — we saw that last week when an out-of-state company with a big AHCCCS contract became the first contributor to the opposition,” Novack said. “The voters of Arizona deserve to know whether the participation of these organizations is legal, and if it is not, to make sure those organizations comply with state law.”
So far, SCAN Health, a California-based company with a large contract with the state, has been the largest contributor to the “no” campaign with a $50,000 contribution last week.
Ironically, it may be the words of Governor Janet Napolitano that should be most worrisome to AHCCCS officials. She wrote an opinion in 2000, while serving as Attorney General, that municipal government agencies are prohibited from “using resources ‘for the purpose of influencing the outcome of elections.’”
“Even educational materials that do not expressly advocate for or against a ballot issue may fall within this prohibition, depending on the specific facts and circumstances,” Napolitano wrote in the opinion.
Proposition 101 will guarantee the right of Arizonans to make their own health care choices. Lobbyists and special interests will see their power to control and dictate health care choices limited.
Visit www.YesOn101.com for more information.
Believe Government Agency Broke Law By Spending Taxpayer Dollars Campaigning; Opinion By Then-AG Napolitano Could Mean Trouble for AHCCCS
PHOENIX, Arizona (October 1, 2008) — Supporters of the Medical Choice for Arizona initiative will file a lawsuit this week in Superior Court against the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, alleging that AHCCCS broke state law by actively campaigning against the ballot initiative.
Additionally, Prop. 101 supporters are investigating the legality of contributions to the “no” campaign by big health plans with contracts with AHCCCS or other government agencies.
It’s the latest in a series of blows to the opposition campaign, including an investigation by the Goldwater Institute into the actions of AHCCCS in relation to Prop. 101 and two legal analyses showing that opposition claims against Prop. 101 are without merit.
State law dictates that government agencies are not allowed to participate in political campaigns. However, AHCCCS Director Anthony Rodgers recently sent out — on AHCCCS letterhead — a memo on “unintended consequences” of Prop. 101 that supporters believe was a clear attempt by the agency to campaign against the proposition.
Additionally, Banner Health CEO Peter Fine last week sent to Banner employees an e-mail urging them to vote no on Prop. 101, and attached as reference the “unintended consequences” memo.
“If that memo wasn’t meant to be a campaign tool, you could have fooled anyone who read Peter Fine’s e-mail,” said Dr. Eric Novack, chairman of Medical Choice for Arizona. “This is a taxpayer-funded document that is being used as campaign propaganda by the no side, and because of its inflammatory language and claims — which have twice been independently debunked by legal analyses — AHCCCS’ claim that it is not a campaign document certainly doesn’t pass the ‘smell test.’”
The lawsuit is being finalized, and will be filed by the end of the week. It will seek an injunction against unauthorized conduct relating to Prop. 101 and potential damages as a result of AHCCCS’ actions.
Supporters of the Medical Choice for Arizona act are also researching whether the statutes prohibiting government agency participation in elections could also apply to corporations that have significant government contracts — making them, effectively, proxies of the state.
“It’s clear that big government and big health plans are driving the ‘no’ campaign — we saw that last week when an out-of-state company with a big AHCCCS contract became the first contributor to the opposition,” Novack said. “The voters of Arizona deserve to know whether the participation of these organizations is legal, and if it is not, to make sure those organizations comply with state law.”
So far, SCAN Health, a California-based company with a large contract with the state, has been the largest contributor to the “no” campaign with a $50,000 contribution last week.
Ironically, it may be the words of Governor Janet Napolitano that should be most worrisome to AHCCCS officials. She wrote an opinion in 2000, while serving as Attorney General, that municipal government agencies are prohibited from “using resources ‘for the purpose of influencing the outcome of elections.’”
“Even educational materials that do not expressly advocate for or against a ballot issue may fall within this prohibition, depending on the specific facts and circumstances,” Napolitano wrote in the opinion.
Proposition 101 will guarantee the right of Arizonans to make their own health care choices. Lobbyists and special interests will see their power to control and dictate health care choices limited.
Visit www.YesOn101.com for more information.
Out-Of-State Health Plan With Government Ties
First To Fund Prop. 101 Opposition Campaign
Big Government, Big Hospitals Begin Effort to Prevent Medical Choice
PHOENIX, Arizona (September 23, 2008) — The opposition group formed against the Medical Choice for Arizona initiative received its first campaign contribution from an out-of-state health system with big contracts with the state of Arizona.
SCAN Health Plan out of Los Angeles, which has had some of the highest patient complaint rates of any health plan in California in the past, made the first contribution to the committee formed last week to fight medical choice.
The “no” campaign is being coordinated by the Arizona Hospital Association, representing the big-money Arizona hospitals that want to make sure nothing happens that would affect their profit margins, according to Dr. Eric Novack, chairman of Medical Choice for Arizona.
“It is not surprising that the same groups that can afford $2 billion in new hospital building while settling lawsuits for overcharging the uninsured will say or do anything to put their money and power ahead of the health of Arizonans,” Novack said.
This comes on the heels of false claims made by big government health care agencies that Proposition 101 would somehow affect AHCCCS, claims that were debunked last week by an independent legal analysis by the Goldwater Institute.
“We have seen the enemy, and now we know it is the enemy we have been fighting all along,” Novack said. “We know it’s going to be the big government bureaucrats and the very special interests who would benefit the most from the elimination of our right to make our own health care decisions and protect the ability of Arizonans to be in control of their health and health care.
“The fact that these special interests and government agencies are so worried just underscores the need for Proposition 101,” Novack said. “We have to make sure that Arizonans are not limited in their health care choices, which is just what these big hospitals and big government agencies want to do.”
Proposition 101 will preserve and protect the rights of individuals to make their own health care and health insurance choices.
Currently, many lobbyists and special interest groups in Arizona and around the country are promoting policies that would limit or even eliminate the ability of people to have choices when seeking out health care for themselves and their families.
This initiative will guarantee the right of Arizonans to make their own health care choices. Lobbyists and special interests will see their power to control and dictate health care choices limited. The language of the initiative is simple:
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.
Visit www.YesOn101.com for more information.
First To Fund Prop. 101 Opposition Campaign
Big Government, Big Hospitals Begin Effort to Prevent Medical Choice
PHOENIX, Arizona (September 23, 2008) — The opposition group formed against the Medical Choice for Arizona initiative received its first campaign contribution from an out-of-state health system with big contracts with the state of Arizona.
SCAN Health Plan out of Los Angeles, which has had some of the highest patient complaint rates of any health plan in California in the past, made the first contribution to the committee formed last week to fight medical choice.
The “no” campaign is being coordinated by the Arizona Hospital Association, representing the big-money Arizona hospitals that want to make sure nothing happens that would affect their profit margins, according to Dr. Eric Novack, chairman of Medical Choice for Arizona.
“It is not surprising that the same groups that can afford $2 billion in new hospital building while settling lawsuits for overcharging the uninsured will say or do anything to put their money and power ahead of the health of Arizonans,” Novack said.
This comes on the heels of false claims made by big government health care agencies that Proposition 101 would somehow affect AHCCCS, claims that were debunked last week by an independent legal analysis by the Goldwater Institute.
“We have seen the enemy, and now we know it is the enemy we have been fighting all along,” Novack said. “We know it’s going to be the big government bureaucrats and the very special interests who would benefit the most from the elimination of our right to make our own health care decisions and protect the ability of Arizonans to be in control of their health and health care.
“The fact that these special interests and government agencies are so worried just underscores the need for Proposition 101,” Novack said. “We have to make sure that Arizonans are not limited in their health care choices, which is just what these big hospitals and big government agencies want to do.”
Proposition 101 will preserve and protect the rights of individuals to make their own health care and health insurance choices.
Currently, many lobbyists and special interest groups in Arizona and around the country are promoting policies that would limit or even eliminate the ability of people to have choices when seeking out health care for themselves and their families.
This initiative will guarantee the right of Arizonans to make their own health care choices. Lobbyists and special interests will see their power to control and dictate health care choices limited. The language of the initiative is simple:
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.
Visit www.YesOn101.com for more information.
Post Your Comment Here
| SPN Headquarters: 2020 North 14th Street Ste 250 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: (703) 243-1655 | West Coast Office: PO Box 5208 Richmond, CA 94805 Phone: (510) 965-9700 |
