Difference between revisions of "Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, Proposition 106 (2010)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Election results)
m (Election results)
(35 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{AZConstitution}}{{tnr}}An '''Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment''', also known as '''Proposition 106''', or '''HCR 2014''', will be on the [[Arizona 2010 ballot measures|November 2, 2010 ballot]] in [[Arizona]] as a {{lrcafull}}. [[Arizona State Legislature|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]].<ref>[http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/story.cfm?id=11255 ''Arizona Capitol Times'', "Medical reform measure returns - with changes", May 26, 2009]</ref><ref name="fox">[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/25/state-lawmakers-considering-opt-federal-healthcare/ ''Fox News'', "State Lawmakers Considering Move to Opt Out of Federal Health Care", June 25, 2009]</ref>
+
{{AZConstitution}}{{tnr}}An '''Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment''', also known as '''Proposition 106''', or '''HCR 2014''', was on the [[Arizona 2010 ballot measures|November 2, 2010 ballot]] in [[Arizona]] as a {{lrcafull}}, where it was '''approved'''. {{approved}} [[Arizona State Legislature|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]].<ref>[http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/story.cfm?id=11255 ''Arizona Capitol Times'', "Medical reform measure returns - with changes", May 26, 2009]</ref><ref name="fox">[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/25/state-lawmakers-considering-opt-federal-healthcare/ ''Fox News'', "State Lawmakers Considering Move to Opt Out of Federal Health Care", June 25, 2009]</ref>
  
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.<ref name="health">[http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2009/05/26/20090526health-care0526-ON.html ''Arizona Republic'', "Arizona ballot measure sought on health care choices", May 27, 2009]</ref>
+
Proposition 106 was proposed to 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.<ref name="health">[http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2009/05/26/20090526health-care0526-ON.html ''Arizona Republic'', "Arizona ballot measure sought on health care choices", May 27, 2009]</ref>
 +
 
 +
==Aftermath==
 +
[[Dr. Eric Novack]], who was the major supporter behind the measure, stated that the approval of the measure is not the final step in his campaign against federal health care mandates.  Dr. Novack stated that he has drafted a document called, "A Blueprint for a Sustainable Safety Net Healthcare System." Dr. Novack is the leader of the U.S. Healthcare Freedom Coalition, and planned to promote the blueprint through the organization.<ref> [http://azstarnet.com/news/science/health-med-fit/article_baca166b-bffb-5902-bec6-c0cd0cd29e7d.html ''Arizona Daily Star'', "AZ measure against US health overhaul called 1st step", November 21, 2010]</ref>
  
 
==Election results==
 
==Election results==
 
:: ''See also: [[2010 ballot measure election results]]''
 
:: ''See also: [[2010 ballot measure election results]]''
  
'''Stay tuned for election results on November 2, 2010:'''
+
Official results of the measure follow:
     
+
       
{{Outcome
+
{{Short outcome
 
| title = Proposition 106 (Health Insurance Reform)
 
| title = Proposition 106 (Health Insurance Reform)
| yes = 594,231
+
| yes = 892,693 
| yespct = 55.55
+
| yespct = 55.3
| no = 475,473
+
| no =722,300
| nopct = 44.45
+
| nopct = 44.7
| total = 1,069,704
+
| total = 1,614,993
| turnoutpct =  
+
| turnoutpct = 55.65
 
| image = {{approved}}
 
| image = {{approved}}
 
}}
 
}}
 
[[Category:Approved, 2010]]
 
[[Category:Approved, 2010]]
  
Results via the [http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AZ/22333/36968/en/summary.html Arizona Secretary of State] as of 9:26 p.m. PST.
+
Results via the [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/General/Canvass2010GE.pdf Official Election Canvass of Results] from the [[Arizona Secretary of State]]'s website.
  
 
==Text of measure==
 
==Text of measure==
 
===Ballot title===
 
===Ballot title===
The ballot title that [[Arizona]] voters will see reads as follows:<ref> [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop106.htm ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "Publicity Pamplet", Retrieved September 22, 2010]</ref>
+
The ballot title that [[Arizona]] voters saw read:<ref> [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop106.htm ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "Publicity Pamplet", Retrieved September 22, 2010]</ref>
  
 
A "yes" vote shall have the effect of prohibiting the enactment of laws or rules that require any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system. It will also allow a person or employer to forgo health insurance and pay for health care services directly without a penalty and will allow health care providers to accept direct payment without a penalty. It will specifically allow health insurance in private health care systems.
 
A "yes" vote shall have the effect of prohibiting the enactment of laws or rules that require any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system. It will also allow a person or employer to forgo health insurance and pay for health care services directly without a penalty and will allow health care providers to accept direct payment without a penalty. It will specifically allow health insurance in private health care systems.
Line 30: Line 33:
 
A "no" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding a person or entity's health care choices.
 
A "no" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding a person or entity's health care choices.
 
===Short title===
 
===Short title===
The short title of the measure, according to the [[Arizona Secretary of State]]'s website, reads as follows:<ref> [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/General/BallotMeasures.htm ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "2010 General Election:Ballot measures"]</ref>
+
The short title of the measure, according to the [[Arizona Secretary of State]]'s website, read as follows:<ref> [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/General/BallotMeasures.htm ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "2010 General Election:Ballot measures"]</ref>
  
 
A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the [[Arizona Constitution|Constitution of Arizona]]; Amending Article XXVII, By adding Section 2, Constitution of Arizona; Relating to Health Care Services.  
 
A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the [[Arizona Constitution|Constitution of Arizona]]; Amending Article XXVII, By adding Section 2, Constitution of Arizona; Relating to Health Care Services.  
 
===Constitutional changes===
 
===Constitutional changes===
 
: ''[[Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, constitutional text changes]]''
 
: ''[[Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, constitutional text changes]]''
If enacted by a majority of [[Arizona]] voters, the measure would amend [[Article 27, Arizona Constitution|Article XXVII]] of the [[Arizona Constitution]] by adding a new [[Article 27, Arizona Constitution#Section 1|Section 2]], the main part of which would read as follows:<ref> [http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2014h.pdf ''State of Arizona'', "HCR 2014", 2009]</ref>
+
The measure was proposed to amend [[Article 27, Arizona Constitution|Article XXVII]] of the [[Arizona Constitution]] by adding a new [[Article 27, Arizona Constitution#Section 1|Section 2]]:<ref> [http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hcr2014h.pdf ''State of Arizona'', "HCR 2014", 2009]</ref>
  
 
==Support==
 
==Support==
 
===Supporters===
 
===Supporters===
* [[Arizona Governor]] [[Jan Brewer]] endorsed the measure, stating, "I support Proposition 106 and have every reason to believe that Arizona voters will overwhelmingly pass this measure. And, when they do, a clear message will be sent to the president and Congress that this type of overreaching by the federal government will no longer be tolerated."<ref> [http://azstarnet.com/news/blogs/pueblo-politics/article_320b2306-c048-11df-ab9d-001cc4c002e0.html ''Arizona Daily Star'', "Pueblo Politics: Gov. Brewer backs Proposition 106", September 15, 2010]</ref>
+
* [[Governor of Arizona]] [[Jan Brewer]] endorsed the measure, stating, "I support Proposition 106 and have every reason to believe that Arizona voters will overwhelmingly pass this measure. And, when they do, a clear message will be sent to the president and Congress that this type of overreaching by the federal government will no longer be tolerated."<ref> [http://azstarnet.com/news/blogs/pueblo-politics/article_320b2306-c048-11df-ab9d-001cc4c002e0.html ''Arizona Daily Star'', "Pueblo Politics: Gov. Brewer backs Proposition 106", September 15, 2010]</ref>
  
* [[Arizona House of Representatives|State representative]] [[Nancy Barto]] supports the amendment, and sponsored it in the state legislature.<ref name=sent>[http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2009/08/05/gop-sends-3-measures-to-2010-ballot/ ''Arizona Capitol Times'', "GOP sends 3 measures to 2010 ballot", August 5, 2009]</ref>
+
* [[Arizona House of Representatives|State representative]] [[Nancy Barto]] supported the amendment, and sponsored it in the state legislature.<ref name=sent>[http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2009/08/05/gop-sends-3-measures-to-2010-ballot/ ''Arizona Capitol Times'', "GOP sends 3 measures to 2010 ballot", August 5, 2009]</ref>
  
* Former presidential candidate Steve Forbes and U.S. Representatives John Shadegg of Arizona have stated their support for the measure, citing freedom of choice in the health care issue.  Both men stated that there were significant holes in the health care proposal being considered in Congress.<ref name=Forbes> [http://www.heraldonline.com/426/story/1847254.html ''Herald Online'', "Forbes, Shadegg endorse Ariz. health care proposal", January 6, 2010]</ref>
+
* Former presidential candidate Steve Forbes and U.S. Representatives John Shadegg of Arizona stated their support for the measure, citing freedom of choice in the health care issue.  Both men stated that there were significant holes in the health care proposal being considered in Congress.<ref name=Forbes> [http://www.heraldonline.com/426/story/1847254.html ''Herald Online'', "Forbes, Shadegg endorse Ariz. health care proposal", January 6, 2010]</ref>
 
<div style="float:right">
 
<div style="float:right">
 
{|class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width="205"
 
{|class="wikitable" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width="205"
Line 53: Line 56:
 
:According to Shadegg: “We in Arizona believe that health care is an intensely personal matter and that no law should be able to stop anyone in this country - certainly not in this state - from spending their own money to buy the health care services that they want, and no one should be compelled to spend their money on health care services they don't want."
 
:According to Shadegg: “We in Arizona believe that health care is an intensely personal matter and that no law should be able to stop anyone in this country - certainly not in this state - from spending their own money to buy the health care services that they want, and no one should be compelled to spend their money on health care services they don't want."
  
* According to reports, three out of four members of the National Federation of Independent Business oppose the measure. The group stated that 77 percent of its state membership have come out in opposition to the health care insurance proposal.<ref> [http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2010/09/13/daily6.html ''Business Journals'', "Three of four NFIB members in Arizona oppose health care mandates", September 13, 2010]</ref>
+
* According to reports, three out of four members of the [[National Federation of Independent Business]] opposed the measure. The group stated that 77 percent of its state membership have come out in opposition to the health care insurance proposal.<ref> [http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2010/09/13/daily6.html ''Business Journals'', "Three of four NFIB members in Arizona oppose health care mandates", September 13, 2010]</ref>
  
 
* Dr. Donnie Sansom, an anesthesiologist from Tucson, stated about the measure, "People are afraid for their health care. I have a great problem with my government saying, 'You have to purchase this.' It's unprecedented...Prop. 106 is about ensuring you have individual freedoms in place."<ref name=azds/>
 
* Dr. Donnie Sansom, an anesthesiologist from Tucson, stated about the measure, "People are afraid for their health care. I have a great problem with my government saying, 'You have to purchase this.' It's unprecedented...Prop. 106 is about ensuring you have individual freedoms in place."<ref name=azds/>
Line 63: Line 66:
 
===Arguments===
 
===Arguments===
  
Arguments that have been made in favor of a "yes" vote include:
+
Arguments that were made in favor of a "yes" vote included:
  
 
* It would "protect the rights of Arizona to determine its own, best health care system."<ref>[http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/141871 ''East Valley Tribune'', "Arizona in position to be federalism shield", July 18, 2009]</ref>
 
* It would "protect the rights of Arizona to determine its own, best health care system."<ref>[http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/141871 ''East Valley Tribune'', "Arizona in position to be federalism shield", July 18, 2009]</ref>
 
* "Many Americans look at a federal overhaul of healthcare as a threat, and don't see how they will benefit from covering millions of uninsured people at taxpayer expense."<ref name=Times> [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-health16-2009nov16,0,6669737.story?track=rss ''The Los Angeles Times'', "One Nation, Insured", November 16, 2009]</ref>
 
* "Many Americans look at a federal overhaul of healthcare as a threat, and don't see how they will benefit from covering millions of uninsured people at taxpayer expense."<ref name=Times> [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-health16-2009nov16,0,6669737.story?track=rss ''The Los Angeles Times'', "One Nation, Insured", November 16, 2009]</ref>
 
* According to Biggovernment.com: "The federal government has a limited set of enumerated powers, while everything  else is reserved to the states and the people. None of these powers includes the ability to force people to purchase health insurance, or anything else for that matter."<ref> [http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/05/the-states-will-be-the-next-battlefield-in-the-fight-over-obamacare/ ''Big Government'', "The States Will Be the Next Battlefield in the Fight Over ObamaCare", December 5, 2009]</ref>
 
* According to Biggovernment.com: "The federal government has a limited set of enumerated powers, while everything  else is reserved to the states and the people. None of these powers includes the ability to force people to purchase health insurance, or anything else for that matter."<ref> [http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/05/the-states-will-be-the-next-battlefield-in-the-fight-over-obamacare/ ''Big Government'', "The States Will Be the Next Battlefield in the Fight Over ObamaCare", December 5, 2009]</ref>
* In an opinion piece written by '''Dr. Eric Novak''' of Glendale, [[Arizona]], supporter of a similar 2008 initiative, he tried to clear up an misinterpretation about the proposed bill on Politico.com.  The wrong "assertion" came in another opinion piece that appeared on the website on [[BC2010#October|October 28, 2009]]. Dr. Novak stated in his writing:
+
* In an opinion piece written by '''Dr. Eric Novak''' of Glendale, [[Arizona]], supporter of a similar 2008 initiative, he tried to clear up a misinterpretation about the proposed bill on Politico.com.  The wrong "assertion" came in another opinion piece that appeared on the website on [[BC2010#October|October 28, 2009]]. Dr. Novak stated in his writing:
  
 
<blockquote>''The Health Care Freedom Act was born from an idea that I had in 2006, when the health care system was just as unsustainable, and the desperate need for reform was as equally apparent as it is today. The principle was and remains simple: Unless we act decisively to protect the rights of Americans and their families to remain in control of their health and health care decisions, those rights will be sacrificed on the altar of health care reform.''<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28905.html ''Politico'', "Rights of Arizonans -- and Americans", October 30, 2009]</ref></blockquote>
 
<blockquote>''The Health Care Freedom Act was born from an idea that I had in 2006, when the health care system was just as unsustainable, and the desperate need for reform was as equally apparent as it is today. The principle was and remains simple: Unless we act decisively to protect the rights of Americans and their families to remain in control of their health and health care decisions, those rights will be sacrificed on the altar of health care reform.''<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28905.html ''Politico'', "Rights of Arizonans -- and Americans", October 30, 2009]</ref></blockquote>
Line 74: Line 77:
 
* Dr. Novak published a column for ABC15 in Arizona, stating that the measure could ultimately save lives.  According to Novak, "Prop 106 will guarantee that all Arizonans have the right to spend their own money to obtain legal health care services. Second opinions; additional medical treatments; life-saving legal drugs: No government bureaucrat should ever be able to tell you that your life and health are not worth it."<ref name=Novak> [http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local_news/hear_me_out/hear-me-out%3A-is-proposition-106-good-or-bad-for-arizona ''ABC15.com'', "Hear Me Out: Is Proposition 106 good or bad for Arizona?", July 24, 2010]</ref>
 
* Dr. Novak published a column for ABC15 in Arizona, stating that the measure could ultimately save lives.  According to Novak, "Prop 106 will guarantee that all Arizonans have the right to spend their own money to obtain legal health care services. Second opinions; additional medical treatments; life-saving legal drugs: No government bureaucrat should ever be able to tell you that your life and health are not worth it."<ref name=Novak> [http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local_news/hear_me_out/hear-me-out%3A-is-proposition-106-good-or-bad-for-arizona ''ABC15.com'', "Hear Me Out: Is Proposition 106 good or bad for Arizona?", July 24, 2010]</ref>
  
* In that same column by Dr. Novak, the chairman stated that the measure is not worthless, countering arguments from opponents who stated that the measure would not overrule federal mandates.  In fact, Dr. Novak stated that the measure would echo throughout the country in certain legal issues.  Novak stated, "The truth is, ObamaCare is already being severely tested in our nation’s courts, especially on the grounds that a mandate to buy health insurance or else faces fines and penalties is a massive and unconstitutional overreach by government. Those legal challenges will be stronger if Proposition 106 passes at the polls in November."<ref name=Novak/>
+
* In that same column by Dr. Novak, the chairman stated that the measure was not worthless, countering arguments from opponents who stated that the measure would not overrule federal mandates.  In fact, Dr. Novak stated that the measure would echo throughout the country in certain legal issues.  Novak stated, "The truth is, ObamaCare is already being severely tested in our nation’s courts, especially on the grounds that a mandate to buy health insurance or else faces fines and penalties is a massive and unconstitutional overreach by government. Those legal challenges will be stronger if Proposition 106 passes at the polls in November."<ref name=Novak/>
  
 
* In the Publicity Pamphlet published by the Arizona Secretary of State's office, arguments were submitted for the passage of the measure, most notably the following:<ref name=pamphlet/>
 
* In the Publicity Pamphlet published by the Arizona Secretary of State's office, arguments were submitted for the passage of the measure, most notably the following:<ref name=pamphlet/>
  
: Jeffrey A. Singer, MD of Arizonans For Health Care Freedom stated, "In a free society, people should not be forced to participate in a health insurance plan they do not want. In a free society, the people should not be able to dictate to people what kind of -and how much- lawful health care they are allowed to obtain. In a free society, the people should never be blocked from making their own personal arrangements for health care."
+
: Jeffrey A. Singer, MD of [[Arizonans For Health Care Freedom]] stated, "In a free society, people should not be forced to participate in a health insurance plan they do not want. In a free society, the people should not be able to dictate to people what kind of -and how much- lawful health care they are allowed to obtain. In a free society, the people should never be blocked from making their own personal arrangements for health care."
  
 
: [[Barbara Leff]] argued, "As many as 20 other states have followed the model we started. As a State Senator I was proud to vote to put this on the ballot to amend our State Constitution. It maintains our rights to spend our own money on medical services we want and lets us opt out of an insurance plan we don't want."
 
: [[Barbara Leff]] argued, "As many as 20 other states have followed the model we started. As a State Senator I was proud to vote to put this on the ballot to amend our State Constitution. It maintains our rights to spend our own money on medical services we want and lets us opt out of an insurance plan we don't want."
Line 84: Line 87:
 
: Michelle Andrews of Certified Ortho Tech wrote,  "For nearly a year we listened to various politicians tell us what was and what would not be part of health care reform. When the final product was rendered, it was more than 2,000 pages of non-comprehensible language that could be tied up in court for years... You don't need to read hundreds of pages to understand what it means. It will take less than a minute to read it...then vote YES."
 
: Michelle Andrews of Certified Ortho Tech wrote,  "For nearly a year we listened to various politicians tell us what was and what would not be part of health care reform. When the final product was rendered, it was more than 2,000 pages of non-comprehensible language that could be tied up in court for years... You don't need to read hundreds of pages to understand what it means. It will take less than a minute to read it...then vote YES."
  
: Kevin G. Rogers and James W. Klinker of the Arizona Farm Bureau stated, "We need reform in the health insurance marketplace and we need to improve public health insurance programs before we mandate programs that we don't know how we are going to subsidize. Mandated insurance requirements will limit the marketplace and do nothing to control costs."
+
: Kevin G. Rogers and James W. Klinker of the [[Arizona Farm Bureau]] stated, "We need reform in the health insurance marketplace and we need to improve public health insurance programs before we mandate programs that we don't know how we are going to subsidize. Mandated insurance requirements will limit the marketplace and do nothing to control costs."
  
 
===Campaigning===
 
===Campaigning===
* On [[BC2010#August|August 26, 2010]], approximately 100 people rallied at Sahuaro High School in Tucson, leaving with "Yes on 106" yard signs, which were to be used to campaign for the passage of the measure.  According to reports, Pima County is an important area for the passage of the measure, as in 2008, [[#Previous years|a similar measure was rejected by voters]], mainly due to weak support in the southern part of the state.<ref> [http://azstarnet.com/news/science/health-med-fit/article_10f56702-1334-5427-8709-04a9faab0249.html ''Arizona Daily Star'', "Pima seen as key to Prop. 106 campaign", August 27, 2010]</ref>
+
* On [[BC2010#August|August 26, 2010]], approximately 100 people rallied at Sahuaro High School in Tucson, leaving with "Yes on 106" yard signs, which were to be used to campaign for the passage of the measure.  According to reports, Pima County was an important area for the passage of the measure, as in 2008, [[#Previous years|a similar measure was rejected by voters]], mainly due to weak support in the southern part of the state.<ref> [http://azstarnet.com/news/science/health-med-fit/article_10f56702-1334-5427-8709-04a9faab0249.html ''Arizona Daily Star'', "Pima seen as key to Prop. 106 campaign", August 27, 2010]</ref>
* At a debate hosted by Cox Communications and Gateway Community College on [[BC2010#September|September 22,2010]], all ten measures on the November ballot in Arizona were argued for and against by both sides of the issues.  Proposition 106 was discussed, to where supporter Eric Novack stated about the measure, "All people in Arizona should have the right to choose not to participate in any health care system or plan without paying a penalty, fine or tax."<ref name=debated> [http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/voters-voice-questions-over-november-ballot-measures ''ABC15'', "Voters voice questions over November ballot measures", September 23, 2010]</ref>
+
* At a debate hosted by [[Cox Communications]] and Gateway Community College on [[BC2010#September|September 22,2010]], all ten measures on the November ballot in Arizona were argued for and against by both sides of the issues.  Proposition 106 was discussed, to where supporter Eric Novack stated about the measure, "All people in Arizona should have the right to choose not to participate in any health care system or plan without paying a penalty, fine or tax."<ref name=debated> [http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/voters-voice-questions-over-november-ballot-measures ''ABC15'', "Voters voice questions over November ballot measures", September 23, 2010]</ref>
  
 
==Opposition==
 
==Opposition==
  
 
===Opponents===
 
===Opponents===
* State [[Arizona House of Representatives|Representative]] [[Kyrsten Sinema]] is an opponent of the measure, stating, "Its value is in attempting to shape the debate. Its value is not in making substantive changes at the state level, because federal law supersedes the state constitution."<ref name=Forbes/>
+
* State [[Arizona House of Representatives|Representative]] [[Kyrsten Sinema]] was an opponent of the measure, stating, "Its value is in attempting to shape the debate. Its value is not in making substantive changes at the state level, because federal law supersedes the state constitution."<ref name=Forbes/>
  
* The Arizona Public Health Association is against the measure, as the group filed arguments against the measure in the Arizona Secretary of State's Publicity Pamphlet.<ref name=pamphlet/>  
+
* The [[Arizona Public Health Association]] was against the measure, as the group filed arguments against the measure in the Arizona Secretary of State's Publicity Pamphlet.<ref name=pamphlet/>  
  
* [[Arizona House of Representatives|Representative]] [[Phil Lopes]] has stated opposition to the measure.<ref name=pamphlet/>
+
* [[Arizona House of Representatives|Representative]] [[Phil Lopes]] stated opposition to the measure.<ref name=pamphlet/>
  
* The League of Women Voters of Arizona stated their opposition to the measure, submitting arguments against the measure in the Arizona Secretary of State's Publicity Pamphlet.<ref name=pamphlet/>
+
* The [[League of Women Voters]] of Arizona stated their opposition to the measure, submitting arguments against the measure in the Arizona Secretary of State's Publicity Pamphlet.<ref name=pamphlet/>
  
* [[Phil Lopes]] stated that the newly passed health care mandates would not prevent people from spending money on the health care services they want.<ref name=azds> [http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_e454bbdf-6200-5cc4-80f7-ce9605682f98.html ''Arizona Daily Star'', "AZ health measure raises blood pressure on both sides", September 26, 2010]</ref>
+
* [[Phil Lopes]] stated that the passed health care mandates would not prevent people from spending money on the health care services they want.<ref name=azds> [http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/article_e454bbdf-6200-5cc4-80f7-ce9605682f98.html ''Arizona Daily Star'', "AZ health measure raises blood pressure on both sides", September 26, 2010]</ref>
  
 
* The Pima County Democratic Party recommended a 'no' vote on the measure.<ref> [http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/10/pcdp-ballot-measure-recommendations.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BlogForArizona+%28Blog+For+Arizona%29 ''Blog For Arizona'', "PCDP Ballot Measure Recommendations", Retrieved October 18, 2010]</ref>
 
* The Pima County Democratic Party recommended a 'no' vote on the measure.<ref> [http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/10/pcdp-ballot-measure-recommendations.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BlogForArizona+%28Blog+For+Arizona%29 ''Blog For Arizona'', "PCDP Ballot Measure Recommendations", Retrieved October 18, 2010]</ref>
Line 109: Line 112:
 
An editorial by the Los Angeles Times stated these arguments '''against''' the measure:<ref name=Times/>
 
An editorial by the Los Angeles Times stated these arguments '''against''' the measure:<ref name=Times/>
  
* It's not clear whether a state constitution can defeat a federal healthcare mandate.
+
* It was not clear whether a state constitution can defeat a federal healthcare mandate.
 
* Allowing people to ignore a national mandate to buy insurance would encourage them to carry policies only when they need treatment.
 
* Allowing people to ignore a national mandate to buy insurance would encourage them to carry policies only when they need treatment.
* Implicit in proposals such as Arizona's is an every-man-for-himself vision of society.
+
* Implicit in proposals such as Arizona's was an every-man-for-himself vision of society.
* Why shouldn't the healthy be able to refuse to pay for insurance they're confident they won't use? Because they have a stake in making healthcare affordable for those who need it. The healthier the public is as a whole, the more productive it is and the faster the economy can grow.
+
* Why shouldn't the healthy be able to refuse to pay for insurance they're confident they wouldn't use? Because they had a stake in making healthcare affordable for those who needed it. The healthier the public was as a whole, the more productive it would be and the faster the economy could grow.
  
In a column published by ABC15, [[Kyrsten Sinema]], Assistant House Democratic Leader, gives her reasons why she is against the measure:
+
In a column published by ABC15, [[Kyrsten Sinema]], Assistant House Democratic Leader, gave her reasons why she was against the measure:
  
* The column stated that the measure is a waste of time because the measure cannot override federal mandates or laws.  The commentary brings evidence on this point, stating, "Prop. 106 is completely useless because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes that laws established by Congress are the supreme law of the land. Through Proposition 106, the state may not tell the federal government what to do."
+
* The column stated that the measure was a waste of time because the measure could not override federal mandates or laws.  The commentary brought evidence on this point, stating, "Prop. 106 is completely useless because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes that laws established by Congress are the supreme law of the land. Through Proposition 106, the state may not tell the federal government what to do."
* Sinema also stated that the measure is a waste of time because the state has many other issues that it should be tackling.  Sinema stated, "With so many things wrong with our state - Republicans' massive cuts to jobs, education and health care - we've to got to focus on the priorities, not ideological ballot initiatives that fail to yield results."<ref name=Novak/>
+
* Sinema also stated that the measure was a waste of time because the state had many other issues that it should have been tackling at the time.  Sinema stated, "With so many things wrong with our state - Republicans' massive cuts to jobs, education and health care - we've to got to focus on the priorities, not ideological ballot initiatives that fail to yield results."<ref name=Novak/>
  
Other arguments that have been made by opponents include:<ref> [http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/publications-reports/2010-propositon-106-health-care ''Morrison Institute'', "Understanding Arizona’s Propositions: Prop 106", Retrieved September 3, 2010]</ref>
+
Other arguments that had been made by opponents included:<ref> [http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/publications-reports/2010-propositon-106-health-care ''Morrison Institute'', "Understanding Arizona’s Propositions: Prop 106", Retrieved September 3, 2010]</ref>
  
 
* Rising costs in health care would be the result of uncovered residents that seek emergency care, and that mandated coverage would prevent this.   
 
* Rising costs in health care would be the result of uncovered residents that seek emergency care, and that mandated coverage would prevent this.   
  
* According to John Wright and Andrew Morrill, president and vice president of Arizona Education Association, "Right now Arizona has the fourth highest percentage of uninsured children in the nation. PROP 106 moves Arizona backwards and away from providing quality, affordable health care to our children."
+
* According to John Wright and Andrew Morrill, president and vice president of [[Arizona Education Association]], "Right now Arizona has the fourth highest percentage of uninsured children in the nation. PROP 106 moves Arizona backwards and away from providing quality, affordable health care to our children."
  
 
In the Publicity Pamphlet published by the Arizona Secretary of State's office, arguments were submitted against the measure, most notably the following:<ref name=pamphlet/>
 
In the Publicity Pamphlet published by the Arizona Secretary of State's office, arguments were submitted against the measure, most notably the following:<ref name=pamphlet/>
  
* John Wright and Andrew Morrill of Arizona Education Association stated, "Right now Arizona has the fourth highest percentage of uninsured children in the nation. PROP 106 moves Arizona backwards and away from providing quality, affordable health care to our children. The Arizona Education Association requests that you vote NO on PROP 106."
+
* John Wright and Andrew Morrill of [[Arizona Education Association]] stated, "Right now Arizona has the fourth highest percentage of uninsured children in the nation. PROP 106 moves Arizona backwards and away from providing quality, affordable health care to our children. The Arizona Education Association requests that you vote NO on PROP 106."
  
 
* Dr. Bonnie F. Saunders and Dr. Barbara Klein of the League of Women Voters of Arizona argued, " Proposition 106, which allows people to ignore a national mandate to buy health insurance, would encourage them to use emergency room services or to carry policies only when they need treatment. This would increase costs for everyone else, either through higher insurance premiums or taxes. This is not "freedom" for those of us paying the bill."
 
* Dr. Bonnie F. Saunders and Dr. Barbara Klein of the League of Women Voters of Arizona argued, " Proposition 106, which allows people to ignore a national mandate to buy health insurance, would encourage them to use emergency room services or to carry policies only when they need treatment. This would increase costs for everyone else, either through higher insurance premiums or taxes. This is not "freedom" for those of us paying the bill."
Line 133: Line 136:
 
* [[Phil Lopes]] argued against the measure, claiming, "The Affordable Health Care Act provides new security and stability for all Americans including those with chronic illnesses, by protecting them from bad insurance company practices and by ensuring coverage is affordable regardless of health status. Passage of 106 would put Arizonans at renewed risk of going without health insurance, and losing the access to health care that insurance provides."
 
* [[Phil Lopes]] argued against the measure, claiming, "The Affordable Health Care Act provides new security and stability for all Americans including those with chronic illnesses, by protecting them from bad insurance company practices and by ensuring coverage is affordable regardless of health status. Passage of 106 would put Arizonans at renewed risk of going without health insurance, and losing the access to health care that insurance provides."
  
* Doug Hart and Bill Engler of the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, jointly stated, "Vote "NO" on Proposition 106. Proposition 106 will HARM SENIORS. Vote "NO" on Proposition 106."
+
* Doug Hart and Bill Engler of the [[Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans]], jointly stated, "Vote "NO" on Proposition 106. Proposition 106 will HARM SENIORS. Vote "NO" on Proposition 106."
  
 
==Campaign contributions==
 
==Campaign contributions==
Line 139: Line 142:
 
Groups or individuals that have donated to the campaign for the measure and the amount they have donated are shown in the table below.  Donors listed below have spent $10,000 or more, thus are listed on the [[Arizona Secretary of State]]'s website:<ref> [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/General/ballotmeasurenotifications.htm ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "Notifications of Contributions to Ballot Measure Committees"]</ref>
 
Groups or individuals that have donated to the campaign for the measure and the amount they have donated are shown in the table below.  Donors listed below have spent $10,000 or more, thus are listed on the [[Arizona Secretary of State]]'s website:<ref> [http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/General/ballotmeasurenotifications.htm ''Arizona Secretary of State'', "Notifications of Contributions to Ballot Measure Committees"]</ref>
  
{| class="wikitable"
+
{{donor box}}
|-
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | Contributor
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#00008B; color: white;" | Amount
+
 
|-
 
|-
 
|Mentzer Media Services, Inc. || $428,400
 
|Mentzer Media Services, Inc. || $428,400
 +
|-
 +
| The Benjamin Rush League || $250,000
 +
|-
 +
| U.S. Health Freedom Coalition || $200,000
 +
|-
 +
| Charles Burnett III || $52,741
 +
|-
 +
| Services Group of America || $25,000
 +
|-
 +
| Erik Novack || $11,324
 +
|-
 +
|Robert Mayer || $10,500
 +
|-
 +
| Travis K. Anderson || $10,000
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Coleman Dahm & Associates || $10,000
 
| Coleman Dahm & Associates || $10,000
Line 163: Line 177:
 
|-
 
|-
 
| Eric Crown || $10,000
 
| Eric Crown || $10,000
|-
 
| Services Group of America || $25,000
 
|-
 
| Charles Burnett III || $52,741
 
|-
 
| U.S. Health Freedom Coalition || $200,000
 
|-
 
| The Benjamin Rush League || $250,000
 
 
|}
 
|}
  
Line 215: Line 221:
 
* '''The Yuma Sun''' is against the measure, stating in an editorial: "Although Proposition 106 is proclaimed by supporters as being about “choice,” it more accurately is at attempt to head off a national health care system and reduce choice."<ref> [http://www.yumasun.com/opinion/health-64834-care-laws.html ''Yuma Sun'', "Health measure actually harmful for Arizonans", October 21, 2010]</ref>
 
* '''The Yuma Sun''' is against the measure, stating in an editorial: "Although Proposition 106 is proclaimed by supporters as being about “choice,” it more accurately is at attempt to head off a national health care system and reduce choice."<ref> [http://www.yumasun.com/opinion/health-64834-care-laws.html ''Yuma Sun'', "Health measure actually harmful for Arizonans", October 21, 2010]</ref>
  
==Polling==
+
==Polls==
 
: ''[[Polls, 2010 ballot measures]]''
 
: ''[[Polls, 2010 ballot measures]]''
 
* A poll conducted by Rocky Mountain surveying 555 registered voters in the state showed that 38 percent supported the measure.  The poll was conducted during October 1-10, 2010 and had a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points.<ref> [http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/10/14/20101014arizona-elections-propositions-support.html ''Arizona Republic'', "Poll: 3 of 10 propositions have support", October 14, 2010]</ref>
 
* A poll conducted by Rocky Mountain surveying 555 registered voters in the state showed that 38 percent supported the measure.  The poll was conducted during October 1-10, 2010 and had a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points.<ref> [http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/10/14/20101014arizona-elections-propositions-support.html ''Arizona Republic'', "Poll: 3 of 10 propositions have support", October 14, 2010]</ref>
 
<table style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px">
 
<table style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; width: 242px; border: #99B3FF solid 1px">
<tr><td>{{2010BallotMeasurePollLegend}}</td></tr>
+
<tr><td>{{BallotMeasurePollLegend}}</td></tr>
 
</table>
 
</table>
 
{{Arizonahealthinsurancepoll}}
 
{{Arizonahealthinsurancepoll}}
Line 237: Line 243:
 
Similar measures in other states that have been certified for a 2010 ballot include:
 
Similar measures in other states that have been certified for a 2010 ballot include:
  
* [[Florida Health Care Freedom Act (2010)|Florida has a measure on the ballot that would allow voters]] whether or not to ban any laws that require people to participate in a health care system. A minimum of 60% of voters must approve the amendment in order for it to take effect. The measure will appear on the [[Florida 2010 ballot measures|November 2, 2010 general election ballot]].
+
* [[Florida Health Care Freedom Act (2010)|Florida has a measure on the ballot that would allow voters]] whether or not to ban any laws that require people to participate in a health care system. A minimum of 60% of voters must approve the amendment in order for it to take effect. The measure was on the [[Florida 2010 ballot measures|November 2, 2010 general election ballot]].
  
 
* Voters in [[Missouri]] will also get a chance to decide whether or not to [[Missouri Health Care Freedom Amendment (2010)|block the federal government from requiring people to buy health insurance]] and ban punishment for those without health insurance. Advocates say the measure will "protect the individual’s right to make health care decisions." Opponents of the measures and some constitutional scholars say the proposals are mostly symbolic, intended to send a message of political protest, and have little chance of succeeding in court over the long run.
 
* Voters in [[Missouri]] will also get a chance to decide whether or not to [[Missouri Health Care Freedom Amendment (2010)|block the federal government from requiring people to buy health insurance]] and ban punishment for those without health insurance. Advocates say the measure will "protect the individual’s right to make health care decisions." Opponents of the measures and some constitutional scholars say the proposals are mostly symbolic, intended to send a message of political protest, and have little chance of succeeding in court over the long run.
Line 245: Line 251:
 
===Previous years===
 
===Previous years===
  
* The proposed health insurance reform amendment is similar to a [[Arizona 2008 ballot measures|November 2008]] proposition that narrowly failed, [[Arizona Proposition 101 (2008)|Proposition 101]].  However, the new version has some changes that take into account the main criticism levied against the 2008 measure.  The new version ensures that patients covered under the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System will not be negatively impacted if the amendment passes. In 2008, AHCCCS officials argued that Proposition 101 would increase costs by preventing the agency from requiring patients to seek services from within its network of providers.<ref name="health"/>
+
* The proposed health insurance reform amendment is similar to a [[Arizona 2008 ballot measures|November 2008]] proposition that narrowly failed, [[Arizona Medical Freedom to Choose, Proposition 101 (2008)|Proposition 101]].  However, the new version has some changes that take into account the main criticism levied against the 2008 measure.  The new version ensures that patients covered under the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System will not be negatively impacted if the amendment passes. In 2008, AHCCCS officials argued that Proposition 101 would increase costs by preventing the agency from requiring patients to seek services from within its network of providers.<ref name="health"/>
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
Line 255: Line 261:
 
* [[Health care issue being fought by ballot measures]]
 
* [[Health care issue being fought by ballot measures]]
 
* [[Arizona legislators advance health care proposition]]
 
* [[Arizona legislators advance health care proposition]]
 +
* [[BREAKING: Federal judge rules health care reform unconstitutional]]
  
 
===Similar measures===
 
===Similar measures===
Line 278: Line 285:
 
* [http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/market_news/article.jsp?content=D9IGTN9G0 Prop 106 would amend Ariz. constitution to prohibit forced participation in health care plans]
 
* [http://www.canadianbusiness.com/markets/market_news/article.jsp?content=D9IGTN9G0 Prop 106 would amend Ariz. constitution to prohibit forced participation in health care plans]
 
* [http://ktar.com/category/local-news-articles/20101019/AZ-Prop-106-challenges-Obama-health-care-law/ AZ Prop 106 challenges Obama health care law]
 
* [http://ktar.com/category/local-news-articles/20101019/AZ-Prop-106-challenges-Obama-health-care-law/ AZ Prop 106 challenges Obama health care law]
 +
* [http://azstarnet.com/news/science/health-med-fit/article_baca166b-bffb-5902-bec6-c0cd0cd29e7d.html Q&A with measure supporter Dr. Novack]
 +
* [http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizona/politics/article_59421ba2-08b7-11e0-a56e-001cc4c002e0.html Arizona campaign against health care reform cost $1.9 million]
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 17:34, 14 August 2012

Arizona Constitution
Flag of Arizona.png
Preamble
Articles
1234566.178910111213141516171819202122252627282930
An Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, also known as Proposition 106, or HCR 2014, was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was approved. Approveda 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 was proposed to 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.[3]

Aftermath

Dr. Eric Novack, who was the major supporter behind the measure, stated that the approval of the measure is not the final step in his campaign against federal health care mandates. Dr. Novack stated that he has drafted a document called, "A Blueprint for a Sustainable Safety Net Healthcare System." Dr. Novack is the leader of the U.S. Healthcare Freedom Coalition, and planned to promote the blueprint through the organization.[4]

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

Official results of the measure follow:

Proposition 106 (Health Insurance Reform)
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 892,693 55.3%
No722,30044.7%

Results via the Official Election Canvass of Results from the Arizona Secretary of State's website.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title that Arizona voters saw read:[5]

A "yes" vote shall have the effect of prohibiting the enactment of laws or rules that require any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system. It will also allow a person or employer to forgo health insurance and pay for health care services directly without a penalty and will allow health care providers to accept direct payment without a penalty. It will specifically allow health insurance in private health care systems.

A "no" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding a person or entity's health care choices.

Short title

The short title of the measure, according to the Arizona Secretary of State's website, read as follows:[6]

A concurrent resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article XXVII, By adding Section 2, Constitution of Arizona; Relating to Health Care Services.

Constitutional changes

Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, constitutional text changes

The measure was proposed to amend Article XXVII of the Arizona Constitution by adding a new Section 2:[7]

Support

Supporters

  • Governor of Arizona Jan Brewer endorsed the measure, stating, "I support Proposition 106 and have every reason to believe that Arizona voters will overwhelmingly pass this measure. And, when they do, a clear message will be sent to the president and Congress that this type of overreaching by the federal government will no longer be tolerated."[8]
  • Former presidential candidate Steve Forbes and U.S. Representatives John Shadegg of Arizona stated their support for the measure, citing freedom of choice in the health care issue. Both men stated that there were significant holes in the health care proposal being considered in Congress.[10]

Rep. Barto speaks about Health Care Freedom Act
According to Forbes: "Allowing individuals to make their own choice is the essence of freedom. You don't have to buy something if you don't wish to buy it. You should have those choices. This amendment would make that possible.”
According to Shadegg: “We in Arizona believe that health care is an intensely personal matter and that no law should be able to stop anyone in this country - certainly not in this state - from spending their own money to buy the health care services that they want, and no one should be compelled to spend their money on health care services they don't want."
  • According to reports, three out of four members of the National Federation of Independent Business opposed the measure. The group stated that 77 percent of its state membership have come out in opposition to the health care insurance proposal.[11]
  • Dr. Donnie Sansom, an anesthesiologist from Tucson, stated about the measure, "People are afraid for their health care. I have a great problem with my government saying, 'You have to purchase this.' It's unprecedented...Prop. 106 is about ensuring you have individual freedoms in place."[12]
  • Linda Turley-Hansen, syndicated columnist and former Phoenix TV anchor, advised a 'yes' vote on the measure in an editorial revealing her recommendations for all the propositions on the November ballot.[13]

Arguments

Arguments that were made in favor of a "yes" vote included:

  • It would "protect the rights of Arizona to determine its own, best health care system."[15]
  • "Many Americans look at a federal overhaul of healthcare as a threat, and don't see how they will benefit from covering millions of uninsured people at taxpayer expense."[16]
  • According to Biggovernment.com: "The federal government has a limited set of enumerated powers, while everything else is reserved to the states and the people. None of these powers includes the ability to force people to purchase health insurance, or anything else for that matter."[17]
  • In an opinion piece written by Dr. Eric Novak of Glendale, Arizona, supporter of a similar 2008 initiative, he tried to clear up a misinterpretation about the proposed bill on Politico.com. The wrong "assertion" came in another opinion piece that appeared on the website on October 28, 2009. Dr. Novak stated in his writing:
The Health Care Freedom Act was born from an idea that I had in 2006, when the health care system was just as unsustainable, and the desperate need for reform was as equally apparent as it is today. The principle was and remains simple: Unless we act decisively to protect the rights of Americans and their families to remain in control of their health and health care decisions, those rights will be sacrificed on the altar of health care reform.[18]
  • Dr. Novak published a column for ABC15 in Arizona, stating that the measure could ultimately save lives. According to Novak, "Prop 106 will guarantee that all Arizonans have the right to spend their own money to obtain legal health care services. Second opinions; additional medical treatments; life-saving legal drugs: No government bureaucrat should ever be able to tell you that your life and health are not worth it."[19]
  • In that same column by Dr. Novak, the chairman stated that the measure was not worthless, countering arguments from opponents who stated that the measure would not overrule federal mandates. In fact, Dr. Novak stated that the measure would echo throughout the country in certain legal issues. Novak stated, "The truth is, ObamaCare is already being severely tested in our nation’s courts, especially on the grounds that a mandate to buy health insurance or else faces fines and penalties is a massive and unconstitutional overreach by government. Those legal challenges will be stronger if Proposition 106 passes at the polls in November."[19]
  • In the Publicity Pamphlet published by the Arizona Secretary of State's office, arguments were submitted for the passage of the measure, most notably the following:[20]
Jeffrey A. Singer, MD of Arizonans For Health Care Freedom stated, "In a free society, people should not be forced to participate in a health insurance plan they do not want. In a free society, the people should not be able to dictate to people what kind of -and how much- lawful health care they are allowed to obtain. In a free society, the people should never be blocked from making their own personal arrangements for health care."
Barbara Leff argued, "As many as 20 other states have followed the model we started. As a State Senator I was proud to vote to put this on the ballot to amend our State Constitution. It maintains our rights to spend our own money on medical services we want and lets us opt out of an insurance plan we don't want."
Michelle Andrews of Certified Ortho Tech wrote, "For nearly a year we listened to various politicians tell us what was and what would not be part of health care reform. When the final product was rendered, it was more than 2,000 pages of non-comprehensible language that could be tied up in court for years... You don't need to read hundreds of pages to understand what it means. It will take less than a minute to read it...then vote YES."
Kevin G. Rogers and James W. Klinker of the Arizona Farm Bureau stated, "We need reform in the health insurance marketplace and we need to improve public health insurance programs before we mandate programs that we don't know how we are going to subsidize. Mandated insurance requirements will limit the marketplace and do nothing to control costs."

Campaigning

  • On August 26, 2010, approximately 100 people rallied at Sahuaro High School in Tucson, leaving with "Yes on 106" yard signs, which were to be used to campaign for the passage of the measure. According to reports, Pima County was an important area for the passage of the measure, as in 2008, a similar measure was rejected by voters, mainly due to weak support in the southern part of the state.[21]
  • At a debate hosted by Cox Communications and Gateway Community College on September 22,2010, all ten measures on the November ballot in Arizona were argued for and against by both sides of the issues. Proposition 106 was discussed, to where supporter Eric Novack stated about the measure, "All people in Arizona should have the right to choose not to participate in any health care system or plan without paying a penalty, fine or tax."[22]

Opposition

Opponents

  • State Representative Kyrsten Sinema was an opponent of the measure, stating, "Its value is in attempting to shape the debate. Its value is not in making substantive changes at the state level, because federal law supersedes the state constitution."[10]
  • The League of Women Voters of Arizona stated their opposition to the measure, submitting arguments against the measure in the Arizona Secretary of State's Publicity Pamphlet.[20]
  • Phil Lopes stated that the passed health care mandates would not prevent people from spending money on the health care services they want.[12]
  • The Pima County Democratic Party recommended a 'no' vote on the measure.[23]

Arguments

An editorial by the Los Angeles Times stated these arguments against the measure:[16]

  • It was not clear whether a state constitution can defeat a federal healthcare mandate.
  • Allowing people to ignore a national mandate to buy insurance would encourage them to carry policies only when they need treatment.
  • Implicit in proposals such as Arizona's was an every-man-for-himself vision of society.
  • Why shouldn't the healthy be able to refuse to pay for insurance they're confident they wouldn't use? Because they had a stake in making healthcare affordable for those who needed it. The healthier the public was as a whole, the more productive it would be and the faster the economy could grow.

In a column published by ABC15, Kyrsten Sinema, Assistant House Democratic Leader, gave her reasons why she was against the measure:

  • The column stated that the measure was a waste of time because the measure could not override federal mandates or laws. The commentary brought evidence on this point, stating, "Prop. 106 is completely useless because the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution establishes that laws established by Congress are the supreme law of the land. Through Proposition 106, the state may not tell the federal government what to do."
  • Sinema also stated that the measure was a waste of time because the state had many other issues that it should have been tackling at the time. Sinema stated, "With so many things wrong with our state - Republicans' massive cuts to jobs, education and health care - we've to got to focus on the priorities, not ideological ballot initiatives that fail to yield results."[19]

Other arguments that had been made by opponents included:[24]

  • Rising costs in health care would be the result of uncovered residents that seek emergency care, and that mandated coverage would prevent this.
  • According to John Wright and Andrew Morrill, president and vice president of Arizona Education Association, "Right now Arizona has the fourth highest percentage of uninsured children in the nation. PROP 106 moves Arizona backwards and away from providing quality, affordable health care to our children."

In the Publicity Pamphlet published by the Arizona Secretary of State's office, arguments were submitted against the measure, most notably the following:[20]

  • John Wright and Andrew Morrill of Arizona Education Association stated, "Right now Arizona has the fourth highest percentage of uninsured children in the nation. PROP 106 moves Arizona backwards and away from providing quality, affordable health care to our children. The Arizona Education Association requests that you vote NO on PROP 106."
  • Dr. Bonnie F. Saunders and Dr. Barbara Klein of the League of Women Voters of Arizona argued, " Proposition 106, which allows people to ignore a national mandate to buy health insurance, would encourage them to use emergency room services or to carry policies only when they need treatment. This would increase costs for everyone else, either through higher insurance premiums or taxes. This is not "freedom" for those of us paying the bill."
  • Phil Lopes argued against the measure, claiming, "The Affordable Health Care Act provides new security and stability for all Americans including those with chronic illnesses, by protecting them from bad insurance company practices and by ensuring coverage is affordable regardless of health status. Passage of 106 would put Arizonans at renewed risk of going without health insurance, and losing the access to health care that insurance provides."

Campaign contributions

Support

Groups or individuals that have donated to the campaign for the measure and the amount they have donated are shown in the table below. Donors listed below have spent $10,000 or more, thus are listed on the Arizona Secretary of State's website:[25]

Donor Amount
Mentzer Media Services, Inc. $428,400
The Benjamin Rush League $250,000
U.S. Health Freedom Coalition $200,000
Charles Burnett III $52,741
Services Group of America $25,000
Erik Novack $11,324
Robert Mayer $10,500
Travis K. Anderson $10,000
Coleman Dahm & Associates $10,000
Jeff Yass $10,000
Anthony Hedley $10,000
Robson Communities, Inc. $10,000
Enhanced Medical Imaging of Milwaukee $10,000
Coleman Dahm & Associates $10,000
IWS $10,000
David Leibowitz $10,000
Eric Crown $10,000

Reports, analysis and studies

Legislative analysis

A legislative council analysis performed on the measure and published in the Arizona Secretary of State's Publicity Pamphlet, impartially stated the following, in terms of what the measure would do if enacted:[20]

Proposition 106 would amend the Arizona Constitution to:
1. Prohibit any law or rule from compelling any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system.
2. Allow a person or employer to pay directly for lawful health care services without being penalized or fined.
3. Allow a health care provider to accept direct payment for lawful health care services without being penalized or fined.
4. Provide that the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule, subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person's options.
Proposition 106 would not:
1. Affect which health care services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide.
2. Affect which health care services are permitted by law.
3. Prohibit care provided by law relating to worker's compensation.
4. Affect laws or rules in effect as of January 1, 2009.
5. Affect the terms or conditions of any health care system unless those terms and conditions have the effect of punishing a person or employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or punishing a health care provider or hospital for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.

Media endorsements

See also: Endorsements of Arizona ballot measures, 2010

Support

  • Inside Tuscon Business stated: "Vote yes to preserve healthcare choices."[26]
  • The Desert Lamp stated in an editorial about the measure: "Formally prohibiting the state from enacting any law that would compel participation in a particular health care program is an important, albeit symbolic, step in protecting an individual’s right to choose."[27]
  • Goldwater State is for the measure, stating, "The events of 2010 show 2008's "no" to have been a grave mistake; let's correct it this year, score a propaganda coup for, and open a legal front for health care freedom. Vote "yes" on Prop. 106."[28]

Opposition

  • The Arizona Daily Star is opposed, saying, "Would keep federal health-care reform from applying to Arizonans".[29]
  • The Arizona Republic is opposed, saying, "Voters should be wary about opening the floodgates for every special interest to protect its pet causes with constitutional writ."[30]
  • The East Valley Tribune recommended a 'no' vote on the measure, stating, "Much of this referral was originally meant to counter the public-option component of federal reform — a moot point because it no longer includes such a public option. Beyond that, this proposition may be legally pre-empted by federal law, which could result in needless lawsuits. We understand the desire to fight back against federal health care, but this is a pointless way to do it."[31]
  • The Yuma Sun is against the measure, stating in an editorial: "Although Proposition 106 is proclaimed by supporters as being about “choice,” it more accurately is at attempt to head off a national health care system and reduce choice."[32]

Polls

Polls, 2010 ballot measures
  • A poll conducted by Rocky Mountain surveying 555 registered voters in the state showed that 38 percent supported the measure. The poll was conducted during October 1-10, 2010 and had a margin of error of 4.2 percentage points.[33]
Legend

     Position is ahead and at or over 50%     Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided Number polled
October 1-10, 2010 Rocky Mountain Poll 38% 31% 31% 555

Litigation

On August 12, 2010, a 78-page lawsuit was filed by the Goldwater Institute and Arizona lawmakers against the federal health care mandates. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Phoenix, disputes key points in the new health care law, focusing on the requirement to purchase health insurance. Other plaintiffs in the case include U.S. Representatives Jeff Flake, Trent Franks and John Shadegg. The lawsuit is not directly correlated to the proposed constitutional amendment. According to attorney Clint Bolick, who is in the case, "Congress simply does not have the power under the 'commerce clause' to require an individual mandate. This is the first time that Congress has attempted to compel individuals to buy a private product."[34][35]

Path to the ballot

The ballot measure was referred to the November ballot by a majority vote of the Arizona House of Representatives and the Arizona State Senate. A majority vote is required in the Arizona State Legislature. Arizona is one of ten states allow a referred amendment to go on the ballot after a majority vote in one session of the state's legislature.[9]

Similar certified measures

2010

See also Certified 2010 health care ballot measures
Healthcare on the ballot in 2010
Nevada 2010 ballot measuresUtah 2010 ballot measuresColorado Fetal Personhood, Amendment 62 (2010)New Mexico 2010 ballot measuresArizona 2010 ballot measuresMontana 2010 ballot measuresCalifornia 2010 ballot measuresOregon 2010 ballot measuresWashington 2010 ballot measuresIdaho 2010 ballot measuresOklahoma 2010 ballot measuresKansas 2010 ballot measuresNebraska 2010 ballot measuresSouth Dakota 2010 ballot measuresNorth Dakota 2010 ballot measuresIowa 2010 ballot measuresMissouri 2010 ballot measuresArkansas 2010 ballot measuresLouisiana 2010 ballot measuresAlabama 2010 ballot measuresGeorgia 2010 ballot measuresFlorida 2010 ballot measuresSouth Carolina 2010 ballot measuresIllinois 2010 ballot measuresTennessee 2010 ballot measuresNorth Carolina 2010 ballot measuresIndiana 2010 ballot measuresOhio 2010 ballot measuresMaine 2010 ballot measuresVirginia 2010 ballot measuresMaryland 2010 ballot measuresMaryland 2010 ballot measuresRhode Island 2010 ballot measuresRhode Island 2010 ballot measuresMassachusetts 2010 ballot measuresMichigan 2010 ballot measuresMichigan 2010 ballot measuresAlaska Parental Notification Initiative, Ballot Measure 2 (2010)Hawaii 2010 ballot measuresCertified, health care, 2010 Map.png

Similar measures in other states that have been certified for a 2010 ballot include:

  • Voters in Missouri will also get a chance to decide whether or not to block the federal government from requiring people to buy health insurance and ban punishment for those without health insurance. Advocates say the measure will "protect the individual’s right to make health care decisions." Opponents of the measures and some constitutional scholars say the proposals are mostly symbolic, intended to send a message of political protest, and have little chance of succeeding in court over the long run.

Previous years

  • The proposed health insurance reform amendment is similar to a November 2008 proposition that narrowly failed, Proposition 101. However, the new version has some changes that take into account the main criticism levied against the 2008 measure. The new version ensures that patients covered under the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System will not be negatively impacted if the amendment passes. In 2008, AHCCCS officials argued that Proposition 101 would increase costs by preventing the agency from requiring patients to seek services from within its network of providers.[3]

See also

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

Articles

Similar measures

Defeatedd Arizona Proposition 101 (2008)

External links

Additional reading

Government documents

Other

References

  1. Arizona Capitol Times, "Medical reform measure returns - with changes", May 26, 2009
  2. Fox News, "State Lawmakers Considering Move to Opt Out of Federal Health Care", June 25, 2009
  3. 3.0 3.1 Arizona Republic, "Arizona ballot measure sought on health care choices", May 27, 2009
  4. Arizona Daily Star, "AZ measure against US health overhaul called 1st step", November 21, 2010
  5. Arizona Secretary of State, "Publicity Pamplet", Retrieved September 22, 2010
  6. Arizona Secretary of State, "2010 General Election:Ballot measures"
  7. State of Arizona, "HCR 2014", 2009
  8. Arizona Daily Star, "Pueblo Politics: Gov. Brewer backs Proposition 106", September 15, 2010
  9. 9.0 9.1 Arizona Capitol Times, "GOP sends 3 measures to 2010 ballot", August 5, 2009
  10. 10.0 10.1 Herald Online, "Forbes, Shadegg endorse Ariz. health care proposal", January 6, 2010
  11. Business Journals, "Three of four NFIB members in Arizona oppose health care mandates", September 13, 2010
  12. 12.0 12.1 Arizona Daily Star, "AZ health measure raises blood pressure on both sides", September 26, 2010
  13. East Valley Tribune, "Voters: Awaken and prepare for heavy-duty ballot propositions", October 10, 2010
  14. Kingman Daily Miner, "Officials sound off on upcoming propositions", October 14, 2010
  15. East Valley Tribune, "Arizona in position to be federalism shield", July 18, 2009
  16. 16.0 16.1 The Los Angeles Times, "One Nation, Insured", November 16, 2009
  17. Big Government, "The States Will Be the Next Battlefield in the Fight Over ObamaCare", December 5, 2009
  18. Politico, "Rights of Arizonans -- and Americans", October 30, 2009
  19. 19.0 19.1 19.2 ABC15.com, "Hear Me Out: Is Proposition 106 good or bad for Arizona?", July 24, 2010
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 Arizona Secretary of State, "Publicity Pamphlet", Retrieved September 21, 2010
  21. Arizona Daily Star, "Pima seen as key to Prop. 106 campaign", August 27, 2010
  22. ABC15, "Voters voice questions over November ballot measures", September 23, 2010
  23. Blog For Arizona, "PCDP Ballot Measure Recommendations", Retrieved October 18, 2010
  24. Morrison Institute, "Understanding Arizona’s Propositions: Prop 106", Retrieved September 3, 2010
  25. Arizona Secretary of State, "Notifications of Contributions to Ballot Measure Committees"
  26. Inside Tuscon Business, "Recapping where we stand on candidates and propositions", October 29, 2010
  27. Desert Lamp, "The Desert Lamp’s Ballot Proposition Endorsements", October 20, 2010
  28. Goldwater State, "Ballot question summaries and recommendations part 1: Propositions 106-113, the Constitutional amendments", November 1, 2010
  29. Arizona Daily Star, "The Star's recommendations on state, local propositions", October 28, 2010
  30. Arizona Republic, "This amendment is bad medicine", October 5, 2010
  31. East Valley Tribune, "Endorsements: Ballot propositions", October 24, 2010
  32. Yuma Sun, "Health measure actually harmful for Arizonans", October 21, 2010
  33. Arizona Republic, "Poll: 3 of 10 propositions have support", October 14, 2010
  34. Fox News, "Arizona Lawsuit Is Latest to Challenge to Federal Health Care Law", August 12, 2010
  35. The Hill, "Ariz. congressmen join health reform lawsuit", August 13, 2010