On November 4, Arizonans have the opportunity to make a key decision about their rights. Proposition 101, the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, secures your right to spend your money on the health care of your choice.
It comes as no surprise that some people, notably government types, oppose it.
When advocates talk about a “right” to health care, they’re usually proposing a government-monopoly scheme that offers the false hope of “universal health care. The past four decades have seen massive expansion of bloated government healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Nothing in Prop. 101 stops these programs, despite the stated fears of Anthony Rogers, Director of the Health Care Cost Containment System, the government agency that operates the state health programs.
Rogers claims Prop. 101 threatens to put his agency out of business because its beneficiaries would have the “right” to reject the care he chooses for them in favor of care they prefer, but on his agency’s budget. That is not the case. Prop. 101 does not interfere with government agencies’ power over their dependents. It preserves the freedom of those who spend their own money on health care.
Arizona Rep. Phil Lopes, leader of the House Democrats, charges that Prop. 101 “protects the private insurance industry,” which is nonsense. Prop. 101’s plain language makes it clear the state cannot forbid Arizonans from buying private health insurance, but neither can it compel them to do so. Thus, it protects Arizonians from either a government-monopoly system or mandatory private health insurance.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.
Measure establishes rights
John R. Graham
On November 4, Arizonans have the opportunity to make a key decision about their rights. Proposition 101, the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, secures your right to spend your money on the health care of your choice.
It comes as no surprise that some people, notably government types, oppose it.
When advocates talk about a “right” to health care, they’re usually proposing a government-monopoly scheme that offers the false hope of “universal health care. The past four decades have seen massive expansion of bloated government healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.
Nothing in Prop. 101 stops these programs, despite the stated fears of Anthony Rogers, Director of the Health Care Cost Containment System, the government agency that operates the state health programs.
Rogers claims Prop. 101 threatens to put his agency out of business because its beneficiaries would have the “right” to reject the care he chooses for them in favor of care they prefer, but on his agency’s budget. That is not the case. Prop. 101 does not interfere with government agencies’ power over their dependents. It preserves the freedom of those who spend their own money on health care.
Arizona Rep. Phil Lopes, leader of the House Democrats, charges that Prop. 101 “protects the private insurance industry,” which is nonsense. Prop. 101’s plain language makes it clear the state cannot forbid Arizonans from buying private health insurance, but neither can it compel them to do so. Thus, it protects Arizonians from either a government-monopoly system or mandatory private health insurance.
Nothing contained in this blog is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the Pacific Research Institute or as an attempt to thwart or aid the passage of any legislation.