A "yes" vote shall have the effect of prohibiting laws that restrict a person's choice of private health care systems or private plans, interfere with a person or an entity's right to pay for lawful medical services, and impose a penalty or fine for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any health care system or plan.
Another one of those pesky propositions to amend the state constitution. While the idea of retaining choice sounds like a good great one, I worry that this is yet another case of overkill. Why must everything we decide to do involve a constitutional amendment? Bad enough that the process has devolved into this complete direct-Democracy spend-a-thon.
Still, I am leaning toward "Yes" here...but just barely. C'mon, people - I'm looking for a little feedback on these.
Posted by Vox at November 1, 2008 01:02 PM | Arizona , politicsMy suggestion? Look at who is opposed. For example the Arizona Coalition for a State and National Health Plan is vehemently opposed to the proposition, which should tell you something.
BTW, the "who is for/against" test works for pretty well every ballot initiative, ESPECIALLY prop 202.
Posted by: Melody Byrne at November 1, 2008 06:19 PMThis is a BAD proppisition to take the RIGHT to say NO it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Posted by: at November 17, 2008 01:36 PMI haven't got a clue what that comment was even supposed to mean....
Posted by: Vox at November 17, 2008 03:39 PM