Prop 106: AZ opt-out for Obamacare's individual mandate

I'm 90% supportive, I encourage a YES vote.

What it does
o Preserves Arizonans’ right to not buy health care insurance and to pay directly for insurance.
o Prohibit compulsory health insurance by anyone.
o Allow to buy/sell health treatment directly
o We can buy or sell health insurance freely.
o Doesn’t change laws in place prior to 1/1/9

Analysis
o Four sorts of people
1. I dislike Obamacare—Vote Yes.
2. I like Obamacare generally, but I don’t think it’s my right to force people to do what I like. Pro-Choice—Vote yes
3. I like Obamacrae, but I don’t think it’s constitutional—Vote Yes.
4. I like Obamacare so much that I think it’s right to force it upon everyone—Vote No.

For
o Medical freedom. The right to make my own choices about my body.
o “Keep your Obamacare off my body.”
o This sort of response to an invasive federal program should be a last resort, and it is.
o Obamacare is unconstitutional, and this just reinforces the fact.
o Prop 101 failed in 2008 50.2% to 49.8%
o Everything that was said in 2008 now looks prophetically true.

Against
o Wouldn’t hold up to a court challenge.
o Puts us at war with the federal government
o Would prohibit a statewide medical program or an expansion of something like AHCCCS
o It’s not necessary since there’s no public option in the current Obamacare.
o Individual mandate doesn’t take place until 2014. (That’s why it’s necessary now.)

Questions
o Impact on current programs?
--The lanuage in D5 seems to prohibit medicare withholding.
--Medicaid/Medicare/AHCCCS—resolved by the 1/1/9 grandfather clause
o How many other states are doing this?
--Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, Utah, and Virginia have passed similar
--OK and FL will decide this year.

Notes from Prop 101 in 2008
~Prop 101 would establish a Constitutional right to medical choices and would prevent the government from restricting access to any private pay plans or doctors or treatments and would also prevent any law passing that would penalize anyone for obtaining or declining to obtain any sort of medical coverage.
~Advocates say that government imposed medical plans are possibly the greatest threat to our quality of medical care and freedom to choose.
~They also note that freedom means being able to pick a plan or type of care that is right for you based on your own individual choices.
~Opponents say that this protects the for-profit medical industry against government trying to help the situation and that it might be used to undo any restrictions on abortion.
~80% support. I encourage a YES vote.
~The idea here is to protect people in their ability to seek medical solutions for themselves and prevent any government program or approach to health care which would require or restrict particular choices in health care. It's almost hard to see why people would be opposed to this, since it seems like such a simple individual liberty. Nobody should be forcing you into health care or into a certain type of health care.
~This is a perfect thing to put in the Constitution since it deals with fundamental human rights. Also, this is a right which Benjamin Rush had wanted to include in the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution.
~Health care in the US isn't perfect, but it is very good in my opinion. I don't want to live anywhere else. Government is not the solution to whatever problems do exist because whatever government touches generally seems to become more expensive and less productive, the basic problem of interfering with markets and competition.
~So many of the arguments made against this proposition are disingenuous or fraudulent that this alone pushes me in favor of it to a degree.
~If anything gives me pause here, it's the names of some of the groups that oppose the proposition: the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association, the Association of Community Health Centers, AARP, and virtually every chamber of commerce in the Valley. But they haven't made arguments which persuade me, and I'm not going to side with them just because there are many of them.
~The basic issues here seem to be freedom and options, but with incompatible kinds of freedom and options. Advocates want to keep freedom and options open for individuals, while opponents want to keep freedom and options open for governments. But all Constitutional rights protect people and restrict governments, so the idea that this will limit the government's options isn't so much an argument as it is a restatement of the definition of terms. As a conservative, I say it's okay to protect people's right to medical care against government intrusion.