walkitout (walkitout) wrote,

Arizona anti-national health care amendment

To be voted on in 2010: the text, as near as I can tell from some superficial looking around on tenther advocacy sites sez: no individual mandates, no employer mandates, no fines or penalties for paying a doctor or whatever directly and private health insurance can't be prohibited.

So, free-riding on the first two, and a big ole no-op on the rest.

Basically, what you would expect from Arizona.

Will it pass? That's interesting. They lag the political cycle a ways -- they are the only state to pass an anti-anti-sprawl amendment in 2006 when a _lot_ had it on the ballot. If it did pass, I would expect businesses and individuals to _still_ be subject to the tax if they failed to have/offer insurance that met exchange criteria (taxes, after all, aren't technically fines or penalties. They are taxes.). But I feel absolutely certain that someone in Arizona would decide to be a tax protester and not pay that tax, thus leading to some excitement and drama at some point in the future when the protester got arrested for tax evasion.

Could be entertaining.



Calling this health care nullification is laughable -- people in that state are still going to collect their VA, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. And they're still going to participate in the health care exchange options, for that matter, assuming this all passes.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't really know shit about the constitution. But hey, everyone _else_ has an opinion.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.