Healthcare decisions are intensely personal, and everyone deserves the right to make their own healthcare decisions and from what type of healthcare coverage they purchase to what medications they take. Health reform that works must be focused on expanding choices including allowing individuals to purchase insurance across state lines, to opt for an alternative to traditional health insurance, and to allow individual patients to access promising medications.
The federal health care law included a provision asking all states to expand their Medicaid programs to cover all adults and children up to 133% of the federal poverty level. Right now, a little less than a fifth of the state’s population is given free healthcare through Medicaid; if the state expands Medicaid nearly a fourth of Arizona’s population would be covered.
As last week’s so-called “deadline” for states to decide whether or not to establish a “health insurance exchange” came and went, Arizonans were given good news: Governor Jan Brewer will not stick Arizona taxpayers with the bill for implementing the new federal health insurance mandates – for now. The Governor has decided to delay her decision as she continues to study Arizona’s options.
PHOENIX, AZ - Less than 48 hours remain for Governor Jan Brewer to notify the feds about Arizona's plans for implementing the president's health care law .
ABC15 has learned if Brewer opts for a state-run system, the Goldwater Institute may sue.
And as Brewer decides how to implement the first part of the president's health care law, she has people for and against trying to bend her ear.
Those frustrated with the Supreme Court’s ruling that the federal government can tax Americans who do not purchase government-approved health insurance may find some consolation going forward, because NFIB v. Sebelius will not be the last word on the federal law. Over the next few years, courts across the country will hear a number of legal challenges that share a common theme: even read as a tax, the federal health insurance law is unconstitutional.
This summer’s Supreme Court ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius effectively made states the ultimate guardians of healthcare freedom. Although the Court allowed the federal government to tax individuals who do not obtain government-approved health insurance policies, the decision puts states in a position to prevent the federal takeover of the nation’s healthcare industry.
Since we filed our lawsuit against President Obama's federal healthcare reform, we have warned of a little discussed board with unchecked powers.
Health insurance is emerging as one of the top domestic issues as the 2008 presidential campaign heats up. Every major candidate, Democrat and Republican, has a plan to expand health coverage. Likewise, plans are afoot to bring universal health insurance to Arizona by voter initiative.
The most sweeping plans have one common element: coercion. Health insurance isn't "universal" if people are allowed to opt out or choose options not allowed by the government.
Remember the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act that was on the ballot last year and barely failed with 49.8 percent of the vote? The Legislature has already ensured it will be back on the ballot next year, where it's likely to pass. If it does, it could be joined by other states around the country to trigger a much-needed reset of the relationship between the states and federal government.
The health care bills passed by the U.S. House and Senate are so complex, convoluted, and Ponzi-like, they could only have been conceived by Bernie Madoff. Along with the devil that lies in the bills’ details lurk serious constitutional issues.