| A nearly perfect gauge of the wisdom and importance of a policy proposal is how loudly special-interest groups howl in opposition. By that measure, Proposition 101-the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act-must be a great idea. Central in the opposition's campaign is the state's Medicaid program, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS). A memorandum by AHCCCS director Anthony D. Rodgers-listing Governor Janet Napolitano's name on the letterhead-parades a series of what I call the "mighty mights": terrible things the initiative might do to AHCCCS. Similar legal "analyses" are being widely circulated, and enormous pressure is being placed on private health insurance companies that participate in AHCCCS to fund opposition to the initiative. The claims are based on a tortured interpretation of the proposal's language. But when What AHCCCS should be worried about is the state's legal ban on using taxpayer money to influence voters. We sent AHCCCS a public records request regarding the preparation and distribution of its "unintended consequences" memorandum. If the agency is engaged in electioneering, the consequences will be anything but unintended. Clint Bolick is the director of the |
| Learn More: Goldwater Institute: Response to Andy Gordon's Memorandum Regarding the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act Secretary of State: Prop 101 Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act: Yes on 101 The Daily Dispatch: New ballot measure could wipe out AHCCCS, chief says |
Posts
4 comments:
Goldwater Institute Investigating Possible Violations Of Election Laws By AHCCCS Over Prop. 101 Memo
September 24, 2008
Goldwater Institute Investigating Possible Violations
Of Election Laws By AHCCCS Over Prop. 101 Memo
PHOENIX, Arizona (September 24, 2008) — The Goldwater Institute served a Freedom of Information Act request to AHCCCS on Tuesday, demanding details regarding the cost and distribution of its “unintended consequences” memo regarding Proposition 101.
The Center for Constitutional Litigation is actively investigating whether the state’s ban on the use of taxpayer money to influence voters and elections is being violated. State agencies are not allowed by law to participate in elections, and the Center is concerned that the memo by AHCCCS sent out last week concerning Proposition 101 did just that.
The memo falsely claimed that Proposition 101 would somehow affect AHCCCS, claims that were debunked last week by an independent legal analysis by the Goldwater Institute.
“The law is clear — government agencies may not spend taxpayer money to try to influence elections,” said Clint Bolick, Director of the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute.
Dr. Eric Novack, chairman of Medical Choice for Arizona, the group supporting Proposition 101, said the Goldwater Institute’s investigation will ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being misused and the trust of Arizona citizens is not being violated.
“We’re pleased that the Goldwater Institute will be bringing its expertise in public policy issues to the table to ensure no impropriety has taken place by a state agency, and if impropriety is found, to make sure the situation is addressed and corrected,” Novack said. “It has been our concern from the beginning that big government agencies and big-money special interests would fight against choice in health care, and we’re ready for that fight. We just want to make sure the fight is a fair and legal one.”
Proposition 101 will preserve and protect the rights of individuals to make their own health care and health insurance choices.
Currently, many lobbyists and special interest groups in Arizona and around the country are promoting policies that would limit or even eliminate the ability of people to have choices when seeking out health care for themselves and their families.
This initiative will guarantee the right of Arizonans to make their own health care choices. Lobbyists and special interests will see their power to control and dictate health care choices limited. The language of the initiative is simple:
BECAUSE ALL PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR HEALTH CARE, NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED THAT RESTRICTS A PERSON’S FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS OR PRIVATE PLANS OF ANY TYPE. NO LAW SHALL INTERFERE WITH A PERSON’S OR ENTITY’S RIGHT TO PAY DIRECTLY FOR LAWFUL MEDICAL SERVICES, NOR SHALL ANY LAW IMPOSE A PENALTY OR FINE, OF ANY TYPE, FOR CHOOSING TO OBTAIN OR DECLINE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE OR FOR PARTICIPATION IN ANY PARTICULAR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM OR PLAN.
www.yeson101.com
Prop. 101 Supporters Will File Lawsuit Against AHCCCS This Week
Believe Government Agency Broke Law By Spending Taxpayer Dollars Campaigning; Opinion By Then-AG Napolitano Could Mean Trouble for AHCCCS
PHOENIX, Arizona (October 1, 2008) — Supporters of the Medical Choice for Arizona initiative will file a lawsuit this week in Superior Court against the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, alleging that AHCCCS broke state law by actively campaigning against the ballot initiative.
Additionally, Prop. 101 supporters are investigating the legality of contributions to the “no” campaign by big health plans with contracts with AHCCCS or other government agencies.
It’s the latest in a series of blows to the opposition campaign, including an investigation by the Goldwater Institute into the actions of AHCCCS in relation to Prop. 101 and two legal analyses showing that opposition claims against Prop. 101 are without merit.
State law dictates that government agencies are not allowed to participate in political campaigns. However, AHCCCS Director Anthony Rodgers recently sent out — on AHCCCS letterhead — a memo on “unintended consequences” of Prop. 101 that supporters believe was a clear attempt by the agency to campaign against the proposition.
Additionally, Banner Health CEO Peter Fine last week sent to Banner employees an e-mail urging them to vote no on Prop. 101, and attached as reference the “unintended consequences” memo.
“If that memo wasn’t meant to be a campaign tool, you could have fooled anyone who read Peter Fine’s e-mail,” said Dr. Eric Novack, chairman of Medical Choice for Arizona. “This is a taxpayer-funded document that is being used as campaign propaganda by the no side, and because of its inflammatory language and claims — which have twice been independently debunked by legal analyses — AHCCCS’ claim that it is not a campaign document certainly doesn’t pass the ‘smell test.’”
The lawsuit is being finalized, and will be filed by the end of the week. It will seek an injunction against unauthorized conduct relating to Prop. 101 and potential damages as a result of AHCCCS’ actions.
Supporters of the Medical Choice for Arizona act are also researching whether the statutes prohibiting government agency participation in elections could also apply to corporations that have significant government contracts — making them, effectively, proxies of the state.
“It’s clear that big government and big health plans are driving the ‘no’ campaign — we saw that last week when an out-of-state company with a big AHCCCS contract became the first contributor to the opposition,” Novack said. “The voters of Arizona deserve to know whether the participation of these organizations is legal, and if it is not, to make sure those organizations comply with state law.”
So far, SCAN Health, a California-based company with a large contract with the state, has been the largest contributor to the “no” campaign with a $50,000 contribution last week.
Ironically, it may be the words of Governor Janet Napolitano that should be most worrisome to AHCCCS officials. She wrote an opinion in 2000, while serving as Attorney General, that municipal government agencies are prohibited from “using resources ‘for the purpose of influencing the outcome of elections.’”
“Even educational materials that do not expressly advocate for or against a ballot issue may fall within this prohibition, depending on the specific facts and circumstances,” Napolitano wrote in the opinion.
Proposition 101 will guarantee the right of Arizonans to make their own health care choices. Lobbyists and special interests will see their power to control and dictate health care choices limited.
Visit www.YesOn101.com for more information.
Proposition 101 would protect an individual’s choice to pursue private health care coverage. It would also prevent fines from being levied on individuals who decline health care coverage. Proponents believe that the “Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act” would avoid the impositions on personal freedom that are common in socialized health care systems. http://www.yeson101.com
A review of internal communications by employees of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System shows that the government agency was the driving force behind the formation of an opposition campaign against Proposition 101 — actions which could violate state law.
The documents were provided to supporters by The Goldwater Institute, which requested them through the Freedom of Information Act as part of their own investigation into the legality of AHCCCS’ actions. Prop. 101 supporters have already filed a lawsuit against AHCCCS over potential violations of state campaign laws.
The e-mails show that the government agency, with direction and support from the governor, made significant efforts to organize meetings and calls with potential supporters of an opposition campaign and crafted the controversial “unintended consequences” memo as a tool to give to opponents of the measure.
www.yeson101.com
Post a Comment