Governor tries to shoot holes in Prop 101

Well, it seems the Governor is trying to drum up opposition to Prop 101.

I got a copy of a confidential memo written by the Goldwater Institute (see attached) that debunks the Governor’s lap dog, Andy Gordon.

Mr. Gordon is trying to shoot holes in Prop 101 on behalf of AHCCCS and the Governor.

Voters beware: the democrats are trying to be too sneaky and we need to fight back. confidential-letter


  1. Way to go Goldwater Institute!

    Vote Yes on 101 –

  2. Sounds like they (The governor and Dems)have ulterior motives… Socialized medicine, maybe? We need to support Proposition 101.

  3. The language in 101 is clear and concise.

    Gordon’s memo is a typical attack from Napolitano cronies. No debate is ever based on the facts and every once of energy must be spent growing of government.

  4. The governor is a lame duck with a recent history of losses who is facing the next legislature wihout Republican allies. She is compelled to find the next vehicle for her career and she has willing helpers in Mayor Gordon and hisfolks to meet their needs. Remember, Democrats lie better than Republicans tell the truth. Proposition 101 guarantees rights for all people.. not just “some” people.

  5. It is clear that prop 101 was written to prevent something other than the vague “government limiting choices”, but I have read the material and it is unclear to me precisely what. Does someone know any material that explains exactly what problem this seeks to address?

  6. GOP Boomer Gal says


    Phil Lopes and other left wing legislators have stated they want state run universal health care.

  7. GOP Boomer Gal,
    Do you know how does prop 101 would prevent universal health care?

  8. Also, I noticed in the proposition information that the Arizona Republican Assembly is suggesting voting against this since they claim it could restrict the states limitation of abortion.

  9. todd- my understanding is that the prop was vetted by the center for arizona policy and the arizona catholic conference—

    no doubt, if the prop actually did what the ARA says, both of those groups would be out actively campaigning against it.

  10. Prop 101 only prevents a single payer mandatory system — plans to expand access to care that leave the option to ‘opt out’ are ok.

  11. I have a hard time seeing how it even outlaws mandatory single payer systems. I also notice that the naturopaths, etc. seem to believe this bill will keep government from imposing restrictions on payment for their services. It also seems that like this might remove the state governments ability to regulate insurers. I don’t know what the intention was, but it seems to be rather poorly written and unclear.

  12. todd- you are reading from J-No’s memo, which the attached file completely debunks.

    quit trolling.

  13. jim,
    I have not read Napolitano’s memo and not a single thing I have mentioned is addressed in the attached document. Asking honest questions about the intent of the initiative is not trolling but I guess that is an easy way to dismiss pesky questions.

  14. Hey Jim,
    Still waiting on an explanation of how my questions are trolling. Just wondering – are you part of the team that wrote this thing?

    You come in here, claim I am somehow associated with Napolitano (who I don’t like, don’t support, have never contributed to or campaigned for) or reading from some memo of hers, and then falsely claim the attached memo from the Goldwater Institute debunks my questions. Seems like you are trying to deflect attention from some of the problems with this initiative.

    What is funny is that I can see a couple ways the state could still have a mandatory universal healthcare system without violating this initiative or at least what the backers claim it does. Maybe it is so poorly written because the whole point was to keep out any language which actually explained the purpose in the text of the initiative so that it could exclusively focus on the language of “freedom” and “choice” to hoodwink people into voting for it. You guys have really outwitted yourselves on this one.

  15. Todd- no, if I was, I guess that would make me a troll of sorts as well.

    Everything else aside —the Prop 101 language was, apparently, written with input from the best lawyers in the state who are advocates for individual freedom and limiting government authoritarian power.

    I am thinking of it as a version of the protection of personal property– of the kind I am sure you and I both voted for in 2006, Prop 207– but simply extends it to the most important part of personal property — my health.

    The language is similar to Prop 207 in that it creates the constitutional protection and then limits regulatory work arounds by government. Also, much like in the property rights case, it does not prevent government involvement in real cases of need.

    Again, while not ‘on the team’— I would hope to convince you that Prop 101 is in the interests of ALL Arizonans, regardless of party, that protecting the personal property of our own health and health care is crucial.

    There really is no hoodwinking involved, IMO.

  16. Arizonians should have a choice in their healthcare options. The intent of this law is to make sure we, the citizens of Arizona, have the freedom to choose our healthcare coverage, not have it dictated to us by lobbyists, special interest groups, and government officials. If you support Obama like I do, you should also support Prop 101.

  17. unbelievable — on the secretary of state website I see that John RIvers, head of the hospital association is teaming up with SCAN health plan to smear Prop 101

    Just doing the bidding of power hungry big government bureaucrats.

  18. I saw this update and thought I’d share.

    Out-Of-State Health Plan With Government Ties First To Fund Prop. 101 Opposition Campaign

    Big Government, Big Hospitals Begin Effort to Prevent Medical Choice

    PHOENIX, Arizona (September 23, 2008) — The opposition group formed against the Medical Choice for Arizona initiative received its first campaign contribution from an out-of-state health system with big contracts with the state of Arizona.

    SCAN Health Plan out of Los Angeles, which has had some of the highest patient complaint rates of any health plan in California in the past, made the first contribution to the committee formed last week to fight medical choice.

    The “no” campaign is being coordinated by the Arizona Hospital Association, representing the big-money Arizona hospitals that want to make sure nothing happens that would affect their profit margins, according to Dr. Eric Novack, chairman of Medical Choice for Arizona.

    “It is not surprising that the same groups that can afford $2 billion in new hospital building while settling lawsuits for overcharging the uninsured will say or do anything to put their money and power ahead of the health of Arizonans,” Novack said.

    This comes on the heels of false claims made by big government health care agencies that Proposition 101 would somehow affect AHCCCS, claims that were debunked last week by an independent legal analysis by the Goldwater Institute.

    “We have seen the enemy, and now we know it is the enemy we have been fighting all along,” Novack said. “We know it’s going to be the big government bureaucrats and the very special interests who would benefit the most from the elimination of our right to make our own health care decisions and protect the ability of Arizonans to be in control of their health and health care.

    “The fact that these special interests and government agencies are so worried just underscores the need for Proposition 101,” Novack said. “We have to make sure that Arizonans are not limited in their health care choices, which is just what these big hospitals and big government agencies want to do.”

    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:


    Visit for more information.

  19. 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 for more information.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

Speak Your Mind


judi online bonanza88 slot baccarat online slot idn live situs idn poker judi bola tangkas88 pragmatic play sbobet slot dana casino online idn pokerseri joker123 selot slot88