I am writing this letter to respond to a letter published in the Arizona Republic last week, but since I am not aware of any e-mail address to the editor of the Republic, I will write to the Tribune.
The letter writer claimed that the federal law trumps state law. Oh, really? So, if the federal government made a law requiring us to do something that is contrary to our moral beliefs, we have to do it? Call me an idiot, but where is it written that we have to buy something, just because the government says we have to?
Obamacare violates our rights. It has a mandate that requires you to buy Obama’s health care plan by 2014, or pay a fine. Prop. 106 protects us. It allows us to keep our own plan.
I, for one, do not support universal health care. It’s never worked before, and it will not work for us. I urge every decent Arizona resident to vote yes on Proposition 106. Your very liberty is at stake.
Jeff Durbin, Mesa
—
Proposition 106 pledges that no one will be forced to participate in any “health care system” or fined when paying for health care, reassuring us that insurance purchase won’t be “prohibited by law.” It’s comical that the authors of this initiative worry about the fate of health insurance companies, when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will furnish 35 million new clients. PPACA has no provisions forcing people into a health care “system” or punishing those already insured. Instead, the new law provides incentives to purchase health insurance through “exchanges,” which offer market-based choices. More people will have to purchase insurance, but unlike car insurance mandates, PPACA has exceptions, including low income, and these individuals will be eligible for subsidies or Medicaid.
So, what’s Proposition 106’s purpose? Apparently, to allow politicians to claim opposition to an imaginary government takeover of health care, using tax dollars. Proposition 106 is unlikely to interfere with PPACA’s implementation in Arizona. So why vote? Only if you wish to be a politician’s pawn.
Lucas Restrepo, Scottsdale
—
Letters policy: Click here to submit a letter. Please be brief (no more than 300 words) and type or print name, address, city and phone number for verification. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.Your chance to sound off: E-mail Vent submissions to vent@evtrib.com
LinMesa posted at 4:52 pm on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
Mr. Lucas Restrepo, Thank you so much for your letter. It is so refreshing to see someone tell the truth amidst all the Republican lies floating around out there.
Dale Whiting posted at 4:48 pm on Mon, Nov 1, 2010.
Lucas gets it right. Jeff is clueless.
For Jeff's information when the US Constitution gives exclusive jurisdiction in some area of powers, say for example, national defense, the Feds can share somethings with the States. say a National Guard or branch Reserve but the Feds will call the shots.
When the Us Constutution gives exclusuve jurisdiction in some area of powers to the States, the Feds have to keep out [except for places where there are no states like D.C, Puerto Rico, etc.]
The real problem comes when the Constutution is vague or appears to share jurisdiction. In those cases, an over arching federal law which extends itself to all 50 states can and often does trump state law by "pre-emption." Constitutional Law is a three semester hour credit. Might try taking it sometime.
Multiple sections of SB1070 appear to be pre-emempted by Federal law and Federal decision making powers on enforcment. I speculate that Healthcare will follow suit with SB1070. But healthcare is so complicated that who knows! Forcing participation, especially when there are provisions for hardships, probably will withstand constitutional challenges. This is where Lucas hits the nail on its head.
But if we left it up the the states, Jim Crow would still reign surpreme.