Prop 101: A battle between choice and need

Proposition 101 proponents say it protects health care choice. Opponents argue it could restrict provision for needs.

Also known as the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, the Nov. 4 general election measure reads "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 for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any particular health care system or plan."

A "yes" vote would make the proposition law. A "no" vote keeps open the possibility of state and federal government control of health care. And there's the grappling point: a balance of choice vs. need.

A Yuma Regional Medical Center surgeon supporting the measure says he empathizes with both sides, but that a restriction of choice will lessen health care quality in the United States. The solution, he says, is protection for those without insurance and continuation of extraneous services for those who obtain quality health insurance or can afford it.

"I will readily admit that I think there are some major problems with our current health care system," said Dr. George B. Deckey, a general surgeon and Southwestern District director of the Arizona Medical Association.

"What we need is some form of universal health care that acts as a safety net. I think a lot of physicians are concerned that the government, as well-intentioned as they are, may force all of us into some universal health care system where we have no choices as a consumer. The intention is to allow us to preserve our freedom of choice."

Opponents of Proposition 101, including the Arizona Coalition for a State and National Health Plan, say the legislation will prevent the state from "creating a system assuring everyone access to the care they require."

Dr. Jonathan B. Weisbach, chairman of the ACSNHP, called the legislation "dangerous," and one that was "terribly written and fraught with legal complexities and difficulties."

Weisbach said the wording of the bill could allow challenges to government-based access programs like Medicare and veterans and military services. He said if the legislation passes, nothing in the bill would directly improve health care.

"It's not the same as assuring people have freedom from being eliminated from health plans or having health plans limited by insurance companies. It argues to be freedom of choice and a major change to protect health care, but it does none of that."

Deckey insists the proposition will maintain choice for consumers, still allowing the option of levels of universal health coverage.

"I don't think America really understands what universal health care is all about," Deckey said. "Look to the Canadian system, the British system. It isn't health care the way we are used to receiving it.

"We are a very consumer-driven economy here and we are used to immediate gratification. We probably have more CAT scanners here in Yuma County than some provinces in Canada. Yeah, it's free, but you might have to wait six months for a CAT scan or (surgery). Do you think the American people are going to accept that?"

Statistics released by the U.S. Census Bureau indicate 59 percent of U.S. residents have access to health care through an employer, and that both the percentage and number of people without health insurance decreased last year.

The total number of uninsured Americans is 47 million, of which an estimated 10 million are not legal residents. In addition, of the 37 million uninsured remaining, 18 million live in households with incomes of $50,000 or more - within the top half of income distribution.

---
Matt Keller can be reached at mkeller@yumasun.com or 539-6857.