It will place zero burden on the state— if someone wants to choose alternative care and pay directly, or have a niche relationship with a doctor— we must protect that right to keep the corporate interests from completely taking over.

I appreciate the dialogue– Prop 101 simply must pass, and I hope to be able to prove you wrong on you concerns.

I’ve taken some time to thoroughly re-read the proposition, and without changes to the language, it’s not something I would vote for. As it is currently worded it would require that the state maintain “private” insurers even if they cannot compete with a hypothetical public healthcare system. It even could be read to imply that the state must provide private competition to medicare and medicaid, even if those alternatives don’t exist today or are completely impractical.

If we’re really interested in preserving choice, this initiative needs serious review by a lawyer who can craft the language in such a way as to not place burdens on the state if a universal healthcare option is adopted by voters.

Prop 101 does not prevent ‘universal’ care— it just means that you and I will have a chance to influence the process (unless, of course, you have your own lobbyist).

Far better here to vote YES than to take a chance— really, the opposition alone gives me the creeps enough to vote yes, even if I did not know anything else about it.

The payday system is irresponsible at best. It thrives on putting people into debt– getting them to take out loan after loan after loan. To put it in perspective: someone who may need $300 and borrows it from a payday lender will typically owe $800, courtesy of the outrageous interest rates.

Now, the payday lending industry has put $12 million (and counting) into misleading voters – all in a preemptive effort to get around the legislature and protect their 400% interest rates!

For more information, go to: http://www.200isnoreform.com

THIS PROP, IF PASSED WOULD NULLIFY OUR CURRENT SANCTIONS LAW, E-VERIFY!

GREEDY BUSINESS ARE BEHIND THIS SELFISH, SELF SERVING PROPOSITION!

THIS PROP. IS IN FACT, EMPLOYER AMNESTY

I hate to sound trite, but just look at the Bill of Rights– many argued that they were unnecessary, which is why there was not enough agreement to get them as part of the Constitution to begin with— are we not protected for the separation of church and state and our pro-choice rights from this? We certainly cannot trust the elected officials– who, of BOTH parties, are often more at the mercy of lobbyists than their constituents (or their conscience).

The opposition makes this clear: out of state insurance companies that ONLY have government contracts (can you smell Haliburton), big doctor groups (can you say money for than quality), big hospitals (remember, Catholic Healthcare just settled for overcharging the uninsured and Banner has a master charge sheet over 10x some other hospitals).

I care about this issue alot— we need some kind of protection against special interest money or, as Senator Biden says, we will all be ‘eaten for lunch’ by the powerful people sitting around the table when health care reform is discussed.

I hope I can convince you that YES on 101 is for you and all of your friends.

I do support the idea that everyone should have choices in medical coverage and procedures. But I can’t see why it’s necessary to amend the state constitution. Isn’t it better to just have our representatives nuke any laws that try to restrict choice? I haven’t filled out that box on my early ballot. If you can make a compelling argument for why we need a constitutional amendment, I may go your way. Heck, if you have other arguments for 100, and 201 I’d love to hear them. You never know, I could be persuaded.