The Student News Site of University of Arizona

The Daily Wildcat

62° Tucson, AZ

The Daily Wildcat

The Daily Wildcat

 

Soundbites: Oct. 19

Daily Wildcat columnists weigh in on the upcoming midterm election.

 

Proposition 106 places ideology before human lives

This November, Arizonans will vote on nine ballot referendums put forth by the state’s Legislature, one of which will include the Freedom of Choice in Healthcare Act, also known as Proposition 106.

If passed, the referendum would amend Arizona’s Constitution, prohibiting any law from compelling individual participation in any health care system. A similar measure was defeated in 2008.

Proposition 106 is a foolhardy attempt to sidestep the enactment of last year’s federal health care reform bill, H.R. 3200, which requires all citizens to purchase health insurance or risk a fine.

Escalating health insurance costs are the result of uninsured individuals who receive emergency room care. In 2001, the uninsured were the recipients of approximately $35 billion in uncompensated medical services. These costs were passed on to the medically insured in the form of higher health insurance premiums. Mandated health insurance would prevent such a scenario, helping to reign in out-of-control health care expenditures.

Proponents of Proposition 106, who include Dr. Eric Novack and Gov. Jan Brewer, are fully aware of the cost-cutting effects federally mandated health insurance would have on this country’s health care system.

But the reality is they don’t care about health care affordability or the 45,000 Americans who will die annually due to lack of health insurance. Proposition 106 is another attempt by the far right to discredit this country’s president and preserve the status quo. The measure is also a gargantuan waste of money, as it will cost taxpayers thousands of dollars in litigation fees.

Supporters of the Freedom of Choice in Healthcare Act have placed ideology before human lives.

Vote “”no”” on Proposition 106 this November.

 

— Nyles Kendall is a political science junior.

 

 

Proposition 109’s ambiguity makes it treacherous

A radical anti-hunting agenda is threatening to take away your right to hunt every day, which is why Proposition 109 will give people a constitutional right to “”hunt, fish and harvest wildlife.”” Except that such an agenda cannot be found anywhere, and Proposition 109 seems to be much more of a play for dominance than an attempt to protect your fundamental rights.

Proposition 109 grants the Arizona Legislature “”exclusive authority”” to regulate hunting, fishing and harvesting. The Legislature may give authority to a game and fish commission. Proposition 109 also vaguely curtails any rule that will “”unreasonably restrict hunting, fishing or harvesting of wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods for those activities.””

Does anyone need to be reminded that Arizona has already demonstrated a difficulty with defining what is reasonable and what is not? It’s hard to miss the invitation to conflict that will be centered solely on what kind of hunting restrictions qualify as “”unreasonable.””

Besides that, the measure defines hunting and fishing as a right, not a privilege, which presents the challenge of balancing a citizen’s fundamental rights with the protection of the environment. Regulating hunting and fishing laws require the work of experts. These experts are not focused on politics and currying favor with voters but are instead devoted to state’s natural resources.

Proposition 109 hands unnecessary power to the Legislature on a platter. There are a lot of reasons to accuse the Legislature of incompetence. There’s no need to add another.

 

— Kristina Bui is a sophomore majoring in journalism and political science.

More to Discover
Activate Search