Q:
Idaho first to sign law aimed at health care plan
By JOHN MILLER (AP) – 18 hours ago
BOISE, Idaho — Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.
Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.
Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.
But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide.
Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend.
With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.
Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.
"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,' " he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass."
Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho's new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit group promotes limited government.
"Congress is planning to force an unconstitutional mandate on the states," said Herrera, the group's health task force director.
Otter already warned U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in December that Idaho was considering litigation. He signed the bill during his first public ceremony of the 2010 Legislature.
"What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control," Otter said.
Minority Democrats in Idaho who opposed the bill called the lawsuits frivolous.
Senate Minority Leader Kate Kelly, D-Boise, also complained about the bill's possible price tag. Those who drafted the new law say enforcement may require an additional Idaho deputy attorney general with an annual salary of $100,000 a year.
Kelly said that was irresponsible when Idaho is grappling with a $200 million budget hole.
"For Democrats in the Legislature, our priority is jobs," she said. "We'd rather Gov. Otter was holding a signing ceremony for (a jobs package) meant to put Idaho residents back to work."
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles
* Idaho first to sign law against health care reform
The Associated Press - 19 hours ago
* Idaho Passes Law to Force State to Sue over Healthcare
India Business Blog (blog) - 1 hour ago
* Idaho Dems Release - Jobs legislation
The Spokesman Review - 1 day ago
* More coverage (354) »
Add News to your iGoogle Homepage Add News to your Google Homepage
The Associated Press
Question by Jere Smith. Uploaded on March 18, 2010
Answers (16)
Tell me what you think, you know what I think
States are fed up with the federal government...I'm glad to see ours starting to push back...DC has done enough damage to Idaho on a multitude of issues, and our citizens have had it...this country is ran by the people, not the career politicians and the masters they serve in DC, I feel a reckoning brewing.....the people will take their house back, and come election day I hope the point is made clear...vote them all out....and some good old peaceful resistance to their agendas...it will take some brave souls to stand up to these idiots, but fortunately we live in a country that has never suffered a shortage of bravery when times are dark...
I think I need to move to Idaho out of liberal Western Washington! Too many moving targets here anyway...
Thats good news, just need Kansas to get on the band wagon.
BTW last night I picked up the muzzleloader Bill Evans donated for Wesley. He is still working on getting a new compound bow through his business connections. Happy said he has found a scope. This thing seems to be working out good for that kid.
Way off topic...
we do not need the health care bill
Yep, Shane, this belongs in backlash. Den Otter is a dork. As with the dopey Wyoming law against federal firearms agents, I don't have any use for legislatures that waste taxpayers time and money passing and printing up laws they know can't be enforced.
Too bad none of you guys haven't lived in a country with national health care. Even the most rabid "conservative" up here wouldn't be without it now.
All around this nation people are crying foul with the antics of the federal government. There is simply too much interference in our daily lives and too much demand on individuals money. What you see happening with Idaho is a statement of serious discontent and it is not confined to just a few states. Brace yourselves because the events of the past few weeks are the head of a firestorm.
Moishe-
Good post, even though our resident expert on the Constitution to the north does not approve! This, along with the firearms legislation now pending in many states, are just the first of many issues I can foresee as a backlash against obummer and the out of control demoncrat Congress.
Honker
Your contention that Canadian health care is wonderful to all the people is making you look bad. I live right near Maine's second largest hospital and on any given day fully half of the parking lot is Canadian cars. This is not a one time occurrence nor is a new phenomenon, it has been a public conversation for many years. If these fine people are all getting what they need from the overly expensive system you subscribe too, why are they all streaming across the border at their own expense? They come here for professional health care that is the envy of the entire world and they are willing to part for it with the pittance left in their wallet from the fleecing they get from the Canadian system. Americans don't want or need this type of crap imposed on us.
The Canadian cars you see in those Maine hospital lots are the wealthy few for the most part. They don't want to wait a few months for their knee replacement and can afford to waste the money to get one done sooner in the States. But for every one of those folks there's a hundred (if not hundreds) more who would not be able to afford a knee replacement (or, in my case, multiple retina surgeries) if we didn't have national health care. There's also a lot of fools that think just because you pay more for something it's got to be better. I call it the Cadillac myth (formerly the Weatherby myth). "There's one born every minute" as W.C. Fields would say.
By the way, have you spent much time in Canada counting the US plates in the parking lots of our pharmacies? I'll bet you almost every diabetic in that Maine border town buys his/her supplies across the border. They're crazy if they don't. Speaking of diabetes, how many health plans (for those who can afford them) will cover the cost of an insulin pump? Zilch! My brother in the US has two but they're on the shelf because 1) he was laid off at the plant and lost his health plan and 2) the drug companies have made it unaffordable. The pump is just too expensive for him to maintain without a health plan. So he is shortening his life using injections instead. But the drug companies are getting rich. That's what's important. Not public health. I don't believe there is a province in Canada now that won't cover an insulin pump and the cost of supplies is regulated. Same brother contracted TB when he WAS working at the plant. The new breed of TB is extremely tough and requires a long treatment of variable anti-biotics and, in Mike's case, chemo. Blue Cross wouldn't cover it because they labeled it "experimental." Well, yeah, that's about all doctors can do with TB these days is experiment till they find what works for the particular strain of infection. He fought Blue Cross for years. Finally it boiled down to the fine print which said they could refuse payment for anything they wanted to without giving any reason. What kind of a health plan is that?
Ontario Honker-
You have made a good case for tort reform, and lifting regulation on insurance companies so they can sell across state lines, and an excellent case for a free market system. However, you have made no case at all for government health care if those who can afford it are crossing the border, and those that cannot have to "wait a few months."
Remove all insurance restrictions, reduce the ridiculous amounts awarded to victims who find a trial lawyer to sue for any perceived malpractice, and get the government out of pharmaceuticals, and the health care system would stabilize itself in five years or so. The more government is involved, the less actual care patients get. If you tend to doubt me, visit any VA hospital in the U.S.A. This is what obummer care will be if enacted.
Huh? Tort reform? How is that going to help the guy who gets ripped off by a so-called insurance company who won't pay or plays the delay of game to the point of exhaustion. Which is the cardinal rule of every claims department. So we go get a lawyer at $300 an hour to sue the insurance company to make them pay up. If you don't have the co-payment, deductable, preferred physician, etc., etc. then you're not going to get the treatment you need anyway. So, crm, the alternative would be that the rich folks crossing the border now would get the treatment wherever they wanted and the folks that have to wait now wouldn't get their treatment at all if there wasn't govt health care. And what is good about that alternative? I'm guessing you're one of the wealthy ones lucky enough to be able to afford an insurance plan that is worth something. To heck with those who can't. And what Sunday school taught you that ethic? VA health care is neglected because big business wants it that way. No money for consultations or specialty clinics if the vets can get that service at VA hospitals. If government health care was universal, not just for the veterans, the improvement of care for them would be on par with everyone else. By the way, I have spent a lot of time in military and VA hospitals and I haven't had anything to complain about. But, admitedly, it's been a while.
Ontario Honker-
Does your nescience come naturally, or have you just been drinking too much Canadian Kool Aid? Tort reform would not address problem you cite, but a lifting of the constraints on the insurance companies selling over state lines (free market) would solve it quickly.
Competition usually does. No company pulling the legal maneuverings that you describe would long remain in business if competition was allowed. As to your assertion that government health care would solve the problem in our VA hospitals, no, it would just put every one's standard of care down to the level of this national disgrace.
Talk about nescience! Crm, I am an occassional US govt employee, believe it or not. Once a year in November I am allowed to choose my health plan from up to a dozen that are available. GEHA, Postal Workers, etc., etc. As far as I know, these plans are all offered nation-wide (e.g. GEHA = Govt Employee's Health Administration[?]) across state boundaries. And I also just bought the insurance on our old family home in Montana from my cousin who's a broker in Idaho Falls. That's definitely crossing state boundaries. Anyway, I have the "advantage" of cross-border market place competition when selecting a health plan. What difference did that make? None! Read the fine print on each plan. The only competition is to see what ingenious way they can find to screw you out of your benefits (and the doctors out of payment for their services) and make you pay for the service rather than them. Sorry, but that kind of competition doesn't do anything to benefit my health. Deregulation of such feeble regulations that exist will only make the situation worse. The "competition" will be how to make the service cheaper to the insured and more profitable to the insurance companies and health care providers. Doesn't sound like a recipe for improving the public's accessibility to quality health care. Sounds more like a recipe to increase the benefit paying hassles that health insurance companies are already famous for. If you think it will make things better you are truly nescient. Explain to me again how the "free market" system is working for health care? It's working to make it worse, not better.
One of the problems for most employees is that they are stuck with the plan that the employer or union reps picks for them. We had a usesless very expensive Blue Cross plan at the plant and the union reps blocked us from getting a better one. Gee, I wonder why? Those same union reps, making the same wage I was, owned airplanes, Corvettes, multiple rental units, condos in Hawaii, etc. Hmmm. The guys at the lumber mill down the road had no union and a better plan and much cheaper. The mill was more concerned about keeping the employees healthy (and the union out) than getting kickbacks from the insurance company. Although the plan was "better" and cheaper it still wasn't worth a crap.
Here I walk down to the ER with something bothering my eye. Within hours I'm on a plane to Winnipeg and under the knife. After three separate major surgeries (and six or seven laser surgeries) for three retina detachments, I have 20/40 corrected in that eye. I may be the only guy walking who has had that much work done on a retina and can still hold a US interstate commercial driving license. How much paperwork did I have to fill out? None. How much did I have to pay up front? Nothing. How many endless phone calls did I have to make to fight with insurance companies? None. Did I have to remortgage my home? No! Or, withouot insurance or money, did I have to lose my eye? No! But the sight-saving surgery was performed in a remodeled nunnery, not an architectural edifice. My surgeon's office was a modest 8x8' room, not a walnut paneled lounge with wet bar. He was dedicated to fixing me, not his bank account. He did what no one thought could be done. And he did it under socialized medicine.
Ontario Honker-
Good for you, I'm glad you got your eye fixed. No one is saying that the American health care industry does not need some improvement. That it needs improvement is a given. No one is saying that abuses, wrongdoing and corruption don't exist within the system. It does.
What approximately two thirds of the American people ARE saying, is that obummercare is NOT what we need to fix our system. The same thing we said to Hillarycare. It is socialized medicine, it does not work anywhere else, and the American people have rejected the concept, not just one, but twice. A prime example would be Massachusetts. Romney governed when Mass. enacted their state run system, and today it is broke, exists on federal subsidy, and Mass is one of the most heavily taxed states in the U.S. Get government out of health care, lift government regulation on insurance, and stop mandating that hospitals treat every illegal that comes across the border to drop an anchor baby, would be a good start.
Post an Answer
States are fed up with the federal government...I'm glad to see ours starting to push back...DC has done enough damage to Idaho on a multitude of issues, and our citizens have had it...this country is ran by the people, not the career politicians and the masters they serve in DC, I feel a reckoning brewing.....the people will take their house back, and come election day I hope the point is made clear...vote them all out....and some good old peaceful resistance to their agendas...it will take some brave souls to stand up to these idiots, but fortunately we live in a country that has never suffered a shortage of bravery when times are dark...
I think I need to move to Idaho out of liberal Western Washington! Too many moving targets here anyway...
Thats good news, just need Kansas to get on the band wagon.
BTW last night I picked up the muzzleloader Bill Evans donated for Wesley. He is still working on getting a new compound bow through his business connections. Happy said he has found a scope. This thing seems to be working out good for that kid.
Yep, Shane, this belongs in backlash. Den Otter is a dork. As with the dopey Wyoming law against federal firearms agents, I don't have any use for legislatures that waste taxpayers time and money passing and printing up laws they know can't be enforced.
Too bad none of you guys haven't lived in a country with national health care. Even the most rabid "conservative" up here wouldn't be without it now.
Ontario Honker-
You have made a good case for tort reform, and lifting regulation on insurance companies so they can sell across state lines, and an excellent case for a free market system. However, you have made no case at all for government health care if those who can afford it are crossing the border, and those that cannot have to "wait a few months."
Remove all insurance restrictions, reduce the ridiculous amounts awarded to victims who find a trial lawyer to sue for any perceived malpractice, and get the government out of pharmaceuticals, and the health care system would stabilize itself in five years or so. The more government is involved, the less actual care patients get. If you tend to doubt me, visit any VA hospital in the U.S.A. This is what obummer care will be if enacted.
All around this nation people are crying foul with the antics of the federal government. There is simply too much interference in our daily lives and too much demand on individuals money. What you see happening with Idaho is a statement of serious discontent and it is not confined to just a few states. Brace yourselves because the events of the past few weeks are the head of a firestorm.
Moishe-
Good post, even though our resident expert on the Constitution to the north does not approve! This, along with the firearms legislation now pending in many states, are just the first of many issues I can foresee as a backlash against obummer and the out of control demoncrat Congress.
Ontario Honker-
Does your nescience come naturally, or have you just been drinking too much Canadian Kool Aid? Tort reform would not address problem you cite, but a lifting of the constraints on the insurance companies selling over state lines (free market) would solve it quickly.
Competition usually does. No company pulling the legal maneuverings that you describe would long remain in business if competition was allowed. As to your assertion that government health care would solve the problem in our VA hospitals, no, it would just put every one's standard of care down to the level of this national disgrace.
Ontario Honker-
Good for you, I'm glad you got your eye fixed. No one is saying that the American health care industry does not need some improvement. That it needs improvement is a given. No one is saying that abuses, wrongdoing and corruption don't exist within the system. It does.
What approximately two thirds of the American people ARE saying, is that obummercare is NOT what we need to fix our system. The same thing we said to Hillarycare. It is socialized medicine, it does not work anywhere else, and the American people have rejected the concept, not just one, but twice. A prime example would be Massachusetts. Romney governed when Mass. enacted their state run system, and today it is broke, exists on federal subsidy, and Mass is one of the most heavily taxed states in the U.S. Get government out of health care, lift government regulation on insurance, and stop mandating that hospitals treat every illegal that comes across the border to drop an anchor baby, would be a good start.
Way off topic...
we do not need the health care bill
Honker
Your contention that Canadian health care is wonderful to all the people is making you look bad. I live right near Maine's second largest hospital and on any given day fully half of the parking lot is Canadian cars. This is not a one time occurrence nor is a new phenomenon, it has been a public conversation for many years. If these fine people are all getting what they need from the overly expensive system you subscribe too, why are they all streaming across the border at their own expense? They come here for professional health care that is the envy of the entire world and they are willing to part for it with the pittance left in their wallet from the fleecing they get from the Canadian system. Americans don't want or need this type of crap imposed on us.
Huh? Tort reform? How is that going to help the guy who gets ripped off by a so-called insurance company who won't pay or plays the delay of game to the point of exhaustion. Which is the cardinal rule of every claims department. So we go get a lawyer at $300 an hour to sue the insurance company to make them pay up. If you don't have the co-payment, deductable, preferred physician, etc., etc. then you're not going to get the treatment you need anyway. So, crm, the alternative would be that the rich folks crossing the border now would get the treatment wherever they wanted and the folks that have to wait now wouldn't get their treatment at all if there wasn't govt health care. And what is good about that alternative? I'm guessing you're one of the wealthy ones lucky enough to be able to afford an insurance plan that is worth something. To heck with those who can't. And what Sunday school taught you that ethic? VA health care is neglected because big business wants it that way. No money for consultations or specialty clinics if the vets can get that service at VA hospitals. If government health care was universal, not just for the veterans, the improvement of care for them would be on par with everyone else. By the way, I have spent a lot of time in military and VA hospitals and I haven't had anything to complain about. But, admitedly, it's been a while.
Tell me what you think, you know what I think
The Canadian cars you see in those Maine hospital lots are the wealthy few for the most part. They don't want to wait a few months for their knee replacement and can afford to waste the money to get one done sooner in the States. But for every one of those folks there's a hundred (if not hundreds) more who would not be able to afford a knee replacement (or, in my case, multiple retina surgeries) if we didn't have national health care. There's also a lot of fools that think just because you pay more for something it's got to be better. I call it the Cadillac myth (formerly the Weatherby myth). "There's one born every minute" as W.C. Fields would say.
By the way, have you spent much time in Canada counting the US plates in the parking lots of our pharmacies? I'll bet you almost every diabetic in that Maine border town buys his/her supplies across the border. They're crazy if they don't. Speaking of diabetes, how many health plans (for those who can afford them) will cover the cost of an insulin pump? Zilch! My brother in the US has two but they're on the shelf because 1) he was laid off at the plant and lost his health plan and 2) the drug companies have made it unaffordable. The pump is just too expensive for him to maintain without a health plan. So he is shortening his life using injections instead. But the drug companies are getting rich. That's what's important. Not public health. I don't believe there is a province in Canada now that won't cover an insulin pump and the cost of supplies is regulated. Same brother contracted TB when he WAS working at the plant. The new breed of TB is extremely tough and requires a long treatment of variable anti-biotics and, in Mike's case, chemo. Blue Cross wouldn't cover it because they labeled it "experimental." Well, yeah, that's about all doctors can do with TB these days is experiment till they find what works for the particular strain of infection. He fought Blue Cross for years. Finally it boiled down to the fine print which said they could refuse payment for anything they wanted to without giving any reason. What kind of a health plan is that?
Talk about nescience! Crm, I am an occassional US govt employee, believe it or not. Once a year in November I am allowed to choose my health plan from up to a dozen that are available. GEHA, Postal Workers, etc., etc. As far as I know, these plans are all offered nation-wide (e.g. GEHA = Govt Employee's Health Administration[?]) across state boundaries. And I also just bought the insurance on our old family home in Montana from my cousin who's a broker in Idaho Falls. That's definitely crossing state boundaries. Anyway, I have the "advantage" of cross-border market place competition when selecting a health plan. What difference did that make? None! Read the fine print on each plan. The only competition is to see what ingenious way they can find to screw you out of your benefits (and the doctors out of payment for their services) and make you pay for the service rather than them. Sorry, but that kind of competition doesn't do anything to benefit my health. Deregulation of such feeble regulations that exist will only make the situation worse. The "competition" will be how to make the service cheaper to the insured and more profitable to the insurance companies and health care providers. Doesn't sound like a recipe for improving the public's accessibility to quality health care. Sounds more like a recipe to increase the benefit paying hassles that health insurance companies are already famous for. If you think it will make things better you are truly nescient. Explain to me again how the "free market" system is working for health care? It's working to make it worse, not better.
One of the problems for most employees is that they are stuck with the plan that the employer or union reps picks for them. We had a usesless very expensive Blue Cross plan at the plant and the union reps blocked us from getting a better one. Gee, I wonder why? Those same union reps, making the same wage I was, owned airplanes, Corvettes, multiple rental units, condos in Hawaii, etc. Hmmm. The guys at the lumber mill down the road had no union and a better plan and much cheaper. The mill was more concerned about keeping the employees healthy (and the union out) than getting kickbacks from the insurance company. Although the plan was "better" and cheaper it still wasn't worth a crap.
Here I walk down to the ER with something bothering my eye. Within hours I'm on a plane to Winnipeg and under the knife. After three separate major surgeries (and six or seven laser surgeries) for three retina detachments, I have 20/40 corrected in that eye. I may be the only guy walking who has had that much work done on a retina and can still hold a US interstate commercial driving license. How much paperwork did I have to fill out? None. How much did I have to pay up front? Nothing. How many endless phone calls did I have to make to fight with insurance companies? None. Did I have to remortgage my home? No! Or, withouot insurance or money, did I have to lose my eye? No! But the sight-saving surgery was performed in a remodeled nunnery, not an architectural edifice. My surgeon's office was a modest 8x8' room, not a walnut paneled lounge with wet bar. He was dedicated to fixing me, not his bank account. He did what no one thought could be done. And he did it under socialized medicine.
Post an Answer