Eye On Boise

Senate panel passes ‘Health Freedom Act’

Posted by Betsy

Feb. 17, 2010 9:36 a.m. • 7 comments

The Senate State Affairs Committee, after a nearly two-hour hearing in which committee members raised serious legal concerns about the bill, nevertheless voted 6-3 this morning in favor of the “Idaho Health Freedom Act,” a measure that bans the enforcement of any federal requirement for individuals or businesses to purchase health insurance and requires the state Attorney General to go to court to fight any such requirements. Click below to read more.

Rep. Jim Clark, R-Hayden Lake, told the committee the bill would give the state standing for a lawsuit challenging federal health care reform. But committee members said that’s not correct. “I’m pretty sympathetic to your legislation, but I’m having a hard time understanding your point on standing,” Sen. Bart Davis, R-Idaho Falls, told Clark. The bill asserts that the power to regulate health care isn’t enumerated in the Constitution, and therefore is reserved the states under the 10th Amendment. With constitutional grounds, Davis said, “Why in the world do I think I gain increased standing by passing a statute?” Clark said he thought several Supreme Court decisions suggested the law could help. “I think it’s worth a challenge to provide us standing, and HB 391 as amended does that,” he said.

Sen. Joe Stegner, R-Lewiston, told Clark, “I acknowledge that health care services aren’t found in the Constitution, but the Commerce Clause is, and the Supreme Court for a long time has suggested that the federal government has the right to regulate commerce, and I certainly think that probably health care in the nation at the moment is interstate commerce. Why in the world do you think the state can arbitrarily declare that they have sovereignty on the issue of health care when in fact I think all sorts of precedent would say that the federal government certainly can impose that if they so choose?” Clark responded, “The commerce clause is there, but the federal government still has to prove that in court, and I think it’s worth a fight.”

Sen. Kate Kelly, D-Boise, asked Deputy Attorney General Karin Jones to answer several questions about legal implications of the bill. Without taking a position on the bill, Jones said it would “not make much difference” on standing; the Commerce Clause is implicated; it could affect other issues including federal employees in Idaho who are required to have physicals or other health care services for their jobs; and the bill likely would be pre-empted by federal law. “Really to the extent states have tried to either ignore federal statute or sort of ignore certain aspects of federal statute by enacting their own statute, it almost always has been pre-empted if it’s an area that the federal government is allowed to regulate,” Jones told the committee. “It looks more likely that a federal statute would pre-empt in this area than that it would not.”

Sen. Monty Pearce, R-Plymouth, who moved to pass the bill, asked why it still allows the state to require people to purchase health insurance, like the state’s existing requirement that state college students buy insurance. “It’s looks like we’re playing hypocrite with constitutional rights,” he said. Clark responded that the states should be the “laboratory of ideas,” but said, “I didn’t say it was a laboratory of good ideas - I was just saying, sir, it’s a laboratory of ideas. Now some of those are good and some of those are bad. … We’ve got the right to be wrong with a bad idea and the right to do that, but I don’t want somebody else forcing that on us.”

So far, the bill has been passing on straight party-line votes, with Republicans supporting it and Democrats opposing it, but Stegner joined the Senate committee’s two Democrats in opposing the bill. He called it “meaningless legislation,” and said, “The state of Idaho can’t just arbitrarily declare themselves above prior decisions of the Supreme Court.” The bill now moves to the full Senate, having already passed the House.

Seven comments on this post so far. Add yours!

WildWest on February 17 at 10:34 a.m.
This legislation was drafted by the corporations & insurance companies who fund the powerful lobbyist group ALEC as preemptive strike against health care, they are hoping conservative State’s take the bait and use citizens tax dollars to start a legal fight against there own best interests.

A senior executive at the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association played a key role in crafting this legislation and working with ALEC promoted it to conservative legislators across the U.S.

There intention is to make both a federally created health insurance exchange and a public health insurance option illegal under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Idahoans must not forget that the power to impose mandates is firmly rooted in the U.S. Constitution. Congress has ample power & precedent through the Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” to regulate the national economy.

Health insurance is quintessentially an economic good and clearly falls under the definition of economic activity. If it was not an economic good then why do insurance companies profit total in the billions, hmmmm a thinker for conservative lawmakers and activist attorney generals on an ideological bender.

Governor Otter & Idaho republicans seem to prefer health care be governed like Wall Street with no regulations.

What we do know is that this bill is not about people and our health care rights. This is about how Health Care Reform is a massive threat to conservatism.

The standard ploy of anti-tax politics has always been tax cuts for the wealthy combined with token cuts for the middle class. However, once we get millions of middle class families to participate & depend on federal health care then GOP token tax cuts will pale in comparison.

Democrats can easily trump tax cut politics with promises of increased health care benefits which are much more valuable to our Idaho families and cheaper to deliver since it won’t need to be attached to tax cuts for the wealthy.

Remember everyday Idahoans, well known conservative Bill Kristol said, conservatives must kill health care by any means necessary, any successful passage of health care reform bill will be the death knell for conservatism!

It will relegitimize the middle classes dependence for security on government spending and regulation. It will revive the Democrats as protector of middle class interests, while striking a blow against Republican claims that government is the problem.

The issue is much bigger than just health care Idaho.
WildWest on February 17 at 10:35 a.m.
sorry about the long rant….!
fortboise on February 17 at 10:58 a.m.
I’m not willing to take the advice of “well known conservative Bill Kristol” for driving directions, let alone anything with actual consequences.

As the well-known cheerleader for such leading lights as Ahmed Chalabi and Sarah Palin, Kristol’s discreditation is even more well known than his “conservative” bona fides.
Sisyphus on February 17 at 11:10 a.m.
Tom I think you’re taking WildWest’s reference to Bill Kristol incorrectly. He meant that it ain’t about providing assistance to Idahoans, but about politics, a subject with which Kristol is intimately familiar. And WildWest’s comments are dead on IMO.
IdahoDemocrat on February 17 at 11:39 a.m.
First, let me commend the Senators who voted to pass this great bill which puts the citizens of Idaho first. Having said that, as a Democrat, I am APPALED at the Democrats in the Legislature who voted against this bill, thus siding with the left-wing, liberal, government-takeover agenda of Obama, Pelosi, and Reid over the citizens of Idaho. I am not ashamed to admit that many of my Democrats in the legislature will be EX-legislators come the November elections.
Sisyphus on February 17 at 12:43 p.m.
Hey sock puppet. I think a Democrat would know how to spell ‘appalled’. Now that Idaho Republicans are going on record as establishing public policy in this state for health care reform, can you tell me, or anybody, what that policy is? The bill’s sponsor couldn’t. How will it help your average Idahoan?
daremo on February 17 at 1:50 p.m.
I think Sisyphus is correct by implying that the “IdahoDemocrat” post is a fake. It was not a very intelligent attempt at disguise.
Doesn’t this act eerily recall Southern politicians trying to integration, claiming the Federal government was intervening in state matters and pledging to maintain the South’s traditions and heritage?
On the other hand, Repubs don’t offer a solution probably because they don’t think they should - “the market will take of it”. But this doesn’t always hold water - Just like the market failed to take care of the Derivitaives scandals and Wall St. bank corruptions. Allan Greenspan admitted that 40 years of believing that was a mistake. Where that puts us? dunno. From a state perspective, there’s no money to actually do anything anyway. Still, we could learn something from Sweden.