Members of the House Health & Welfare Committee are giving heartfelt statements about their thoughts on the state health insurance exchange legislation. “This has really been a difficult process for me,” said Rep Paul Romrell, R-St. Anthony. “It’s one that didn’t come easily. I’m a freshman legislator - imagine that … at my age. But I’m proud to say that I’m one of the 16 that stood up and wanted to make some changes to what we considered a weak bill.  And I believe that all of the changes that we recommended were implemented and even a couple more.  Which I think made a marginal bill a better bill, a much better bill.”

Rep. John Vander Woude, R-Nampa, said, “I guess I will stand as the lone voice against this bill.” He drew applause from opponents in the audience.

Rep. Brandon Hixon, R-Caldwell, said, “I’ve come to the conclusion ... I cannot subject the citizens of the state of Idaho to an insolvent federal government that I don’t think has the best interest of the citizens of Idaho in mind. … I stood opposed to a state exchange for a long time, before I came and actually did my homework and really read through thousands of pages of laws, sat through countless meetings.” He said, “I am not ready to cede authority for all of this exchange over to the federal government. I cannot stand here today and let that happen. “

Rep. Christy Perry, R-Nampa, said, “Every state in the union is going to have an exchange. ... It’s just a matter of who’s actually going to operate it.” She said, “Idaho is actually taking a stand and protecting its citizens rather than just handing everything over to the federal government.” Click below for some of the other comments from committee members.

Here are some comments from other members of the House Health & Welfare Committee before the panel’s 10-1 vote in favor of HB 248, the state health insurance exchange bill:

Rep. Luke Malek, R-Coeur d’Alene: “I understand the passion behind everything that was said and appreciate the input you’ve given us. I also want to thank the governor for the thankless work of working on an unpopular stance, but ultimately a stance that is an Idaho stance. I know there’s been pressure from across the state and across the nation to say we need to do what other states are doing, but the reality is we need to do what Idaho needs to do. … We’re not going to take control of our sovereignty by rolling over and letting the federal government take control of our health care here in Idaho.”

Rep. John Rusche, D-Lewiston: “I’ve had an opportunity to be involved in the health insurance industry for, gosh, a long time. Almost 20 years now. … I do think … based on my experience and the testimony through the work group, that it is going to be less expensive operationally, for a state exchange rather than the federal exchange. … But most of the discussion today has been, I think, not really pertinent to the bill. The discussion has been the oppressive nature of the federal government, nullifying Obamacare, socialized medicine. And instead, what we’re asked is how private insurance products are going to be presented to the Idaho population. Are we going to present them through a state-managed tool, or through a federally managed tool? And I think that’s the real question in front of us. … People in D.C. or Bethesda, Maryland really don’t understand what Idaho’s about. … We can do it likely more inexpensively.”

Rep. Ed Morse, R-Hayden: “From my perspective, this is an issue on the exchange, not an issue on Obamacare. So it’s between a federal exchange, that we have much less control and input, vs. a state nonprofit exchange. We’re in about the third iteration of this bill. I think the changes made to the bill strengthen it. I think there will be continued litigation and challenges to Obamacare, and by opting for the state exchange we’ve got the flexibility as well as the legal control and triggers built into this bill that if any part of that Obamacare is ruled invalid or unconstitutional, we can collapse and stop the administration of those portions of it. … There’s issues of control. … There’s issues of impact on our insurance companies and our insurance markets, which impact consumer choice and impact access to care. And it’s for all those reasons that I believe that the state exchange provides a superior choice and a better choice than this exchange to be run by the federal government.”

Rep. Frank Henderson, R-Post Falls: “From the very beginning of consideration of an exchange, whatever type it was, I have always felt that the private sector could do it better than government. I never felt that the government should have a role in it. … I can tell you that HB 248 comes as close to my ambition that the private sector administer and fund an exchange as we can get. There were compromises that were made, but I see certain aspects of HB 248 that represent a statement that I strongly support, and I hope everyone will take the time to unemotionally and objectively read the bill. … I blieve the state of Idaho and all its citizens is making an assertive statement of state rights. … Through this legislation, through HB 248, the state of Idaho asserts its sovereignty by refusing to surrender decision making authority over health care issues. That’s a strong, bold, assertive statement that I strongly support.”

Rep. Douglas Hancey, R-Rexburg: “I’m not supporting Obama health care, I’m saying we have to recognize we have a problem. And if we are going to work together to try and resolve some of the problems we have in the health care industry in our state, the state exchange seems to be the best way that I can see that we should go. I will support it, I will watch it.”