February 9, 2010 in Idaho

Idaho House backs fight against federal health reform

• Print
• Email
• Share

Betsy Russell photo

Rep. Jim Clark, R-Hayden Lake, urges the House to back his Idaho Health Freedom Act, opposing federal health care reform, on Tuesday.
(Full-size photo)

BOISE - The Idaho House has voted 52-18 in favor of the “Idaho Health Freedom Act,” Hayden Lake Rep. Jim Clark’s bill to ban enforcement of any requirements that Idahoans purchase health insurance and require the state to challenge any such requirements in court.

“The Idaho Health Freedom Act is not saying ‘no’ to health care reform. In fact … it’s the first step to saying yes,” because it sets the state up to do health care reform only on its own terms, Clark said. “It will help shield Idaho from a federal individual mandate.” He added, “We’re not alone in this battle - there are 36 states nationally” looking at some type of legislation along these lines.

The vote went along party lines, with all Republicans voting yes, and all Democrats voting no. The bill now moves to the state Senate.

The bill, HB 391, seeks to set Idaho up for a lawsuit against any federal health care reforms, and requires the state Attorney General to go to court to fight them.

Clark said he recognizes that federal law is the law of the land. “This is a legal battle that has been fought before and won before,” he said. “States may provide stronger protection of individual freedoms than the federal Constitution allows.”

Rep. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, Clark’s co-sponsor, called any federal requirement to purchase health insurance an “extreme deviation from our constitutional principles,” and said, “It doesn’t have anything to do with various other solutions that we do need to look at in resolving our health care crisis if you will, but it does address the concern of many that the federal government would come in and say you will buy insurance, and if you don’t you will be taxed, you will be penalized, you will be fined.”

House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, told the House, “This bill is premature - there is no national health reform bill, and based on the last several weeks I don’t know that there is going to be one.”

He and other opponents questioned spending money on litigation when Idaho is poised to cut schools, parks and more due to its budget crunch.

Rusche, a physician, said many places in Idaho law require purchase of health insurance, including child support and foster care laws. He cited growing health care costs, and said they’re the biggest barrier to free access to health care. “I don’t believe this bill addresses that at all,” he said.

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Eagle, a candidate for Congress, said, “It would be a terrible mistake for the state of Idaho to wait until a bill is passed for us to do something about this in the state.” He said, “There’s nothing in this legislation that says that the majority of the individuals in this body are against health care reform. … What we don’t want is federal reform, we don’t want federal concepts intruding on the rights and liberties of individuals here in Idaho.”

The Idaho AARP notified lawmakers before the vote that it planned to publicize their votes on the bill to its members, and said it’s strongly against the bill.

Jim Wordelman, state director for AARP in Idaho, called the bill “irresponsible” and said, “A vote for this bill is a vote against the people of Idaho.”

During the debate in the House, Speaker Lawerence Denney had to interrupt Rep. Lenore Barrett, R-Challis, after she claimed anyone opposing the bill didn’t support the Constitution or uphold their oath of office.

Denney said afterward, “There’s a lot of stress, and tempers are getting shorter.”

16 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  dukkandpooh on February 09 at 12:37 p.m.

  I don’t remember the Constitution specifying anywhere that we have to carry auto insurance, either; we are required, however, to have auto insurance, and there are penalties and fines for not doing so. This is just nuts. I would have expected nothing less from the Idaho legislature.

• 

  natoslug on February 09 at 1:10 p.m.

  I love the scenery, but I’ve come to dread the politics up here. Thank you, Idaho House, for once again reaffirming my decision to move to Northern California this summer. Redwood trees and hippies beats narrow minds and knapweed any day.

• 

  yikes on February 09 at 1:20 p.m.

  Indeed. I’m so sick of these creepballs trying to put the fear of God into Idahoans and pretending to give a damn about their
  “individual rights”. Such a load of crap. I can’t believe all of the sheep that fall into line with them, it’s really gross. I’ve lived here all of my life and I’m so sick of it. It’s strictly party politics.

• 

  Ol_Blue on February 09 at 1:32 p.m.

  California’s Anthem Blue Cross is raising there rates 39% in March, 23 and 22.8% increases in Maine and Oregon…and Republicans and the Tea Baggers scream and cry “We’re Scared” over the prospect of a public option and health care reform to keep these corporations in check. Now the Supreme Court has opened the flood gates for these same companies to pour unlimited monies into the political process to guarantee their record profits continue, while the Republicans cheer and the citizens who are hurt most continue to vote these crooks in. I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m with you natoslug. After 24 years up here I’m moving to North Cali too. I too will miss the beauty, but won’t miss the locals referring to our President as “that n*****”.

• 

  PhiltheBibliophil on February 09 at 1:41 p.m.

  I am what used to be called a Conservative Democrat! That’s Socially liberal, but fiscally conservative! Yes, its possible! However, as a senior (62) with quite a few health problems and not able to receive Medicaid, MediCare and being “underemployed” with no employer health benefits, I rely on the VA system for care! If you can wait long enough and not die first they do a fantastic job, especially here in Spokane! If I had to buy into a federally mandated program or face jail there is no way I could afford such a premium. I’d be homeless or would starve and then go to Jail, where I’ve never been in my life! I’ve voted Democratic all my life, but I have to agree with the Republithugs in Idaho on this one!

• 

  SugarShane on February 09 at 2:57 p.m.

  Odd, every time someone brings up legalizing marijuana, the first thing they say OH NO, thats against federal law! But if its mandated health care reform, that lowers costs and ensures access by everyone, it becomes “this is our state, and we wont let the government tell us what to do”! Funny how all GOP are for and Dems against, just another political game, like Iraq and MMJ.

• 

  spokanecommunistparty on February 09 at 6:27 p.m.

  I never pay my medical bills and I will never pay for health insurance ether. I am an American Communist and Single payer is the only way. Health insurance should be banned and the executives should be tried for homicide. *People Before Profits* Democrats and Republicans only work for the super wealthy. They are not different from one another but they pretend to be. We lost control of our own country and will likely become the bad guys in the next world war. In the meantime, we are screwed and don’t get sick.

• 

  Ender on February 09 at 7:09 p.m.

  @ A Hyatt - To be a citizen of the United State, you don’t have to drive a car and you don’t have to carry auto insurance. Under the plan pitched by Congress, Americans would have been forced to pay a penalty if they exercised their liberty and chose not to buy health insurance. That’s the difference.

• 

  Ender on February 09 at 7:15 p.m.

  States* sorry bout that folks.

• 

  Ender on February 09 at 7:33 p.m.

  And Denny didn’t interrupt Barret. Ruchti did.

• 

  fortboise on February 09 at 7:50 p.m.

  I’m looking forward to the leadership of the Idaho Republicans in the Legislature to do something positive for the citizens of Idaho in regard to health care.

  Since they all want the session to be over before April, I assume there’s a bill already in the works?

• 

  dukkandpooh on February 09 at 8:20 p.m.

  @Ender

  Then perhaps the state should propose allowing citizens who wish to be excluded from the mandate to be allowed to do so with the understanding that, in the event they are in need of medical care and do not have coverage, that they will NOT receive any kind of medical care unless they pay up front. No cash, no service, no matter the circumstance (dangling limb, etc.), along with a standing do-not-resuscitate order. That would satisfy those of you who don’t want to be forced to carry coverage or be penalized. It would satisfy those of US who don’t want to subsidize the health care costs of people who don’t carry coverage but then seek medical care without having the resources to pay for it. Sounds extreme, but that’s where we are headed if our legislators keep coming up with useless garbage like this, instead of working together on a reasonable solution.

• 

  Ol_Blue on February 09 at 8:29 p.m.

  @fortboise

  Sarcasm…right?

• 

  Ender on February 09 at 11:24 p.m.

  @ A hyatt - Ha. Good post.

  I think we need to take a step back and look at the larger implications of what that type of mandate could lead to. The mandate would be in place to protect the public or common good, right? Well, if thats allowed, what else could the gov force us to do for the common good?

  That being said, everyone should do their best to have health insurance and there needs to be some level of reform. I just think states should try some things and figure out what works best amongst themselves.

• 

  greyhound2 on February 11 at 8:46 a.m.

  More regressive politics from Idaho. “Health Care Freedom Act” sounds about the same as “Right to Work”, a disguised law designed to bust the unions in the private sector. The only “Freedom” in this new one would be a freedom to continue the status quo of maximizing profits off of sick people.

• 

  Jeremy8703 on February 20 at 5:43 p.m.

  why do liberals always use their emotions instead of looking at facts and data to make decisions? states and countries who have massive government health insurance programs are collapsing. it is unsustainable in the long run. we have a $14 trillion debt and a $1.6 trillion deficit. it is unconstitutional to have the government to force you to buy something. auto insurance is mandated because the roads and freeways are public owned, and look how crappy most roads are.