Idaho Says No to Federal Health Mandate

The Idaho Legislature has passed the Idaho Health Freedom Act, which sends the law to the desk of the governor, who is likely to sign it.

The act cites the ninth and tenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and declares that the state’s public policy is that people should be able to secure health care “free from the imposition of penalties” by the United States government. It also gives directions to the state’s attorney general.

Idaho Reporter has more information.

Politician Complains About Politicization of Health Care

The Idaho Reporter has a story on a hearing in the House State Affairs Committee on the Idaho Health Freedom Act (IFHA). Rep. Jim Clark, R-Hayden, said the legislation would give the state standing to sue the federal government, if necessary, while Rep. Elfreda Higgins, D-Garden City, objected to potential legal bills.

My favorite part of the story, though, lies in the comments of Rep. Anne Pasley-Stuart, D-Boise. “I am disappointed in the political nature of the discussion. I am deeply sorry this became so politicized.”

Yes, I too am disappointed that … well, that health care is so politicize–and, if it’s nationalized, health care will become even more politicized. Not that it isn’t significantly politicized already, with state governments regulating everything from where someone can set up a hospital to what services an insurance policy must pay for to selecting one form of payment for health care (employer-sponsored insurance) over others (cash payments or individually purchased insurance).

If by “politicized,” we mean “partisan,” the committee had that, too: the  measure passed, strictly on a party-line vote.

Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act Advances in Idaho

Here’s some news I received from Idaho: “Id House St Affairs Comm votes 13-5 in favor of state protection against healthcare mandate.”

State Governments in Action

This has been a busy week in state governments.

In South Carolina, the Senate “approved a non-binding resolution that affirmed the state’s rights under the 2nd, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”

In Idaho, “Gov. Butch Otter has announced his intention to sue if Congress passes a bill that increases the state’s Medicare commitments and requires people to buy health insurance.”

In addition, four state representatives introduced legislation that would declare Idahoans free “free from government compulsion in the selection of health insurance options.”

Also this week, the Missouri House of Representatives passed a similar measure, citing the Cornhusker Kickback and the cost to Missouri, among other concerns. Some Democrats who voted for the measure cited their pro-life concerns that federal health care reform would lead to taxpayer funding of abortion.

Raising an Objection from Idaho

The Idaho Freedom Foundation recently surveyed state residents, and found a majority oppose what’s going on in Washington, DC in the name of “health reform.” Nearly two-thirds of those surveyed favored a state law that “protects Idahoans from being forced to buy health insurance and protects Idahoans from having to enroll in a government insurance program.”

The Foundation’s president, Wayne Hoffman, encourages the Idaho Legislature to act: “It’s easy for the Legislature to pass something that correctly portrays the collective anger Idahoans feel about the health legislation pending in Washington, D.C. It might be a strongly-worded letter (called a joint memorial) to Congress, a resolution authorizing the attorney general to take some action, a constitutional amendment or statutory change. Only a third of Idahoans would object.”

Idaho Lawmakers Debate ObamaCare

An interim committee of the Idaho Legislature is meeting today to discuss national legislation and whether the state should opt out of a “public option” government health care plan, should it be enacted.

At this point there’s a fair amount of speculation, since there’s no final legislation.

Idaho Governor Holds Fast on Part-Time Benefits

Democratic legislators and state workers are calling on Idaho Gov.  Butch Otter, a Republican, to rescind or delay a previously announced plan to give part-time workers part-time rather than full-time health benefits.

Says Otter, “There’s no company I’m aware of — and I’m willing to be corrected — that gives full-time benefits to part-time employees.”

One Set of Rules for Us–and Another for the Political Class

Perhaps you've heard that a majority of members of Congress (or perhaps it's just the House) have turned down amendments that would commit them to any sort of "public option" that they create. Such a jarring juxtaposition (some would say hypocrisy) is nothing new, of course. Rank has its privileges.

Now comes a story from Idaho about privilege and power. In brief, part-time state employees now get insurance subsidies reflecting their part-time rather than a full-time status, as was the case until recently.

But there's one group of part-timers who get full-time benefits. Can you guess? I don't think you'll need more than try.

Wayne Hoffman of the Idaho Freedom Foundation has more.

Sweet Heath Insurance Deal for Idaho Legislators

In order to save the state money, Idaho's governor, Butch Otter, ordered part-time state employees to contribute more towards health insurance premiums. This action puts the state more in line with private business practices. One group was left out of this plan, though, as Wayne Hoffman of the Idaho Freedom Foundation notes:

Idahoans pay around $780,000 a year to insure members of the House and Senate (a small portion of that amount is for the staff of both chambers). State lawmakers, who are the most visible of the cast of part-timers, will still receive the same lucrative health insurance package that full time government employees enjoy. So while part-time workers are paying $166-$302 a month for insurance, lawmakers benefit from a low monthly premium fancied by fulltimers — $30 per individual. Taxpayers bear the rest of the cost of each insurance policy. To a public weary of government and skeptical of politicians, it smacks of bureaucratic snobbery.

Correcting this inequity would strike a blow for fairness and save the state's taxpayers some money in the process.

Telephone Line, Idaho Edition

Not all townhall meetings on health care will have in-the-flesh crowds. Some members of the Idaho delegation are planning on having telephone conferences. That could work, and might avoid some of the "Jerry Springer" atmosphere.