Today, Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter welcomed legislative sponsors to his office at the Capitol today for the signing of House Bill 391 – the Idaho Health Freedom Act.
“Congress and the White House are working out their scheme for pushing through a healthcare ‘reform’ bill that has more pages than the U.S. Constitution has words. I guarantee you that not a single member of the House or Senate has a complete understanding of that legislation any more than they understood all the implications of the USA PATRIOT Act back in 2001,” Governor Otter said. “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.”
The bill makes public policy for the state that “every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty or threat of penalty by the federal government of the United States of America.”
The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution codifies in law that the federal government is one of limited, delegated powers – and that all powers not enumerated in the Constitution are reserve “to the States, respectively, or to the People.”
The Idaho Health Freedom Act specifically addresses this in regards to health care and the federal government:
STATEMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY. (1) The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The state of Idaho hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Idaho regarding the right of all persons residing in the state of Idaho in choosing the mode of securing health care services free from the imposition of penalties, or the threat thereof, by the federal government of the United States of America relating thereto.
The bill passed the House by a vote of 52-18, and the Senate by vote of 24-10.
Otter is the first Governor in the nation to sign such a bill into law. In Virginia and Utah, both houses have passed a version of a health care freedom act – and governors in both states have given strong indication that they will sign. In 2009, the Arizona legislature passed HCR2014, which will put the question of Health Care Freedom to voters on the 2010 ballot in the form of a state constitutional amendment.
The Tenth Amendment Center has released the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, which directly nullifies the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” on a state level. Click here to learn more.
CLICK HERE to view the Tenth Amendment Center’s health care freedom act tracking page
Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Tenth Amendment Center Main Feed TAC State Groups
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
site.
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2010 by Tenth Amendment Center Blog
While it nullifies the health care law about to be voted through by Congress, it does absolutely nothing to give the people of Idaho a good health care system of their own. There insurance costs will continue to go up subjecft to the greed of insurance corporations and pre-existing conditions, some of them ridiculous as in the ones excluding women victims of domestic violence or cancer patients will continue to get worse.
When are these people so worried about "socialized" medicine going to come up with a workable health system that delivers to all of its citizens. We rank 37th in delivery of services in spite of spending more on health care than any other nation on earth.
We need to top listening to the Fox propaganda machine and face reality.
Betty,
I don't disagree that the health care system, as it is, is without problems. I do however have a problem with "Big Brother" getting too big for his britches. My biggest fear is that we would become like other countries with socialized health care with regards to the elderly and terminally ill. You mentioned those with cancer. Do you really think that socialized medicine is going to consider them "worthwhile"? Or will they and the elderly of our nation be kicked to the curb because they are no longer considered viable and, yes, valuable? Ask our British friends.
every state gives emergency care (or care to anyone who shows up at an emergency room) even if they can't pay for the service………………You are obviously a progressive-minded (socialized-defender of facism) and Nanny-State from cradle to grave individual who is easily persuaded by the rhetoric of this hidious and criminal administration……
You should move to a socialized country..stop wrecking ours in the USA
Betty, you are so on! Idaho needs to sue their government to stop them from stopping health care. Take that Otter. Big brother needs to do some things; there are not 50 different ways to manage health care – hey, game management as well.
I agree everyone deserves healthcare, ABSOLUTELY. However, what the government did and how they did it is unconstitutional. The lawmakers of our country do not live in our reality. They live with their extravagant pay with pension and benefits package that is nothing like what the normal everyday person THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SERVING has, so they will never come up with a solution to the healthcare problem. When they stop being able to vote for their own raises, when they get a more reality based pay and benefits system, maybe they will see what really needs to be done to make something work for our country. Until then, don't expect anything resembling a resolution to the health care problem.
Betty. There is a very simple way to provide a "health care system". It's called the market. Allow for competition among different health care providers as well as preventing them to have a monopoly in any type of medicine which different practitioners try to do via their medical associations. What the state could do is to provide a secure database so that patients could provide ratings on the service that they received from each doctor. What you would have is prices going down and quality of service improving. As for those who are not able to afford insurance, what alot of people don't realise is that before Lyndon Johnson created medicare that many clinics and hospitals provided their services to the needy at nominal or waived cost. It's only when government became more and more involved that the costs started to sky rocket. If the state wants to help what they can do is allow the market to work, facilitate people getting information on how their lifestyle choices such as eating at McDonald's, Taco Bell or eating processed food impacts on their health, and facilitate that information about different practitioners is being made available to the public so that we can make informed choices. As to your concern about insurance costs, insurance companies should be allowed to sell their products in all states in order to foster competition and they should be able to price appropriately based on your lifestyle choices. So that if you smoke, eat at McDonald's 3 times per week and are overweight it's clear you're going to pay more for health insurance than someone who doesn't smoke, eats raw organic foods, plays sports weekly and is at their optimum weight because the market is rewarding you for a lifestyle more conducive to you not needing expensive medical interventions. The problem is that the debate is taking place from the perspective that conventional medicine is the end all and be all for any health issues (when if you study across various disciplines you can see that CAM health practitioners are in many cases far more successful in treating many conditions at lower costs) and that the way to reduce costs is to force insurance companies to drop their rates when they know that people don't exercise, many foods are full of GMOs and/or other toxins and large swaths of the population don't exercise. We need to think about it from the perspective of what would an ideal system look like without any government intervention and then work out at what points any government institution can facilitate the exchange of information that is required in a free market to ensure that buyers and sellers can make informed choices about which type of care best suits them.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by jerrymcombs: More more! RT @TenthAmendment: #10th: Idaho Governor Signs Health Care Freedom Act into Law http://bit.ly/cpSbm2...
Bravo Governor Otter ! The people in the state of Idaho are very lucky to have you!
Idaho residents will still be on the hook for the tab, though.
Here's what EVERY state can do with state legislators brave and strong enough to enact the following: -each state adopt a state constitutional amendment that will require said state legislature to approve by a 2/3rd majority all UN-enumerated federal laws and regulations, wherein “enumerated” is strictly defined by Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. If said laws and regulations are not adopted, non-compliance would be the circumstance for said federal law and/or regulations. (This would require all special interests in D.C. to spread to 50 different states to petition each state legislature for our favors and taxes….regardless of what laws and regulations Washington D.C. passes.) ____
Each state must pass a state constitutional amendment that requires each state to perform annual, comprehensive, transparent financial audits of the Federal Government and the Federal Reserve. If the Feds, including the Federal Courts, refuse to fully cooperate, it is the sole prerogative of each state to refuse tax reveunue submission, in full or in part, to the Federal Government. The one paying the money, gets to ask for full disclosure on what is happening to the money.
[...] by Anthony on March 20, 2010 Last Wednesday, Idaho Governor Otter signed the Idaho Health Care Freedom Act, which challenges the current health care bill in Congress, dubbed “ObamaCare”. The [...]
[...] Idaho Governor Signs Health Care Freedom Act into Law | Tenth Amendment Center Blog [...]
[...] health care reform if it happens. Similar actions have been undertaken in Utah and Virginia. In Idaho, the governor has actually signed such a bill into law. In Arizona, voters will vote on a similar [...]
As an Idaho resident I give Huge kudos to otter for taking a stand against this disasterous health plan.
Thank-You Idaho! We need other states to follow your lead. Please see http://www.mnsovereignty.org
[...] clipped from blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com [...]
I don't get all this talk about national healthcare taking away our freedoms. The only freedoms that get taken away are the freedoms of insurance companies to charge exorbitant fees on patented drugs, the freedom to cartel to manipulate insurance markets, and the freedom to suddenly increase premiums without just cause.
We pay taxes, don't we? National health insurance is just a way to mandate that our pooled dollars go towards something that will directly benefit our own citizens. There are plenty of reasons to disagree with the new healthcare bill. Loss of freedom is definitely not one of them:
http://www.theinductive.com/blog/2010/4/9/pelosi-...