Comments on: Idaho Governor Signs Health Care Freedom Act into Law

By: » Idaho Governor Signs Health Care Freedom Act into Law

» Idaho Governor Signs Health Care Freedom Act into Law — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 12:31:33 +0000

[...] Idaho Governor Signs Health Care Freedom Act into Law [...]

By: alex d

alex d — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 20:05:59 +0000

If your going to have Medicare Supplemental Insrance you should think about what you value most in your health plan to find the plan that fits your needs the best.

By: Christopher Carr

Christopher Carr — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:18:12 +0000

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-…

By: Idaho Governor Signs Health Care Freedom Act into Law « Ashangel's Blog

Idaho Governor Signs Health Care Freedom Act into Law « Ashangel's Blog — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:53:35 +0000

[...] clipped from blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com [...]

By: Tyranny

Tyranny — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 06:48:07 +0000

Thank-You Idaho! We need other states to follow your lead. Please see www.mnsovereignty.org

By: John Boyd

John Boyd — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:46:47 +0000

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.

By: Laura

Laura — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:29:34 +0000

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.

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:39:06 +0000

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.

By: drew

drew — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 20:34:01 +0000

As an Idaho resident I give Huge kudos to otter for taking a stand against this disasterous health plan.

By: Health Care Reform Resurrects Demons | Law and Security Strategy

Health Care Reform Resurrects Demons | Law and Security Strategy — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:03:00 +0000

[...] 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 [...]