Wednesday afternoon, Governor Otter signed the Health Freedom Act that directs the attorney general to take the Federal government to court if nationalized health care passes.
One of the questions from a reporter asked is if it isn't hypocritical to try to get the F-35 fighter jet to be based in Idaho while rejecting Federal health care.
The Governor did a great job answering the question. I would like to add a thought.
National defense is a Federal responsibility while health care is a state and personal responsibility. The Federal budget is borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it spends and 63 percent of the Federal budget is for human services. If human services were transferred back to the states, these services could be delivered at 30 percent less cost simply because of the inefficiencies inherent in Federal programs.
Showing posts with label health freedom act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health freedom act. Show all posts
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Idaho Health Freedom Act II
Rep. Luker is now addressing the body. His argument is that the federal government does not have the power to mandate insurance coverage. This is not an enumerated power or power under the general welfare clause of the Constitution of the U.S.
I find it interesting that this issue, now on the floor of the House, was discussed by several of us in November where Rep. Luker said that he was working on this bill. He has done a good job. The Idaho Legislature has the opportunity to limit federal power. It is a small but important step.
Now, Rep. Higgins is arguing against the bill. She says it might cost money.
This is an interesting debate. Rep. Nielsen is making an argument that states and local units of government can counter federal power.
Rep. Rusche is making an argument against the bill. He is arguing that this is a matter of freedom. He is saying that we will be more free if we are forced to participate in a government program. Rep. Rusche is making a good point that cost of medical care is too expensive in the U.S. Is the medical cost problem because there is not enough government or because there is too much government?
I find it interesting that this issue, now on the floor of the House, was discussed by several of us in November where Rep. Luker said that he was working on this bill. He has done a good job. The Idaho Legislature has the opportunity to limit federal power. It is a small but important step.
Now, Rep. Higgins is arguing against the bill. She says it might cost money.
This is an interesting debate. Rep. Nielsen is making an argument that states and local units of government can counter federal power.
Rep. Rusche is making an argument against the bill. He is arguing that this is a matter of freedom. He is saying that we will be more free if we are forced to participate in a government program. Rep. Rusche is making a good point that cost of medical care is too expensive in the U.S. Is the medical cost problem because there is not enough government or because there is too much government?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)