'Idaho Health Freedom Act' Hoisted by its Own Hypocrisy

The vicious partisan divide on health care reform arrived in Idaho with the sponsorship of the Idaho Health Freedom Act by Representative Jim Clark and co-sponsored by Reps. Lynn Luker, R-Boise, and Raul Labrador, R-Eagle. The bill would prohibit a state official or employee from enforcing any penalty for violations of the policy. From the Statement of Purpose:

This bill known as the "Idaho Health Freedom Act" codifies as state policy that every person in the state of Idaho is and shall continue to be free from government compulsion in the selection of health insurance options, and that such liberty is protected by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Idaho. The bill removes the authority of any state official or employee from enforcing any penalty which violates the policy. It also tasks the office of the Attorney General with seeking injunctive or other appropriate relief , or defending the state of Idaho and its officials and employees against laws, enacted by any government, which violate the policy.

In essence the Act is designed to "establish policy" of the state that federal mandates requiring the purchase of health insurance would be illegal in the state of Idaho, asserting state sovereignty under the ninth and tenth amendments of the United States Constitution. The Act indicates a fiscal impact to the state of up to $100,000 annually for lawyers to challenge the federal government should mandates become law.

Now the House has moved the legislation to general orders for amendment.

Rep. Jim Clark, R-Hayden Lake, said the problem is that the bill, as written, would outlaw a requirement lawmakers enacted into law back in 2002: Requiring all state college students to have health insurance.

Major kudos to Tara at the Political Game for demonstrating the power of blogging by pointing this hypocrisy out to dunderheads.

Mandates require the uninsured, or their employers, to procure insurance and are contained in the health care reform legislation which passed the Senate and is currently pending in the House. Ironically mandates were included in the senate legislation to appease senate Republicans and health insurers, who would gain tremendously from having millions of new insureds required to buy the insurance. The federal legislation also includes subsidies to assist in complying with the mandates, tax money which would end up in the pockets of insurance companies. Mandates are deeply unpopular with House Democrats. With the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, also a state with health insurance mandates, progress has stalled on health care reform at the federal level.

The state legislation had nothing to do with resolving the health care crisis in Idaho and was instead taking the partisan hackery, with ideological undertones, pervading the federal legislation, to the state level. In debate the sponsor even acknowledged the defensive nature of this legislation and argued that Idaho should step up on providing solutions to address health care reform, conceding that they had not done so yet. None of the sponsors recognized that Idaho had already utilized health care mandates, let alone that this legislation would invalidate it. The sole member of the audience to support the legislation was Jonathon Parker, Executive Director of the Idaho Republican Party, who noted that the Republican State Central Committee had passed a resolution for just this type of legislation. Moreover Raul Labrador, a co-sponsor of the legislation is a Republican candidate for the First congressional district of the wingnut faction.

A compelling example of the partisanship of this legislation is that mandates are opposed by both liberals and conservatives. If Republicans were sincere about health care reform, they would have bridged the divide and worked together on the House bill, instead of working with Democrats in the Senate in crafting that bill. And if Republicans in Idaho were sincere on this legislation they would have recognized their own hypocrisy. Instead not a single Republican has voted to pass health care reform legislation at the federal level and tactically shifted defense of the matter away from the federal arena in Washington to red states like Idaho in the hope of getting the tax funding necessary to achieve a victory in the courts. Cynically they have not offered any meaningful counter proposal and no Idaho Republican has suggested anything except cutting budgets as a solution to the health care crisis. Indeed the mandate of health insurance upon Idaho college students was designed to alleviate the financial burden on the indigency program in Latah, Ada and Bannock counties and ultimately the State's CAT Fund which is still growing massively.

Victory for Republicans means no health care reform, the status quo, even though it would help Idaho tremendously as well as help solve many of the fiscal problems Idaho faces this year. While they're amending they should take care not to invalidate Idaho's mandate for Workmens' Compensation insurance.