health plan

[george68hemirr]

Idaho first to sign law against health care reform
Associated Press

BOISE, Idaho — Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter on Wednesday became the first state chief executive to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue Congress if it passes health reforms that force residents to buy insurance.

Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states nationwide.

Constitutional law experts say the move is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states. But the movement reflects a growing national frustration with President President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
Democrats are hoping to pass a version of the reform by this weekend.

Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho’s new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit group promotes limited government.
“Congress is planning to force an unconstitutional mandate on the states,” said Herrera, the group’s health task force director.

Otter, a Republican, already warned U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in December that Idaho was considering litigation if health reform went through. He signed the bill during his first such public ceremony of the 2010 Legislature.

“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,” Otter said.

Minority Democrats in Idaho who opposed the bill called any lawsuits over health care reform frivolous.

Senate Minority Leader Kate Kelly, D-Boise, also complained about the bill’s possible price tag. Those who drafted the new law say enforcement may require an additional Idaho deputy attorney general at a cost of $100,000 a year.

Kelly said that was irresponsible when Idaho is grappling with a $200 million budget hole.

“For Democrats in the Legislature, our priority is jobs,” she said. “We’d rather Gov. Otter was holding a signing ceremony for (a jobs package) meant to put Idaho residents back to work.”

 

[roadrunnerh]

I hope this shit doesn't go through! I am happy with my insurance, thank you very much.

 

[Confederate1969]

Contrary to popular belief, federal law does not trump the states except for the dozen or so powers that the Constitution expressly delegates to the federal government. And as the 9th and 10th Amendments state so well, all other rights and powers remain with the people and the states. These lawsuits are not merely "we don't like this law so we'll take it to court" situations. This is a clear cut overstepping of the federal government's few delegated powers.

 

[mcmopar]

The arrogant Feds think that because of the interstate commerce laws they will win. I hope the Supreme Court shoves it right up their keesters! Especially after O'Bama insulted them in front of the whole House and nation on TV in his State of The Union Address!

 

[69hemibeep]

It is against the law of the land for the Feds to tell me what to buy. Besides I have a decent health care plan through company and union talks that are subject to change each contract, that will be considered a Cadillac plan and taxed. I don't make no stinking $250,000 a year, and I'm going to float a freeloader. :soap: :soap: :soap:

 

[mcmopar]

IF the Feds win the lawsuits I have a scenario to consider: since employers will be forced to provide health care for all employees I foresee that companies will divest themselves of "employees" and instead utilize "contract workers". How easy would it be to tell your employees that they are no longer "employees" (i.e. fire all of them) and then hire them back as "contract workers" or "independent contractors". Then the burden of paying for health care insurance falls to the individual instead of the company. Just remember when it all hits the fan - you heard it here first.

 

[Jim S.]

IF the Feds win the lawsuits I have a scenario to consider: since employers will be forced to provide health care for all employees I foresee that companies will divest themselves of "employees" and instead utilize "contract workers". How easy would it be to tell your employees that they are no longer "employees" (i.e. fire all of them) and then hire them back as "contract workers" or "independent contractors". Then the burden of paying for health care insurance falls to the individual instead of the company. Just remember when it all hits the fan - you heard it here first.

Also a company can now drop health insurance for all of its employees and just pay the $750 fine per employee every year. Trouble is employers are now obligated to cover part-time workers or pay the $750 fine also. So yeah, the door greeter at Walmart might become sub-contracted.

 

[moparchris]

Were doomed. Obama is a terrorist and is attacking our country by ruining it from the inside out.

 

[SomeCarGuy]

This is here to stay get used to it.

Supreme Court? Ha Ha Ha. That can be "fixed" with a few strokes of the pen.

Contract workers? Nope, either the las will keep that from happening, or they will just be changed. You can't work somebody like that in most cases already anyway.

 

[mcmopar]

Contract workers? Nope, either the las will keep that from happening, or they will just be changed. You can't work somebody like that in most cases already anyway.

I have to respectfully disagree. The co. I work for from time to time doesn't hire full-time CAD workers - only independent contractors. Of course, Florida is a "right to work" state meaning unions can't be forced upon workers. I should have pointed out my theory could not work in a unionized environment but companies are creative and will find ways around the law - especially if it will cost them more than they think they can afford.
Another thing to look out for is the possibility of a shortage of doctors in the near future. My wife was telling me (she's an RN) about reports she's been hearing of doctors threatening to quit practicing if this health care overhaul adversely affects them. How accurate this report is I do not know but if true it will definitely negatively affect the quality of patient care. We'll have to see how it all shakes out. I do know that there are some in the medical profession that are not happy about this health care overhaul at all. Expect to see some unforeseen consequences as a result.