Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Health care freedom amendment’ fails in Kansas House

March 23, 2010

Advertisement

— As President Barack Obama signed into law health care reform, the Kansas House rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that was aimed at blocking the federal legislation.

The measure received a 75-47 majority Tuesday but fell short of the two-thirds majority — 84 votes — necessary in the 125-member House to put a constitutional amendment before voters.

When the House debated the issue, many Republicans repeated arguments heard over the past year.

They said the federal plan was an unconstitutional takeover of health care, would reduce the quality of medicine and break the budget.

The reforms “will take us down the path of socialism,” said Rep. Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita.

But Democrats criticized the proposed state constitutional amendment, saying that federal health reform will be decided on U.S. constitutional issues regardless of what states approve. They also argued that the state amendment would constrain the Legislature from making health insurance changes sought by consumers.

The amendment would have prohibited the federal government from requiring that Kansans purchase health insurance.

Speaking against the amendment, Rep. Ann Mah, D-Topeka, said that it would have made “the Kansas Legislature a subsidiary of the Kansas insurance industry.”

Comments

sourpuss 4 years, 9 months ago

I guess if you want to die of a preventable disease, you'll just have to move to a third world country.

Steve Bunch 4 years, 9 months ago

Time-wasting, resource-burning, oxygen-squandering morons.

imastinker 4 years, 9 months ago

Sourpuss - I have so far managed to NOT die of a preventable disease.

My strategy has been to pay for my own health care but working for a living and not depending on others to support me.

imastinker 4 years, 9 months ago

Vertigo -

That's not at all what I am saying. I wasn't a big fan of the system that was in place before yesterday. What I am saying is that this new program is yet another welfare/social program that will make my continued employment cost my employer more money. It also is yet another tax when I don't think I keep enough of my paycheck the way it is. I deserve to keep the fruits of my labor and not be forced to give them to someone else.

I suppose you'd say this costs my employer money and not me, but that's not the way it works. They know how much it costs to keep me here as an employee, I've seen the spreadsheet. My unemployment benefits, health care, and social security payments are all in the same line as "wages" with a total at the bottom. They don't care if the money goes to me or the government, it still costs them the same dollar to keep me here regardless of the recipient.

feeble 4 years, 9 months ago

What I am saying is that this new program is yet another welfare/social program that will make my continued employment cost my employer more money.

Right, because employer-sponsored health insurance policies haven't increased in price 100% since 2000.

Newsflash, your continued employment was going to cost your employer anyway, and like most americans, you would probably have been forced to transition to a high deductible HSA plan in the next 5-10 years even without this bill.

imastinker 4 years, 9 months ago

edjayhawk - most small businesses are corporations.

vertigo - I fit none of those qualifications. I'm referring to the 8% payroll tax my employer has to pay if they do not offer an approved health plan. You might say that's abargain, but I use no health care from my employer at all, nor do many of my coworkers. We are a small company with a small "pool" so we have a high cost plan.

I would love to have a high deductible plan that is comprehensive. It's silly to be prepaying for all of my doctors visits and pills. It would cost me and my family much less than what we pay now but we were not eligible for one. Now, it won't be "approved" so we still won't be able to get one.

Catbacker 4 years, 9 months ago

ima- perhaps you should just go get a better job. You know, just like all those "your" taxes support need to get a job. Why would you work for a company who doesn't even posess the common decency to provide health insurance?

youarewhatyoueat 4 years, 9 months ago

I'm sure all Americans are just devastated by what Kansas Legislature does.

I think it's just Kansans that are devastated by their priorities.

imastinker 4 years, 9 months ago

catbacker - I have a great job and they do offer insurance.

vertigo - then where does the trillion dollars come from?

Catbacker 4 years, 9 months ago

ima- Then you really have very little to complain about, do you? Many others would love to be afforded the options you have...that's the point.

blackfox 4 years, 9 months ago

Catbacker, I have cheaper insurance on my owne than thru the company I work for. Why should you rely on a company or the governement for that matter to provide you with insurance. ITS NOT A RIGHT!

imastinker 4 years, 9 months ago

Catbacker, I got where I am now because I worked my butt off to get here. I went to high school and college, then got out and worked multiple jobs and lived a frugal lifestyle to get where I am now.

Forget health care - the biggest thing dipping into my pocket is the government. I gave over half my salary to the government last year. Don't believe me? Add it up yourself - payroll taxes, Social Security Taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, fuel and use taxes, sin taxes. I can afford health care just fine - what I can't afford is our government. We're spending a dollar to save a dime.

I deserve to keep the fruits of my labor. I earned it and deserve to spend it as I see fit. The day I can't is the day I quit my job and spend my days fishing using a welfare check to put gas in my boat.

Kirk Larson 4 years, 9 months ago

"Republicans fail in effort to keep Kansans free from health care"

There, fixed.

yankeelady 4 years, 9 months ago

I do wonder about a few things. If someone chooses not to have health insurance, then why should a hospital be required to treat them? It isn't free, and as many have pointed out, health care isn't a right. And along the same line of reasoning, why should we all be required to have car insurance, or home owners insurance? Although the latter is so if the house burns down, the bank is covered.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 4 years, 9 months ago

I have a solution for the people who do not want to be forced to buy health insurance.

Remove the requirement that all Americans must have health insurance.

When you get sick or injured, go to your doctor or the emergency room.

If you have health insurance you have purchased from your job or on the open market, you will be treated.

If you refuse to purchase heath insurance, you will not be treated for free at emergency rooms and doctor's offices.

A place will be provided for you to remain sick or die.

How's that for a solution to these free-loaders who do not want to be responsible for their health care??

JHOK32 4 years, 9 months ago

Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts, Jerry Moran, and all you other Republicans sitting up there in your fancy Washington offices and offering NO help to the little guy, rejecting our access to heathcare all the while you are enjoying your premium Federal Healhplan that we pay for!!! What is wrong with this picture? You vote against helping your family neighbors get their deserved healthcare while we are at the same time paying for yours? How do you people sleep at night? The only people that will pay more taxes at the end of the day are those who make more than $250,000 per year - and that ain't going to be me!! We'd also like to thank George W, because without his magnificent display of incompetence after 8 years of totally screwing this nation up to the worst shape it's been in since the Great Depression, When the poll doors opened people came running from coast to coast to vote Democrat! So Thanks George, I guess you did do one thing right after all!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.