Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Last effort to save ‘Health Care Freedom Amendment’ fails in Kansas House

The Health Care Freedom amendment failed a second time in the Kansas House Wednesday. The amendment did not receive the required number of votes and will not succeed in blocking any part of the health care reform bill that was signed into law.

March 24, 2010

Advertisement

— The Kansas House rejected an attempt Wednesday to revive a proposed “Health Care Freedom Amendment” to the state constitution.

The vote to reconsider the chamber’s earlier rejection of the measure was 75-47, but supporters needed 84 votes in favor.

Drafted in reaction to the new federal health care law, the proposal would have amended the Kansas Constitution to prohibit the state from requiring any individual or business to buy health insurance. The federal law requires most Americans to have coverage, starting in 2014.

The chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Brenda Landwehr of Wichita, said she’s not sure what supporters will do next.

Also Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, a Republican from Kansas’ 2nd Congressional District, urged Attorney General Steve Six to join a lawsuit filed by his counterparts in 13 states challenging the federal law.

Jenkins said the federal law “appears to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and I can think of no greater obligation of our state’s attorney general than to defend the Constitution.”

Six, a Democrat, said he was studying the new law before making a decision.

“Attorney General Six’s decision to challenge the new health care law will be based on sound legal analysis, not political pressure or a personal political agenda,” said spokeswoman Ashley Anstaett.

Comments

mcontrary 4 years, 11 months ago

Thank goodness! Republican legislators continue to say that American citizens don't want healthcare reform. I'm one of those citizens and I do want reform. I wanted the healcare reform bill to pass and be signed, which it was, and I want the shenanigans, such as this bill, to end. The tea party and their ilk do not represent the citizens of the USA, only some, those that are misinformed.

Cindy Yulich 4 years, 11 months ago

Opponents do continue to keep saying that "American citizens don't want healthcare reform" -- and site polls presenting that fact. However, they fail to note in making this observation that of the 60%+ that opposed the proposed reform, roughly 13% are opposed because they feel it does not go far enough! This bears out in the polling post approval of the legislation showing a majority in favor of the legislation.

woodscolt 4 years, 11 months ago

Get lost Landweher. The pubs lied and lied and lied to shut down health care reform and caused us to settle for far less than was needed because you and your self-righteous "everyone must obey us" mentality . It is more important for your kind to have a political victory than to take care of the health care problems people face. The bill we have could have been much better had your type participated in genuine debate instead of obstructionism and lies. Why don't you sit in a corner and hold your breath until you get your way.

woodscolt 4 years, 11 months ago

Get lost Landweher. The pubs lied and lied and lied to shut down health care reform and caused us to settle for far less than was needed because you and your self-righteous "everyone must obey us" mentality . It is more important for your kind to have a political victory than to take care of the health care problems people face. The bill we have could have been much better had your type participated in genuine debate instead of obstructionism and lies. Why don't you sit in a corner and hold your breath until you get your way.

feeble 4 years, 11 months ago

"Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local." - Antonin Scalia, Gonzalez v Raich.

Any bets on whether Scalia reverses himself?

Richard Payton 4 years, 11 months ago

Anybody posting here considering a move to Virginia? Since their state law doesn't require anyone living in that state to have health insurance. Reminds me of the California law that allows marjuania but the feds law that doesn't.

meggers 4 years, 11 months ago

"Chief sponsor and Wichita Republican Brenda Landwehr said she’s not sure what supporters will do next."

Join the rest of us in the 21st century, perhaps? We're all out of tea, but there might still be some cake left.

easyliving 4 years, 11 months ago

Virgina is a beautiful state.... Please don't feel like the rest of us are asking you to stay.

feeble 4 years, 11 months ago

rtpayon, Gonzalez v Raich was about that very law (California marijuana laws vs Fed marijuana laws). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Feds.

ebyrdstarr 4 years, 11 months ago

Rtpayton, the Virginia law is now void because it conflicts with federal law and per the U.S. Constitution, federal law is supreme when it conflicts with state law. Obviously, the VA provision that no one can be required to buy insurance now directly conflicts with the federal mandate so the federal mandate wins. It isn't even a close question.

The situation is totally different from the marijuana situation. It is still a crime to possess pot in California: a federal one. It's just that the Feds don't care. California is free to define it's state crimes however it wants. Since federal crimes and state crimes are separate beasts, there is no conflict between the two laws.

Richard Payton 4 years, 11 months ago

The states have a right to their own sovereignty which allows states to have laws which conflict with federal law?

ebyrdstarr 4 years, 11 months ago

The California medical marijuana law as applied in that state's criminal courts does not conflict with federal law. But, if the Feds want to prosecute someone for violating federal criminal laws against marijuana, the state law has no application. The state cannot create a defense to a federal criminal law.

Richard Heckler 4 years, 11 months ago

Repubs have never offered anything and love their campaign money from insurance giants TOO!

Repubs will change nothing ever because they TOO love subsidizing the insurance industry with OUR tax dollars.

Repubs are being their phoney selves. They know this bill will not be modified so they feel safe raising hell about something they don't want changed.

Will republicans take away an insurance industry gravy train? Of course not. For the moment they are playing people for fools.... their favorite sport.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 4 years, 11 months ago

Someone without health inssurance (and usually without money or the means to pay) shows up at the emergency room with the sniffles. They get treatment, most ERs will not show indigents the back door.

Free treatment is given, and the "patient" goes on their way

Costs of treatment are added to the overall operating cost of the hospital.

You have insurance and show up at the hospital with a broken arm. You receive treatment and your insurance pays the bill. But the bill is raised due to the person who was treated for the "sniffles" at the ER (without paying for the treatment), the most expensive form of health care delivery.

Your health insurance raises your premium to cover your generous contribution to the earlier indigent patient's "free" health care.

Indigent patient goes on without a care, why should he buy insurance, you and your insurance company are happy to reimburse the hospital for providing the indigent patient health care. You have a job. You have money. Why should you object to these people who will not provide for themselves being treated on your nickel??

Do you now see why EVERYONE needs health insurance coverage? Or do you just like paying and paying for the irresponsible jerks who mooch off of your health coverage with impunity.

Do you still think manditory health coverage (with pehalties for those who fail to comply) is not a good idea???????

getreal 4 years, 11 months ago

Rep. Lynn Jenkins wants to waste state money by suing the federal government. Whether you support the health care law or not, all the experts are saying that states will lose in federal court. Thank you Ms. Jenkins, but Kansas is broke and needs to spend its money wisely; on our schools, roads, the disabled, and the elderly. States that are suing are only doing so for political purposes, it's irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.