Rep. Rick Jasperse (R-Jasper) introduced House Bill 461 recently to the Georgia House of Representatives out-lining a Health Care Compact which would allow individual states to regulate their own healthcare systems.
Jasperse cites the Constitution as grounds for this legislation, saying it would enact Georgia's 10th Amendment right to regulate health care within the state. The 10th Amendment outlines that any rights not specifically assigned to the authority of the federal government are reserved for the states, including regulating healthcare, according to Jasperse.
“It (House Bill 461) forms an agreement or compact among states that says states can dictate how we spend our healthcare money better than the federal government can,” said Jasperse.
Co-sponsored by Rep. John Meadows (R-Calhoun), this bill essentially asks the federal government for permission for Georgia to be excluded from Obamacare in order to regulate healthcare at the state level, Jasperse explained.
According to Jasperse, state regulation would be more beneficial because it is closer to the people who are directly affected.
The idea was brought to Meadows and Jasperse by Linda Fowler and Ed Painter, of the tea party of Murray County, according to Jasperse.
This initiative is not a new concept but is already being considered in several states including Minnesota, Tennessee and Texas.
“This bill originated from a group of people frustrated with Obamacare,” said Jasperse.
This compact would be non-binding to participating states; the option to exit would remain available. Under the compact, the federal government would still provide funding for state health care, which would be subject to individual state regulation.
This compact would also involve the formation of the Interstate Advisory Health Care Commission for participating states, which would collect information and data concerning the performance of various health care programs in the states.
This bill is in addition to the lawsuits filed by the states in response to the passing of Obamacare and may serve as a viable option if the lawsuits fail, Jasperse said.
“We’re just looking out for people,” he said. “… That’s our role at the capitol, to make sure we’re looking after our constituents.”
If this bill were to be passed into law it would still require a signature by Congress, said Jasperse. This bill deals strictly with state’s constitutional rights and not policy, he added.
“It’s working together to get healthcare decisions back in our hands.”
This bill has already seen a positive response from the state including an endorsement by the Insurance Commissioner Ralph Hudgens.
The bill passed in the House 110-60 on March 16.
Rep. Time Bearden (R-Villa Rica), Terry England (R-Auburn), Roger Williams (R-Dalton), Delvis Dutton (R-Glennville) and others are also co-sponsoring House Bill 461.
Senator Charlie Bethel, also recently introduced an identical bill to the state Senate for consideration.







And by the look of it I don't see any changes...
Not to mention, you are arguing a one sided battle against a newspaper that clearly won't respond to you personally, yet when I personally respond to you, you won't even begin to have an educated debate. Sounds like you are just searching for a straw man and a soap box but not a real debate.
Secondly, the term "Obamacare" has become an acceptable alternative to the actual name of the legislation. Reputable news sources on BOTH sides of the aisle refer to this legislation by this name frequently, in fact, much more frequently than using the actual name of the law. And I must ask, if this legislation is as great as you seem to believe it is, why wouldn't Obama want his name associated with it? It seems as though this could only serve him well.
Thirdly,
ksproull wrote on Wednesday, Mar 23 at 10:02 PM »
Could someone explain to me why this article didn't appear on the editorial page instead of the second front of the paper and the homepage of the website?
« ksproull wrote on Thursday, Mar 24 at 01:58 PM »
@calhounweb: No one is suggesting you shouldn't report the legislation in the news section
Contradictory?
And lastly, of course you are in support of Obamacare, there are some great things about it, not turning people away for preexisting conditions, having kids stay on their parents' insurance longer, etc. The problem that most people have with it, other than some major idealistic problems with government-run socialistic healthcare, is that the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE is completely unconstitutional and without this, all of the great benefits of this law cannot be supported fiscally. Not only does the government not have the power to forcively compel its citizens to purchase a product, but we need to seriously step back as a nation and RESPONSIBLY determine what we can and cannot afford to spend our tax money on, without taking anything off the table or pandering to a political audience.
I believe this article was written to detail what certain legislators associated with a particular party are trying to accomplish and those legislators will INHERENTLY be lopsided in their opinions, but it is not the job of the news media to constantly tell BOTH sides of EVERY story or to creative a narrative for people, but rather to give people as much information as possible and let them decide for themselves.