Local legislators introduce health care compact bill
by SARAH JONES
Mar 23, 2011 | 1923 views | 17 17 comments | 10 10 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Rick Jasperse
Rick Jasperse
slideshow
John Meadows
John Meadows
slideshow
In the face of the Obamacare which was signed into law last year, local state legislators have introduced an alternative improve Georgia’s healthcare system.

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.

Comments
(17)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
kate2222
|
March 25, 2011
Actually, I think the original article was just put back as it was. That's the paper's choice, though, and I had a chance to express my point of view.
kate2222
|
March 25, 2011
@chilly_o: Just to clarify, I changed by name for comments purposes...
kate2222
|
March 25, 2011
*my*
kate2222
|
March 25, 2011
I had no intention of signing on for a debate with you, chilly_o, or anyone else. My intention was to do what I did, point out what I believed to be a biased reporting of the facts of this legislation. The changes made yesterday were to use the correct name of the health insurance reform law - the Affordable Care Act - in place of Obamacare. That's been changed back to "Obamacare", I see, although a couple of uses of it have been deleted. If the online article can be changed and changed again at will, comments on how it's written are pretty useless. (And I believe you quoted half of a sentence I wrote earlier, leaving off the other half which changed the meaning of it.) I see no point at all in continuing with this and won't revisit this page.
chilly_o
|
March 25, 2011
Either they agree with you or they are just tired of dealing with senseless unresearched comments assaulting a local newspaper and reporter for reporting facts and using common terminology.

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.

ksproull
|
March 25, 2011
Someone at the Times must have agreed with me, or the article wouldn't have been edited and reposted. As it's now written, most of the comments section doesn't make sense, and the print edition remains the same as it was, but this at least improves the online version.
chilly_o
|
March 24, 2011
First, the 10th Amendment, as presented in this article does not require any interpretation. It guarantees rights to the states that are not expressly apportioned to the federal government. Although cases are in the court system now to determine whether it is Constitutional for the federal government to compel its citizens to purchase a product, in this case health insurance. This article states that the 10th Amendment has been cited in rationalizing the ability of the Georgia Legislature to enact legislation regarding healthcare, that is all.

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.
Polecat
|
March 24, 2011
Yes Calhoun Times, you should submit your reporting as "Unbiased" in the same manner as the National Media such as MSN.(ROFL)!
ksproull
|
March 24, 2011
@calhounweb: No one is suggesting you shouldn't report the legislation in the news section, just that the facts should be presented impartially unless it's on the editorial page. I appreciate this forum being provided to readers and that I could state my case.
ksproull
|
March 24, 2011
@calhounweb: I'm sorry, but as it was written, it was a comment against it. The use of only the term "Obamacare" for the law - a name invented and used frequently by opponents of the bill - makes it that. And the presentation of the 10th Amendment as though it had been decided and not a question before the Supreme Court does, too.
calhounweb
|
March 24, 2011
This story was written to inform readers about the actions of the local state legislators. It was not a comment for or against the Affordable Care Act.
BARRYGOLDWATER
|
March 24, 2011
Weve been fighting the federal goverments intrusion into state policies since 1861. This is another attempt for the boys in Washington to tell us states what we must do. I wish they would get off my back, out of my pocket book and leave us alone. We would be much better off if they would leave us alone!
RobertELee
|
March 24, 2011
I suspect Rep Meadows interest lie with the insurance companies, based on his background. In the end this legislation will be a waste of time.
ksproull
|
March 24, 2011
*Act*
ksproull
|
March 24, 2011
@oldman76: I'm sure you'll never use Medicare, then? I'm not arguing the merits of the Affordable Care Ac although I favor it; I'm arguing the journalist point that this article belongs on the editorial page or should be drastically rewritten before appearing as straight news.
oldman76
|
March 24, 2011
As disappointing as socialized medicine, as disapponiting as passing a law that was not revised because the votes had changed, as disapponiting as living in what was once a "free" country, but being FORCED to buy something (health ins) you may or may not want. Yes, disappointing indeed!
ksproull
|
March 23, 2011
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? For one thing, the name of the law being referenced is the Affordable Care Act. While those who dislike the current president and dislike any federal involvement in health insurance reform may make use of nicknames for the law, it doesn't belong in a news story as the only name given. Second, the sponsors of this state legislation hope the Supreme Court will interpret the 10th Amendment as they do, but that's undecided as yet. A news, as opposed to editorial, treatment of the question would explain the question instead of providing the answer one side hopes for. It looks as though Rep. Jasperse provided a press release touting his opinion, and you published it as though it were straight news, which it isn't. Disappointing to say the least.
Postings are not edited and are the responsibility of the author. You agree not to post comments that are abusive, threatening or obscene. Postings may be removed at our discretion.