Idaho Republican Party Chairman Barry Peterson reminded the 85 Republicans in the 105-member Legislature that the party’s State Central Committee has voted to oppose GOP Gov. Butch Otter’s push for a state-run health exchange.
“We have a great respect for Governor Otter and the work he is doing,” Peterson said in a news release late Thursday morning. “We believe he is sincere when he says he wants a state Insurance exchange to protect Idahoans from the federal government. However, the party is not convinced by Governor Otter’s arguments. A state insurance exchange doesn’t protect us from the federal government; it invites further federal control.”
Peterson’s statement came just hours before the Senate Commerce Committee is to resume its hearing on Otter’s proposal, with Otter Chief of Staff David Hensley as the lead-off witness at 1:30 p.m. Thursday.
Peterson was a compromise candidate for party chairman, receiving Otter’s blessing last year. Otter had vowed that he would not repeat the experience of having a party chairman he didn’t support, as happened in 2008 when now-Congressman Raul Labrador and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna helped engineer the ouster of Otter’s choice, Kirk Sullivan. The winner, lobbyist and Eagle City Councilman Norm Semanko, left the party post last year.
Peterson’s news release follows:
Chairman Peterson Statement on Idaho Healthcare Exchange
The Idaho Republican Party today reminded the Idaho State Legislature that the state’s Republicans stand opposed to the creation of a state health insurance exchange. The reminder comes as the State Senate is considering Senate Bill 1042, which would create an insurance exchange under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
“The Idaho Republican Party’s position is clear and irrefutable. We want no part of Obamacare. We want the state to reject the implementation of a health insurance exchange. We want the state to appropriate no money for an insurance exchange, and we want Idaho to be among the growing number of states that have refused to go along with an insurance exchange,” said Idaho GOP Chairman Barry Peterson.
Peterson added, “We have a great respect for Governor Otter and the work he is doing. We believe he is sincere when he says he wants a state Insurance exchange to protect Idahoans from the federal government. However, the party is not convinced by Governor Otter’s arguments. A state insurance exchange doesn’t protect us from the federal government; it invites further federal control.”
Peterson noted that Governor Otter personally asked the Central Committee’s Resolution Committee to reject the resolution opposing a state insurance exchange, but the committee voted overwhelmingly in support of the resolution. Members of the Central Committee were also told of the Governor’s objections, but they too approved of the resolution.
“This is not about our Governor,” Peterson said. “This is about cementing in place a law that we believe will do great harm to our state and country. This issue is bigger than any one person. The Central Committee is asking that the state maintain its opposition to a state insurance exchange. Remember, the Idaho State Legislature passed the ‘Idaho Health Care Freedom Act’ in 2010, opposing any and all Obama healthcare programs. We whole-heartedly accept and support that law. If Idaho’s Republican lawmakers decide to embrace Obamacare, Idaho will be making it difficult for other states to continue their resistance.”
I would like to know what is Chairman Peterson and the Republican’s alternative? The US spends more, covers less people and has poorer health outcomes than all the other industrialized democracies. Being the party of no is not helpful.
There are many alternatives, including those floating in the legislature as we speak. One is Senator Thayn’s idea for Health Savings Accounts and high-deductible health plans.
People get some “seed money” from their employers to put into a bank account that is dedicated to pay for routine medical costs. Then, they get a health plan with a high deductible to cover emergencies like accidents or major diseases.
Experience has shown this cuts the cost of healthcare by up to 33%. Also, people are wiser how they use their healthcare because they have some of their own money at stake. That means more efficient spending. It also empowers people, especially working poor. And, by the way, it makes people less dependent on their health insurance carriers, who hold quite a sway here in Idaho.
People are responsible, we just need to trust them. Taking away a person’s power over the care of their own body is not showing trust or faith in their ability to make their own decisions about their own care. We need to empower people through HSAs; not empower insurance companies, hospitals, and other industries.
Thank you.
And how does it help anyone who has an accumulated serious illness that will cost big bucks?
Either they will have to put charity jars in the stores or just die anyway.
Would appreciate a message when a comment may be moderated instead of just not posting. if that is what is happening. Can’t blame my busted mouse for everything.
These Health Savings Accounts and high-deductible health plans already exist.
What the opposition to a State Based Exchange are doing is adding a 3rd choice – not to have an exchange. That train left the station when the US Supreme Court upheld PPACA.
Idaho has two and ONLY two choices: State run Exchange OR a Federal run Exchange. Give me state based over federal control EVERYTIME!!!
If I said it was ludicrous would a rap star sue me?
The Idaho Central Committee has also called for a return to the gold standard, the repeal of the 17th Amendment, nullification, and a tax credit-based school voucher system,among other things that I don’t remember. Is it pushing all the legislators to follow those as well?
We didn’t elect the GOP central committee to govern the state. They are not answerable to the citizens and the legislators are. Big difference someone needs to remind them.