Skip to comments.Idaho Governor Vetoes Bill to Block Health Care Law
Posted on 04/21/2011 3:51:50 AM PDT by tobyhill
The governor vetoed a bill to help Idaho block the federal health insurance overhaul and instead, issued a sweeping executive order Wednesday targeted at the reforms.
Republican Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter is no fan of the health care reform -- he was the first governor to sign legislation requiring his state to sue over President Obama's overhaul -- but said the bill state lawmakers passed in the 2011 session would have required Idaho to forego the creation of a state health insurance exchange.
That would have opened the door for the federal government to step to develop and operate the system, Otter said.
"While I agree that the state should not implement Obamacare, this legislation has the unintended consequence of eliminating a possible opportunity for Idaho and ceding control to the national government," Otter said in a letter to the Idaho Secretary of State detailing his decision to veto the bill.
The governor instead issued an executive order to prohibit Idaho agencies from implementing the reform, or assisting the government in carrying out the law, while still allowing the state to continue developing a home-grown health insurance exchange.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
sounds like he did the right thing
If he had signed it then he would have another lawsuit if the Feds tried to step in, a state’s rights issue.
i hope i’m wrong—but i smell a con.....
He blocked obamacare. Do you want the Fed to step in and seize control? The governor didn’t and he did the right thing.
Sometimes, I think the feeling is people would rather have symbolism than do things in a fool proof way to achieve the goal.
Didn’t the Governor talk to the Congressional Republicans before they passed the bill he just vetoed?
I’m tired of this Kabuki Dance the GOP keeps giving us.
An Executive Order doesn’t have the full power of the law. The Feds can come in anyway and “seize control” even with the Executive Order.
Based on what?
From what I read in the story, the EO is just a temporary device used until the House rewrites the legislation. It looks like the Idaho State Senate had similar concerns regarding the Constitutionality of a similar bill, and voted it down. The Idaho Senate is 28-7 Rep-Dem.
If the Senate had voted it down then it wouldn’t have needed vetoed.
I said they voted down a similar bill. It was in the article. Did you even read it, or just start commenting off the headline?
Knee jerk reaction to a reasoned veto.
The legislature can still pass a different bill with the unintended consequences removed
I do not live there... I just read your article... he blocked obamacare with an EO.
Enough of passing bills that are contradictory or doesn't meet the desired end.
Yes, I read the article and if the GOP are on the same page then he wouldn't have even needed to veto their bill and if he thinks an EO will keep the Feds off his ass over written law then he is very much mistaken.
Governor Perry tried the same thing with the EPA but some Liberal judge ruled that the EPA took precedence over Texas Environmental Rules.
Then the GOP should have gotten together, Governor included, and come up with a law that would remove “unintended consequences” before he vetoed this.
Well, obviously the House isnt “getting together” because they have had bills blocked by the Senate and the Governor. So if youre tired of bills not being passed, you should direct your anger at the House, not the Governor.
Once again, this one had to have got by the Senate in order for the Governor to veto it.
... and the fact it has been judged multiple times to be “unConstitutional” should not require the states to even have to deal with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.