Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Legislature Health Freedom Act Clears House Committee; Sponsor Says We Can Pay Doctors with Vegetables
Posted by Jeff Woods on Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:19 AM
In an advisory opinion, state Attorney General Bob Cooper already has stated the so-called Health Freedom Act likely won’t stand up in court because of this bothersome little thing called the U.S. Constitution and the Supremacy Clause, which holds that federal laws supersede those of the states.
But Republicans are bent on playing to the tea party crowd in an election year, and so they rammed through the bill by a vote of 19-11. It’s already passed the Senate.
The bill supposedly gives all Tennesseans the right to disobey the national law’s mandate to buy health insurance. “That’s what this bill is about—it’s about freedom. It’s about giving people choice,” said the sponsor, Rep. Mike Bell, R-Riceville.
With a straight face, Bell went on to tell Rep. Joe Towns, D-Memphis, that people who choose not to buy insurance can pay their medical bills with vegetables like the Mennonites do in his district.
Bell: They’re some of the healthiest people you have ever seen. They pay cash when they go to the doctor. They work out arrangements with the hospitals if their children have to be hospitalized. This is an individual choice that we’re talking about.
Towns: You’re saying they pay cash? For organ transplants and cancer and heart cases, they pay cash?
Bell: I said they pay cash or work out other arrangements. I know for a fact. I know someone in the medical field who has been paid with vegetables from the Mennonite community.
Towns: That’s an anomaly. That’s not how the system works. I can’t take a sack of vegetables down to the utility company and pay my utility bill on my house. Nobody’s going to take vegetables for payment. We can’t run the country on vegetables and horse trading.
House Speaker Emeritus Jimmy Naifeh tried again to amend the bill so that anyone who opts out of the law also opts out of Medicare and every other federal health care program.
For those who want the government off their backs, Naifeh argued reasonably, “this really gives them that opportunity to absolutely get the government off their backs.” That succeeded only in spotlighting the hypocrisy of the bill’s supporters, who quickly tabled Naifeh’s amendment.
Comments (4)
Showing 1-4 of 4
What the fuck is wrong with our legislators that they think we are a vegetable-based economy?? Will Pfizer accept a bushel of soybeans for a $90,000 a month cancer drug??
Who elected this numbnuts??
like
dislike
There is a problem with the AGs opinion that the Federal Law is always Supreme to the State law. The problem is the Constitution says if a federal law isn't "pursuant" to the Constitution according to Article VI, Clause 2. it isn't supreme. In other words if the federal law isn't within the Federal government's authority or "enumerated powers" then it isn't Constitutional and the AG didn't address this part of obamacare. You can't just say because a federal bill is passed into law, it is supreme over any State law, because that isn't the complete truth.
Good comment Mike. I was going to post the exact same sentiments. Every media report is referencing a narrowly constructed AG opinion (based on a poorly structured and worded question by Rep. Naifeh and Curtiss). The badly asked question and vague AG opinion completely ignore the constitutionality issue and refer only to statute vs. statute. It is disappointing that the generally assume constitutionality of the national health care bill and immediately throwing up the Supremacy Clause. I wish I had more time to teach Con Law!!
