|
|
|
TOPEKA — Some Kansas lawmakers are backing a proposed state constitutional amendment exempting Kansas residents from potential federal legislation requiring everyone to purchase health insurance.
Proponents of the measure, which has been dubbed the Health Care Freedom Amendment, say it is a response to Democratic proposals in Congress that forces individuals to purchase health insurance or face a potential penalty for not doing so.
“The discussion at the federal level by the President and the majority party was making it very clear that the liberty of the people of Kansas, with regards to health care, was at stake,” said State Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook, R-Shawnee, co-sponsor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 1626. “I think a primary duty of every state legislator is to protect the state's citizens.”
A joint House and Senate health committee met in session earlier this week to hear testimony on the amendment.
Sen. David Haley, a Kansas City Democrat, said that it was the wrong place to have such a discussion.
“A health committee is the wrong venue for discussing measures to de-couple Kansans from health care or ways to pay for it,” Haley said. “Were it not for political posturing, it should not have even been in a health committee.”
Others, in favor of the amendment, such as Rep. Peggy Mast, R-Emporia, said that the federal government is infringing on state rights and that it is the state that should have oversight on health insurance, not the federal government.
“I am sure that we would have had half over the Republicans and the Democrats as well,” Mast said. “They are listening to their constituents and those residents are worried about the federal government taking away their individual rights.”
Haley contended that it is working Kansans that benefit from a federal health insurance proposal and that, while the federal government has handed down unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind, this is a mandate that does come with federal funding.
“I don't think it will send a message to the poorest or the wealthiest of Kansans,” Haley said. “But, it says to the working people of Kansas that we are completely disengaged or if the proponents of this measure don't know or just don't care.
“Having health care is truly in their best interest.”
But, Pilcher-Cook said that the amendment was not meant to discourage people from purchasing health insurance, just that it was the federal government’s place to mandate such action.
“They can still be a part of any health care system they wish, but they cannot be forced into a system they do not like,” Pilcher-Cook said.
Two-thirds of both the House and Senate, plus a majority of voters have to approve the amendment before it can be added to the state constitution.
The joint committee has taken no action on the amendment and Pilcher-Cook said that pinpointing a schedule for action is difficult.
On the Web:
http://www.kslegislature.org
Matthew Clark can be reached at matthew.clark@morningsun.net or at 620-231-2600, Ext. 140
TOPEKA — Some Kansas lawmakers are backing a proposed state constitutional amendment exempting Kansas residents from potential federal legislation requiring everyone to purchase health insurance.
Proponents of the measure, which has been dubbed the Health Care Freedom Amendment, say it is a response to Democratic proposals in Congress that forces individuals to purchase health insurance or face a potential penalty for not doing so.
“The discussion at the federal level by the President and the majority party was making it very clear that the liberty of the people of Kansas, with regards to health care, was at stake,” said State Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook, R-Shawnee, co-sponsor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 1626. “I think a primary duty of every state legislator is to protect the state's citizens.”
A joint House and Senate health committee met in session earlier this week to hear testimony on the amendment.
Sen. David Haley, a Kansas City Democrat, said that it was the wrong place to have such a discussion.
“A health committee is the wrong venue for discussing measures to de-couple Kansans from health care or ways to pay for it,” Haley said. “Were it not for political posturing, it should not have even been in a health committee.”
Others, in favor of the amendment, such as Rep. Peggy Mast, R-Emporia, said that the federal government is infringing on state rights and that it is the state that should have oversight on health insurance, not the federal government.
“I am sure that we would have had half over the Republicans and the Democrats as well,” Mast said. “They are listening to their constituents and those residents are worried about the federal government taking away their individual rights.”
Haley contended that it is working Kansans that benefit from a federal health insurance proposal and that, while the federal government has handed down unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind, this is a mandate that does come with federal funding.
“I don't think it will send a message to the poorest or the wealthiest of Kansans,” Haley said. “But, it says to the working people of Kansas that we are completely disengaged or if the proponents of this measure don't know or just don't care.
“Having health care is truly in their best interest.”
But, Pilcher-Cook said that the amendment was not meant to discourage people from purchasing health insurance, just that it was the federal government’s place to mandate such action.
“They can still be a part of any health care system they wish, but they cannot be forced into a system they do not like,” Pilcher-Cook said.
Two-thirds of both the House and Senate, plus a majority of voters have to approve the amendment before it can be added to the state constitution.
The joint committee has taken no action on the amendment and Pilcher-Cook said that pinpointing a schedule for action is difficult.
On the Web:
http://www.kslegislature.org
Matthew Clark can be reached at matthew.clark@morningsun.net or at 620-231-2600, Ext. 140
