Idaho governor blocks federal health care reform law
April 21st, 2011
04:53 PM ET
3 years ago

Idaho governor blocks federal health care reform law

(CNN) - How much power do individual states have to block implementation of the new health care reform law?

A lot, if the governor of Idaho has his way.

FULL STORY

Filed under: Health care • Idaho
soundoff (10 Responses)
  1. California Conservative

    FACT: ObamaCare will eventually go down in flames.

    April 21, 2011 05:16 pm at 5:16 pm |
  2. juliei4

    So if you live in Idaho, you cannot keep your kids on your health insurance until 26, if you want. You can get dumped by your insurance company if you end up with a chronic and or serious illness such as cancer. If you lose your insurance you probably will not get another policy if you are chronically ill or have a serious disease – the insurance companies will decide. Way to give all the power to the insurance companies – way to go, Idaho, you all get the dumber than dirt award for the day.

    April 21, 2011 05:26 pm at 5:26 pm |
  3. gt

    the supreme court needs to rule on it... the states have a role to play ...

    April 21, 2011 05:27 pm at 5:27 pm |
  4. Sniffit

    The political analysis really comes down to a matter of standing and ripeness. Who can challenge the governor's executive order and when? Because most of it doesn't get implemented until 2014, is the issue not ripe yet or is the issue ripe merely because any order like this is facially invalid? As for standing, can I sue my governor/state gov't if he/it goes off on frolick and detour like this with respect to the Supremacy Clause or does it have to be the federal gov't as plaintiff in some capacity? SCOTUS law on these things can be tricky and the SCOTUS loves to use standing and ripeness as a reason to not have to make a decision. Go get us some answers CNN...fetch. Basically, if the governor can get away with it until 2014, then he's going to wave his wang all around claiming some sort of victory until then, but then get a smack down. Irritating in the interim though.

    April 21, 2011 05:39 pm at 5:39 pm |
  5. Sniffit

    "the states have a role to play "

    They certainly do. When a federal law is clearly valid or at least has yet to be overturned or declared invalid in some manner, that role is to OBEY. Period. That is precisely what the Supremacy Clause means and what our forefathers in each state agreed to on our behalf. Don't like it? Go live in China.

    April 21, 2011 05:42 pm at 5:42 pm |
  6. GI Joe

    I have a suggestion for him – no government in Somalia – maybe he would fit right in there.

    He doesn't want the Feds dictating to him, but he wants to dictate to the citizens. Nice life Hitler.

    April 21, 2011 05:54 pm at 5:54 pm |
  7. Tim

    I'm going to have a Potato tonight in honor of this great American.

    April 21, 2011 06:48 pm at 6:48 pm |
  8. Tim

    I can't wait until they ask me if I have insurance, and I get the opportunity to tell them where to put their question.

    April 21, 2011 06:49 pm at 6:49 pm |
  9. duckbutter

    the federal government said the law was...women cant vote ..so we must obay... you cant have drink of alcohol...obey...slavery obey....you obey.. i wont.

    April 21, 2011 06:50 pm at 6:50 pm |
  10. Chris

    Those who do not learn from histroy, repeat. America has tried twice with states superseding federal law, and both were dismal failures. The original form of government was a confederacy – and it was so dysfunctional, the Founding Fathers quickly abandoned it and replaced it the present Constitution. The second time was the Civil War southern Confederacy, which was riddle with one problem after another due to the emphasis on states rights.

    A group can't sustain itself when its individuals members choose only to follow its precepts when its convenient for them. Federal law must trump state law.

    April 21, 2011 07:27 pm at 7:27 pm |