Georgia Health Care Freedom Act may get a vote on Crossover Day

Jim Galloway reports that the Georgia Health Care Freedom Act (HB 707) may hit the state House floor for a vote on Monday, citing state Rep. Ed Lindsey (R-Atlanta) as his source.

“Lindsey specifically named HB 707 and HB 990 [as measures he’ll be pushing on Monday], which are not yet on the House calendar,” Galloway reported yesterday. “Lindsey is either misinformed, which is unlikely, or just spilled the beans, our AJC colleague Aaron Gould Sheinin informed us.”

Georgia Health Care Freedom Act, introduced by state Rep. Jason Spencer (R-Woodbine), is based on model legislation written by the Tenth Amendment Center, an organization that offers legislators solutions on how to push back against the federal government on issues like Obamacare and the NSA’s domestic surveillance programs on the state level.

The measure would prohibit Georgia as well as any counties and cities from establishing a health insurance exchange. It also bars state department and agencies from providing support to implementing provisions of the law.

“Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed, for instance,” Galloway explains, “would be barred from hosting a health fair that helped his residents sign up for insurance offered by federal Obamacare exchanges.”

In order for HB 707 to have a chance to become law this year, barring an unlikely suspension of the rules, it has to clear the House by the end of legislative business on Monday, which is Crossover Day.

The legislation is co-sponsored by state Reps. David Stover (R-Newnan), Scot Turner (R-Holly Springs), Michael Caldwell (R-Woodstock), and Kevin Cooke (R-Carrollton). Lindsey is also a signer to the bill.


    • Max Power says:

      Because counties and municipalities are political subdivisions of the state, it can prevent them from doing just about anything not explicitly mentioned in the state constitution. But that doesn’t change the fact that this is a stupid law introduced by the GOP who fear they may lose control of some statewide offices.

      • John Konop says:


        I thought the GOP is for local control? I could understand restricting state funding……but prohibition? What makes even less sense is the local county most take in uninsured via hospitals, yet the state restricts how the local county wants to solve the problem? I am really confused….

  1. Dave Bearse says:

    In the vein of “religious liberty” legislation, it’s red states continuing to make it tough on the GOP nationally anywhere the GOP is in the minority. There’s been no credible alternative to Obamacare because Obamacare was basically the GOP plan.

    • Charles4Truth says:

      Define Credible????

      I guess you do not consider it credible because the main street media doesn’t consider selling across state lines and tort reform as credible?

      STOP drinking the Kool Aid

      • Dave Bearse says:

        The GOP controls the House and has voted to repeal Obamacare nearly four dozen times. In that context credible legislation is alternative legislation brought to a floor vote and passed by the House majority.

  2. xdog says:

    Legislators might consider subbing out the entire bill origination process to the likes of the 10th Amendment Center, ALEC, Madison Group if for no other reason than it would free up their time to figure how they’d handle Senatorial elections.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      Yeah, improve efficiency, reduce cost and flatten the hierarchy by cutting out an unnecessary step.

  3. Dr. Monica Henson says:

    “The measure would prohibit Georgia as well as any counties and cities from establishing a health insurance exchange. It also bars state department and agencies from providing support to implementing provisions of the law.”

    And this is “health care freedom” in what bizarro universe?

    • Charles4Truth says:

      The bizarro universe that understands that it is the individual not the state who makes the call..

      What bizarro world is health care freedom when you have no choice.

      Health insurance is not health care!!! It is only a way to pay for health care!!!

  4. View from Brookhaven says:

    Rep. Lindsey (Hi!) continues his shift from Buckhead Republican to Woodstock Republican.

  5. DavidTC says:

    This law is very odd. It seems to serve no legitimate government purpose.

    When objecting to a new law, there are really only two legitimate ways to do it:

    The first is to assert that a problem literally does not exist, or will correct itself. That was clearly untrue with the problem of uninsured people, and everyone agree it was untrue by 2008, despite the Republicans trying to backtrack a bit when it because clear the Democrats were actually serious about solving the problem. It’s so clearly untrue that the Republicans, despite not having real any alternatives to the ACA, are now forced to pretend they do, and are now objecting to the ACA in the second way.

    The second way is to assert that a *different* law would be better. As I said, the Republicans are now at this point of the ACA, despite the fact they’re having trouble with any sort of plausible ‘different law’.

    But, of course, *this* law presents no different way. It presents nothing that could *conceivably* be a different way. This isn’t some dumb Republican plan that can’t possibly work, it is not any sort of alternative at all. And it isn’t even backtracking to the first way…it’s not even *not* having an ACA, it’s just having slightly less people use it.

    This is, literally, insanity. It is completely irrational behavior. And, as people have pointed out, it makes a complete mockery of the ‘local government’ stuff that the Republicans think is so important.

    Here’s an interesting question: So, the problem Romney had with the ACA is that it was supposedly it was Federal instead of state, and a lot of Republicans jumped on that bandwagon, glad to have *some* sort of justification as to why their own plan of mandates was somehow unacceptable. (Despite the fact that, as everyone appears to have forgotten, when the Heritage Foundation first came up with the idea of mandates it was in opposition to Hillary’s plan, and indeed was supposed to be federal.)

    So what’s the new problem here with hypothetical *community* exchanges? (Which no one has actually proposed, but I see nothing wrong with in theory.) Is this Goldilock and the Three Bear? The federal government is too big, the county is too small, but the state is just right…except our *state* doesn’t seem to be solving the problem at all.

    Georgia Legislature: ‘We demand only we can solve the problem of health care! And our solution is nothing!’

    Or are we to conclude the actual facts, in that the Democracy came up with an actual working way to start fixing health care in this country (Whether or not it would have been the best way.), the Republicans fought it every step of the way and have attacked the ACA so many ways that it’s nearly impossible to come up with a plan that doesn’t have all the flaws they pointed out plus more, so they have no alternative that could possible work. And now they’re at the point where they just hoping that people *learn* these facts as late as possible to delay the backlash?

  6. Harry says:

    I see the PP crew pretty much opposes this legislation, thus it must have an excellent chance of success.

Comments are closed.