The measure requires a constitutional amendment, needing the approval of both two-thirds of the Senate and House before being placed on the ballot before the voters in 2010.
Called the Health Care Freedom of Choice Constitutional Amendment, the legislation was modeled after the American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which protects the individual rights of patients to obtain the health insurance of their choosing and to pay directly for medical care. Georgia joins the ranks of legislators from 14 other states who have already filed or pre-filed similar legislation. Legislators in another 10 states have publicly announced their intention to file the legislation. The legislation passed in Arizona earlier this year, Hill said.
The bill was pre-filed in the House by state Rep. Calvin Hill (R-Canton).
"We have taken the first step in protecting Georgians from government-run health care and intrusive government mandates. If Congress' proposed government option mandate becomes law, then the federal government will become a significant decision maker in Georgians' medical care," Hill said.
"The time has come for us as citizens, and Georgia as a sovereign state, to stand up to the federal government and stop these mandates that trample individual rights," he said.
Hill quoted the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," adding, "We, as elected representatives, must do what we can to ensure these basic rights for the citizens of Georgia."
State Rep. Alisha Thomas Morgan (D-Austell) believes Hill's intentions are admirable to help ensure Georgians can get the care they need, when they need it.
"Unfortunately, this proposed constitutional amendment would not achieve that objective. I believe it would tie the hands of Georgians and prevent them from developing a health care system that is accessible to all, regardless of income, and of the highest quality," she said.
The bill distracts from a real problem at hand, which is that Georgia has close to 1.7 million people who are uninsured, Morgan said.
"If we are to truly create consumer choice in health care, we need to support the federal reform bill that is now before the U.S. Senate," she said.
The U.S. Senate bill would end the practice of insurance companies denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, allow Georgians to seek care from the doctor of their choice or require Americans to purchase a government-run health plan, she said.
"Instead of going after the consumer and small business-friendly bill being debated in the Senate, we should go after the insurance companies, which repeatedly deny health care to Georgian families and hold payments from our family physicians," Morgan said.
For more information on Hill's legislation, go to www.judsonhill.com.
Follow us on Twitter!
The insurance companies are government subsidized and they make profit off denying basic human rights.
That is inhumane and corprate communism.
We are in a dangerous period and unless people wake up we will lose what few freedoms we have left.
We cannot afford to provide healthcare for all. Why not focus on bringing good jobs and a solid middle class to fund programs
The insurance industry has CAUSED this problem so you want to listen to them on how to solve it? Give me a break.
Please direct us to the Constitutional provision(s) citing a persons Right to Healthcare. A few hints: It's not the "general welfare" clause or the Declaration of Independence "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" clause either.
Where exactly does the Constitution permit our Government to force anyone to purchase anything?
Your answers, undoubtedly intelligent and absent name calling or vile references should prove interesting reading.
Please don't confuse affordability with rights.
And, by the way, it's illegal for a medical practitioner to deny treatment to someone based on the patient's ability to pay. The patient can get treatment. Paying for that treatment is a different matter.
Health care is not guaranteed by the constitution, and is not a right. The 40 million, or what ever the number is, that the government says do not have health insurance, currently have access to free health care through medicaide, medicare, free government clinics, etc.
This whole debate is about government control, and the Democrat's desire to garner power by taking away freedoms, substitute them with security, and packaging it to the people who contribute the least to society, in order to get their vote.
healthcare is not a right, just like food and shelter is not a right.
This man is essentially lying and adding more lies on top of the lies this is based on. There is no such thing as a takeover of government of health insurance although to be honest even that would give us a better system than we now have. They conveniently "frame" - i.e., lie to people - their false concern in the diminishing "freedom"; this freedom is the profits for the special interests who prop them up, not of the working people of this country. This guy like the other republican assistant-devils are wearing sheep's clothing that look like suits - all clean cut and glowing. Think about that "wholesome" image as you are struggling to pay your insurance premiums (if you are fortunate enough to have them) and when your poorly informed friend, associate, parent, sibling, daughter or son; are struggling with a decision that is truly beyond their means and totally outside of their financial allowance because of no insurance or viable health care options. We are a compassionate and wise bunch indeed to make it so those who profit from our misery call ALL of the shots for our health and medical well being.