Summary: Recently I reported on Ohio Republican Representative Barbara Sears’ failing to support The Health Care Freedom Act (HCFA) bill that would help defend Ohioans from Obamacare penalties. Currently the chances of the HCFA being considered for an additional hearing are weakening, as it has not been listed on the committee schedule. However, Rep. Sears did choose to respond to my article; but not to me and not proactively. Blogger Maggie Thurber, who has formerly worked with Sears, reached out to Sears for comment after my post angered Tea Party activists who were unaware of Sears’ actions. While her response is too lengthy to post in full, much of it quoting language from the applicable bills and laws, Sears’ defense of her voting record is worthy of reaction. I reached out to Sears, as she expressed interest in me doing so, and have included her response to me as well. To begin, Sears states: The following are my thoughts regarding several issues discussed in Breeanne Howe’s article. First, it’s always disappointing when someone chooses to make inferences both personal and professional without taking the time to look at facts or do even the minimum amount of research. I appreciate that you reached out to me for some background. I have tried to summarize my comments in order of the article not to infer that the article is remotely creditable [sic] but to simply to review and comment process. First I’d like to thank the representative for taking the time to respond to my article, even though she didn’t find it at all credible. I’d also like to give reassurance that my post is well-researched, though one might not appreciate the facts presented. I have offered my apology for not reaching out to Representative Sears for comment prior to this post, certainly no offense was meant; I reported based on the facts on the ground. After dismissing the facts in my article as inaccurate, Sears went on; not to offer correction, but to restate her prior positions on the state constitutional amendment previously passed in Ohio, her reason for not supporting the HCFA (HB 91) and her bill, HB 3, which focuses on regulating navigators. It is the state constitutional amendment, the Healthcare Freedom Amendment, that Sears points to as the reason she believes she cannot support the HCFA. According to the representative: It seems illogical to push legislation that would work towards the destruction of our private healthcare marketplace. I have yet to hear a workable argument that suggests that HB 91 doesn’t violate our Constitution. The Healthcare Freedom Constitutional Amendment passed by 66% of Ohio and in all 88 counties in Ohio states: • Section 21 (A) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system. • Section 21 (B) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall prohibit the purchase or sale of health care or health insurance. • Section 21 (C) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall impose a penalty or fine for the sale or purchase of health care or health insurance. I could suggest that if we pass HB 91, then we violate Section 21(b) and Section 21(c) in that we will be prohibiting both the sale of health insurance and an individual’s right to purchase health insurance by imposing law and rules that would be specifically used to punish a carrier should they accept any remuneration, credit, or subsidy as provided in the PPACA. As I pointed out in my original article, and Sears reaffirmed in her response, Ohio has refused to enact a state exchange. Therefore, as noted by HB 91 co-sponsor Rep Young, “the HCFA legislation puts the same amount of limitation on these providers as the state refusing to run its own exchange.” HCFA doesn’t limit the purchase or sale of health insurance, it simply limits the funding a health insurance company can r
