There is an aspect to our conservative response to healthcare reform which is growing increasingly troubling to me.
When we provide our own “solutions” to the perceived healthcare “crisis,” one particular proposal is to enhance healthcare insurance policy portability by breaking down state regulatory barriers prohibiting a person in one state from purchasing a less expensive or more appropriate policy in another state.
On the surface, I think this proposal makes a lot of sense. It seems to promote the free market and consumer empowerment.
However, as a federalist and constitutionalist, what business is it of the federal goverment to meddle with state laws and regulations? If one state wants to have more or less healthcare insurance regulation, doesn’t the constitution permit it to do so?
If, as conservatives, we promote the idea of the federal government forcing states to fall in line on health insurance portability, aren’t we opening up ourselves to allowing the federal government to usurp state sovereignty in other areas as well?
Moe Lane
Steve Maley
Dan McLaughlin
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Good point Mr Ed. I agree. Plus, my bigger concern
mbecker908 (Diary) Thursday, August 13th at 11:49PM EST (link)is that we’ll offer up some “DemLite” proposal that they can add to in coming years.
Agree and disagree, Becker.
Loren Heal (Diary) Friday, August 14th at 5:42AM EST (link)As long as the Feds are removing federal restrictions, and declaring that States may not prevent citizens from making transactions across State lines, I don’t see the harm. If they dictate what a State may do inside its borders, or throw must-cover provisions on interstate insurance, then that would be bad.
Ironically, interstate insurance would probably help more people than any other proposal, without any government spending.
But these plans to provide this or that tax credit, or to sell Health Bonds (I made that up), or whatever, are just the wrong way to go. People are pushing back for smaller government and more freedom, so it’s time for Republicans to seize the day.
–
Join the Concord Project, and follow @lheal, if you dare.
"...and declaring that States may not prevent citizens from making transactions across State lines"
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Friday, August 14th at 2:43PM EST (link)The Constitution has always provided for limitations on state sovereignty for interstate commerce and thank God for that.
Yes, there are some sup ct decisions that falsely defined interstate commerce and huge instances like soc sec where congress with sup ct approval, enacted laws that were not authorized by the constitution, but they are not analogous in this area.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
"...and declaring that States may not prevent citizens from making transactions across State lines"
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Friday, August 14th at 2:43PM EST (link)The Constitution has always provided for limitations on state sovereignty for interstate commerce and thank God for that.
Yes, there are some sup ct decisions that falsely defined interstate commerce and huge instances like soc sec where congress with sup ct approval, enacted laws that were not authorized by the constitution, but they are not analogous in this area.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Gamecock, not sure I agree with you.
Mr_Ed (Diary) Friday, August 14th at 8:20PM EST (link)States with different regulations that impact the price of a product does not inhibit one’s ability to acquire the product, just the price one pays for it.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse’s Mouth
Not understanding the question in relation to my main point concerning
Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Friday, August 14th at 8:48PM EST (link)the power of congress, from the beginning of the republic, to regulate interstate commerce under Art 1 as confirmed by early cases argued before the Sup Ct, mainly by Daniel Webster and that Congress prohibiting states from restricting interstate competition by ins cos is in no way analogous to sup ct cases that too broadly defined interstate commerce under Art 1.
But as to the import of what your comment does imply, I would refer you to Webster and Marshall’s “power to tax (regulate) is the power to destroy”, although I suspect that statement is not quite on point with what you fear from Congress.
I would add this: much of what the sup ct did w/respect to interstate commerce rulings that were not correct, we would probably preferred to have been made allowable by amendment. Not all but much. But I do loathe sup ct rulings like that.
However, I do think interstate commerce would allow for many remaining state regs, even if I wouldn’t prefer many of them.
But I really don’t think I have enough info to get your supposed disagreement, so please feel free to more fully state your case.
I won’t be offended if you talk to me like a 5 yr old!
smile!
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson