Posted on 10/05/2009 5:45:21 AM PDT by SueRae
A majority of so-called Republican strategists believe that health care is a Democratic issue. They are wrong; health care is an American issue, and the Republican Party has an opportunity to demonstrate that conservative principles work when applied to real-world problems
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We do run into a funding conundrum when participation is voluntary AND pre-existing conditions have no waiting period. Someone who is slightly ill might wait to get into a plan until things are really desperate. Ultimately such a person would otherwise end up falling back on public aid. Jindal is a good policy wonk, but I hope he also has somebody to do the math.
I don’t WANT my medical records to be “electronic”. I want my medical records to stay in my doctor’s office. Why is it only women who want to murder their babies have a “right to privacy”?
A truly conservative approach to reforming the health care/health insurance system would necessarily involve “lawsuit reform”.
The trial lawyers be damned, they and their greedy agenda are standing in the way of doing this RIGHT.
Actually, wouldn’t convervatism at its root just say that the government should get out of the way and let private enterprise figure it out?
I wonder about that. What is the Constitutional basis for tort reform? Currently, as I understand it, medical malpractice cases are handled by state courts. I think something like 20-odd states have enacted their own tort reform. Is it necessary for the feds to take over, and what is the Constitutionally delegated power that allows them to do so?
It seems anti-Federalist to me on its face. And the only Constitutional grounds I can see for it would be to apply the "interstate commerce" clause in a very un-originalist way. If this is conservatism, I'm not sure why we bother.
If you go down Jindal's list, see how many items you can find that are constitutionally justified Federal powers. This, to me, is why conservatism fails. Because no one really wants to live within constitutional limits.
Tort reform, as I understand it, means the feds assume power over the states and regulate how their courts operate, capping awards, setting up special panels, etc. This seems to be a clear violation of republican principles and federalist principles. If someone can explain where I'm wrong, I'd like to hear it.
States also regulate the insurance industry in each state, and there is no constitutionsal mandate to allow people to go across state lines to purchase insurance. However, there seems to be a lot of discussion of allowing this to occur.
There are also federal statutes governing particular torts, and allowing certain causes of action to be pursued.
There is not a clear delineation anymore between state and federal jurisdiction- there will always be some overlapping.
If the Congress undertakes a national reformation of the health care system, then that must necessarily involve reforming the tort system, as it is inextricable from health care and health care insurance.
If one is to occur, then the other must occur.
While your federalism argument does make sense, and is logical, any attempt to revamp the health insurance system must involve addressing the tort system. otherwise, just leave it ALL alone for each individual state, as per your argument.
THAT is the conservative argument. What we have now are two big gubmint factions-- the pro business faction, and the pro labor faction. But both parties are going to act extraconstitutionally whenenever they feel like it.
It seems anti-Federalist to me on its face.
Is that right? I thought the anti-Federalists were the ones who wanted to stick to the Articles, seeing the Constitution as too much expansion of federal power.
Or is it that they wanted something else instead?
I have to admit, I've only read the intro to the copy of the Federalist Papers that I have (and the Declaration, Articles, and Constitution). I'm delaying reading the actual arguments because I want to pick up a copy of the Anti-Federalist papers so I can read both sides at the same time in more or less chronological order.
When I read the introduction and the discussion of the Anti-Federalists, I wondered who these wackos were. Then as I read the Constitution right after the Articles, I came to the opinion that I would probably have been one of them (if they end up being what I think). To me, the Constitution reads like a rewrite of the Articles done by the fed, not by the states (or at least by state reps who had already started down the dark side). But I'm not in love with that position, it's just my suspicion. I've got a lot of reading to do before I form an opinion.
I am glad to hear you're going to read the AntiFederalist papers. I think they should be lauded perhaps more than the Federalist papers. Everyone adores the Framers, when the truth is they made some glaring errors that we all suffer from now, that were known at the time.
I recommend you add to your reading list the transcripts from the Virginia Convention debates on ratification of the Constitution. There you find the two great anti-Federalists, Patrick Henry and George Mason, squaring off, line by line, against James Madison himself. It'll make you want to pull your hair out when you see that in fact, the Constitution should have been REJECTED.
Thanks for the tip, I’ll definitely add those to the list.
I’m really looking forward to getting started.
You know, we could fix that without as much work, if we eliminated employer-based insurance, and had each person buy their own insurance.
Then the insurance companies could offer two forms of insurance, one for people willing to commit to arbitration to resolve errors, and another for people who want to sue. The ones who want to sue could pay much higher premiums for the privilege.
The constitution does grant to the federal government the control of interstate commerce, which should cover insurance portability.
Group rates are cheaper, and understandably so.
The commerce clause can be used to justify any interfernce with the market place, that is true.
I don’t like general arguments about the commerce clause, but it does seem the commerce clause is directly applicable to the issue of whether a person in one state can purchase insurance from a supplier in another state.
State barriers to such purchases are what the commerce clause is meant to deal with, if the federal government wants to do so.
I really don’t have a problem with interstate insurance. For many years I had homeowner’s insurance with a small company that was based in Rhode Island, which is a state in which I do not live.
I agree with you. The only case I can see where it MIGHT be of help is in an emergency ... if you have a severe allergy or pre-existing condition that emergency personnel should know about.
However, if I want my medical records to be available in an emergency, I’ll wear a chip like my cat.
The problem is, health insurance is in bed with government already ... at the state level. That needs to stop as well as Federal involvement.
That’s a very good idea.
The problem with reform of the insurance industry is the anti-trust exemption:
Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, insurers have a broad anti-trust exemption that facilitates regional monopolies. The Act allows states to regulate the insurance business - so you have state or regional monopolies or oligopolies and as long as the state “regulates” the industry, federal anti-trust laws would not apply.
The result — no real competition in the industry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.