I think we are on the same page, but the 10th amendment argument is that the federal govt does not have the authority to mandate some issue that is within the control of the state governments.
But I am not sure that mandated healthcare is constitutional even on a state level.
You cannot mandate that someone receive healthcare, period, if it is against their religious beliefs. If you can’t make someone receive medical care, how can you make them pay for something that they will never even receive? It makes no sense, defies any logic.
I have long argued that there is mandated healthcare, complete with a tax penalty for those who did not participate, is unconstitutional.
It looks like certain state legislatures agree. See this entry from Wiki.
National Health Care Nullification – As of March 2010[update], 25 states have introduced legislation which would declare certain provisions of any proposed national health care bill to be null and void within the state; the legislation passed in Arizona and Virginia.[11] Such provisions include mandatory participation in such a system as well as preserving the right of a patient to pay a health care professional for treatment (and for the professional to accept it) outside of a single-payer system. Arizona’s legislation passed as a proposed constitutional amendment, to be submitted to the voters in 2010.[12] On February 1, 2010, the Virginia Senate took a stand against a key provision of a proposed federal health care overhaul, passing legislation declaring that Virginia residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance.
But the problem is that until that matter was settled, you are subject to civil and criminal penalties, (criminal penalties, including jail time), for not participating. So the practicality of the matter is that you will have to participate until it is judicially determined.
This is so far beyond the American ideology it is incredible. It is more soviet, more feudal, than anything this country has seen. They have taken a political issue, and turned it into a criminal statute where if you oppose it you go to jail.
I have no children yet pay property tax levies for schools. Receipt of benefits or payment for unused benefits happens all the time...
The 10th amendment leaves all powers NOT delegated to the feds "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (emphasis added)
I think states can mandate actions and stay within Constitutional guidelines. The actions of states you pointed to are instances where STATES tell the federal government they are not going to participate. I applaud those states' actions, since it specifically invokes the 10th amendment.
I know "Romney Care" gets ripped here on FR regularly, but I do not agree with those attacks. In fact, the experience of Massachusetts is the perfect illustration for folks wanting to work on health care issues. Here is what I mean: Massachusetts is one of FIFTY states that tried something. Other states can LOOK at Massachusetts and say "This didn't work...we'll do something different."
I am not saying RomneyCare was a success--I am saying the laboratory of RomneyCare can help other states figure out what is best in their situation!
Additionally, if the people/legislature of Massachusetts want to make CHANGES to their plan, they can do it--without the federal government telling them no!
That is the beauty of federalism/states rights.
Wisconsin instituted a school voucher program that was highly successful, if I recall correctly, and it became a model for other states. Can you imagine what would happen if we had real experimentation going on in state after state? Individual legislatures could address the problems of their own people and the federal government's overreaching, uncaring, bureaucratic bull**** would be a thing of the past!
I hope we as a nation continue to move in that direction. American creativity and ingenuity will make us once again a bastion of liberty and freedom.