Now that the Supreme Court has concluded hearings on the president’s health law, many states find themselves in a holding pattern, postponing major decisions about the law until they get some constitutional clarity.
But states shouldn’t wait on the Supreme Court to oppose implementation of this harmful law.
While the Court’s opinion will certainly be important (and historic), it will not change the policy facts on the ground — this law represents a confluence of misguided policies that centralize power in the hands of federal bureaucrats, and it fails to address underlying problems with our health care system.
From the individual mandate and Medicaid expansion, to the bureaucratic health insurance exchanges, the federal health law undermines the core principles of federalism and makes health care less affordable and accessible.
First we have the individual mandate, which represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between the federal government, the states and the people. Oral arguments largely focused on whether the federal government could identify any “limiting principle” for individuals — in other words, how could the federal government’s expansive view of the Commerce Clause force you to buy health insurance but not make you eat broccoli?
But states shouldn’t wait on the Supreme Court to oppose implementation of this harmful law.
While the Court’s opinion will certainly be important (and historic), it will not change the policy facts on the ground — this law represents a confluence of misguided policies that centralize power in the hands of federal bureaucrats, and it fails to address underlying problems with our health care system.
From the individual mandate and Medicaid expansion, to the bureaucratic health insurance exchanges, the federal health law undermines the core principles of federalism and makes health care less affordable and accessible.
First we have the individual mandate, which represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between the federal government, the states and the people. Oral arguments largely focused on whether the federal government could identify any “limiting principle” for individuals — in other words, how could the federal government’s expansive view of the Commerce Clause force you to buy health insurance but not make you eat broccoli?
No comments:
Post a Comment