Federalism and Universal Health Care

On many levels the way in which our country has metamorphisized likely has some of the most purest of the Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves. For many of the Founding Fathers, the Revolutionary War came down to one concept, federalism or state's rights. In fact, most of the Founding Fathers took great pride in being a part of the British Empire. Most had no problem paying duties and taxes to the Kingdom. The crux of the Revolutionary War came when the Kingdom continued to insist on dictating to each of the States the manner in which the conducted their internal business. Virginians, the Founding Fathers thought, knew best how to govern Virginia. It was the intrusive government of the Kingdom back in England that continued to meddle in their own internall affairs that lead to the Revolutionary War.

State's Rights was a concept central to the new nation and it was defined by the Tenth Amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Founding Fathers were fearful that the central government would replace the King as the meddlesome force that would tell the states how to run their business. As such, the Constitution enumerated specific powers to the Federal government and left all other decisions to the states themselves. So, the most purist Founding Fathers would see programs like Social Security, Medicare, No Child Left Behind, and other Federal government programs and as an aversion to everything they stood for.

Today, proponents of the issue of Federalism see the states as incubators for ideas. In other words, those that support state's rights see the state as a sort of experimental platform for all sorts of ideas. In other words, before the whole country tries something revolutionary, proponents of Federalism say allow states to try said idea and see how it works out. That way other states can learn from the mistakes made by their fellow states. Furthermore, the country as a whole can learn from all.

Proponents of Federalism see the concept of Universal Health Care in exactly such an issue. Proponents of Federalism would argue that before the country goes to universal health care why don't we allow some states to try the idea and see how it works. In fact, that is exactly what has happened in some states. Here is how one media described the result of universal health care in Massachusetts.

Now in Massachusetts, in an unintended consequence of universal coverage, the imbalance is being exacerbated by the state’s new law requiring residents to have health insurance.

Since last year, when the landmark law took effect, about 340,000 of Massachusetts’ estimated 600,000 uninsured have gained coverage. Many are now searching for doctors and scheduling appointments for long-deferred care.

Here in western Massachusetts, Dr. Atkinson’s bustling 3,000-patient practice, which was closed to new patients for several years, has taken on 50 newcomers since she hired a part-time nurse practitioner in November. About a third were newly insured, Dr. Atkinson said. Just north of here in Athol, the doctors at North Quabbin Family Physicians are now seeing four to six new patients a day, up from one or two a year ago.

In Illinois, a form of universal health care was implemented about a year and a half ago.

Governor Rod. R. Blagojevich today announced “Illinois Covered,” his historic and comprehensive plan to give every Illinoisan access to affordable and quality health coverage. While the Governor’s “All Kids” plan, which took effect last year, extended coverage to all children in the state, approximately 1.4 million adults in Illinois are currently uninsured. A majority, roughly 75 percent, are from families with moderate incomes or higher. The Governor’s plan will provide affordable coverage to the uninsured and will also help many middle-income families and small businesses that are currently enrolled in health insurance plans save thousands a year on healthcare costs. The plan will also reform the existing healthcare system to improve quality and require more accountability.

Since its inception, Governor Blagojevich has lost a lot of popularity due to corruption and incompetence issues. He has since extended the program so that children up to the age of 25 would still be covered under their parent's plan.

Governor Rod R. Blagojevich today used his amendatory veto power to improve House Bill 5285 to provide parents with the option of keeping dependents on their health care insurance until their 26th birthday; parents with dependents who are veterans can keep them on their plans until their 30th birthday. Over 300,000 Illinoisans between the ages of 19-25 are uninsured – many of whom lack the means and opportunity to get affordable health insurance coverage. Being able to stay on their parents’ or guardians’ health plans will allow thousands of young adults to keep or get access to more affordable coverage, get regular checkups and receive preventable care. The amendatory veto will keep the original language of HB5285, a bill which allows college students to stay on their parents’ heath insurance for a year or until the plan would have ended if they take a medical leave of absence or reduces his/her course load to part-time because of an illness or injury. The Governor’s amendatory veto does not change any of the original language; only adds the additional requirement that allows parents to extend their dependents’ coverage. “Nationwide, the 19-25 age group is the least likely to be insured. This means they are less likely to have consistent doctors’ visits and access to preventable care. These young adults don’t have much in savings and would likely go into debt if they had to pay out of pocket for a serious illness or injury,” Governor Blagojevich said. “But we
can do something about this – we can allow parents to keep their dependents on their health insurance coverage until they are 26, or until they are 30 if they are veterans. Today I ask the General Assembly to accept these changes to provide important healthcare improvements for Illinoisans,” Governor Blagojevich continued. There are approximately 1.4 million people between the ages of 19-25 year olds in Illinois

Now, it is impossibel to get into the Governor's head, however this government expansion certainly raises the issue that desperate and corrupt politicians can use this issue to attempt to buy votes when their own careers are on the decline. In California, the plan to bring universal health care failed over differences over tax funding.

But in the end, it didn't matter.

The bill was killed yesterday by Senate Democrats, who argued that it would burden consumers, dig a deep hole in the state's deficit-ridden budget and provide a windfall to insurance companies. They joined Republicans in a 7-1 vote by the Senate Health Committee against the legislation.

The defeat of a bill that promised to cover 3.6 million Californians illustrates the difficulties of passing a compromise, centrist plan in a polarized Legislature. The vote effectively ends any chance for major health care changes this year.

In fact, no less than 22 states either have universal health care or have serious meausres that could bring it to their state soon. Clearly, on the issue of universal health care, Federalism is working. Yet, it is too early to tell what will work or if it will work at all. That's why Barack Obama's nationalized universal health care proposal is so troubling. Federalism is alive and well on the issue of universal health care. Over the next decade, states will be able to process how each of these programs have done. States can be compared to each other to see which of the programs worked best. Furthermore, states can be compared to states that stayed away from universal health care altogether. Barack Obama is attempting to usurp power specifically created for the states. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the national government has the right to control health care. In fact, this is exactly the sort of thing the states were meant to do, and clearly, the states are working on the issue in a vibrant and healthy manner. The right thing to do is to allow these states to act as incubators and to assess the results. Barack Obama's plan attempts to usurp that process just as it is beginning.