Thursday, May 21, 2009

Federalism and Health Care

It’s fantastic to live in a government that is federalist in nature.

What is federalism exactly? It is a “system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units” or state and local governments.

Bottom line? The federal government takes care of some nationwide issues, but state and local governments are the ones that really do most of the legwork. I support this system because it gives We, the people, better access to leaders and governmental entities that affect our daily lives the most. Plus, Massachusetts is dissimilar to Alabama and Arizona is very different than Iowa (although both states apparently have large canyons, if you’ve seen the new Star Trek movie).

Thus, in a system of federalism, it is no surprise that 50 different states have 50 different ways of running their governments. Personally, I think this is fantastic, because it gives local governments more control. Plus, it offers the federal government the unique opportunity to see what’s working in the states, and what’s not working in the states.

For example:
“Hey! This tort reform law is working really well in Oregon. Perhaps we should make it a federal law.”

Great! Federalism!

Our system of government gives Congress the chance to look at state programs, agencies, laws, and regulations and determine whether or not they would be appropriate at the federal level.

Therefore, what DOESN’T work at the state level should NOT be tried at the federal level. However, there are some in Congress who seemingly don’t understand how federalism works.

The following Wall Street Journal article discusses how statewide healthcare is currently failing in Massachusetts. Unfortunately, this is the kind of system that President Obama wishes to implement nationwide. I encourage you to peruse the entire article.

The best line comes at the very end of the article.

“The real lesson of Massachusetts is that reform proponents won't tell Americans the truth about what "universal" coverage really means: Runaway costs followed by price controls and bureaucratic rationing.”

If it doesn’t work in one small state of 6 million people, it’s not going to work in a huge country of 300 million people. Period.

No comments: