[lurkingforacure]

Several states have either already adopted or are considering adopting resolutions under the 10th Amendment to opt out of the federal healthcare reform plan. To my knowledge, Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, and others (I think North Dakota but am not sure) have already done so. Many other states are also considering this.

Google 10th amendment and you can get the most recent news about this, but the gist is that states are concerned the federal government is asserting way too much authority and they want it to back off. If enough states opt out of the federal plan....

Even our founding fathers had concerns about the new land being one big country, they knew the pitfalls of this as they had come from very situation, so we are set up as smaller states, each with its own authority to control matters affecting that state.

This is the time to let your representatives know your position on this amendment...in Alaska, my understanding is that their 10th amendment resolution passed 100% in the state legislature before being signed off on by the governor. Now THAT'S a united state!

[vlhperry]

"Can someone tell me the common sence of sending all our state money to Washington DC and expecting to get any back?"

Another observation he makes:

"Money is not wealth. Production is wealth. There are two ways to have wealth. Either earn it yourself or have people do it for you."

"People must get the proper training or be creative to find a way to produce Money is only representive of that wealth to barter for goods and services."

My Fater-in-law was a World War II Veteran, a teacher untill he retired and devoted to his family to a fault. I love him more than my own family. He is almost 90 years old and smart as a fox.

[indigogo]

Our health care system will fall apart completely if the states opt out, and each regulate insurance their own way. Part of the current reform effort would make health insurance more "portable," meaning you could carry the insurance with you if you lost or changed jobs. This has nothing to do with the government "taking over" health care - it would mean people could go where the good jobs are without being fearful of losing their insurance or need to worry about preexisting conditions.

The beauty of the Constitution is that the Founding Fathers had the foresight to design a document that could breathe with time. One thing that was unknown and unthinkable to them was the size to which the US would grow (Lewis & Clark didn't make their trek until 1803) or the speed and ease of travel and communication we enjoy now. Boundaries and borders have less meaning. The states still have a lot of power; it's a great thing that we have the freedom to choose between them to live, work, and travel. But I would like to have the same right and access to good health care wherever I happen to be in the United States if I fall ill or get injured.

This is only one of many reasons that standardization of health insurance would be beneficial. There may be 50 states, but we will sink or swim as one country.

[lurkingforacure]

We currently have a public education system, state-based (ie, funded by each state and run according to that state's rules). Now, I'm the first to admit that our public education system is no shining example of educational excellence (some districts obviously being better than others), but letting the states handle the schools in their state is far better than letting the federal government do it. It's portable, meaning you get a public education wherever you go/live in this country. Yet is allows states to compete, learn from each other, and in this process provide the best public education it can. Healthcare in this sense would be the same.

The other issue you have with something as huge as healthcare is that there simply cannot be the oversight at the federal level that there is at the local level-just look at our mortgage industry disaster-where was the oversight? At the federal level.

Requiring this to be a federal program completely eliminates competition (don't we have an anti-trust law? oh, that doesn't seem to apply to the government), which I have read about in many, many articles as a key concern to this whole idea. I have yet to hear of any situation where lack of healthy, robust competition is a good idea. This gets more into politics but I wanted to address the last post about portability-we have a state education system that is portable and healthcare could easily be structured the same way, but perhaps even better since we have the history behind public schools and what works and what doesn't.

[vlhperry]

My Thank You to Cary is for making an excellent point in a very diplomatic manner.

[indigogo]

Lurking -

I'm a big fan of public education, and a product of it (as well as my parents, sibling, husband, child and step-child), so I start from a place as having some faith in government run ventures and the people who run them (I worked for a public university for 18 years). I also do not believe that the market is always the best answer for every question (I am happy that MJFF brings a business model to medical research; fresh perspective is always welcome - but I don't think what they are doing can completely replace what the NIH can accomplish under government regulation).

That said, regarding health care reform, the question now seems to be moot. It was reported yesterday in the New York Times that the compromise being hammered out in the Senate among 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans has dismissed a public option:

"Already, the group of six has tossed aside the idea of a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers, which the president supports but Republicans said was a deal-breaker.

Instead, they are proposing a network of private, nonprofit cooperatives."

read the whole thing here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/us...cus.html?fta=y

It will be interesting to see what finally emerges - if anything.

[lurkingforacure]

Thanks for this update, that's interesting and encouraging that headway is being made.